User:EyeSerene/Archive22

Danke
Just found out whats going on behind the scenes - ill try not to screw up lol!


 * You're welcome :) EyeSerene talk 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding reviewer/autoreviewer rights to my profile...I saw it on my watchlist at the same time as the MILHIST discussion on pending changes (which I had not previously heard of, despite hanging out in quite a few areas of WP, so thanks for noting it there). I appreciate your unprompted recognition of me as a 'trusted user'. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Didn't even know I had a reputation, much less one so stellar that I could be trusted by you! :D Thanks for bringing it to our attention, I had no idea this was finally getting rolled out.  bahamut0013  words deeds 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, no problem. I only found out about this yesterday myself - I realise it's just a trial for now and may never go any further, but my main concern was that established editors shouldn't be inconvenienced. If you know anyone that should have their rights updated, please let me know :) EyeSerene talk 11:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From me too. I had no idea about this until the other night when I found myself granted some new strange power.... Cheers! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Klis Fortress
Thanks EyeSerene for an explanation. I responded to all editor concerns, but obviously not good enough to get a support for A-class. Since you are objective in this case, can you point what was editors main concern? Copyediting, or something else? Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reply. Kebeta (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II)
Hi

I have further expanded the British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II) article and wondered if you had time to give it a going over again if no one else does in the next couple of hours as I want to start on the "Action" section next

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look as soon as I get the chance :) EyeSerene talk 12:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da page
Hi EyeSerene, Hope your exams went well! Tao 2911 AGAIN changed agreed upon wording on controversial paragraph AFTER consensus was reached. Initially with no discussion first. Then later reasoning was given and I agreed and understood.But, other than grammar or punctuation etc it seems important to have discussion about language changes BEFORE it is inserted into article. Things move quickly and without prior discussion these conflicts can happen easily.Would be helpful and slow things down a bit. Really trying to work with opposing views. Sticking with wiki policy and reasoning and I think that there is evidence of that. Is it still wiki policy that changes in an article should be first discussed in in Discussion to achieve consensus? If this is no longer the policy, then how does one counter information put in the article without consensus. If one reverts the language not agreed to by another editor then it can be called  "edit waring" So what is the process here? Seems like Tao is just freely editing with no discussion, putting edit and reasoning in at same time. Not a lot I disagree with but when wording is changed discussion should happen first. We are so close and even other pro-Da editor said the same and then... Suggestions. It would be great to bring this aspect of the article to rest. It is close :)Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Would further page protection help to facilitate discussion? You seem to be coming to some sort of accommodation and it would be a shame to have things go off the rails at this late stage. EyeSerene talk 11:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi EyeSerene, Thanks for the clarification relative to discussion encouraged, but not required for small changes. I have a few cited changes that I will assume "Be Bold" and include in discussion as well. I prefer not to impose a page lock. I think if there are some issues that Tao and I cannot resolve I will request a single issue mediation. I agree that page lock is a last resort! Thanks again. Oh, where can I find questions about aspects of Wikipedia. Is there a place I can simply type in a policy question and have it go to the appropriate Wikipedia page?Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on how to look up Wikipedia policy issues Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Civility Award
Thanks for that, very kind of you! I just thought the chap might want some extra advice on why it was nominated. Do you think we should have a template for that to put on new people's pages? Some kind of 'Here's why it was nominated (policies), don't take it personally, any questions feel free to ask user who posted this or on the MILHIST talkpage'? Skinny87 (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. We do seem to get AfDs regularly popping up at milhist, so something like that might be very useful. EyeSerene talk 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see about putting one together then. Skinny87 (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this as a suitable template? A bit rough, of course, and I'll put it to the MILHIST talkpage for discussion, but I'd appreciate your thoughts first. Skinny87 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good :) I've made some tweaks - hope you don't mind and obviously feel free to rv. EyeSerene talk 11:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they're fine, made my writing a bit better! Shall I take this to the MILHIST talkpage now? Skinny87 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. EyeSerene talk 12:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Return of whitewasher to Adi Da
Hi ES- so far no editing issues, but we have a comment in Talk by a newly created editor profile (one "Norm DeClavier") that sounds eerily similar to a former editor named David Starr, who created a lot of problems on the page in the past. I would ask that you keep a watch on the page, especially noting this editor's activity. We might need to lock the page again.Tao2911 (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

10:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Operation Charnwood
Hi E, unsure of the official route to go down in regards to getting a third party/moderation involved into a discussion. I have asked Nick D to take a nosey at the Operation Charnwood talk page, would it be possible that you too could also look into the current situation with Blablaaa. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the advice and guideance :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Verries ridge
In the charnwood Article the damage done on the 12. SS, is describes as "reduced to an infantry Battalion". It is cited there, so i guess the same source could be used on verriers ridge. Blablaaa (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * instead of reverting me u should have took 30 second to look the talk page there u see it described. Why do u reverted before u look the discussion page? Blablaaa (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I did look at the discussion but your note about 12th SS isn't enough to change the entire infobox (which talks about "3 Panzer Divisions and 1 Infantry Division"). That's the reason I reverted; VR is a featured article and has to maintain close adherence to the sources. I take your point about about 12th SS, but we can only go by what the sources used say. If Copp calls them a division - even if they were only a remnant by that stage - then we must too. They were still on the German ORBAT as a division. The other point is that there simply isn't room in the infobox to go into the type of detail you're suggesting, although obviously if necessary we can in the article itself. EyeSerene talk 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok clear question by me. On charnwood we explain that the casualties done on the 12 SS were so enourmous that they were reduced to a battalion. But 3 days later they are listed as full panzerdivision? Not even to mention that when a historian names them this not means he claims the were a full panzerdivision. When somebody says these 3 division participated that does Not mean the historian claims 3 full panzerdivisions were active. So i ask clearly, while u know the statement of the battalion, u want the 12 SS as full panzerdivision in the box? Blablaaa (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats how selectiv editing works. U select the heavies casualties but meanwhile u selceted the hightes strenght numbers ( but number contradict themself so heavily that its only funny but that doesnt madder, right ? )Blablaaa (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to highlight when copp calls them a division and another historian calls them a infantry battalion u automaticly choose copp while u know that copp is far away from truth. But that doesnt madder u choose copp Blablaaa (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can u please give your opinion. U want the 12SS as full panzerdivision in the infobox ( in the strenght sectin ) while on the featured article charnwood it is claimed they were reduced to battalion size ( its cited ). Copp doesnt even claim they were a full division anylonger but u want this in the box despite the knowledge about the statement of the charnwood article. MAybe u forgot so i remember u that in the strenght section the word division acts as a equivalent for strenghth. So please can u give a clear opinion regarding this issue? Blablaaa (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * dodging the question ? Blablaaa (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Charnwood
After i saw your comment regarding charnwood. I want ask u a question. Do u think the fact the german division had "heavy" ( far lower than german ) casualties and charnwood is described as victory, means the german casualties were the reason for calling it a "tactical victory" ? Can u please answer instead of using your "ignorjoker" ? Blablaaa (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat what the others have already said to you. You seem to be ignoring the whole quote, which says "With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success." In other words, it was a tactical success because of: 1. The capture of northern Caen, and 2. the heavy casualties inflicted on the Germans. That the Allies also took heavy casualties - more than the Germans - simply means they paid a high price for their tactical victory. EyeSerene talk 16:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ok thanks for that. u said u think the casualties done on the german were a reason for the tactical victory. no historian claimed this. same like enigma u done OR . no historian claimed this because it contractids the general understanding of tactical victory. where is the quote of any historian supporting the statement that it was a tactical victory because of german casualties. where does any historian say this i will never get a answer for this. Simple OR of people with limited knowledge of warfare. No historian claimed this because its uncommon and wrong Blablaaa (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Totally irrlevant what the whole statement says i talk about the correlation which is part of the statement. I want a quote for that. Or do u think putting something wrong in a statement with somethin true makes the statement true? I hope to met somebody with scientific standarts here.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Parceyboy got the facts presented without the background and he said the only logic thing: saying NO. Whats now ? mabye u finally give me a quote for the statement ?Blablaaa (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * i quote parcey now: "If the author does not specifically make that claim, then unequivocally no" . So please give me the quote of any historian who claims this correlation. Blablaaa (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

lacking knowledge
After some months at wiki i recognized that even editors with much edits sometimes seem to be very unskilled at their choosen topic. Here can u read what a tactical victory means, i hope u will read the short article that u finally understand what u talk about. Blablaaa (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome
Whilst remaining neutral, I couldn't help but think "of all the people to think that of" (see above). Doubt you're enjoying that thread to be honest, hope this helps (metaphorically). Ranger Steve (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs. Couldn't resist the Masnieres comment I'm afraid! Ranger Steve (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tallicfan20
This editor, whose account dates back to 2005, appears to have been caught in an IP block which you placed on 72.229.3.163. It appears that he may be suffering collateral damage, and may qualify for an IP block exemption. Would you care to take a look? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Anthony, I've reset the block to anon-only and emailed my apologies. I've been exchanging emails with Tallicfan20 and checked and double-checked, but I couldn't find any autoblocks or anything in place. I assumed they were having a technical problem that was beyond me. It's embarrassing to find out I was the cause of their difficulties after all - how did you find out the IP? EyeSerene talk 21:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the user followed the directions and put up a proper unblock-ip template. It actually happens sometimes! --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh :) I'm not sure why I hardblocked the IP - it's not something I'd normally do. I'm glad it's sorted though. I was totally baffled as to why Talicfan was contacting me as I'd never blocked them; I even asked for advice on ANI because I half-suspected it might be a phishing attempt or compromised account or something. I live and learn... EyeSerene talk 09:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment
Hi

Blaa seemed like he was just gotten to the level of frustration where he could no longer communicate and it seemed right to give a little tolerance.

I did ask him to strike them after he apologised and I am a great believer in three chances. The first time they might not have known, the second they may have forgotten after being told but the third is inexcusable.

I am hoping he works out that after all his ranting that I was trying to help him lol

Anyway thanks for the comment :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and credit to you for your patience :) EyeSerene talk 10:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick check on article
Hi

I asked RangerSteve to have a look here before announcing it to the project and he  suggested that I ask you to cast a secondary eye (lol) over the article Tactical victory.

I have expanded it somewhat and tried to clean it up before tackling some of the others.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC) PS I just posted this on the project page by mistake - my own fault for having too many edits open at the same time lol


 * Heh, you're not a time-served editor until you've done something like that (I've even edit-conflicted myself by having multiple tabs from the same article open). Like Steve said, it's looking much better already. Two points:
 * I'm wondering if, because all these concepts (tactical, operational, and strategic) are so closely related, we shouldn't merge them all into the one article? I think it might make it easier to write.
 * I notice the sources include James Dunnigan (I realise he was there before you started work). You may or may not be aware, but he's a hobbyist wargame designer well known in military simulation circles. Although he's well-regarded as a military theorist too, I'm detecting his influence in the "losses of the defeated outweigh those of the victor" sentence. It sounds more like a boardgame (or computer game) rule than a criteria for real-world tactical victory to me. EyeSerene talk 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you on both points !
 * There are already pages that we could consider that has some info similar to the tactical victory and Strategic victory such as Pyrrhic victory. :::There are also some pages with similar descriptions in sections Military operation and Military_strategy and List_of_military_tactics
 * It's a big one I think as they all have similar "background" sections to try and define the terms.
 * I can't really comment too much on them as I only had a cursory look last night th make sure nothing disagreed too much with what I was saying in the Tactical victory page.
 * I do agree that the "wargaming" aspect may be from table toppers and is a little too simple a definition - I specifically put that into the "Based on losses" so that it is seperated from the other but the problem still remains that we have Military wargames and simulations that are simulations of war plans and conducted by military personnel in the process of running through the numbers both in the field (such as simulation exercises by joint forces like NATO v US) and in simulation centres such as Military simulation. That eliminates any real differentiation from table top wargames or home computer simulation games like AA3, COD or MOHAA)
 * I'll think about it while I watch "In plain sight" on my PC and wait to see who manages to get near me in the GOCA drive - I need to be ready for action to defend my scores lol !
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think sourcing is/will be the biggest issue. However, what do you think about Levels of warfare as a title? We could then see about redirecting the other articles and merging their content. Incidentally, if you feel like another big challenge at some point, one of these days I'm intending to rewrite Military simulation (my first significant contribution to Wikipedia, and it shows...) EyeSerene talk 13:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

maps
Ill try and remember to do it tonight! ;) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry i was unable to get back to you yesterday evening however here are the photos as promised.
 * full map
 * full map but played around with the contrast so the contours can be seen better
 * close up of the maceEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS hit me up if you need more etcEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:SITREP
Thanks. I made a major miscalculation with regards to GRE, but the studying continues largely unabated. I'd like to think that I am retaining more mathematical knowledge, but I will have to wait until test day to know for sure :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Portal:Terrorism comments
EyeSerene, thank you for your comments regarding the quality of Portal:Terrorism. I have responded to your points, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Terrorism. Generally what is done, is if the comments have been addressed, they are then collapsed using hat/hab. Thanks again! -- Cirt (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Spammers
I appreciate that, but what about 1300dentrepair.com.au, www.platinumtours.com.au and www.westiesarg.com.au? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IPs are
 * Third domain (westiesarg.com.au) can be found in this diff. There is no more spam to the best of my knowledge, though I suspect more (as is the case with Indian sweatshop SEOs). MER-C 08:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added three of the four sites - I can't really justify adding the westiesarg link as it only appears once. Hopefully between that and the rangeblock we'll make it unprofitable for them to carry on. I sometimes wonder if it's worth contacting the spammed sites in cases like this - if they were informed that the SEO service they're (presumably) paying for is actually harming their reputation and web traffic, they might think twice in future. EyeSerene talk 08:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep my eyes peeled for more domains. MER-C 08:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks :) EyeSerene talk 09:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added three of the four sites - I can't really justify adding the westiesarg link as it only appears once. Hopefully between that and the rangeblock we'll make it unprofitable for them to carry on. I sometimes wonder if it's worth contacting the spammed sites in cases like this - if they were informed that the SEO service they're (presumably) paying for is actually harming their reputation and web traffic, they might think twice in future. EyeSerene talk 08:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep my eyes peeled for more domains. MER-C 08:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks :) EyeSerene talk 09:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Eye. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

RFA Thank spam
-- White Shadows There goes another day 17:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Return of whitewasher to Adi Da
I was a bit confused by your comment on the Adi Da talk page. At the time the article was submitted for Good Article status a few weeks ago, Da Plastique was an external link and the Rick Ross Institute was not. Since this is the only issue I have commented on, I don't understand why you are warning me about 'spinning' or 'whitewashing' Adi Da, rehashing dead discussions and overturning hard-won consensus. What reason do you have, apart from the semi-hysterical reactions of Tao2911, to suggest that this is something I have done or will do? If this is not what you are suggesting, why are you warning me about it on the discussion page? Tao2911 seems to have interpreted your comments as a kind of decree, which will undermine any further attempts I make at discussion.

I also don't understand what you mean by "further accusations". It is clear from the context that I am using the word 'whitewash' in its ordinary English sense, not an accusatory wikipedia sense, in part as an ironic pointer to the fact that I had just been accused of whitewashing in a wikipedia sense without having made a single edit. In the circumstances, I cannot see how I have done anything other than ask two legitimate questions.

I notice that on the Admins noticeboard Tao2911 repeats his belief that I am a sockpuppet, despite having issued an "apology if mistaken", and has cited "stellar Admin Eyeserene" to back it up. This is just a kind of re-assertion of the accusation with, according to him, your support. This further justifies the two questions I ask, which he seems to have been excused from answering. There has been no apology, and I would be interested to know what justification you have for the claim that Tao2911 is quick to apologize after personalizing content discussion. In my reading of the discussion, he seems to consistently violate all four of the principles of etiquette listed at the top of the discussion page, often taking a kind of righteous glee in doing so, much less apologizing for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm Declavier (talk • contribs) 06:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC) sorry,Norm Declavier (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I clearly didn't communicate my meaning very well, for which I apologise. I wasn't warning you about anything - as far as I'm aware, you haven't done anything to be warned for. I was simply trying to explain why, on some articles, newcomers are treated with suspicion. It's not what we'd ideally like to happen, but unfortunately it is a reality and perhaps understandable. I reminded Tao that we should assume good faith and he acknowledged the point, as he did in the ANI thread regarding the other points I brought up.
 * Where I did try to head you off on the Adi Da talk page was when you seemed minded to continue expressing your sense of grievance at being tied to a former editor. That's understandable too, but I hoped in the interests of productive article editing we could draw a line under it and move on. As was pointed out in the ANI thread, if Tao can't restrain himself to keeping discussion within acceptable bounds he'll eventually exhaust community patience. However, we (as a community) tend to give otherwise productive editors every opportunity to reform first. Maybe one can argue that Wikipedia is too lenient, but I suppose that's a discussion for another time and venue... EyeSerene talk 20:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, I am not seeking an apology from either you or Tao2911. I repeat: I asked two questions.  Neither of them had anything to do with expressing a sense of grievance.  My point was about the excessive and irrational quality of Tao2911's reactions, which, in my opinion, make meaningful discussion almost impossible.  By bringing up spinning, whitewashing, dead discussions etc you effectively excused him from answering those questions, and, at least in his eyes, supported this kind of aggressive approach to other editors in the Adi Da article discussion.Norm Declavier (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hengelet
Ahh, is that where it was from? Ironically I did 'lobby' for Spinal Tap's inclusion on the Stonehenge article just recently... Ranger Steve (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Iron Chef America episodes
Why did you protect List of Iron Chef America episodes? There aren't any active edit wars or disputes there. There was last week, but all has be relatively quiet since July 6th.--Paul (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See this ANI thread. You're right though, I've made a mistake (I was also looking at another ANI thread about edit-warring on Somalia and I must have mixed the two up - too many article history browser windows open!). Anyway, thanks for picking this up and letting me know; I've removed the protection. My apologies for the inconvenience. EyeSerene talk 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I thought perhaps I had missed something.--Paul (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

66.91.73.55
He's back, and is now leaving insulting comments on my talk page. I'm a little unsure where to go with this. I updated my previous comments on WP:ANI, but is this vandalism or incivility? I want this guy stopped, and have no idea how to accomplish it at this point. Would you take a peek at my talk page (his comments are at the top), and advise? Thank you! Drmargi (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: now he's vandalized the List of Iron Chef America episodes talk page with insulting comments again, and removed some of mine. I've reverted them, but this isn't going to stop. I think the WP:SPA/sockpuppet angle may be the way to go, but I'm feeling a tad threatened at this point, and have no intention of tolerating this. Drmargi (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the IP has been blocked for three days. Don't worry too much about whether it's technically vandalism, incivility or edit-warring. It all comes under WP:DISRUPT and where there's a documented history of obvious disruption, which there now is, and there's ongoing disruption that needs a quick response, most regular ANI admins will act on a report there. You're more than welcome to drop a note here if you prefer, but the response might be slower (I believe we're in different time zones).
 * Regarding their page blanking, editors are allowed to remove messages or warnings from their own talk pages. We take that as evidence they've been read and they're still in the page history anyway (see WP:OWNTALK). There are a few exceptions - currently active block notices, shared IP notices etc.
 * Regarding dealing with it long term, the preferred option is simply to block the account/IP for as long as necessary because that does the least collateral damage (see WP:RBI). However, we can also look at page protection etc if necessary. Hope this helps, EyeSerene talk 07:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the assist. The IP is blocked now; wish I was more optimistic that will be the end.  I'll get the sockpuppet case going soon, when time allows, and leave another post at ANI if he acts up again.  If he is the sock, he'll head back to his New York IP's and start up there again.  (Sorry -- buying trouble, I know.)  As for the page blanking; I recognize his right.  My concern was keeping it all documented when there was no action the first time I requested it,  but my main concern was it felt as though he was blanking as a way of blowing off the warnings.  I will admit, I didn't look at them as evidence of having been read.  Thanks.  Drmargi (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. It can be a pain when someone gets the bit between their teeth over something, but in my experience if we simply deny them recognition they'll soon lose interest. If they start up from another IP we'll just block that too, and page protection is always an option though generally disruption has to be pretty severe before that's considered as it excludes all anon editors from contributing properly. If you decide to follow up a sock investigation you'll need to have at least one named account in mind that you suspect is behind this - IPs alone don't really need checkusering as anyone can use whois or a similar tool to locate them. You'll also need to be careful it's not framed as a fishing expedition; diffs showing the similarities between the accounts/IPs will be required (but I'm sure you know all this anyway). Best, EyeSerene talk 16:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That's very helpful advice.  On occasion, one tends to think with emotion and a good reality check is always helpful.  I've never done a sockpuppet/SPA case before, so the comments regarding what to look for are particularly helpful.  Drmargi (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

MFIreland
Hey, long time no chat! I've got something I hope I could have your advice on. A few weeks ago, I came across User:MFIreland in an AfD on his first article he created. I popped onto his talkpage and gave him some advice and helped create an article about Armoured Fighting Vehicles of the Irish Army, added some citations, wiki-markup and the like. So far, so good, I thought. He added a few images he's obviously got from the web somewhere, or perhaps scanned from a book, but without proper sourcing or copyright tags. It was here that the trouble started - well, I say trouble, more like an issue. Although he managed to change the source and tag on one image, File:Irish_Rolls-Royce_Armoured_Car_Co._Cork_1941.jpg, it still doesn't have the correct licensing tag on it.

I know he's a new user, and I have no doubt that he's editing in good faith. The AFV article is in good shape as well. But I'm concerned that he doesn't understand copyright and image policies on en.wikipedia properly, despite being shown them several times, and he's uploaded a number of incorrectly tagged and sourced images; I think we both know that images can be tortuously confusing on here at times, but the basics aren't difficult to pick up. There's also a problem with what might be plagarism in his latest article, German_Heavy_Machine_Gun_Platoon. I have prodded this, and informed him I thought it was too specific and needed to go into a parent article, but looking over the single source and the formatting, I've become suspicious. I think it's been copy/pasted from Bayonetstrength, although I can't find the exact sub-page on that website. However, the mark-up and general tone seems too close to other BS pages to be coincidence.

All this wouldn't be a problem - hey, we've all been new - if he would just communicate and reply. He did the first few times, and although he sometimes responds via actions (changing tags on pictures, although still not correctly), he won't respond to my questions, especially about this latest plagarism concern. I don't want to see him blocked, but at the moment I'm at a loss. I was wondering if you could look things over and suggest something? I know that a kindly word from you as an admin before has helped situations like this, and I'm hoping it will work and get him talking again in this instance as well. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for that, hopefully it will get him communicating. What do you think I should do about the images, in terms of their copyright tags and lack of sources? I can't say I'm a huge expert myself, and of course I've no idea where MFIreland would have got them from. Thanks again, Skinny87 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, you just ec'd me while I was responding to your first post (that was quick!). I'm not sure about the images tbh - are they here or on Commons? It's relatively easy to track down text copyvios but images are harder, though there are tools (eg tineye) that can help out. I haven't got the time to do much now but I should be able to take a more thorough look tomorrow. EyeSerene talk 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood
Hi E,

Is there any chance that you can go over the first few sections (up to the 18 July section) of the Operation Goodwood article and CE it? I think ive gone a tad overboard :) I would ask that the 18 July section is covered but it needs a little finishing off and i have just found out there is a bunch of stuff i seem to have omitted so it still needs work on it! :(EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, always a pleasure. EyeSerene talk 11:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just an update, i believe the 18th section is finished off. Dont believe i have ommited anything.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of rollback
Are you really penalizing me for properly applying the rules for biographies of living people on a talk page? Reasons were given via undo for the first few rollbacks, and I was not the only one rolling back. The IP is very likely to be a banned user known for disruption. Wanna look at the whole thing again? Yworo (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed mine too, and it was a user who was disrupting the talk page. I was not the only one rolling back. Access Denied(t 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The SPI case is here, the evidence was supplied to me by Rossrs, here, and users Rossrs, Access Denied and PiRSquared17 were also rolling back on the same basis, BLP violations on a talk page. Yworo (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry. I try to stick to 1RR. The reason I rolled it back was because I saw that the IP was undoing AD's Huggle reversion.  Sincere apologies,  πr2  ( talk  •   contributions ) 16:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It does look like the source given by the IP backs up their post, so there's no apparent BLP violation. Whether or not their suggestion belongs in the article is another matter and one for discussion. Your zealous application of WP:BLP would be to your credit in article space, but talk-pages are normally slightly more relaxed - if we didn't permit some level of discussion in talk space (with appropriate sources), it would be impossible to actually develop articles at all.
 * If the editor is in fact a returning banned user (note that WP:ROLLBACK says banned not blocked), that's different. If you've got any evidence of that it would be helpful. EyeSerene talk 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: taking a look at the sock case now - thanks for the link. EyeSerene talk 16:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is, today the sources say the tapes the previous sources were based on may have been forged or altered. I wasn't aware of the distinction between blocked and banned being critical specifically for rollback. I've also seen discussion on WP:ANI which have said that in this sort of case (block evasion and edit warring), it's okay to use rollback just so long as the first few reverts in the series give the reason. I used undo at least twice to specify the basis was WP:BLP before switching to rollback. That is to say, I believed in good faith that I was doing the correct thing and was reinforced in this believe by the fact that other editors I believe to be more experienced were doing the same. The current SPI report is the ninth for this user. If they have not been formally banned, they are certainly de facto community banned! In any case, I promise to be more careful in the future. Yworo (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't an indef-blocked sockmaster with a large sockfarm essentially a de-facto ban because nobody with half a brain would unblock them? Access Denied(t 16:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, I will be much more careful in the future. Access Denied(t 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate your confidence in me and will do my best to live up to it. Yworo (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec×4!)Yworo, I have no problem believing you were acting in good faith - your contribution history speaks for itself (same goes for you Access Denied). I've restored both your Rollbacks, and please accept my apologies for the inconvenience. I think you need to be careful about using Rollback on a talkpage for anything that isn't immediately obvious vandalism, and about quoting BLP for sourced talk-page posts that aren't clearly non-neutral, but having looked at the sock report I appreciate what you're up against with this idiot. I'll block both the accounts you've reported per WP:DUCK, and if you need semi-protection for the talk page I think this is one case where it could be considered. All the best to both of you, and once again sorry for putting you through the mill. EyeSerene talk 16:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tao2911
This editor appears to respect your opinion, and therefore can I ask you to watchlist and possibly comment on the latest activities on Eido Tai Shimano, including the repeated reinsertion of poorly sourced controversial material about a BLP against consensus? In addition, for the third time the editor has been found to have added material with false citations.. I find these behaviours deeply problematic. --Slp1 (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User subpages
Quick question; i want to delete one of my subpages but have no idea how to, do you? Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the info, if you do not mind it is the following - User:EnigmaMcmxc/Library - cba with it now more lolEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much!: ) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Charnwood (again)
Hi

I have put some more sources into the talk page at Charnwood.

I think that they ofer more light on the subject and wondered if you feel they should be included. It may mean that some more material would be added to the article or that they can be used as refs. I am not sure as to which of those it should be though.

I will also point this out to Engima and RangerSteve. (Blaaa is already aware so I don't need to point it out to him)

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank very much Chaosdruid, your research is greatly appreciated. EyeSerene talk 09:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Finally found some time to present all the various sources that i have on the talkpage, including sources that others presented during the massive discussion and some that were found on Google books. i know you have access to some sources i do not, any chance you chime in when you have a chance?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC draft
I asked you for a few simple things: to be fair, unbiased, and to be accurate. This is neither. Blablaaa did not claim "tactical sucess" in the lead should be changed. Your RFC is off to a dishonest start.  Caden  cool  14:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I've written. I've said he objected to it. Bear in mind that the draft is a work in progress - it will change as I and others edit and copyedit, and Blablaaa might be best waiting with his responses until he sees the final copy. EyeSerene talk 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this EyeSerene, I appreciate its a drag. I'll fill out the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section if you like and co-file this page when its ready. I won't have time until tomorrow afternoon I'm afraid, so If you feels its appropriate feel free to drop my name into the section as a placeholder (so everyone else knows). Cheers again, Ranger Steve (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not pleasant, no, and certainly not what I was planning for today, but hopefully we can all (including Blablaaa) get something positive out of it. Please contribute as you see fit :) EyeSerene talk 18:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick thought, the sooner it's a real RfC, the better; otherwise the whole shebang is going to be so muddled that no one will participate. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that had crossed my mind. Blablaaa's not doing himself any favours by jumping in with both feet and prematurely posting all over the place, but at the moment we haven't got two signatures for the certification or a "Desired outcome" section. Any ideas? EyeSerene talk 20:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just off the top of my head, users who could certify would be: yourself, Ranger Steve, Engima (?) and Nick-D (?). Skinny87 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i guess you can ask chaosdruid and anotherclown Blablaaa (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * can i give my desired outcome? btw ed can you tell me which diff you want? it would be a pleasure for me to give you the diff Blablaaa (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you can in the "Desired outcome" section. However, I'd have thought you could certainly include it as part of your response statement. EyeSerene talk 20:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I was just getting work clothes ready and waiting to be picked up for work - not back for 24 hours or maybe 36 depending on van availability and outcome of tomorrows proceedings with HSE.
 * If back tomorrow night I will comment as would only have N97 access during tommorrow and the screen is not really good for Wikiediting :¬) and as of right now he's waiting for me outside while I reply to you lol so must run...
 * Chaosdruid (talk)


 * I've moved the discussion to the draft RfC talk page and tried to thread together the individual comments by their timestamps and respondents (per the advice I got here). It should keep things neat and take the time pressure off, while retaining the responses with the RfC for easy reference. Hope this is okay with everyone :) Please make any corrections necessary. EyeSerene talk 22:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to to above suggestion that I certify the desired outcome; while I'll probably post my views once the RfC is up and running (if only to endorse the views of other editors [should I agree completely with them, of course]) I don't want to go further than that. I'd stongly suggest that all parties in the RfC make a concerted effort to keep the length of their comments to a minimum - a problem with previous discussions of this editor is that the ammount of verbage and claims and counter-claims overwhelms the key issues. For instance, should Blablaaa respond to the RfC with large numbers of posts (as is their common communication style) these don't necessarily need to be addressed point by point (especially if the points are rehashed during the discussion, which is also common), particularly as such posts would provide a demonstration of the problems other editors have engaging with him. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've written up a desired outcome as well as added a second certification to the RFC; I'm not sure if you're planning on waiting for another certification from Ranger Steve, but I think we could probably proceed with this otherwise. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Nick and Kirill. I believe Ranger Steve will be adding his certification this afternoon (UK time), so I'm happy to wait a few more hours. Blablaaa is also still preparing his statement, though I don't suppose this affects posting up the RfC one way or the other.
 * One final point: EnigmaMcmxc has been involved more than anyone else with Blablaaa, and I have the feeling that he's going to figure prominently in Blablaaa's statement. I'd like to add a mention to the Statement of the dispute and give Enigma a chance to look it over for accuracy before posting the RfC.  EyeSerene talk 07:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi EyeSerene. I've added my input to involved editors instead - there seemed to be way to much to put into the "Attempts to solve..." section, and this allowed me to discuss everything (I really really tried to cut it down, honest). I assume from above that you can proceed with Krill's certification on board (as I've written as an inside editor I can't certify the main section)? Hope this is ok, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, our posts have crossed in the ether. See your talk :) EyeSerene talk 18:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One minute apart - its like edit conflicting on different pages! Do the diffs look ok? Ranger Steve (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, thanks again. I'll post the RfC up at Requests for comment/Blablaaa probably later tonight or early tomorrow. EyeSerene talk 18:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi E, thanks for the link. I only have time for a quick reply right now so will try to make a post on the draft or the live version tomorrow. With that said I do not agree with some of II comments and thus what would be the correct way to “explain” my actions, under his comments or to take it to the draft talk page? RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, RL must come first :) Your statement, if you wish to post one, should focus on your experience of Blablaaa's conduct and perhaps how you'd like to see it change (obviously with supporting diffs), and probably belongs in the Inside view section with NickD's and Ranger Steve's. Editors are only supposed to post in one section on the main RfC page (other than to endorse), so any rebuttals of other editors' statements should ideally go to the talk page (you'll see how I've tried to organise it). In some RfCs editors post counter responses under their main statement, but given the way discussion has developed elsewhere I think it makes sense to try to keep the main page as organised and focused as possible and use the talk for discussion. EyeSerene talk 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The RfC/U is now live at Requests for comment/Blablaaa. Thank you everyone for your input. EyeSerene talk 08:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi - I have just got back online and drafted my additions User:Chaosdruid/Blablaaa. Can you give them a quick check and advise what, if any, needs taking out as it seems a bit long ? I haven't done anything like this before and don't want to make a mistake. Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, can I recuse? I know it's not your intention and probably never even crossed your mind, but I want to avoid even the suggestion of collusion or impropriety and I think if I did what you ask some might see it that way. If I were you I'd just post it up. Best, EyeSerene talk 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just noticed you've posted it anyway so the point is moot. Best, EyeSerene talk 20:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problems - I was aware of a collusion problem which was why I specifically asked for a comment only on legnth rather than content :¬)
 * Once someone had told me that it might be a bit long I tried to chop it down and posted immediately. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorted then :) Thank you for taking the time to contribute (hope everything went okay - the HSE mention sounded ominous!) EyeSerene talk 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a meeting with solicitors as HSE are trying to prosecute the owner - in some ways they are right to have concerns - but the matters were all dealt with and they are being a little heavy handed, especially as they were a little nasty in comments made and bad attitude towards "foreigners" as well as issues with moving the goalposts. In reality the whole thing could have been forgotten and passed as "done but in a little longer time frame than we would have liked". I know they have a duty to perform but it feels like they are "making an example". Although it doesn't directly affect me I am hoping that my input will at least go a little way to preventing too much damage. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds unfortunate. The modern HSE has tried to cultivate a much more "we're here to help" approach than the old days of prohibition notices and court cases (not that they don't still do that of course). H&S law is a bit of a minefield though, as I'm sure you know, and can be difficult to prosecute even in fairly clear-cut cases. I find Health & Safety works best when it's a collaborative advisory process (remind you of anywhere?). It's not like I read the regs for fun btw, I'm an HSO (among other things) which hopefully explains my interest! EyeSerene talk 21:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the main problems was the lack of ability to read english which was not really addressed until too far into the issue. We normally have a good rapport with FHSO but this was our first dealings with HSE. I was trying to help get things sorted out to meet HSE requirements (and later employed by the firm as Health and Safety officer) but I will admit that things like staff fiddling with machines and interfering with safety cut-outs were not really something that the empleyer could prevent - even inspections once a day would not have stopped them from jamming switches with various implements to make it easier for them by bypassing the cut-outs. One early morning inspection was met by an employee in the place on his own using a machine he had been told not to when it didn't even have a conveyor belt as I had taken it off for renewal. It is a shame as they will probably give him a huge fine and cause the company to be closed after we have just been recertified for food production after a lot of hard work. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uff, that's a real shame. Vicarious liability can be really unfair, but no amount of ITIS can prevent people simply being people. You can put in place all the safe systems and permits you like, train the staff until they drop, and still you see some unbelievable things. It does sound like you had an old-school inspector though - we usually find they're pretty good. Because we're a training company we get audits coming out of our ears, but luckily we don't have to live with the same pressures as in a production environment where I suppose there's more likely to be the sort of violations you've come across. EyeSerene talk 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BHS (band)
Hi, thanks for the help deleting the non-notable band article at BHS (band). I've just noticed, however, that the article creator (User:Hutd) had his/her talk page redirected to the article's talk page. The user's talk page had earlier warnings for creating inappropriate articles etc on it. Would it be possible for you to salvage the information from the deleted talk page and restore it to the user's talk page? Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done (along with your most recent warning). EyeSerene talk 11:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's most unexpected, thank you very much! I'm only doing my job though :) Nice work on the Bunnymen articles by the way (I'm a bit of a fan...) EyeSerene talk 11:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Disney's House of Mouse vandalism
Hi, EyeSerene, and thank you for your comments here regarding my request to block. This IP-hopping vandal doesn't IP-hop every time -- take the current IP edit history, for example -- but by blocking them every time they pop up, at least we make it a little more inconvenient by forcing them to either change their IP or wait out the block expiration (which is what they did this time). We're trying to avoid semi-protecting the page, because that interferes with good-faith IPs who may want to add something constructive. There's also a discussion under way here to see if an Edit Filter can be created that will more effectively intercept some of this nonsense. Until then, revert-and-block seems to be our only practical way of slowing them down. If you have any suggestions, please post them to my talk page, Ged UK's talk page, or the aforementioned Edit Filter discussion. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional information. I see Cirt has now done the honours, but I'll bear your info in mind if I run across one of these reports at AIV again. It might be worth mentioning that even apparently expired IP addresses are usually blocked. I'm sorry, but I'm a complete amateur when it comes to edit filters and the like (I can just about manage basic regex for the blacklist). However, now I know a bit of the background if you need an urgent block for this vandal and see that I'm active, feel free to drop me a note. Best, EyeSerene talk 17:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help
Thanks for the help anyway I need some help on something you couldn't possibly give me a hand could you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrluke485 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can certainly try. What do you have in mind? EyeSerene talk 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I would like to know how to uploaded pictures please

Mrluke485 (talk 18:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. First, you need to be really clear about where the picture comes from.
 * If it's one you've created yourself (as in a photo you took or an image you drew), you need to be prepared to release it to Wikipedia under a free license, which would mean that anyone can do anything with it, including sell it, as long as they credit you with creating it.
 * If it's not one you created but you got from somewhere else (such as off another website or scanned from a book), that's where it starts to get tricky thanks to copyright law. This is a huge and complex area and we have editors that pretty much specialise in this alone, but the short version is that we can't accept any images that are copyrighted except under very specific circumstances. A lot of people don't realise it, but just about every image on the internet is copyrighted, mostly to the content owner of the website it's on.
 * So... the first thing to do is determine the copyright status of the image. If you give me a bit more information, I may be able to help. If not, I can put you in touch with editors who can. EyeSerene talk 17:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Jutland
Hi You must be sick by now but Talk:Battle of Jutland may be worth reading. The Tactically inconclusive section quote:
 * One question to both. What makes the battle tactical inconclusive? Beside the fact somebody found a book out there which claims this. Also we forget the fact that the entire world sees this battle as german tactical victory. Can someone of u please explain to me why this battle should be considered inconclusive with allied losing twice the BRT ? Blablaaa (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Then at Charnwood Talk:Operation Charnwood
 * seems to be a bit contradicting doesnt it? If inflicting casualties is a reason for a tactical victory than it is a german. I guess on a tactical scale it doesnt madder if the german had less troops ( thus higher rate of casualties ). is this a editor opinion or referenced? Blablaaa (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I may be reading this wrong but at Jutland the Germans had a tactical victory as the British lost more ships and at Charnwood the British can not claim a tactical victory just because the Germans lost more men.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Stalker, hope no-one minds) I think the Allies lost more men at Charnwood Jim, although percentage wise the Germans probably did. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW Eyeserene (reason I was coming here), thought you might like to know that someone appears to have found your henglet! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jim: My understanding, like Steve's, is that the Allies lost more men than the Germans at Charnwood but nevertheless achieved their main tactical/operational objective (the partial capture of Caen) although not their strategic objective (preventing the Germans reinforcing opposite the US front sector). I think Blablaaa's objection was that he read the text as linking the lighter German losses to the Allied tactical success. Jutland I don't know so much about, but off the top of my head I'd say it was the opposite of Charnwood: a tactical/operational British failure (the British failed to trap the German fleet) but a strategic success (the German surface fleet never again dared to leave port). It seems that BlaBlaaa is once again linking casualty figures to the battle's outcome, which I think is a naive interpretation of what decides the result and more like a simplistic computer game rule than something a professional analyst would use (one fallacious use of this technique that springs to mind was the US obsession with NVA/Viet Cong body counts during the Vietnam War as proof that they were winning). I confess that I haven't the stamina to read that dispute fully though...
 * Steve: awesome! Had a good chuckle at that, thanks :D EyeSerene talk 20:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okydoke --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * jutland is now here [], you can watch the outcome thereBlablaaa (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * eyeseren said: "It seems that BlaBlaaa is once again linking casualty figures to the battle's outcome". BTW eyeseren thats one definition of tactical scale^^ *bigsmile*. Blablaaa (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

AIV
Hi - you wrote on my page to report someone to AIV instead of asking for that person to be blocked, which is what I did. And then you told [] that his changes were reverted, but they weren't. Thanks. Natalie47 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply Talkback
Thanks very much I'll remember to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrluke485 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Don't be. I expected the responses duly received from Bla', but this Caden individual is spouting some pretty nasty stuff, all untrue of course. And I get the impression he's leading Bla' up the garden path. He is convincing him he has a legitmate grievance when, for the most part, he does not. And it is making things worse (for Bla' that is). Dapi89 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle
Is there a talk page or other to suggest entries for the Bugle ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:MHNEWS. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, beat me to the punch (I was just looking for the link!) Thanks Kirill :) EyeSerene talk 15:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Email
FYI, sent you an email. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied. EyeSerene talk 15:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:BrianBeahr


BB is under an indef block that you placed in November 2009. See User talk:210.50.228.4 for my conclusion that this IP is carrying on in his stead. I assume that the IP is not entitled to a 'clean start'. The IP has been getting into the same kind of trouble as the parent account: blocked twice already this month for disruptive editing. Nonetheless I suggested he could apply for unblock on the talk page of a registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems perfectly reasonable to me; the IP is obviously the same guy. I agree they should stick to the BrianBeahr account and request unblock there. Indef isn't permanent and it's up to them to convince us they're safe to return to editing; block evasion is not acceptable. The problem with every unblock request they made, as I recall, was that they never once acknowledged there was any problem with their editing. If they could get past their blind spot I wouldn't be immovably opposed to an unblock as long as there were strings attached, which I guess would mean discussion at ANI first. Thanks for catching this Ed - I didn't watchlist St Kilda Football Club and wasn't aware they were back. Six months of block evasion...! EyeSerene talk 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this one
Hi

I am not around for the day tomorrow - which is probably a good thing after blaaa's latest tirade of OR and POV accusations at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Blablaaa.

Can someone update me on what happens next with the RfC as the accusations of OR SYN and POV have got out of hand and I want to know whether I have to wait for it to finish or can move ahead in some way, if that is possible, to get him to stop.

I thought it was a simple misunderstanding of english but, after giving him the definitions of bridgehead, he is still going at me to provoke a negative reaction.

Just as I was about to post this he put a message on my talk page asking for us to both drop the stick so I will wait and see what tomorrow brings

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest I think you've already more than adequately made your case and I don't think you should worry too much about defending yourself against whatever Blablaaa posts. If I were in your position I'd just stop responding - let the diffs speak for themselves and Blablaaa have the last word if that's what he wants. I've found he soon loses interest if you don't give him the fight he so often seems to be looking for (see further up this page, for example). I know it's hard as an article writer to just shrug off accusations of OR, SYNTH and POV, because they go right to heart of what we do, but do you really need to take these particular accusations seriously?  EyeSerene talk 12:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken :¬) I just got a little bothered when the neutral editor off the board seemed to accept his suggestion that I was doing OR and though it might start to spread. You are right about leaving it. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Phew
Sorry I've been quiet for so long. Work's been a little hectic the last 2 weeks so I've been a little busy (although at the same time I'm fairly pleased I've managed to secure some work for the next 2 years at a time when the heritage industry is imploding!). I've been reading the RFC fairly regularly, but to be honest I haven't had the time to write my reply (will try on Sunday). I am prepared to say however, that I'm aghast at the accusations against yourself, Enigma and ChaosDruid. Suggesting that any of you is guilty of bias, OR or victimisation is way off beam in my opinion and I'm genuinely sorry that the process has led to this (I feel partly responsible as I raised the RFC issue originally). I'm particularly perturbed by what seems to be a deliberate attempt to besmirch you as a biased 'rogue admin'. I'll happily state that I would have initiated the RFC if you hadn't done it.

Anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest. Have a good weekend all, I've got a bike ride to plan... Ranger Steve (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hope you enjoyed your weekend :) EyeSerene talk 10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for arbitration regarding Blablaaa
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Question on original research; Blablaa discussion
Hi. I have a question about our discussion on original research in your illustrative Blablaaa misconduct example (Operation Charnwood). At one point you were seeming to say that summarizing the outcome of the battle as "tactical success" was not original research because it did not advance a position. After I pointed out that just about every statement in Wikipedia advances a position (i.e., an asserts something), you dropped the argument without really explaining what you'd meant. I still don't really understand what you were saying there.

I think you also came around to the idea that summarizing D'Este's long conclusion into "tactical success" was not correct, and that Beevor's "partial success" is probably more accurate. Thus displaying this as an example of misconduct seems misleading in its current language. Yet you didn't update the RfC/User to say that. Why not?

It's also discouraging to me that the crowd is continuing to be very hard on Blablaa despite the fact that the main piece of evidence in the RfC/User eventually collapsed. Other assertions appear to be unsubstantiated, e.g. Dapi89 said in the RfC/User said Blablaa called the Battle of Kursk a tactical success for Germans; Blablaa denied this and noted that no diff was presented, yet people are still willing to sign off on the statement. Further, the entire group signs off on GabeMc's statement that the evidence presented supports a community ban, when there's almost no diff-based evidence presented, and the only thing that really seems to be happening is that Blablaa is tenaciously fighting to include certain likely necessary viewpoints into articles.

I guess this is sort of a start of my ArbCom case comment, and it would probably be better placed in the RfC/User talk page but for the first paragraph. I understand that accusations of bias, original research, and in some cases even lies are hard to deal with, but the fact that Blablaa has been dealt so much bad faith over the past few months makes me less inclined to look at his combative tone so harshly.

I'm hopeful that you'll present a complete nonpartisan picture of the situation if you comment on the proposed ArbCom case. II | (t - c) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi ImperfectlyInformed :) To take your points in order:
 * Obviously at the time we were referring to WP:SYNTH, but the argument is the same. From WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." My position was (and is) that using the term "tactical success" in the lead for the fighting part of Charnwood, but not the wider outcomes, is a valid summary of the sources on that part of the operation and is therefore not "new analysis or synthesis" and does not "advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources". I agree that much of Wikipedia advances positions, but the positions advanced must be the sources' positions and not our own. That seems to me to be the essential distinction and is the point I was trying to make.
 * Our discussion on the RfA, as far as I was aware, was about the first sentence in the final paragraph of the lead and not about the infobox. If you were referring to the infobox and believed I was too, that might explain our apparent differences. I was unaware that the infobox had also at some point said "tactical success", which was clearly not a valid summary for the entire operation and is now rightly changed. However, as far as I recall Blablaaa didn't raise this point at all in the entire meandering discussion at Milhist, which was the only one I followed and contributed to and therefore the one I used as the example in my statement. The issue I attempted to illustrate in my RfC statement wasn't that Blablaaa is never factually correct but rather that the combative way he goes about things is completely unacceptable in this environment (to the extent that even when he is right he's caused so much aggravation that no-one wants to work with him).
 * The main complaint against Blablaaa is the above (ie his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality). If anything the evidence for this has been enhanced, not diminished, by the RfC.
 * GabeMc's view was basically a personal opinion formed by reading other views and as such doesn't need diffs. It's not presented as actual evidence (which I agree requires diffs), but the whole point of the RfC is for the wider community to comment in whatever way they see fit. The endorsements merely show that other editors agree with his view.
 * Your good faith and patience does you much credit :) However, you're perhaps at a point now that some of us were at ten months ago, and more importantly you don't work on articles that Blablaaa also frequents. As I wrote somewhere else (might have been the RfC, can't remember), AGF is not a suicide pact and when after many months of experience one inescapably arrives at the conclusion that an editor cares more about scoring points and winning than working collaboratively, continuing to blindly adhere to AGF is to deny reality. If we could somehow distil his enthusiasm and attention to detail from the rest, in time he'd make a great editor. Unfortunately though it's the whole package we have to deal with.
 * I'll certainly try to present a complete, non-partisan picture at Arbcom, as I believe I have all along and as I trust we all will. All the best, EyeSerene talk 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Random acts of baking

 * Delicious, thank you! EyeSerene talk 07:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fancy something different?
I perfectly understand if you're too busy, but do you fancy a small project away from RFCs and Arbitration committees? British Commandos is at ACR (here) at the moment and I've recommended a thorough copy-edit before I can support it. Content wise its fine, but the prose is in need of work. I've made some small mods here and there but I just don't have time to sort through all of it at the moment, although I'd quite like to see the article pass before time runs out. Knowing how good you are with prose and grammar, I wondered if you might like a go? Ranger Steve (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like Jim's hard at work at the moment. I can't really see much that needs doing - would a review be more useful instead? EyeSerene talk 09:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I didn't realise Jim was the nominator and I only scanned the article. I'll try to give it a ce in the next day or so.  EyeSerene talk 09:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers EyeSerene. Jim is working hard on it, but seeing as he's requested a copyedit at the guild in response to my comments I'm sure he won't mind you having a go. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Between myself, Jim Sweeny and Diannaa, the article's had a pretty thorough going over so I've switched to support. Gives you some more time for your other requests! Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)