User:EyeSerene/Archive6

GA Review Request
Hello! I was asked by Roger Davies, to ask you for a GA Review of the article Frontier Force Regiment. So can you please do it, when you get time. Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok! I will do it soon. Thanks! but another thing, is it(FFR article) worth for GA nomination, I mean if you can have a look at it. Thanks again! -- S M S  Talk 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a quick read-through and informing me some problems to be resolved. I am trying to solve the issues related to images. And regarding copyedit, what do you suggest, should I ask someone else to copyedit it and then you can review it or vice versa? -- S M S  Talk 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the images issue is resolved now. -- S M S  Talk 19:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok! lets go for your personnel advice. -- S M S  Talk 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok! Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass
Thanks for you dedication in reviewing Battle of Verrieres Ridge. Now I can get onto a few major expansions (section elaborating on casualty counts, greater strategic background, etc.) before going for A-Class. Thanks for your time;) Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Oh yeah, here's a little something for the help.
 * Hey man, sorry to rush, but you wouldn't happen to have that map near completion, would you? I'm about to go for the big A-class review, but I can't until I get that dank black & white image out of there.  Hope you're having as much luck as possible with this hard-drive recovery (I had one of those occur last year.  Suffice it to say that half the neighborhood almost died) Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfecto! Exactly what I need!  Thanks a million for all of your help.  Oh.  One more thing:  You wouldn't happen to have any suggestions for the article before I take it for A-Class, would you? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean about the page #'s? I think that that might be attributed to the fact that we're working off different versions of the text.  If jbmurray has access to the 2001 Red-Deer Press version (I have the old '95 Stoddart), there might be some discrepancy.  Thanks for the note.  Happy Editing. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an update. it passed the A-Class Review. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FA Team
It seems that the FA team is dying quickly. We need to pick another article. Please comment, when available, on the talk page. Thanks. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 18:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems I can pick 'em...
Hi there. I'm new to GA review, but I guess I know how to pick 'em. For my 5th review I chose White Mountain art. You may have seen the comments on the GAN talk page. The review has been rather confusing. I wrote a review, but neglected to check to see that it was still nominated. Although I found what I considered to be multiple issues with MOS, OR and POV, it had been passed by another editor, User:Jack Bethune. User:Malleus Fatuarum delisted it and I posted my comments on the talk page and put the article on hold. Jack Bethune, in turn, took my suggestions and recommended, disagreed with, or advised the principal author to disregard my comments. The principal author, User:JohnJHenderson is now understandably confused. So I'm asking for experienced GA reviewers to look at the article and the talk page and offer some kind of consensus as to what he should do to bring it to GA. I appreciate anything you can do. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Shwmai!(?)
Hi there :) Yeah, doing fine, but not enthusiastic about WP just at the moment, so mostly staying away for a while... At least until I can be bothered to write something new!

How's things with you? Carré (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back!
Just a note to see it's good to see you back. I was beginning to miss you! :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A request for help to get a Ninja to be Featured
Hi, EyeSerene. I would like to request your help on the article Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game). It had went through a peer review and failed an FAC. The key problem with the article is the grammar and prose. I have done my best to solve this, but after thinking I had done so after the peer review, I am not so confident when the FAC reviewers found it lacking. Could you help me go through the article and find out any problems with it on grammar and flow?

The article's FAC also failed due to image issues. I have rewritten the captions and used a static image with an inline link to an animated GIF in the article. Would these satisfy the image criteria? Jappalang (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, EyeSerene. I am willing to wait. I feel more comfortable with you on the job since the problems involve language and images&mdash;areas that are in your interest and experience. Cheers! Jappalang (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, hi again. Do you have time to give this article a look over? Jappalang (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work so far. I have added my comments to your questions on the article's talk page. Jappalang (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will bring it to another editor (I believe I got a few in mind, but whether they will accept is another matter) for proof-reading. I shall keep you informed when I nominate the article at FAC. Thank you yet again! Jappalang (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing
Hi - got your note. Will try to be a bit more attentive to the editing guidelines, especially when I should state the reasons why it seems I'm making so many edits. Nearly 99.9% of them are format corrections or adding information that I left out that I should have added. And then I click Add to see what it looks like. don't know if that gums up the system or not - but I'll try to be better about it in the future - though I've had a Wiki account for over 2 years, this is the first time I set up a page on my own - it's a lot of fun but I imagine it frustrates people when rookies like me are constantly editing things. Regards, Douglas E. Nash (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Doug NashDouglas E. Nash (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:If you don't mind...
All looks good as far as I can see. The block has registered and the correct tag has been issued. Welcome to the world of blocking!! Woody (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassesment Comment for Over the Edge (1999)
I have attempted to fix the problems you stated about the in and out-of-universe styled writing, may you see if it reads better. Thank You ;)-- S R  X  22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

mop & bucket
Oooh, you got a mop! Congrats :) Have definitely been away too long to have missed that. Carré (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

GA subpage
Because GA nominations are now on a subpage, there's no way to access it after the bot archives it. I was able to fix the temporary Failed GA template, but when the bot archives it there's no way to go to it again. Can this be fixed?  Limetolime  talk to me • look what I did! 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you comments Serene on the reassessment for Over the Edge 1999, are you officially stating that it should pass GAN?-- S R X -- Latino Heat  19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyeditting help
You are listed as an editer who may be contacted for copyeditting help, so I am leaving this message here to ask if you could copyedit the page Montana class battleship. The article is currently list at Featured Article Candidates, and several people have suggested the article would benifit from a copyedit. Anything you can do to help would be apreciated. Thanks in advance. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 22:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats ok, as it happens I have a small group of friends who go around with mops and buckets to cleanup up my spelling and grammar, so most of the major stuff has been dealt with. Additionally, I asked two other editers in addition to your self for aid since I figured there would probably be some hold ups from one or more of the asked editers. Do not worry if you can't get to the article before the FAC closes, at the moment I have two supports (as a self nom, one of those is mine) and one oppose, so if anything it will be up there until there is some consensus as to whether the community thinks the article will pass or fail. I do apreciate the reply though, thanks for getting back to me. Like I said above, anything you can do to help will be apreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

GA-Review request.
Hey, Eyeserene! How are ya? Hope that HD-Recovery Process is coming along well.

Anyways, I've got an article currently up for GAN (Operation Tractable), that's needing a reviewer. If you have time, would you be able to do that for me? If not, do you know of anyone who would be able to?

Thanks. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the GA-Review. I've already made a few changes to the article, mostly concerning the "Factual Accuracy" issues.  Would you be able to do the necessary copyediting for me?  Thanks. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, one more thing. Some issues have come up concerning the "Operation-Spring.png" map during the FAC for Verrieres Ridge.  Would you be able to fix those for me?  Thanks. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tractable is currently in the middle of an ACR, and has garnered little comment (one support, two comments, no opposes). Would you be able to take a quick look at it if you have time? Cam (Chat) 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(Re your message on my talk page.) Okay, we shall assume good faith - I've undone the block. Neıl 龱  17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things
Thanks for the note. Yes, I see the GA reform discussion has taken off a bit (after a slow start); I wasn't around much yesterday, but I'll have a look now. Thanks also for the encouragement on British Army during the Napoleonic Wars; it's rather basic at this stage. In fact, it's only a sideproject: I've been working on 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot, and discovered there was nothing to link to for regimental context (a little surprising, really, since there's so much else on the Napoleonic Wars), so I started throwing down a few things as I came across them. It's a big topic, so I might not manage a thorough treatment at this stage, on my own (so much to do, so little time....) Feel free to join in! I see you've done a bit on that period. Gwinva (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

GAR debate on buildings under construction
I understand you may not have intended to call for a hearing on buildings under construction, but that is the issue here and a consensus in either direction is a precedent on the matter. A no consensus would not have affected anything, but a consensus in either direction affects the current GAs and future work on such articles. Chicago is one of the four or five leading cities in the world in skyscraper architecture. WP:CHICAGO is also one of the leading projects in producing GAs (see WP:CHIGA). I imagine that at all times going forward we will have a few buildings under construction that are WP:GAs if the consensus allows it. I left messages with all the projects on the articles talk page. In truth, I am only an active member of WP:CHICAGO. I do not visit the pages of the other three projects regularly. However, according to User:TonyTheTiger/Table I am a member of the other three by participation. I imagine most important members of each of these other projects knows me and considers me member of some sort.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Making it clear is partly the job of all discussants in the matter. However, the closing admin will really bear the greatest responsibility, IMO.  A closing admin could state this is viewed as a precedent on buildings under construction for WP:GA or some such language in the closing summary header of the debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * something like my statmeent that "Completeness today is judged by the article's coverage of the subject matter today. WP:CRYSTAL of potential future content is not relevant." could be added at both WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I address your requested tweaks properly?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Come visit WP:WIAGA's talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit
I hate to bother you, but if you aren't too busy, could you do that copyedit I requested? No one seems to be getting to any of the requests on the page, and our WikiProject is almost completely deserted.

Thanks for the helmet by the way; I'm not as bonked now. Cheerio, -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC).

Request for admin tidying
Howdy Eye, its been a while. I had to take a wikibreak recently, but you may have noticed that I am now back and working on a new series of articles. I created these articles (listed below) on user sub-pages and then transferred the information across into the exisiting articles (which were tiny stubs). I left the userpages with their page histories as redirects, but I have recently discovered that page histories can be merged, which seems to be a better solution. Can you take a look and see if this is appropriate here and if so whether your shiny admin powers will be able to achieve this? Otherwise, hope you are well and having a good time, if you have a chance to look over these articles any imput would as always be welcome (although I see you are much in demand these days) and if you need a hand with anything please drop me a line. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Jackyd101/Battle of Lissa for Battle of Lissa (1811)
 * User:Jackyd101/Action of 29 November 1811 for Action of 29 November 1811
 * User:Jackyd101/Action of 22 February 1812 for Action of 22 February 1812
 * Yup, that is correct. Thanks for this. I'm finding GA sweeps easier by immediately sifting out the articles that obviously pass or fail from a topic, giving me (and the editors) more time to work on those that need some tuning up.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to. I have a couple of pre-written "templates" that highlight typical problems, and if an article obviously fails due to one of these (usually sourcing), then I stick the "template" on the talk page (adapted to the article's particular problems) inviting someone to either start work on the problem or take responsibility for the article on the talk page. If someone comes forward then I will do a more detailed review and work with them to bring the article up to standard (as happened at Anne Boleyn). If no one comes forward in seven days then I delist. For articles that clearly pass or only have a few prose issues then I tend to make the changes myself rather than waiting around for an editor that might never show up. It makes the workload easier and the review process faster.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've done an excellent job, nice one, thanks. Thanks also for deleting the redirect, there's no need for it now that the history is merged. Hope you are enjoying your admin tools!--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Totally unexpected and massively appreciated, thankyou. By the way, congratulations on becoming an admin. If I hadn't been on a wikibreak when your Rfa was processed I would have added my emphatic support as well. I really appreciate all your assistance with may articles, particularly the copyediting and if you need me to do anything for you around here please just ask. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your user space design
I love it! Would it be okay if I copied borrowed stole it for my userspace? I'd be willing to credit it to you however you want. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk· contribs· count· email) 07:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Trump Chicago now at FAC
Since you expressed an opinion recently at Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1, I thought you might want to contribute to the discussion at Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Page Protection of User:AvantVenger's talk page
He continues to use it to insult others.—  Dæ dαlusT@lk / Improve \ Contribs 08:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, I shall refrain.—  Dæ dαlusT@lk / Improve \ Contribs 09:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I said I would refrain, but I just said one last thing, more of an apology than anything. Sorry.—  Dæ dαlusT@lk / Improve \ Contribs 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

102nd IW
First of all, I would like to thank you for giving a thorough review to the article. If you could convince others to move the 102d Intelligence Wing, to the 102nd Inteligence Wing, you could do many other things in life. I moved the page twice, and it was twice moved back because the military "officially" designates pages like this. It is strange because the websites for these units have many different ways at saying their name. I'm really against putting the "(United States)" descriptor after the main name because the United States is the only country with this particular designation system. I like the idea of splitting articles but people have a tendency for wanting to merge those articles so i'm still undecided about doing so. I tried section citations and was told that the don't work. The paragraph ending citations are my means of trying to sccomplish just that. At least now I can do more to improve the page. Thanks again for your help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the article up. What do you think? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Verrières Ridge‎
Did you give up when you hit the Casualties section, which is still convoluted?



Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've re-written it entirely. Astonishingly, it's quite straightforward underneath :)))-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(od) Sorry about the ec. I'm working at this very sporadically as I've got the builders in. Thanks for all the good work so far! i think we're nearly there now. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a lot of the detail out because it's not sourced (and I spent ages going through the sources last night and this morning.) For instance, there's nothing about internal investigations and differing calculation bases in the cited ref Copp (1992). I simplified the wording because it was unnecessarily tangled. We have sourced figures for Spring and Atlantic, and someone who is prepared to provide an estimate for the total. In the fog of war that good going :) Incidentally, I think the point about the dangers of evacuating casualties is WP:UNDUE because it applies to almost every battle. What is missing is that many casualties were shot out of hand by the 12 SS Panzer Div (Hitler Youth). On balance, I'd prefer a return to my earlier first paragraph (less the Black Watch stuff) plus a tighter version of your second one. Thoughts? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Goodness, much better already :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good news Sandy! I've merged our separate edits per Roger's comment above. BTW, the source I've got gives different casualty figures for Atlantic - 1965, in Overlord by Max Hastings; Wilmot's Struggle for Europe doesn't have anything I could find on casualties, though it does go into much more detail about German numbers. Both works also refer to the battle as Bourguebus Ridge rather than Verrieres Ridge, but maybe the less said about that the better! EyeSerene talk 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well fused, thanks! Incidentally, if you'd still in life-saving mode, Brian Horrocks needs an emergency CE. Shall we? And could you hang fire on archiving it please, Sandy? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, please do. From where I'm sitting, it has been most distressing watching so many articles languish at FAC while RCC took the lion's share of attention.  There has been very little for me to archive or promote because reviewers have been tied up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: Which beaches? Pendine? Cefn Sidan? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Horrocks it is ;) I've only been to Pendine once - I'm in Swansea, so I tend to go to the South Gower beaches. Rhosilli is about 45 mins away, and lovely when it's not windy! Three Cliffs is my personal favourite (per the userpage photo) - it's isolated, and a bit of a trek to get to, so it's never busy. Bracelet Bay on the Mumbles is nice too, and worth a visit on a Winter evening, with the lighthouse going and the waves crashing in... EyeSerene talk 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is beautiful :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As for "holding attack", Montgomery had originally designated it as a holding attack, as Cobra was to be the breakout. Simonds, however, redesigned it as a breakout offensive, as which it didn't fare so well, and it was then redefined as a "holding attack"(which granted, it worked at). Cam (Chat) 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note aside, I think I've got most of the MoS issues in Operation Tractable fixed. Cam (Chat) 06:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you've got any time in the next few days, would you be able to take another look at Tractable? Cam (Chat) 04:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No biggie. I'm not one of those people who claims article ownership.  Feel free to add info. Thanks for the copyediting. Cam (Chat) 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't happen to be able to recommend anyone capable of copyediting Tractable for me, would you? I'm hoping to take it to A-Class by the end of the month. Cam (Chat) 01:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

something for your help

 * Ok, so the "500 guns" was fairly accurate (it ended up being numerous 88's, several fieldguns, a bucket-load of nebelwerfers, and lots of artillery). My guess is that the guns transferred to Verrieres originally came from Bourguebus, seeing as British attacks during Goodwood had been aimed primarily at Bourguebus. Cam (Chat) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would put the odds...um....AGAINST the Canadians I think ;). Cam (Chat) 18:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been promoted. Thanks for all your help. Cam (Chat) 05:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tweak
Hi EyeSerene, sorry for not responding earlier; I haven't been keeping up with my mail. Believe it or not, it was myself I was thinking of – "tweak" is an edit summary I regularly use for all of the reasons mentioned (but mainly out of laziness and ignorance!). I picked it up from an old hand who also writes professionally, and it seems to be cropping up with increasing frequency: I wonder if it's catching? Although some of my additions may seem like I'm just having a dig at the system and other editors, much of them are from personal observation and aimed at myself. I think we need a sense of humour around here, and IMHO some of the comments made by yourself and others are pure genius! Cheers. --Red Su ns et    18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Henry Clinton GA Review
Hi there. I've just done my first GA Review for Henry Clinton (1738-1795) and I was hoping you might look over it on the talk page and see if I've done it all correctly and I haven't made any major errors if you have a second. Many Thanks Skinny87 (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for those comments. Would you be able to add them underneath the GA Review on Clinton as extra points, or as a Second Opinion? Those are all good points, and I wouldn't want the editors involved to not get all the points they need to pass. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll add them into my review. Thanks for all the help! Skinny87 (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Really sorry, one more thing. I'm about to review another article, but I'm not sure how to do that transcluding thing. Is there a link to show me how I can do it? Skinny87 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks!

(outdent) I actually have a concern about the article. According to the edit history the proposing author has never edited it. Now, I know that doesn't preclude someone nominating an article for GA, but in this case it confuses me. The article needs a lot of work to become GA, and if the nominator hasn't even edited it, it makes me wonder a) who will edit it, and b) why they nominated it in the first place. Maybe it's just that I'm still quite new around here, but I was wondering what you think? Skinny87 (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops, my bad. Henry Clinton (1738-1795) is the article, I'm still looking over the GAN articles (as well as copy-editing mine, 11th Airborne Division which is in the queue). Skinny87 (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Brian Horrocks
Sorry not to have so far CE'd. I've become involved in coordinator stuff plus sorting out squabbles with the builders who are infesting my house :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, my time has been limited over the weekend too, so I haven't got as far as I would have liked. I'll try and finish up today. EyeSerene talk 09:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick whizz through it (made a handful of minor changes) and it seems fine. While it's not perhaps the best FAC ever written, it's certainly professional enough. Anyhow, I've added my support and left messages for Tony and Laser brain asking them to revisit and re-appraise. Thanks for your input on this :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 4
Mission 4, a series of articles on the Everglades, could do with help from the FA-Team! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for volunteering for Mission 4 - Moni3 has helpfully constructed a "to do" list on our Mission 4! Let's start working! Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

History of cannon
As someone else with a working knowledge of the GA process, I wanted to bring something to your attention and see what you thought of it. I recently completed the GA Sweeps of the above article and passed it. It has now been brought to my attention that the article is basically a copy of the first few sections of the FA article Cannon. This strikes me as odd - I haven't thoroughly compared the two articles but there is certainly much more than a passing resemblence - which begs the question of whether this should be an article at all, let alone a GA. I'm curious to know your thoughts on this matter. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a copy of the lead and history section of cannon; see the discussion here and here. We replaced the article with #History (from cannon) because the old revision of History of cannon&mdash;the one that did pass GA&mdash;wasn't very good, and cannon was going to be on the main page that week. I still plan to expand History of cannon, however, I'd rather wait until I finish another FA collab; if you don't mind AFD'ing it for a couple of weeks, I'd be much in debt. :) · AndonicO  Engage. 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll post this here to make sure you both see it. Just to clarify, I wasn't going to suggest Afd at any stage. Since it is a direct copy of a section from Cannon, my suggestion (should it become necessary) would have been to merge with cannon until it can be recreated with new, expanded material at a later date. At the moment, I was simply asking Eye to take a look as an experienced editor to see what he thought of the situation. I certainly wouldn't have advised any action without putting some kind of notice on the talk page either. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, per WP:summary style, it looks like the section in the FA Cannon article should be reduced to a brief summary, since the detail is now at History of cannon. EyeSerene talk 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request for Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney
On the first FA nomination for Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney, the need for good copy-editing was the primary problem. With the apparent death of WP:LOCE, I was hoping you could help copy-edit the article or recommend it to other copy-editors. Many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Help
Hey there. I was hoping you might help me out with a GA Review Problem. I reviewed Henry Clinton (1738–1795) eight days ago and placed the article On Hold for improvements. Some improvements have been made, but there's still a lot to be done with the article, and some of the issues I've addressed haven't been dealt with (and new ones have appeared).As such, I'm not sure what to do. Should I fail the article and ask the editor to renom when they've addressed all my concerns, or just let it stay On Hold indefinitely? Skinny87 (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 4 success!
Draining and development of the Everglades, which in the end we decided not to rename "Complete land rape of South Florida", has achieved FA status! Congratulations and thanks all around! Two down and three to go - head for those copyediting and peer-reviewing parties at Restoration of the Everglades, Geography and ecology of the Everglades and Everglades! Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Everglades have been saved! Just kidding! Seriously, though, big changes are afoot, as reported by our own Moni3 at Wikinews. These developments have prompted a dramatic increase in traffic to the articles, so let's do Wikipedia proud and spruce them up pronto! Awadewit (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd for GA
Hello, EyeSerene. :-) An editor has nominated Sweeney Todd for GA status, and as it is on hold to assess some isssues it needs to be copyedited and cleaned up within seven days or the nomination will be withdrawn by default. :-( If you're too busy to copyedit it, I can understand and will try doing so myself, but could you let me know what the current status is for the copyediting so far so we can all improve it according to the WP:GAC as best we can?

Thanks, -- Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

Date
Hi, can you understand what is the publication year of this article?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your ID...
...reminds me of a fragment of a song lyric. Now I'm going crazy trying to figure out which song. Well, not crazy, exactly, as it's too late for that, but it's in part of my working-storage section. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a Bowie song. I might even be remembering it wrong. It will come to me, somewhere in the night. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your encouragement. It's not a Wordsworth poem set to music, I don't think. It will probably come to me during a meeting sometime today. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy edits and the massive backlog
Hey there!

I'm sending you this because I noticed you were active in the former league of copy-editors. I joined the LOCE something like a few days before it became historical, and have been making a lonely effort to reduce the copy-edit backlog, so I've been curious - why did the LOCE close, are there any efforts going on out there to reduce the copy-edit backlog, and do you think there's a point in establishing (and would you join) a wikiproject purely to maintain the category of articles needing copy edits?

I've been having a hard time getting people on related projects (WP:PR, WP:GAN, etc) to help with the backlog, so I'm trying to gather suggestions or help regarding starting a project simply to maintain the category of articles needing copy edit.

Thanks! ;) --Samuel Tan (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Serene! Thanks for your reply. I'm trying to start some effort (perhaps in the form of a taskforce or even a project) going simply to work on the backlog, since there are already projects devoted to reviews on request, like WP:PR. I'll definitely keep your suggestions in mind!-Samuel Tan (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

CarolSpears
Sorry, I didn't realise it was at AN/I. It's now unprotected; I responded to a RfPP request, and a problematic diff was provided. For clarity, here is the request:

(from RfPP) Requesting full protection to prevent this banned user from making further edits such as this to her talk page. John254 05:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected&#32;indefinitely. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  08:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's standard practice when a blocked user abuses the talk page, hence the protection. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I did unprotect it straight away; I agree with you. I just didn't realise it was at AN/I. Sorry, that was bad communication on my part. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  12:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Third FA for the Everglades project!
Way to go team! Restoration of the Everglades has just become an FA! Three down and two to go! Geography and ecology of the Everglades and Everglades could use your eagle eyes! Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Proposals
Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team successes!
Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: ANI complaint
Hi EyeSerene, I am not one to usually question things like this but why have I received a warning? Yes I have been involved with edit disputes with In23065 but over half of his complaint against me was a word for word copy of my complaint against his conduct over a anonymous editor. But I understand in a way as in some cases I was too quick to undo his edits.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I completely understand now, thanks for taking the time to explain it.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I was wandering if you could do me a favor. Could you semi-protect Big Brother 2004 (UK) for two to three more days? 92.22.197.197 reverted the same edits again back to the version they think is correct. I think I have reached a consensus on the issue and tried to implement it but after I did 92.22.197.197 reverted my edits back to what they think is right. I think it would help both In23065 and 92.22.197.197 while this whole thing is still going on.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  00:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot
Hi,

I've posted a comment on ANI regards barefoot guy. WLU (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar and your investigation! And the essay praise!  And for allowing me to find the best resolved ever, "Socks blocked, mocked."  That's teh best EVAR!  Have I mentioned it's teh Best EVAR?  There needs to be a Spartan wit barnstar.  WLU (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Finding out about permalinking was the best thing to ever happen to me. I cried.  This is mostly making conversation, my ulterior motive was fixing the linking on the resolved template.  I'm a huge pedant.  WLU (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not it! I hate minutes.
 * We wouldn't be on wikipedia if we didn't love minutia. I love minutia.  There should be a minutia barnstar and it should be very, very small but perfectly formed.  WLU (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks from me as well. :)  Nice work on linking all of those socks together. And I *think* it was one of those socks who created a false user page for me in the first place, so thanks for deleting it. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:92.22.115.146
Will you please ban this user and revert his edits seen as I am not allowed to. In23065 (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * EyeSerene, I know preventing all users except administrators from editing an article is extreme or even semi-protecting an article during an edit dispute is extreme but this article needs some sort of protection while this dispute is ongoing or otherwise I don't think the anonymous user using various IP addresses will let up or even discuss the issue. The anonymous user reverted your edits by the way.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway you can lock a section of a page (not just the whole page)? In23065 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to ban In23065 from editing anything to do with big brother as he is constantly vandalising these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.163.125 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The user In23065, does not listen or here to what other users have to say. They just go on what they "believe" is right and change anything that someone adds straight away.Andybigbro2 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly like you then. In23065 (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Alot of other users as you can see agree the same as me. Listen to people have to say. You are not always right you know. Andybigbro2 (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

GA reform
Thanks for taking my proposal forward, and keeping the reform process going. I'd offer to help with the draft, but in a couple of days I'm off on a wikibreak, and will be away a few weeks. Hope it goes well. Gwinva (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The draft looks good; no need to wait for me: just go ahead with it whenever seems appropriate. Thanks again. Gwinva (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Block Review
Excuse me, but could you review this editor you just indefed recently? They put a request to be unblocked. No admin had come by yet so I took my own look through his/her contributions and though there is edit warring I don't really see any vandalism. I did contact User:Tanthalas39 and he said I should contact you as you are the blocking admin. Could you review the request and contributions?-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Big Brother 2004 Edit War
Hi, I have started a thread to purely reach a consensus on the issue. This is my last effort in order to resolve this dispute between the two. If this continues much longer I propose the article be reverted to an earlier version before the edit war began and then the article be fully protected until the dispute is resolved. It seems drastic but this has gone on for too long.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)