Jump to content

User talk:EyeSerene: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EyeSerene (talk | contribs)
20,213 edits
Line 825: Line 825:
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In honor of your service as coordinator for the [[WP:MIL|Military History Project]] from September 2011 to September 2012, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In honor of your service as coordinator for the [[WP:MIL|Military History Project]] from September 2011 to September 2012, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
|}
|}

:Thanks Dan :) [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


== [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles]] ==
== [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles]] ==

Revision as of 20:21, 20 September 2012

It's been a while. Maybe cleaning up my talk page should be priority number one! Number two: remembering how to do all this wiki stuff. EyeSerenetalk 20:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current Military history WikiProject discussions
  • No major discussions are open at the moment
edit this list

New portal

Jlyster (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Hi Eyeserene, my Herbert Hoover edit is available for your perusal on my talk page thanks, Jlyster[reply]

File:Grenadier Pied banner1804.png
The Napoleonic Wars Portal

Hello, EyeSerene! I should like to announce a brand new wiki portal at Napoleonic Wars, which I have created for this huge historical topic. Please feel free to visit and participate in its development. «Vive l'empereur!»   —Regards, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]

P'daele

What do you think so far?Keith-264 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still here, just about :) Madly busy at the moment - got landed with running a six week course at very short notice - but I should get a chance to take a proper look in the near future. Best, EyeSerenetalk 09:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tally ho!Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My changes haven't excited much debate yet, Labatt has his doubts but they are mostly about presentation. Any chance you could get someone with more experience of presentation (role of quotes, footnotes, references and citations etc) to have a look? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gretings, are you any closer to a look at the P'daele page?Keith-264 (talk) 10
24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for mucking around on your user page, someone had left a legal threat with contact info and I removed it for you (it's deleted now if you want to see it). Alexandria (Ni!) 20:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for removing that :) EyeSerenetalk 08:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request for semi protection of Lahore front article

can you please put the Battle of Lahore/Lahore front under semi protection because there has been a lot of vandalism from both sides i have reverted it back to its last stable and genuine state please put semi-protection tag on the article here is link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Front please and thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buklaodord (talk • contribs) 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on the Bugle for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to WikiProject Military History. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falaise Pocket

Howdy, long time no see. I have just did a partial revert on the Falaise Pocket article. An anon has made a bunch of changes throughout, am assuming good faith however he has made some mistakes but grammar has never been my thing ... would you take a look?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to help close RSN dispute

May I request you to please participate in closingthis reliable sources dispute. I request that the arguments be considered on its merits alone. I would like to point out that both sides of the argument feel that retaining/removing the source is important as regards NPOV. Indo-Pakistan disputes are often avoided by editors who hate being drawn into the hassle but we need experienced and dedicated neutral parties to participate, otherwise the augean stable can never be cleaned out. This corner of WikiProject Military History needs people to clean it up. The only way to do it is first of all kill non-reliable sources. (Disclaimer: I am an involved party and I approached you due to your prominent track record in WikiProject Military History). AshLin (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The matter has been resolved. The discussion has been closed by The ed17. Happy editting. AshLin (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas for 2011

EyeSerene,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis that season again

Happy Holidays!
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, and here's hoping your RL workload isn't too insane! Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Satellite

Sorry for bothering you. I'm probably the last person you want to hear from. But I was wondering if you could take a look at the discussions and RFC at Talk:East Germany. Many of us believe that East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union and many of the RS make this clear but there are some editors who disagree. I'm not canvassing, I'm just asking if you could have a look. Caden cool 19:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the discussion. I have a feeling, based on half-recalled memories, that it might be more complicated than "East Germany was/was not a Soviet satellite" (didn't some of the Warsaw Pact countries have peculiar statuses within the Eastern Bloc?). However I don't know the sources well enough to offer any informed input. If it helps though you're always welcome to leave a notice on WT:MILHIST to bring it to wider attention. Regards, EyeSerenetalk 08:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Caden cool 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Work

I hope things have calmed down a bit. Any chance we can talk about P'daele? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be happy to - what can I do? EyeSerenetalk 09:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! I've put a lot of detail on the page and also on some new linked pages courtesy of Labatt' who's been a great help. I/we need a formula or convention for what to leave on the main page - 2 or 3 paragraphs under the link to the 'Battle Page' for e.g. I looked at the page for Arras and thought that those were a bit sparse but something on similar lines might do. I think the page could really do with a Haig-British Army hating smoker-out-of-anglocentric-bias sceptic looking it over and also a view on how much of the narrative on the page reflects historians' consensus rather than the synthesis of the sources I have available, which isn't necessarily the same thing. The subject still lacks English translations of lots of German & French work, apart from fragments in Terraine and Sheldon. I've got quite into the gig recently but feel the need to avoid being proprietorial. That said there doesn't seem to be much interest from the milhist aficionadosKeith-264 (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind looking at my dealings with paulturtle re an edit dispute please? I think he changed something outside the NPOV criterion and undid it and he thinks that I shouldn't have. We're discussing it but I fear that my preference to discuss changes first has found little favour with him. If you're pressed for time would you nominate someone else (preferably soon)? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted some thoughts on the page (your last section wasn't there when I clicked 'edit' so they're in the previous section). EyeSerenetalk 10:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OR to measure a distance on a map in a book and put it in the text?Keith-264 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not as I understand it :) Generally performing routine calculations that most readers would be able to perform for themselves isn't regarded as OR (see WP:NOTOR and WP:CALC). EyeSerenetalk 08:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Panzer Lehr Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Villers-Bocage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AIV on 173.0.254.229

Hi, just a quick note to say thank you for handling that report, I glanced at it and didn't have the time to dig further into all the finger pointing. When I came back, I expected someone to have blocked the IP for... well... being an IP. Good call :) -- Luk talk 11:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your kind words are much appreciated :) There were faults on both sides, but I feel quite strongly about the need to treat well-meaning but inexperienced editors decently if we want to ensure a future for this site. EyeSerenetalk 13:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene, thank you for your advice as to how to proceed with my edit, as well as catching this [1], reverting it, and seeing that the edits I made were not vandalism, but good faith edits based upon sources. And you're right: I'll try to find a better source than PerezHilton. Duly noted. But thanks for this as well [2]. Given the labeling of my edit as vandalism by these users with these bots, I have to wonder how many other good faith editors have gotten shafted by users like this while made to appear guilty because these editors in question come across as the good guys going after the bad guys what with the vandalism-identifying bots and all. I thank you for your willingness to thoroughly investigate the situation and be individualistic in your approach as an admin. Your good deed does not go unnoticed. :) 173.0.254.229 (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Admin's Barnstar
This barnstar is for your thorough, objective investigation and individualistic approach as an admin, creating a more welcoming environment here at Wikipedia
Thank you very much :) That's unexpected but very welcome (the best sort of surprise really!) I'm glad I was able to be of some help. EyeSerenetalk 10:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you deserved it and you're welcome=D Hey EyeSerene, sorry to trouble you, but could you have a look at The Talk page history here: [3]. A user has come behind me and reverted me for a 2nd for "Wp:Npov" despite the fact that I've provided a Hollywood Reporter source for the information in question. I reverted again, letting him/her know that I've added a source as to the information but chances are he/she will come back and revert it or someone else will come along and revert it, suspecting me as the bad guy or easy target as I'm using an IP. Could you check into it and perhaps monitor. Thanks! 173.0.254.229 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply (I don't edit much at the weekends and had a bout of man flu to contend with the last few days as well). Your edits look fine to me and I see they're still in the article. I think WP:NPOV is one of the most misunderstood policies on Wikipedia. It doesn't mean, as some editors seems to think, that we can't report information that might be seen as negative or critical; what it means is that Wikipedia itself takes no pro- or anti- position. Your edits seem to me to follow that because you've presented the information without editorial commentary, included a selection of sources (thus showing that at least two reliable sources have thought the departures were significant enough to discuss), and left the reader to make up their own mind. EyeSerenetalk 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear EyeSerene,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great War historiography

The Evolution of the British Army's Logistical and Administrative Infrastructure and its Influence on GHQ's Operational and Strategic Decision-Making on the Western Front, 1914-1918 by Ian Malcolm Brown free here http://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do has an interesting discussion on the schools of thought about the BEF in the G. War, pp 12-32. He gets P&W and Travers wrong but then we all do at first. The Operational Role of British Corps Command on the Western Front, 1914-18 by Andrew Simpson pp. 7-15 is also useful Keith-264 (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sound like the sort of thing that would be useful as the basis for a meta-type section. EyeSerenetalk 10:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of discussion about Abortion article titles

Hi EyeSerene. In the case Abortion, the main remedy established a community discussion to decide which title the associated article should use. The committee decided at that time to appoint three experienced administrators to close the discussion. With the community discussion beginning, we are looking to appoint these three administrators, and you were suggested as one such administrator. Would you be willing to close the discussion, when it has concluded? If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me or another arbitrator on our talk pages (or the mailing list, if you prefer e-mail). Regards, AGK [•] 22:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that Arbcom case (I'm still spinning back up after a period of inactivity since last October), but assuming that's no barrier I'll be happy to help out. EyeSerenetalk 10:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly no barrier. Thank you - I'll let the other arbitrators know you are happy to be named as one of the closers for the discussion. Will you follow the page, or do you require to be notified when it is time to close? Regards, AGK [•] 00:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Although I may read over the page occasionally to try to get a sense of how consensus is developing, I won't be monitoring it in any detailed or regular way so if I can be notified at the appropriate time that would be very helpful. EyeSerenetalk 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's no issue; I'll certainly notify you. For your information, there are two other closers, one of whom is yet undecided, and the other of whom is User:HJ Mitchell. I appreciate your commitment of time to this discussion! Regards, AGK [•] 00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI analysis

Hi ES - the discussion about Moni's ANI analysis got moved to userspace for now. If you're interested then please feel free to join us at User:Manning Bartlett/Moni3 ANI analysis. Cheers Manning (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Watchlisted :) EyeSerenetalk 13:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on discussions

Due to my block and the requirement for me to force fragment the discussions I was blocked from participating in I replied to your comments on my talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ink Wikipedia Page on my sandbox

Hi Eyeserene,

A new version (more objective I hope) of my article about Ink global.

Would you be so kind and take a look at it and tell me how I could improve it or if I can publish it?

Moreover, could you please tell me how I can do to insrt pictures in my article?

Thank you so much!

--Charlotte.chenevier (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:MAPEX during Ex SUMAN Warrior.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MAPEX during Ex SUMAN Warrior.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Draft op-ed

Hi Eye, I still have a diagram of the WP vs. MilHist assessment streams to upload but if you can have a look in Feb's newsroom, I welcome comments (on my talk page I guess, so as to leave comments at the bottom of the page itself until after publishing the issue). We'll be aiming to get the latest issue out as soon as this looks right to go. Cheers,

Hoover Edit by Jlyster

Hi, I have worked on the citations in my edit and look forward to your feedback please. Also looking forward to info re copyrights and uploading an image please regards, John L Jlyster (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I don't edit much at the weekends so I've only just seen this. I'll take a look and get back to you soon. Cheers, EyeSerenetalk 12:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've just had a look at your alterations and replied on the article talk page. It's looking good to me though. One minor point - I hope you don't mind but I've moved your signatures to the end of your posts on that page. They were showing up at the start for some reason :) Best, EyeSerenetalk 13:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries........so I gather that it is a standard convention to put the 4x tilda thingo at the end of an edit. So I guess I'll just let the edit article hang in the HH talk page a few more days and see what people say..............gotta go interstate on Wed for a few days so I'll wait to see what's on when I get back........if all is OK then up she goes to the main page. Yes so still awaiting your advice re uploading the image and hearing your frind's copyright comments. cheers j Jlyster (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, and that sounds fine (in fact, I don't think there's any need to wait that long if you don't want to). I'll pick up my email when I get home tonight and get on the other. Best, EyeSerenetalk 13:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just found out from another editor that he thinks that apparently any image published in the US before 1923 is considered to be public domain and therefor not requiring a copyright. Are you able to confirm this with your friend pls? Of course, the fact is that this image was published in Aust, and is owned by the WA Library. I'll ask them what they think however I have a feeling that they won't know. Would your contact be able to answer this question re copyright in Aust jurisdiction pls? Where does one find out.......or is it a case to bumble along and wait for some negative comeback? Jlyster (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, EyeSerene. You have new messages at Kumioko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOP BOTHERING US RIGHT NOW !!!

Ma'm or Sir: Are you perhaps aware that every time you volk post to my talk page that you send my Mommy an email detailing the exact nature of the past and instant conflict ? How did you silly volk get my Mommy's email ? Why are you sending things of this nature to HER ? This is RES ISPSA LOQUITUR here....Please reconsider why you feel the need to bring up this matter in my mother's email. You may yet be able to avoid what I think shoul occur. Hopefull, with kindest reguards, John5Russell3Finley (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His mommy's e-mail? Well, that might explain a few things. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's got to be the most... um... bizarre response I've ever read. Perhaps we should be looking at WP:COMPETENCE here instead? EyeSerenetalk 22:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have already contacted the female in question. My guess would be to send her another e-mail, possibly with links to WP:AFP. If I could suggest a specific proposal, at some time JRF is logged in, distract him from the machine, have her go to the "My preferences" tab, and change his password. She might also perhaps, if she wanted to, create a separate account under a different name with a password only she knows, and tell him that any further edits should be done under her supervision. Then, if she so desired, perhaps contact WP:OTRS and advise them of the situation, and, again at her discretion, perhaps take steps to implement a "disappearance" as per WP:Courtesy vanishing. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've initiated no communication beyond my post to John5Russell3Finley's talk page. I'm assuming that the "email me when my talk page is changed" option in his preferences is set, with his mother's email address given as the contact. However, I'm not convinced that there isn't an element of evasion/misdirection here; he's been registered since 2006 and his edits don't strike me as those of a child. Also, this edit to ANI, made right after his post here, is rather odd. To be honest I don't really know what to think, other than that my concerns about their editing Wikipedia aren't exactly diminishing. EyeSerenetalk 08:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I get that sort of e-mail myself, evidently it is now systemic. Regarding the fact of a six year status, it is not unknown for perhaps a now-absent father to create an account, have the password stored on the computer, and then have the account taken over by a child. The main page was vandalized in such a way once, as I recall. But I do think that there are serious concerns. Maybe some sort of ban would be the only option. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I think it is your call, as I acknowledge the repeated abuse of me by this individual makes me less than objective. Based on what you know, what would you think would be the next reasonable step: an RfC/U, some form of administrative action by the community, maybe ArbCom, or something else? John Carter (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. One last possibility comes to mind. There seems to me anyway to be a chance that this individual might be one of our rare editors who might be an older child or adult of rather dramatically limited capacity. One thing that always struck me as strange was when the Salem Witch Trials was under GA review, he added something to the Task Force page about how people didn't "like" the article. No specific details of any sort were given, even including specific reference to GA review itself. Anyway, I'm done now. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hanging on to see what their response might be. It seems they've resumed editing. I'm reluctant to indefblock them at this point, but certainly I think if there's further disruptive editing of any sort that might be the best solution. Tbh what I'd like to see is some input from a parent WikiProject on what should should be done with the task force. I saw John's post to one of the project talk pages (WikiProject Christianity?) but unfortunately it didn't seem to rouse much interest. EyeSerenetalk 10:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The work group talk page has had a suggestion that the WPUS banner be adjusted to include the Salem task force as a subproject of WP Massachusetts, and that honestly seems to me to be a reasonable proposal as well. Some editors are in the process of getting the Christianity bulletin together again, and I'm thinking, maybe, of some restructuring in the future there, but that would probably wait until the bulletin makes mention of such. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Massachusetts would seem to be a logical choice; in fact, there might be an argument for folding the task force into WP Massachusetts completely. One semi-active editor does not a task force make, and certainly at milhist we've not been shy about retiring moribund task forces. I'm continuing to actively monitor John5Russell3Finley's editing; it may be that if their walled garden is opened up (or removed) the issues will resolve themselves. If not and I don't seem to be paying attention, I'd welcome a timely nudge :) EyeSerenetalk 09:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josce de Dinan

Hi Eyeserene, could you make sure the reference you just added is formatted the same as the rest of the article. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done (I hope!) EyeSerenetalk 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P'daele

Is the box at the top of the talk page out of date?Keith-264 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? EyeSerenetalk 12:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've done a lot of work on it lately. Haven't we improved its quality?Keith-264 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right :) Yes you have, but because it's already assessed as B-Class (the highest rating that can be assigned by a single reviewer in an informal review) the only way to assign higher ratings would be to go through some sort of formal review process. The options would be (in increasing order of 'difficultly'):
  • Nominate the article for a Good article review. This can take a while to attract a reviewer but is a useful exercise nonetheless. The criteria the article would be assessed against are here.
  • Nominate the article for an A-Class review. Assuming you'd go via the Military history WikiProject system (most projects don't support an A-Class review process) the nomination page is here, with links to the criteria/instructions etc. Milhist ACR is within spitting distance of Featured article review, so it's tough but a pretty thorough process.
  • Nominate the article for a Featured article review. As you'll know from some of the Normandy campaign ones we've worked on, this is the top of the heap and can be a ton of work.
If you want to go down this route I'd definitely recommend GA first. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 10:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright

Yes, that's also my account. HOWEVER, I don't use both account to do something such as raising ideas and voting yes/no in AfD. I did use that account for some vote to change, but I never use this account for that. Also I did make anti-vandalism edits. As you've already read in ANI, I believe those account and 2 IP making the pro-Thai edits in those Burmese-related articles. They could be the same person. So all I did was reverting those articles back to the original version. Please don't block me. ༆ (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, no-one's going to block you :) As I wrote on ANI, I can't see any evidence that you've used your accounts in the wrong way. You might like to link your accounts though, just so editors know they both belong to you. You can use {{alternative account}} and {{User Alt Acct Master}} if you want. If you'd rather not advertise that both accounts are yours that's okay too... if you have a good reason not to (see WP:SOCK#LEGIT for more information).
The main thing is that you don't edit war again over a content disagreement. The edits that Thaizokku/Sarsein/the IPs were making were not very good, but they weren't vandalism so WP:3RR and WP:EW still applies to you (and Hybernator). If you have trouble again, don't get into an edit war but ask for help at WP:ANI (or here on my talk page if you like, though ANI will probably be quicker).
I agree with you that Thaizokku/Sarsein/the IPs are the same person. I've blocked Thaizokku indefinitely and Sarsein for 24 hours (this time, the next block will be longer). Blocking the IPs will be difficult because they change, but we can look at article protection or a rangeblock if necessary.
Thank you for trying to keep POV out of the Burma articles. Regards, EyeSerenetalk 20:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Honorsteem again. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarsein/༆ situation, from what I can see

I've looked over the article histories in the ANI threads, and here's what I can make of it. Sarsein and his previous incarnations IP hopping are pushing for a Siamese hagiography in all those articles, as is most evident here and here (in particular, the part about being killed by the king of Siam is extremely dubious, to the point of implausibility), and here (attempting to say that Siamese soldiers killed the Burmese king when the only sources that say that are Siamese/Thai; everyone else wrote that he fell ill and died from disease). If you hadn't blocked already, I'd have probably indeffed Sarsein for disruption, but I suppose it won't do any harm to see what happens after his block expires. ༆ is at least trying for neutrality, but there seem to be some language issues which makes his editing seem somewhat slanted towards the ethnic groups in Burma (specifically the Taungoo Dynasty, the Arakanese, and Burmese). It needs a bit of reworking, but it's much more workable than the three people edit warring with him. If IPs start popping up again, I'd make liberal use of semiprotection, and watch especially for copyright violations (my long experience with South and Southeast Asian editors with bad command of English is that they're prone to copypasting left and right). I'll be watching over them, and I have no problem blocking Sarsein if he tries to force his pro-Siamese hagiography into those or other articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another suspected sockpuppet: Wongsathorn (talk · contribs). ༆ (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I've left an update at ANI (Wongsathorn indeffed and Sarsein too). Thanks so much TBotNL for your diligence and ༆ for reporting the sockpuppet. It was obvious there was a POV being pushed but I couldn't really tell what because the English was so poor. I've tagged the various sock accounts we know about (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thaizokku), and I'm happy to block additional accounts on sight as use page protection as suggested (if TBotNL doesn't do it first!). Thanks again, EyeSerenetalk 09:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check back at those Burma articles that I and User:Hybernator having edit wars with those sockpuppet accounts, there are also TWO IP addresses (starting with 118 and 182) making the same edits in supporting the banned users too. We should block those pages for a short time. ༆ (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs don't seem to have edited for a few days. We only tend to block an IP address if it's stable, or if disruption is happening now. Because Sarsein looks like he's on a dynamic address, blocking those IPs won't achieve anything. However, if IP disruption resumes I'll happy to semi-protect those articles for you. EyeSerenetalk 12:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out: 182.52.144.224 (talk · contribs) and 182.52.154.76 (talk · contribs). See what I mean. And of course, my idea is that not blocking those IP addresses, but to block for a short time those articles that were vandalized to prevent more such IP edits. Cheer. And which template should I use in order to notice others that I also have a second account? Also, as I reverted the edits by the sockpuppets, those users warned me on my talk page with FALSE accusations as if I'm the one who vandalized. So, could you delete those edits by sockpuppets from my talk page's history, just so when other people see it they won't get the wrong idea. Cheer. ༆ (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I see we've also had a new sock show up, so I've been through and semiprotected some articles (those Marraghi (talk · contribs) showed up on) for one month. Obviously this can be extended/expanded as necessary. EyeSerenetalk 10:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to step away from the subject for a few days, but I intend to keep watching over it. Hopefully he'll be driven off by the semiprotection, but I suspect we could be at this for a while. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it takes :) Thanks for your assistance with this, it's much appreciated. EyeSerenetalk 08:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, EyeSerene. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maps 1917

I don't suppose you know of any maps for the passchendaele page do you? Pilckem and Menin Road would be nice as would a relief map of the Ypres area. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. I'm happy to create them based on such sources as can be provided (for example, a relief map of the area might not be too difficult, assuming the geography hasn't changed too much in 90 years!), but all my books are still boxed up for a house move that never happened. EyeSerenetalk 10:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said you shouldn't stab your probation officer ;O).Keith-264 (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, t'was but a scratch :) EyeSerenetalk 12:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brocage, Etc.

Yes, we DID settle it; You were wrong. Then you waited until my back was turned to revery it (). It was Brocage, as in BIG HIGH HILLS of rock, not "hedgerows" as in overgrown rosebushes. EDIT: I can, if you really want, take this to an arbitration; I’d rather NOT, as that would mean I’d have to spend even MORE time here dealing with dis-information. It’s a difference to YOU of one non-consequential word; It’s a difference to ME of thousands of lives LOST because a couple people didn’t think the difference of words mattered, including hundreds of sappers killed trying to breach those “hedgerows” (each attempt to breach them, successful or not, resulted in an average of 2.3 sappers killed, with at least one being killed each and every time they tried, until the Cullins Cutters came along). I am not the one “Edit warring” here. Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Very well. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Rhino tank". Thank you.

Since the dispute clearly identified what the brocage is, as well as brining new sources to light that describe the development of the Rhino tank, coupled with my bordom ... i have updated the page :P EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about taking stab at that tomorrow, but what you've done looks great :) Nice job, EyeSerenetalk 13:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medal ribbon RFC

Thanks a lot for starting this. Your post does a good job of framing the issues and the best way to discuss them. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick. I hope we get something useful out of it :) EyeSerenetalk 08:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I would like to thank you for resolving the situation with the IP over at ANI. Keep up the good work! Best wishes, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! EyeSerenetalk 09:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917

Do you mind having a look at this page-in-progress and offering suggestions about structure and templates etc? I've done a bit of experimenting with the Passchendaele page, Pilckem and Menin to try to slim the main page but only managed to move the problem. Creating a stub seemed the only way to avoid overloading them somewhere. I think that if the page works, much of the expostion on the main page an the other two could be removed and replaced by links. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a reasonable way to approach things. Per WP:SS (unfortunate shortcut that one) we're encouraged to split out content when articles get too long anyway - it might be that if you feel it's just moved the problem then the daughter article needs further subdivision?
There are a ton of templates etc at WP:MILMOS, as well as style guidance. You'll see I've added a couple of tags & templates to the article and talk page. I'll try to take a more detailed look at the article and see what best fits in the near future, though as always my time these days is limited. Cheers, EyeSerenetalk 10:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's a great help to be pointed to the right place. I need to make some space on the Pass' article for a section on medical arrangements, which are easy to overlook and have some encouraging developments amidst the slaughter. What I've done is copy the exposition of tactics onto the Tactical page and am getting ready to do the bit about German changes at the start of the year. I've even found some narrative about French developments so they will get a bit of a look-in. What I want is something on the trends of firepower warfare and the way that its logic made all three armies converge in equipment and method (within their strategic constraints).Keith-264 (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke 194.145.185.229's talk page access?

Hi, EyeSerene. Can you please revoke 194.145.185.229's talk page access? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although allowing blocked editors access to their talk page is really only meant to facilitate unblock requests, we traditionally give a bit of slack in that regard. They often feel the need to let off steam and their post is well within the bounds of what we tolerate. If they become abusive etc, talk page access will be revoked, but at present with only one fairly mild post made I can't see anything that would warrant such an extreme sanction. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 09:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting mechanism for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles

Hello. Over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, we have been trying to figure out exactly how the vote that ArbCom called for should be carried out, in particular in a proposal to use Borda Count for the purpose. Upon requesting clarification from ArbCom in the matter, it was suggested that the closing admins be asked for their input, since after all it's you who'll have to read the results. So, if you would be kind as to, at your convenience, provide your input into the current voting format proposal, or suggest other measures, it would be a great help. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Force Regiment

Hi! I am not sure if you remember that about four years ago we were working on this article (Frontier Force Regiment) and I went on an unannounced wikibreak. I know it was irresponsible of me to go away like this but I had to as my studies were affected. Now I am back and saw you active so thought you may be able to help me again. I have addressed some of your concerns as raised on the article talk page after I came back. Regards --SMS Talk 20:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Return of blocked user Kurfürst using an IP Address

Just thought you might be interested to know that Kurfürst [4], whom you blocked two years ago, has been editing under an IP address [5] from Budapest, Hungary [6] which happens to be where Kurfürst is from. Does this constitute sockpuppetry? Regards ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 11:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – WilliamH zapped him real quick - fastest SPI I ever filed! Doc talk 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello EyeSerene. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page changes

All of a sudden there are pop-ups appearing on article pages that won't go away and the edit pages have changed form. Do you know what's going on?Keith-264 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've sorted it, I put the ad-block and no script back on and the crap has disappeared.Keith-264 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, though I'm not sure why you would see that rubbish at all while on Wikipedia, because there isn't any stuff like that on the site. I wonder if you've got some nasty in your PC that's pulling that content in from elsewhere? EyeSerenetalk 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a big box at the botton for page ratings and a pop-up in the b.r-hand corner. Everything went back to normal so I wonder if its a difference between the old format pages I use and the newer version that I ignore?Keith-264 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Noozgroop

Hi! I noticed this user since he or she seemed to be oddly non-communicative, and further searching I found this thread, where it seems you blocked the user for refusing to following the manual of style. I'm not sure if this type of edit is an issue, but I've noticed that the user still seems to be changing the formatting of numbers without giving any reason since the block ended, such as here or here (there's a bunch more if you look through the contribs). Not sure if this is an issue or violation, but I thought you should know.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this. However I see they're now blocked again so I hope that resolves the problem for now. EyeSerenetalk 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Thank you! EyeSerenetalk 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made a mess of moving articles

Hello Eye,

Its been a while, hope you are well. RL pressures resulted in a 18 month Wikihiatus, but I'm back now and working on articles again. However, my long absence has left me rusty and I've made a mess of moving a new article from userspace to article space and I need an admins help to sort it out and you are the only admin I know.

I wrote a new article named Cornwallis's Retreat, covering a naval battle of 1795. This article was already on Wikipedia as First Battle of Groix (an entirely invented name). Cornwallis's Retreat was a redirect to First Battle of Groix and I was unable to move my userspace workbox User:jackyd101/Workbox3 into the correct article name as I normally would. I therefore copy and pasted the new article into the redirect Cornwallis's Retreat and then redirected First Battle of Groix to the new title. I intended to move the talk page from First Battle of Groix to become the talk page of Cornwallis's Retreat (which did not previously exist), but messed something up and now am unable to do it. Are you able to complete this move for me by deleting the redirect at Talk:Cornwallis's Retreat and moving Talk:First Battle of Groix into the new space? It would be much appreciated.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think... EyeSerenetalk 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, sorry for making such an elementary mistake.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Content Review Medal

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the first quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan :) EyeSerenetalk 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion article titles

The abortion article titles RFC is now closed. We hope you can collaborate with your fellow closing admins and a consensus can be determined by 1 May 2012. As you were appointed one of the closing administrators, you are receiving this message. Discussion with the other closers will be taking place here: WP:RFC/AAT#Admin discussion. If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
Please accepted this belated thank you (Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class) for your excellent Poland-related article, Hill 262. We hope one day you'll revisit Poland-related topics again!
this WikiAward was given to EyeSerene by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me on 17:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Do you plan on bringing this article to Featured class? I think it is ready for a FAN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Yes, I'd like to take through FA but I don't think it's quite ready yet. There's some confusion (in my mind at least, which unfortunately is reflected in the article) over the movement of the battlegroups at various times and whether there were in fact three or four. My main source book, McGilvray, is out of my hands at the moment - permanently I suspect, so I'll probably have to order a new copy. I'm also a bit short of time at the moment but when things ease up the article is top of my to-do list. EyeSerenetalk 07:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC:AAT

Hey, EyeSerene. Please see my response to Black Kite's commentary on RFC:AAT, on his talk page. Thanks. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scott

Just a note to let you know that Charles Scott (governor), an article you reviewed for MILHIST A-class status, has now been nominated for FA status. Your comments on this nomination would be appreciated. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firestone dab page

User:AndrewFirestone777 is at it again. Twice in 24h, three since February block expired. Since you put the block on last time, I'm hoping you know what to do this time. I also posted a notice at WP:Bio Talk. Thx in advance. No need to reply. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion_article_titles/Official_voting

Hi there ES, being the sponsor of the add-on option "1+4+12" in the abortion article titles, I realised that I didn't actually state "strongly support", and as I see a "strongly support" from User:chaos5023, I'm wondering if the vote count of '1' is his or mine. I guess it's not really very important, and feel free to ignore this - I also see you are uber-busy! Anyhow, have a great day! 20040302 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I think it's important not to take the scores/vote counting too seriously - it provides a useful guide for seeing what the density of support was for each option, but probably not much more than that (and certainly isn't fine-grained enough to distinguish between types of support with any reliability). The only reason I distinguished between support and strong support is because people voted that way... but I realise not everyone did who could have done. The last thing I want to do is give the impression that a vote could have counted for more if it had been phrased slightly differently. It won't matter :) EyeSerenetalk 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect answer! 20040302 (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughtful discussion of the comments is much appreciated. --Pechmerle (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Abortion titles RFC

Hi EyeSerene. Is a decision about WP:RFC/AAT forthcoming? AGK [•] 12:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing dispute

Hi! Not sure if you remember me but I came to you with help some time ago and you were extremely helpful in the matter. Anyways, I'm currently involved in what looks like will become an all-out editing war, so before it gets to that point I'm coming here. Not sure if it's because I'm using an IP or what but I made an edit on the Judge Judy article, which I was able to source with a New York Post article (as shown here)[7] and the same user has reverted it twice with the reason of "original research", despite my telling him that the information came from the source provided. He even has gone so far as coming to my talkpage after I plainly told him this in edit summary (as shown here [8]). Furthermore, each time he reverts the edit in question, he decides to revert all of my edits to the article as opposed to the mere edit he's arguing against. He's got a belligerent editing style and seems to be looking for an editing dispute. Could you help? Thank you 173.0.254.229 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the above user somehow relates to this character as he's been vandalizing my page since the above dispute [9] if you could have a look. Thank you!173.0.254.229 (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)That's not vandalism, please be cautious with the V-word, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! Eyesore, the trolls are really beginning to build up. Could you please step in ASAP?! User Dave continues to revert my user talk page to a version of an edit that has made accusations of vandalism against me on some kind of notice, as well as in his edit summaries. As it seems the the reversions of user:Melbourne Star on the Judge Judy article, quickly created a domino effect of trolling from two additional users (user: Dave who's reverting the edits on my page and user: Bushranger right above, who's not even involved in the issue), I have to wonder if there's some connection between each of these users. Either that, or they must be types that are just inclined to troll IP users if there's nothing else fun for them to do. Not sure if this is a trolling alliance or if trolling IP users is just common practice on this site among many, but I really don't have time for all the silly games between these 3 users. Again, I'm so sorry to bug you again, but you seemed to savvy to the impulse to annoy IP users the last time I dealt with you which is why I applauded you. Thanks. 173.0.254.229 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Maybe if you started to assume good faith and act civil - instead of calling editor's you don't agree with, "Trolls" - you just may be taken more seriously. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so there's no confusion, the troll, and I emphasize that, above is user Melbourne Star: The user who continued to revert ALL my edits on the Judge Judy article on basis of one edit to which he labeled as "original research" despite my telling him multiple times, it was information provided in a New York City Post source which I placed in the article.173.0.254.229 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To further support my suspicion that there's a link between these three trolls, they've each trolled my user talk page one behind the other (as shown here [10]). Again, either wiki-buddy trolls that look out for each other whenever one has done something reprehensible and risks being called out or users that pleasure in trolling IPs. If you could protect my page and block our bored trolls with nothing else better to do, it be much appreciated. 173.0.254.229 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: This might back up my statements above and User:Bushranger's defense of user:Dave's trolling from out of nowhere. Check out Bushranger's talkpage history with multiple edits from user:Dave [11]. 173.0.254.229 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion would be to take a look at your actions, before accusing people of "trolling". And, calling people - me or anyone else, a "troll" is a personal attack - that won't be tolerated here on Wikipedia.
Your claim I asserted that you were adding unsourced content to the Judge Judy article, is totally beyond me. Take a look at the article's history, and out of curiousity point out to me where I accuse your of original research. Whilst you're there, you'll notice my accusations of not following a neutral point of view. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 08:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies that I missed this - my time is very limited at the moment and the only thing I've really been following is the Abortion titles RfC. I hope everything has now been resolved. EyeSerenetalk 13:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impressed as ever..

...by your exceptional contribution to the abortion titles RfC. When I first saw it, I was completely put off by the loaded nature of the format and questions, and by the conflation of multiple issues, but you have teased them apart in a helpful and forward looking way. I hope Wikipedia will value and celebrate your contributions here for a long time. Geometry guy 22:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello stranger, and thank you very much for your kind words - most unexpected :) It's unfortunate that the closure is proving to be such a protracted process, but I think if editors can forgive us for having real-world priorities and continue to invest their trust in the process as they have their time and effort, we can hopefully come up with something reasonable. Nice to hear from you! EyeSerenetalk 13:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Greetings Eye, do you know if there are any formalities required to use photographs culled from books which are out of copyright? There are some I'm minded to use if possible from an Epub version of The Dover Patrol showing the pontoons built for the coast landing mooted in 1917. TaKeith-264 (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith. I'm not really sure, though I believe we have used scans of out-of-copyright photos from books in the past. The best place to ask is probably Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. EyeSerenetalk 09:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eye.Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox2 contains a piece on Pilckem Ridge 31 July 1917 and the OH which I fear got a bit out of hand. It's too big to use as a note and has some analysis in it not from a published source, (about the absence of published sources). Is it Wiki enough? Thanks, Keith.Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this Keith. My on-wiki time recently has been hopeless, though it should be easing up soon... EyeSerenetalk 10:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S'alright, I know the feeling.;O) I put the stuff about the OH on the OH page History of the Great War and put the authorial analysis as a note on the Passchendaele pages where it was relevant (Pilckem Ridge, Langemarck). I've also just finished sfn'ing everyting that moves. I've canvassed for opinion about the main page and the battle pages as suggested but not heard anything yet. I've also drastically pruned the P'daele page now that so much of it has gone onto the battle pages. I'm quite pleased with it but I think that there are some sections that still need looking at. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Peer Review

G'day, I have nominated Pavle Đurišić for peer review with the aim of getting the article to FA. Any chance you could take it on or co-opt someone suitable? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/AAT followup draft: willing to participate?

Hi. I'm making substantial progress on my draft of a followup RFC to AAT, User:Chaos5023/Abortion advocacy movement coverage. The draft presently names you, along with the other two closing administrators for AAT, as a closer. Are you okay with that? If ArbCom were to accept the proposed RFC as a valid followup to AAT, would you be willing to participate in closing it? —chaos5023 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite has indicated willingness to participate, FYI. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure. As long as some kind of progress is being made...:) EyeSerenetalk 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yeah, I'm trying. :/ —chaos5023 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kind request for a small favour

Hello dear EyeSerene. I was wondering whether you could look over a new intro section for the article History of Iran. I was hoping you could review it's prose and adherence to MoS, as well as commenting on it's clarity from the point of view of a member that (I assume) is not familiar with the topic. It is only four paragraphs, though I'm sure that you can find some constructive criticism. I understand that you may be busy, or maybe just not interested. Either way, thank you :) Karafs (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In honor of your service as a Milhist coordinator

The WikiProject Barnstar
In honor of your service as coordinator for the Military History Project from September 2011 to September 2012, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan :) EyeSerenetalk 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles

We need to figure out where to go next on this, so some input on where to go next would be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you replied to the discussion thread, but I see you aren't currently active on the project :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2012

Just as a friendly reminder, you are one of five people who are listed as serving on the current coordinator tranche of the Military history Project that have not yet indicated whether you will be standing for reelection in the upcoming election. The deadline to clarify is 23:59 today, and having an answer from you will help us determine with a greater degree of certainty who will be returning and who won't, so if you can spare a moment please drop by and amend your status in the table accordingly. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EyeSerene&oldid=513768107"