User talk:EyeSerene

Home

Talk

E-mail

Watchlist

Contribs

Sandbox

Essays

Userboxes

Notices

Scripts

Awards

Menu

Archivebox

Quicklinks

messages

Talk archives
	Sep 06–Jul 07		Jul 07–Sep 07		Sep 07–Nov 07
	Nov 07–Mar 08		Mar 08–Apr 08		Apr 08–Jul 08
	Jul 08–Aug 08		Aug 08–Oct 08		Oct 08–Dec 08
	Dec 08–Feb 09		Feb 09–Mar 09		Mar 09–May 09
	May 09–July 09		July 09–Aug 09		Aug 09–Sept 09
	Sept 09–Nov 09		Nov 09–Dec 09		Dec 09–Feb 10
	Feb 10–Mar 10		Mar 10–May 10		May 10–June 10
	June 10–Aug 10		Aug 10–Nov 10		Nov 10–Apr 11
	Apr 11–Oct 11		Oct 11–May 15		May 15–

Click here to leave me a new message, or use the various edit tabs on the page. Don't forget to sign your message by including four tildes (~~~~) at the end - I like to know who I'm talking to ;)

Current Military history WikiProject discussions

No major discussions are open at the moment

Hello

Hi EyeSerene,

The move went well thanks. It's a lovely house, and we wasted no time in getting the highest shelves we could find so that we could have a whole wall dedicated to archaeology, history, military history and travel books! Opposite that is the CD collection, it feels great to have a proper stereo set up after living in apartments for so long.

Sorry for such a long hiatus, I do intend to be a bit more active now. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This ain't war

Well you have a very good user page i admire it. Now i would like to discuss some points you may found noticeable after which you can block me which i know that i would be in a matter of few weeks.

• Indian sources provided in the article (The battle At Lahore front) would definitely support their point of view as this is a natural feeling and there is nothing wrong about it. But in doing so others sentiment should also be taken into consideration. Am i right?
• There are couple of references which point out Pakistani victory at Lahore front, I am giving them one by one:

1. Seventeen September days, Aziz Beg, Babur and Amer Publications, 1966 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized 9 Jan 2006 (Remained a leading defense writer of his country)

2. Battle for Pakistan, John Fricker, I. Allan, 1979 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized 29 Aug 2008 ISBN 0711009295, 9780711009295 (Foreign writer, used the word decisive for Pakistani victory on Lahore front pg. 176)

3. Pakistan meets Indian Challenge, Brig, Gulzar Ahmed, Al Mukhtar Publishers, 1967 Original from the University of Michigan (Participated in 1965 war and recorded his views)

4. The Pakistan Army, 1965 war, Maj. Gen Shuakat Riza, Service book club, 1984 ( Was Sub co of 6th Armoured division and noted Pakistani victory at lahore with reasons)

5. A history of the Pakistan army: wars and insurrections, Brian Cloughley, Oxford University Press, 2006 ( Noted the above mentioned features)

Now if i add them and then these are removed then same legal actions should be taken against one who revert them with lame excuses. Well the demand of justice is this. I don't want to win or lose something but trying to produce some literary work and manipulating others words is a mere travesty. Thank you and sorry for taking too much time. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Everard

Dear EyeSerene, I have added a change or two to the Barbara Everard page as we have moved on a bit since we last edited it. I would like to know how I can add images to the page. I couldn't see a way of doing this so if you can help, I would be most grateful.

I appreciate that you are busy so no hurry.

I am beginning to develop other media outlets for the subject matter such as Facebok and Flickr. Is it possible to include these as links or references on Wiki?

Kind regards

Martin Everard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everardmr01 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Coram

The temporary protection is probably not necessary. -Cntras (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

From the amount of recent vandalism I thought it was, but I've dropped it to semi for the remainder of the duration. EyeSerene^talk 13:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

tb

Hello, EyeSerene. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WT:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Ambassadorship

Interested in your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while. Keeping well?

Greetings Eye, just saw your amendments to the Falaise page. I chipped in the removal of 'effectively' since it did or it didn't.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for the correction. I tend to get verbose if not carefully supervised though on this occasion I was really just tidying up someone else's edit - I'm not sure who added that lot but it seemed OK. Incidentally, if you have the time and inclination and know anything about-or have any sources relevant to-Hill 262, your input there would be appreciated. I'm getting back into things after a long enforced break and that article is top of my list. There's some confusion entirely of my own making (see the talk page). Best, EyeSerene^talk 12:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I assumed it was from someone else's edit and you'd missed it.;O) Did the Pope turn you the right way up again....Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that a colloquialism? I don't follow :( EyeSerene^talk 07:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's from Monty Python's Life of Brian, if you'd upset the Pope it might explain your absence.Keith-264 (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look in the sources to hand, OH, Wilmot and McKee but they only mention the Poles in passing. If I've got anything in detail it'll be a while before I can check elsewhere.Keith-264 (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I must have watched that film a dozen times and honestly don't recall the reference :P Re the article, anything you can do will be most welcome :) There's no rush anyway, all my books are boxed up at the moment for a house move that never happened so it may be some time before I get round to unboxing everything again. EyeSerene^talk 16:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Spat in the face? I've been 'ere three years, they only turned me the right way up last week." I had a ferret round but nothing in detail from the other books I found. The Black Devils' March - A Doomed Odyssey - The 1st Polish Armoured Division 1939-45 by Evan McGilvray is on Amazon if you're flush.Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh aye, the gaoler's pet :) I have/had a copy of McGilvray. It's the best source I've come across for that engagement but unfortunately my copy's not accessible at the moment - I have a nasty feeling I may have misplaced it. I think probably I'll have to see if my local library can get that and the Bercuson & Jarymowycz books. EyeSerene^talk 08:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Goldblooded. I'm one of the coordination team for the Military History Wikiproject and also an administrator on Wikipedia, and the reason I'm leaving this note is that another editor has expressed some concerns that you seem to be getting into a bit of difficulty with some of Wikipedia's editing policies and community processes.

It's great to see that you're enthusiastic about making our articles as good as they can be, and being passionate about the things that interest you is definitely a strength, but that passion can also make it difficult to take a step back and detach personal feelings from content contributions. It's something that most of us have had to learn, unfortunately sometimes the hard way :) Looking at your recent contributions I hope I can offer some friendly advice in the following areas:

1. Wikipedia expects all editors to interact in a collegiate and collaborative manner (the policy is at the shortcut WP:CIVIL). Your edit summaries here and here and your comments here and here are more confrontational than collaborative; you seem to be taking criticism personally rather than using it to improve your editing. While it's understandable that you may feel frustrated when you do things that other editors object to, that's all just part of the learning process. It's no big deal. I sometimes think that there should be a banner at the top of every edit window that says "It's nothing personal", because it really isn't. You're still fairly new here and no-one expects you to know all the rules, but it's things like that first diff above that start the alarm bells ringing. Most long-term editors are friendly and helpful and will go a long way to help out new editors, but when they see their advice being dismissed like that it indicates someone who perhaps believes they know best and don't need to listen. Eventually of course such editors get frustrated and disruptive and someone like me has to take away their editing privileges.
2. Editors don't nominate articles at "Articles for deletion" because they want to see them deleted. It's more a way of testing the notability of the article subject through community discussion. Every article on Wikipedia rides on notability, and that in turn depends only on good coverage for the article subject in reliable sources. If an editor has nominated an article, it's because the article doesn't do a convincing enough job of proving that its subject is notable. There are two reasons for this: either the sources to prove notability don't exist, in which case the article shouldn't be here, or the sources do exist but aren't used in the article, in which case it just needs a bit more work. This is why MisterBee has worked on your article as well as nominating it for deletion - he would rather see it remain here, but to do so it must meet our site policies on sourcing and notability. It may seem a strange way of working but it does work.

Well, that's about my lot. I hope this helps because we'd much rather see keen, enthusiastic editors like you develop into the sort of exemplary content contributors and community leaders we'll need to take Wikipedia's legacy into the future. To get back on the right road though you really do need to take the advice of other editors, read our site policies, and not let your emotions get the better of you. Best, EyeSerene^talk 12:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

ResponseNow what have i done? Who reported me? Ive been spat on by a whole multiude of people on here so ive decided being nice you get walked all over , Im perfectly aware about the articles , although ive made some new articles before without chance to properly edit them and before i know it ,their deleted. Ive had to fight my patch to teeth to keep that blasted article since everybody wants to delete it. History is an absolute passion for me its praticially what i live for and i dont want other people saying otherwise. Thank you. Goldblooded (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Another thing , A lot of the people on here who have been on here for a while seem to think that that makes them to superior to anyone else and it doesnt and im sick of being pushed around and treated as some kind of pushover and im not ive been called several things on here including a "snivelling little child" "stupid" and ive even been reported to staff before for suposdely harassing someone yet he posted a question on my wall and i answered it and he kept deleting what i said and when i put it back he filed me for "continual harrassment" talk about pathetic. Goldblooded (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You weren't "reported" in any bad sense, but as I said in my previous post another editor has raised a concern that you might be getting into difficulties (the thread is on the milhist coordinators' talk page here). The Military history project is like a family in many ways and we try to look after our editors, which includes offering advice (even difficult advice) when necessary.

Your response above comes across as very frustrated and I appreciate to some extent why you feel that way, though I do think that you've not helped yourself sometimes. Other editors have no excuses for incivility to you, but their rudeness doesn't mean you get to be rude back :) If admins do have to step in to resolve editor conduct issues, if everyone is at fault everyone gets sanctioned. As I said, eventually the more difficult editors go elsewhere or get removed because they can't work within our policies and guidelines. You have to remember that you're dealing with people of all ages and backgrounds including many who are professional historians, writers and academics (I know of at least three or four university professors and a similar number of published writers and historians among our editors). Sometimes you'll even come across the authors of the history books you read and use as sources. We also have large numbers of editors whose first language isn't English, so you have to make allowances. They are all subject to the same rules as you though regarding citations, content and the like. Having problems with one or two editors is normal - we all get into editing disputes from time to time, but we expect them to be resolved with goodwill, compromise and by following our dispute resolution rules. Having problems with loads of other experienced editors though is an indication that the real problem might not be with them...

The best advice is to comment on the edits rather than the editors in your own posts, ignore personal stuff in others' posts and just try to sift out the useful advice, and to remember that everyone here is only doing what they think is best for the articles themselves and the encyclopedia. It's hard to see your work deleted I know. One helpful tip is to set yourself up a sandbox in your userspace (see Template:My sandbox) and develop your articles there, then move them to mainspace when you think they're ready. This will prevent those annoying early deletion notices appearing while you're still working on the content. Of course the article will still need to have enough reliably-sourced content to qualify as a stand-alone article, but it should be of some help at least. You're also welcome to ask any of the milhist coordinators for advice (or just post questions on the project talk page). EyeSerene^talk 14:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Response Fair enough. Im perfectly aware that they are people on here who are older than me , It doesnt mean im naive. And Ironically i get one better with people older than myself as to oppose people my age. And people have posted on my wall now and judging by what it said in that article you showed me i have been "personally attacked" by other members and they have escapd without consequence. But thank for your advice and im sorry if i came up too brash. Goldblooded (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries :) I wasn't suggesting that you are naive, more really that you'll meet all sorts and that some people just seem to be incapable of being civil, though other editors should treat you just as politely and respectfully as they expect you to treat them. If another editor did call you a "snivelling little child" that is indeed a personal attack and against Wikipedia editor conduct policy. I tend to just ignore personal attacks rather than let them bother me (water off a duck's back!), but if it happens again there are a number of noticeboards where you can ask for help with that sort of thing, though any investigation examines the conduct and actions of everyone involved so you need to make sure you aren't at fault too. These are:

• Wikiquette alerts for reporting impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors (like personal attacks).
• Dispute resolution noticeboard for content and conduct disputes (this board is new and on trial for a month, but it may eventually replace the Wikiquette alerts).
• Edit-warring and 3RR noticeboard for active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule.
• Administrators' notice board (incidents) for more complicated situations that require administrator attention (these tend to be conduct issues rather than content ones though, as admins have no power to decide article content).
• Vandalism reports for ongoing, blatant vandalism (see the link for what is, and what isn't, counted as vandalism).

Hope this helps. EyeSerene^talk 16:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Message

You probably didn’t get the email I sent you so I’m going to tell you something along the lines of what was sent , but You know what I’m not even going to say anything much since you’ll just use that as an excuse to ban me or do something as equally as depressing, The guy who blocked me said I was "Blatantly harassing and disrupting" and gave 2 links to the same page where I reverted someone’s edit, rather nobly; since he reverted my edit on another page which was unjust and I wanted him to answer my question since he didn’t have any proof about agreeing with the other guy.

What annoyed me is that I didn’t get any warning whatsoever from your little buddy (the guy who banned me) he just went straight ahead and blocked me ; which is crucial at a time when I am trying to edit and protect my first article and I also had another article that I wanted to create but I couldn’t since I was banned.

And almost unbelievably you blocked my from my OWN talk page , Even when Dapi was banned he could still use his talk page to insult me and he crossed my edit out and when I reverted it back to normal everyone leapt on me like a ton of bricks , Funny how no one sticks up for me, they never do.

Here is what he said to me, and I think it applies to you as well;

Until you've stopped behaving like the sniveling little child you are, and can get your articles to stick on Wikipedia, much less secure anyone’s respect, I have little to say to you. Other than perhaps; that is a sure fine way to make enemies. You might want to grow up, and come back in two or three years depending on how long it takes you to mature.

And before you use as another pathetic excuse to ban me and stop me from contributing from Wikipedia because deep down I know you want to. I didn’t say that another user did when I told him why he was banned and backing up what an admin said to him.

And when I tried to go onto the live chat on Wikipedia to get unblocked I waited ages for a reply and all I got was some guy saying “click the fucking link” and all It did was telling me how to appeal a block via my talk page , but Oh wait you blocked me from it.

And what annoys me as that I said thank you for your advice and apologized if I was too aggressive and then you came and put that smeary remark on my page and blocked me from replying, talk about insult to injury! So you know what? I’m not taking any of your advice again, Forget it. And don’t contact me either and I’m deleting what you put on my page since that’s a closed chapter and if you really want to shatter my hopes and delete the article Siegfried Marseille, Then go ahead I couldn’t care less. But yeah, Nice one if your trying to encourage new users to edit and use Wikipedia.

Long story short ill respect you if you respect me but I’m never trusting you again. Goldblooded (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of getting angry, perhaps you should listen to the people trying to help you rather than edit-warring/removing other's comments on an AfD? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wellington ACR

Thank you for your comment adding what you see as the outstanding issues, I've responded on the ACR page to those. I had read the posting on the COORD talk page and I knew that that was the reasoning behind your post but I still felt that it wouldn't be fair on MarcusBritish to rekindle that issue on a new review. I saw the new review as a "restart" rather than a new nomination. If it wasn't clear to me what was resolved and what wasn't, then I don't see how a new editor such as MarcusBritish would be able to see it.

I didn't want the new review to be derailed by dragging up the tête-à-tête on the last review. I have to say that I think I read the exchange a bit differently to yourself. I didn't see as rude or indeed uncivil, but it was certainly frank and perhaps not in the collegial spirit of Wikipedia and particularly the MILHIST project. I had a discussion after that exchange and I think he realises he can come across as a bit frank and I think he has learned from the experience. Different people interpret discussions in different ways, I think a lot of wires have been unneccessarily crossed throughout the last review. I have every faith that this review can escape any issues and concentrate on what we all want: to improve the article. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Woody :) Just to be clear, I listed on the review page what I saw as the outstanding issues based on the previous review, not on any review of my own. I'm not saying they definitively are outstanding issues in my opinion (though some do appear to be), just that they're what I'd have looked at if I'd closed the previous review. I hope that makes sense!

I'm not particularly encouraged by MarcusBritish's response to my post on the review page, but I've left them a follow up note. Hopefully they'll take what I've posted in the spirit that it's meant. EyeSerene^talk 09:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just been catching up, all getting a bit needlessly messy. I will see what I can do. I understand you were just offering a second opinion, as I'd asked you to do and thank you for that. Thinking about it a bit deeper, I think it all boils down to the fact that I don't think it should have been closed. The only outstanding issues were a couple of "citation needed." Given the strength of referencing elsewhere it would most likely have been a case of copying a ref and being done with it. Thanks again for looking in, we'll see how it develops. Woody (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you may be right but what's done is done. To take the 4th para of Generalship objection (missing cite), the thought occurs that as that sentence appears to be a not-unreasonable editorial conclusion drawn from the table itself rather than directly from a source, I wonder if an explanatory footnote might fit the bill? It really ought to have something there. EyeSerene^talk 09:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk now. Hopefully it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered and the review can move forward. A couple more fresh reviews and I think it will regain momentum. He can be a fantastic contributor if he learns the ropes round here and "how things work". Woody (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Greets. Thanks for your post, and taking time to explain further. I'm afraid your comments on the ACR page did seem rather in favour of AR's review and as I'm not one who likes to brood on old arguments, ie I tend to move on fast, you seemed to be digging up old news which does not interest me. Whilst I understand there are policies, as Woody says above, it is easy for online textual discussion to be misread, interpreted wrongly or minsconstrued. I can be very wordy in my responses, but also very frank. Frankness is not uncivil, it is character. Some people are super-polite to the point of making you puke, some are very brusk and to the point. I am in the middle, a little towards the brusk but by not means am I hostile or uncivil. Nor do I "wikilawyer". I am very quick to defend my integrity, in all things. I consider myself honest, and reasonably open, but quickly become an obnoxious prick when my motives or demeanour is questioned. No one has the right to judge anyone by what they read, actions speak louder than words. All I particularly care about is creating a few articles to get myself warmed up to using wiki. I'm not particularly social, nor am I here to win favours, seek friends or worry about what people think of me. Many people read good history books and don't pay attention to who the author is. I treat wiki much the same. Who reads articles and then takes time to check who the authors are? Not too many, beyond dedicated editors and reviewers, coords and admins, I expect. Such is life. Don't worry about me, or my personality flaws - which we all have - I'm a happy-go-lucky loner who is happy to get on with things as long as people don't impose on me. Simple as that. AR was imposing, no matter how you look at it, by the way. I offer no apologies for my response to him - I slowly ramped my replies from questioning his concerns to full debate and he still wouldn't give, nor listen to reason. I found that rude.

As far as the "4th paragraph" goes - yes it is self-referring to the table. As I tried to explain to AR, which was like pulling teeth. If I put a photo of Martin Luther King on an article and wrote "Martin Luther King was a black man" in the article, would I still be expected to cite that? There's something to be said for common sense and not going over-board with citations when the evidence is there. Especially as my article contains a table with ~100 citations, that all remotely support that 4th para. However, at present that paragraph is under dispute with someone I asked for an ACR before the last one was closed. He has given some great feedback, and I am looking to get his views on working that paragraph into a better summary of Wellington and the the British Army's actions through those 6 years. Chances are it will be removed or rewritten very soon - so point in you adding anything to it.

Thanks. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad we seem to be approaching an understanding. It's a shame when reviews become confrontational; as Woody says they should ideally be a collaborative rather than an adversarial process because in the end all we really want is the best possible article (though of course people will differ on how to get there!) I totally agree that communication through a text-only medium can be easily misinterpreted, which is why I think it's all the more important to take a cautious approach. I think it is usually possible to be straight with someone without upsetting them - as Woody has pointed out this is best achieved by commenting on content rather than the person creating that content. Related to that, you shouldn't be made to feel that your motives or demeanour is being questioned either. As long as you can appreciate that what you see as frankness and forthrightness, others may find unduly personal and offensive, and tailor your comments accordingly, I think all will be fine. This will be especially important if you eventually take the article to featured review - which I hope you do as I think it stands a good chance of passing - because the chances are you'll encounter reviewers there that make milhist ACR look like a stroll in the park. Whatever you decide though you've already proved yourself to be a very fine content editor :)

I'll not edit that 4th para/sentence per your request, but hypothetically if you weren't making changes I'd probably suggest something on the lines of a footnote saying Wellington arrived in the Iberian Peninsular in August 1808^{Appropriate cite} and the last battle on Spanish soil took place in April 1814.^{Appropriate cite} This would supply the verification in one place for anyone that wanted to do the maths themselves, though I agree that it's in the table anyway. EyeSerene^talk 11:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have any misunderstanding - I simply believe the way class-reviews are handled is sometimes inappropriate, in the way they are issued by reviewers. I, personally, will not follow the trend currently set by MILHIST reviewers, which may result in my having to balance and ignore some future reviews of my articles if I find them inappropriate. I find it ignorant of any reviewer to demand that changes are made before they will give support. That is literally like holding a gun to someone's head. It's fair enough pointing out genuine errors, such as typos, incorrect dates, factual errors, MOS policies - it's also fair enough pointing out where an article fails to meet QR guidelines, and why. Anything beyond that should be suggestive, advisory, or critical. e.g. "I think section X needs an image/map to support it", not "if you don't add an image I oppose ACR" - personally I think that's probably got to be WikiProjects biggest weakness - over-bearing demands from over-bearing reviewers who want to see things done their way and who show no regard for the authors efforts. And then they have the cheek slap a link on their own Userpage with "I helped promote X article" because they forced the authors hand, but had no real major input - glory seekers, I think I call those type people. With the MILHIST project, there are so few reviewers, that you're perhaps lucky to even get 3 reviews per article, which makes any demands even more disagreeable. I think I'll consider pointing these issues out on the Strategy page discussion, but it may get up a few noses and rile a few nerves amongst the "elite" veterans. ;) Either way, I intend my reviews to be more like Peer Reviews - more suggestive, less demanding, and then I'll balance up what changes the author has CHOSEN to apply, before offering my support, or a final opinion on outstanding issues - if an author is putting in their own genuine effort, listing expectations is an unfair review - reviews should leave room for editors to pursue their own initiative - "I feel that X section is not detailed enough" and then wait and see how the author expands/strengthens it. Strength to strength reviews, rather than "ransom demand" reviews - that's the only way I see WikiProjects going forwards and securing editors rather than losing them over time because of demeaning review formats which lead to those confrontations you speak of. I'm sure you've lost many a fine editor who just got a little p-ssed off with someone for handling their review in a way that seemed unfair, and they couldn't be bothered any more. Woody speaks of a dearth in reviewers. But I also notice that many article submissions are the same people. A dearth in contributors, too? There has to be a reason why this happens - trends do happen for a reason. And if the trend is negative, the only solution is to find the source and eliminate it, not to 'pray' and hope more people will come along in time - because it just causes a vicious circle. 1 gone. 1 new. 1 gone. 1 new. etc. I'm new. I notice someone is semi-retiring. People find other things to do when they get bored of the same old routine. Can it continue like this, and still expect Wiki to grow?

Moving on, I hope to avoid a footnote, and create a better summary of his 6 years before leading into the table section. The lad doing a review is French (I think), and I specifically asked a review from him because I wanted someone non-British in the Napoleonic Task Force who might identify POV comments or things that put the French in bad light. Who better than a Frenchman to do this, and I am very pleased with most of the feedback he gave and has helped me strengthen the article text.

Once I complete Napoleon's Battle Record (work in progress) with A-class rating, I had hoped to raise them both to FLA - but my experience with the review system does not give me much encouragement. Again, because I feel the review-system is a form of poor administration in its design - even the help pages warn of the standards people might employ - rather than looking for a reformed system less prone to adversarial reactions, and loss of wiki members. The FL review system reads to me like its own worst enemy. So 'God' help newcomers attempting it first time round.

Well, long read.. I'll shut up now. :)

PS: The last battle in April 1814 took place on French soil, at Toulouse, not Spain. :)

Ma®©usBritish (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean Toulouse isn't in Spain? That's what I get for trying to do too much at once - just as well I didn't edit the article really :) You're right that difficult reviews put people off submitting articles, though your previous review was thankfully a rare event at milhist ACR. For myself I've never taken an article through FAC (although I've helped others out with their articles and would do again if asked) because I have some doubts about whether the payoff is worth the aggravation. A quality article is a quality article regardless. I do believe that AR was only trying to prepare you for the sort of demands that do get made at FLC/FAC, but I don't mean to put you off and in general the more rigorous the milhist ACR the smoother the featured review. In any case your thoughts would be most welcome on the strategy page or anywhere if you have ideas for improving the way we do things.

Regarding the article, I was interested to see you included the "scum of the Earth" quote. This is not a criticism of your text, or for that matter part of the review, but I think it takes his sentiment slightly out of context to leave off the rest of the quote:

The conscription calls out a share of every class [but our men] are the very scum of the earth. People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling—all stuff—no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children—some for minor offences—many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are.

I read this as not only a backhanded compliment but a bit of a boast - who else but Nosey could have turned men who'd abandon their families to the dubious charity of the parish for a few pence and a drink into the men who humbled Napoleon's veterans? :) Wellington was an interesting character. EyeSerene^talk 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I've only just had the pleasure of reading Richard Holmes "Iron Duke" by doing this article - I had not expected it to be as hard to do as it has been. You'd expect to be able to knock up a list of battles in a few hours - but this has been going for weeks. Getting a little weary and bored of it now, to be honest, and wanting to move to a new project asap - probably Napoleons record which is already listed, but needs text, images, and citations to complete. As you can see here, in its early stages it is a LOT more involved - Boney was quite the warmonger: MarcusBritish/Sandbox

With regards the "scum of the earth" quote, I was being a bit sneaky when I wrote it in. I originally typed it without the quote, if I recall, and seeing that it went straight from saying Wellington's troops were mere volunteers, straight into suggesting they could kick the French's arse any day without experience, I decided to sandwich that little unflattering quote in between to create an artificial sense of NPOV. In reality the quote doesn't add or detract to POV, but does drop the tone a little from feeling too pro-British between those two sentences. I didn't include the full quote, as it didn't seem appropriate there, though when read in an article/book more about Wellington himself and his personality, it is a wonderful comment of his.

Wellington and his wife were fairly charitable, at heart, it's just a shame he was a twit when he became a typical Tory PM with snobby view about class and lack of reform. I attribute that to being a wider spread sentiment then than now though, and he spoke for a larger upper class population than we have now, so called gentlemen with their dashing titles, and such. He was also a bit dotty in his old age, but a good man never the less.

Ma®©usBritish (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Very true (and I agree with your not including the entire quote in that article; it's not really the place). I found Elizabeth Longford's first book to be one of the most enjoyable of those I've read about him, partly I suppose because she had an inside line of a sort. He always seemed to be something of a snob - he certainly preferred young men with titles to those without for his inner circle. I'll be interested to see what you do with Napoleon :) EyeSerene^talk 07:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a copy of "Years of the Sword" a couple of weeks back - 1p from Amazon, bargain! - haven't read it yet, just a flick. Twice as thick as Holmes excellent book - I feel kind of guilty, as I used to consider Holmes a bit dull, but since he died recently and I needed to use his book for serious referencing I take back my words and feel he is a great loss - his style is very enjoyable once you get used to his more "storyteller" approach, not common with too many serious prolific historians. Napoleon's going to be a tough one to nominate, I haven't got a battle plan yet, for shooting down those "nasty reviewers" when I submit it. ;) Ma®©usBritish (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the Holmes book, though on your recommendation maybe I'll try to get hold of it :) EyeSerene^talk 07:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, do - if you like him, you might find it interesting - a bit more concise than Longford, I expect, but no less rewarding to read.

While I'm here, can I check something with you? I started this article not so long ago: List of books about the Napoleonic Wars. I want to tag it to being WP:MILHIST related. Even though I created the article, do you suppose there would be any problem with me rating it as Start-class, given that the project excludes the List-class rating—something I find a bit pointless given the large number of lists—but I don't know if there are any policies/guidelines that don't allow anyone to rate articles they started, lower than A-class. The Assessment table says "May be assigned by any reviewer" for Stub to B, but does that include ones own creations? Thanks, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing I know of that says you can't assess your own work at that level. However, I'll check further - I'm not sure if it's ever really come up before. EyeSerene^talk 10:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't trouble yourself - I'll just do it - if anyone has any concerns over it, I'll worry about it at the time. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems I already did it back on 1 July, and it totally slipped my mind... that's old age creeping up... ;) Ma®©usBritish (talk)

Heh, already done :) See this thread. EyeSerene^talk 10:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right - okay, that all seems fair enough, I agree with you that it's probably best to get a second view for B-class to prevent bias, and that the higher classes remain procedural with multi-support anyway to avoid favouritism between editors. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Butting in again, actually convention is to have outside assessment for Milhist B-Class, but you can self-assess for Start and C-Class. Admittedly this may not be expressed explicitly in policy but it should be... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Eye has since updated the MILHIST Assessment FAQ's to indicate this, in response to my query not being raised before. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please can you explain to me the distinction between A-class and GA ratings. On the Assessment table, GA seems to come between A- and B-class, and seems to have no criteria levels (A1, A2, &c). There are 2 descriptions of GA that state "Good articles is a list of articles that meet a core set of editorial standards but are not featured article quality" and "Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach, featured article quality". Both to me sum up as "nearly FA, but not quite" - which you expect to be placed higher than A-class on a table. I don't see MILHIST handling GA reviews either - just B/A/FA levels. Could you explain to me what I'm missing.. I don't seem to quite grasp the need for GAs if A is better. Can an article be both GA and A, or is it one of the other, and which is better (i.e. when is it appropriate to nominate an article for GAR, when it's already B or an A, or because it 'just' fails to hit the mark on FARs)? Are GAs nominated within the scope of a Project or to an independent nomination and impartial reviewers looking to promote GAs all across wiki, which it looks like to me? Thanks, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Eye, hope you don't mind me butting in but I had a break from my currently intense RL schedule and welcome the chance to contribute here... Marcus, GA is a Wikipedia-wide assessment, similar to FA. A-Class is a Wikiproject-specific assessment. Not all Wikiprojects have A-Class, but MilHist does. Because of that, you could say there are two parallel but staggered streams of assessment, the Wikipedia-wide one (GA and FA) and the Wikiproject one (Start, C-Class, B-Class and A-Class). Yes, pretty well every Wikiproject has Start/C/B but they are generally assessed on a Wikiproject basis, rather than on a Wikipedia-wide basis. In terms of how these two assessment streams 'rate' against each other, it may look confusing but we have come to a consensus on it, and it's neatly reflected in the MilHist Monthly Contest scoring system, the order going Start, B, GA, A, FA. We see our B-Class assessement as being pretty tough, with almost no difference between it and GA except that GA articles will often have a higher standard of style and prose. Similarly we see our A-Class as only a little short of FA standard with, again, style and prose, plus image licensing, generally playing a bigger part in FA. Some articles, due to lack of really comprehensive information on the subject, are really only appropriate to go as far as GA. Now to some of your specific questions... For MilHist members, A-Class 'trumps' GA, but you can have an article at A-Class in MilHist and GA in others. Because GA is Wikipedia-wide, if you nominate for GA and it's passed, all project assessments for the article are raised to GA. If you pass a MilHist A-Class Review (ACR), you only get the MilHist assessment (plus some companion projects that accept our ACR process, like Ships and Aviation) raised to A. So some of us consider GA and ACR both worthwhile assessments to have on the same article (even when the ultimate destination of that article is FAC). Re. "Are GAs nominated within the scope of a Project or to an independent nomination", you'd have gathered by now that the latter is true, though in practice most GAs nominated by MilHist members are reviewed by other MilHist members, if only due to mutual interest in the subject matter. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, that all seems much more clear to me now you've summed it up. Much appreciated, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That's okay. A couple more things while I'm at it and have a spare minute... Just if you're interested, going for GA even if the article is A-Class worthy is necessary you want to qualify for something like the Four Award, which requires you to create an article and then successfully take it though DYK, GA review and FAC. Also there's no rule against simultaneously running for GA and ACR, though in practice most people do GA first, and then ACR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, though at the moment I have zero-knowledge about DYK's - wouldn't know how to find one on wiki, let alone write or nominate one. Not sure if concise DYK-style snippets of info are my kind of thing, though. Might look into them one day, if they spark my interest. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance Ian (I'm often inactive over the weekend). To the above the only thing I'd add is that taking an article through GA can be a worthwhile exercise from the point of view of getting a non-milhist pair of eyes on it and thus a layman's perspective (it can pick up weaknesses in jargon, context etc that subject experts don't even notice). As Ian says though, in practice it may still end up being reviewed by a milhist member. The reason GA was created was to encourage the development of "minimum standard" encyclopedic articles by setting targets that can be realistically achieved without extreme effort by most editors. It can also be an end point in itself for shorter articles that won't ever achieve FA. EyeSerene^talk 15:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am considering nominating anything I get to A-class for GA, in preference of FA/FL. I don't think I fancy the ordeal of FARs. From the outset, I don't think they encourage a particularly friendly environment in which to operate due to wikis rather poor method of allowing demands for support, rather than a constructive criticism. I currently see FAR as a system open to abuse; ulterior motives, POV pushing, and "ransom demands" by well played hands or subjective reviewers. I don't find the review system very attractive, per se, to be honest - I'm finding I am encountering too many reviewers who want too many extras "slipped into" articles based on their own historical POV, and I am having to contend their demands and question their actions - reviews should be critical of existing content, and not make demands that creators introduce entirely new sections that amount to extra work that goes against their own beliefs. Needless to it is off putting, and really needs work - a site like wiki that claims to be democratic should not have such an adversarial process of article promotion - the method should be similar to a tutor aiding a student in getting a high grade - they give advice and recommendations - they don't tell the student what to put under the implication that if they don't they won't get a good grade, as is often the case here. Given that GAs can lead to "external" i.e. non-Milhist reviewers, giving more unbiased comments based on the article rather than content, I feel it will present a more comfortable, less demanding, opportunity to actually get things done, with less red-tape and narcissistic people seeking to impress their own tone onto articles that don't meet their personal standard, under the false credence that they "only wish to make the article better". Thanks for the additional info - it could help me make this decision easier. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, another small oddity that I can't find info on in the Help pages, if I may rack your brains? In the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington article, down in the Categories list when editing, a number of the categories appear something like this: [[Category:Dukes of Wellington|101]]. I am having trouble figuring out what purpose the "101" sortkey serves. Can you please advise me - I don't want to edit anything I don't know about. Thanks again, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone - no idea who - has set up that sort key to force the various Dukes of Wellington to be listed in chronological rather than alphabetical order in the category listing at Category:Dukes of Wellington. If you look at Arthur Wellesley, 2nd Duke of Wellington in the edit window this has [[Category:Dukes of Wellington|102]], and Henry Wellesley, 6th Duke of Wellington has [[Category:Dukes of Wellington|106]] etc. Obviously the same goes for the other categories. I'm not sure why "101" would be preferable to "01", "1" or even a more intuitive "1st", but I assume whoever did it had their reasons. EyeSerene^talk 09:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Makes sense now, thanks. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 09:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No probs :) Re GA, list-class articles aren't normally reviewed at GA. However you might find that a detailed list like your Battles article, with a good amount of background content, would be acceptable. The best thing might be to ask at WT:GAN before nominating. In general you're more likely (though of course not guaranteed) to get a collaborative, friendly review at GA, but my view is not totally unbiased :) I was heavily involved with GA before being coopted as a milhist coordinator, since when I've lacked the time to do much outside milhist. If you go through milhist A-class before GA you'll probably find the GA review almost a formality, though it depends on the reviewer you get. The two most useful links to get the lowdown on the GA process are probably WP:WIAGA and WP:GACN (maybe we could do with something like the latter for out A-Class process if there's a perception that over-assessing is an issue?)

Re FA, as I said it's not my intention to put you off. Most reviewers are helpful and constructive though there are some that can be difficult with, for example, nitpicks over the Manual of Style and the like. The MoS is only a guideline... unless you want to pass FA review :) However, similar to milhist A-Class the closure and final decision is made by the FA delegates, and Sandy and Karanacs are pretty good at appropriately weighting review comments against the FA criteria. Articles with oppose comments still get promoted if the delegates feel the opposition is unreasonable, not actionable of whatever. In my view it's probably worth you trying FAC at least once before making a decision on whether or not to use the process again. However, I would be unhappy to see a good content editor put off contributing to Wikipedia by a difficult review, so I'm sure you'll make the right decision :) EyeSerene^talk 10:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look through those GA pages you linked and see what I think. There are currently 3 support votes for the Wellington battle record article, so once a coordinator takes a look at those (there have been some recommendations that I turned down, with good reason), I shall see what my next move for the article might be. I am awaiting feedback from Editor Review, also, based on my first 6 months here.. to help me decide what my options are, from an outside view. I'm not dedicated to any one particular project at the moment, it just happens that my main interest is history, but by no means do I want to limit myself to it, unless I feel it is my only strength. I might even consider a little time as a GA reviewer myself, given that I prefer unbiased feedback, and that GA covers all ground free of individual Project targets. I quite like the MoS, as it is, mostly, quite logical in its approach to handling content on this scale. I welcome your opinion. Thanks for the info! Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 10:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: "maybe we could do with something like the latter for out A-Class process if there's a perception that over-assessing is an issue?" - that sounds like a good idea, I think as Wiki grows, so should Project policies to handle the material, and contributors better. In essence, maturity of the project. Draft policies, followed by member input could lead to an improvement in the way things are handled fairly, and perhaps reduce the adversarial nature of some reviews. I left similar comments in a post on the Milhist Strategy page yesterday, based on lack of List-class ratings, about encouraging newbie contributors rather than making their efforts feel wasted. Regards, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 10:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Q

Question, would "Latin American task force" work just as well? Central and South is a bit convoluted. Just a thought, sorry I'm so late to the party :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem - as it happens, further discussion seems to be taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Strategy#Regions_Task along the same lines. EyeSerene^talk 07:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Saprang Kalayanamitr=GA?

Hello EyeSerene,

I found the biography article about Saprang Kalayanamitr which still has GA status despite being outdated for several years. It seems that you have reviewed the article's status for the last time. That is why I would like to inform you that I have proposed the article for GAR. I fear that it could be difficult to update it, if General Saprang vanished from public life after Thailand returned to civil administration in early 2008. Kind regards -- RJFF (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The last time I looked at the article was in 2007 during the GA sweep of older Good articles. I've had no involvement with the article outside that or since then, but I'm sure whatever you've decided is perfectly correct :) Best, EyeSerene^talk 15:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

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. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened?

On that recent ANI, I revdeled the text from the COI board but the information remained in subsequent history and you removed it from the current version by regular editing, or so it seems. The information still shows in history, after my revdel with no edit that ads it in. Did I choose the wrong options when revdeling?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure to be honest though I've seen similar things happen before. I think it's because the text is not only in that version of the page but in all subsequent versions as well... but that's just my guess :) EyeSerene^talk 12:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd, I thought that was part of the point; I can't imagine that we'd kill each page up until it is gone. I wonder if it you had removed the text before the revdel occurred if it would have taken care of it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

From the table here it seems the entire page needs to be suppressed rather than just a single revision, if I'm reading it correctly. I use revdel vary rarely though so you might well be right. EyeSerene^talk 12:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll see if I can raise an oversighter on IRC tonight when I get home to clarify this.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what they say, if you don't mind letting me know :) Cheers, EyeSerene^talk 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder replied, apparently there are three things that must be done: 1) edit the page to remove the comment, 2) suppress (revdel) all revisions from the addition of the material to the edit just before item 1, 3) notify an oversighter. You did number 1 and I did number 3 which are the most important steps. Number 1 is the most urgent step since the longer it sits a) the more people will see it and b) the more intervening edits there will be that will need to be suppressed; though ultimately number 3 is more important since only an oversighter can really remove it. What I did with a single revdel was apparently practically pointless but you can see that the oversighter has now done step 2 completely and ultimately will have to even if we do it. The instructions both here and at meta do not seem to really cover this; I'm going to look into it further. One point I caught was that we shouldn't use words like "WP:OUTING" (as you did) or "WP:RD4" (as I did) in our edit summaries, though I'm not exactly sure what we should use. Again, I'm going to consult with the oversighters further and I'll let you know what I find.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that'll be useful to know in the future. I agree that the current instructions are lacking. I can see the sense in being circumspect with the edit summaries, but like you I'm not sure what would be best in that case - maybe just "housekeeping" or something? Thanks again, EyeSerene^talk 09:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

>

[1] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance :) EyeSerene^talk 18:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you have a look please

The first edit by this IP is to remove the content that you spoke to User talk:Ifcp1 about. Mo ainm~Talk 22:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello EyeSerene, Mo Ainm, and his friend Eamonnca1 have a clear agenda to get me banned from Wikipedia, i have taken a neutral point of view to the editing of the Linfield Football Club page, and all i ask is that these two users do the same. Ifcp1 (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can i aslo add that they have accused me of editing from 2 different accounts or computers, i would like them to show profff that i have done this, as its a very serious accusation.Ifcp1 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ifcp1 blocked for 48 hours for continuing to edit war and additional restrictions put in place per WP:TROUBLES. EyeSerene^talk 08:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, this editor really needs to loose the battle mentality or I fear their stay here will be a short one. Constantly making accusations on the motives of editors is really not helpful. Mo ainm~Talk 10:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Could this editor User talk:Graemerz be a "sleeper" account hasn't edited in nearly 3 years and then starts removing the same content as Ifcp1? Mo ainm~Talk 08:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've indeffed that account per WP:DUCK and reset + extended Ifcp1's block. It's either socking to evade a block or meatpuppetry - either way, it's not acceptable. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 17:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, EyeSerene. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Eyesenere you never got back to be about this extended ban, ias i said i don't dispute being banned for the 48 hour period, but i dispute the further 12 hour ban which i have seen no proff from you or my accusers that i used alternate accounts, an apology is the least you people could do?Ifcp1 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wellington record

Hi, thanks for closing the ACR. Regarding your rewrite of the Lead - all is good, except you changed the French casualties from 600 to 200 in the bit about the Siege of Burgos. All my sources support 600 - including the one I quoted, Holmes - he states 623 specifically, I simply rounded it to about 600. Not sure if this was a typo on your behalf, or an attempt to correct the number based on something else? It is incorrect as far as I can tell, and should be amended. If you think 200 is correct, it needs a new source to support that figure. Thanks. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 18:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, completely stupid typo on my part. I was trying to think of a way to word the sentence that didn't read as though the British casualties were caused by the French casualties, and I experimented with removing the number altogether and obviously forgot what it had been after I changed my mind. Sorry about that and thanks for fixing it. Congratulations on achieving A-Class... two more and you get a medal :D EyeSerene^talk 19:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that - have corrected it now. Not sure if I'll be rushing for any more ACRs for a while, tbh, not really enjoying the "wiki experience" as much as I hoped. Have reached a severe lull in editing and finding it hard to get going again. Thanks though. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 19:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your replies to my comments

I've left a new comment for you (and Kirill too, if he is interested) over at the self assessment page concerning fiction. I would not ordinarily leave a message here informing you of that, but I edited another section of the self assessment page and I wanted to make sure that you had not watchlisted the page, or your watchlist doesn't list all previous versions, you were made aware of my reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom :) EyeSerene^talk 07:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 5.0 & dictionary

Hi EyeSerene, thanks for your note. I followed your advice and it solved the problem. Thanks very much. Pyrotec (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Reg block

(1) Please, why was action taken against me ex-parte? (Explanation: I am not asking you to justify your block right now, I just want to know why was the block done when I wasn't logged on?) I hope that seven day's time would be adequate for you to reply. Like always I prefer to keep issues bilateral, until I can't help. (2) Please leave a talk back message on my talk page, so that I get an email alert. You see I'm taking a wiki-break. Thanks in advance. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The consensus at ANI was that you were deserving of a block. I looked at the evidence presented, applied my judgement and enacted that consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy and does not operate in the same way as a formal legal system. If you feel you were treated unfairly you can request a review of my actions at WP:ANI of through a WP:RFC/U. EyeSerene^talk 09:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• (1)I am not going to beat around the bush my expected outcome of this discussion is (a)You withdraw the block, by applying say a small duration block (b)you express regret. (2)I could do this formally, I won't as long as (a)My expected outcome is met or (b)You demonstrate and I am convinced that the block was good. Please I hope to sort this out between the two of us, it would save the community a lot of bother and time, so I request you to give this a try.
• I am not going to just discuss why but how, (a)I used the word ex-parte to convey precisely what you have done and not as a legal term wp:NOTLAW doesnot apply (b) Please read this Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective; prior discussion or warnings should generally precede all blocks...[2] (c)When I was blocked I was logged out, my more or less parting words to the editor whom I have have allegedly attacked personally were if you think I am a pain in your neck, I won't let my shadow fall on you, I am wasting your time because you came across as reasonable to me[3], so neither was I on a rampage nor was I sitting on anyone's shoulders and pulling his hair. (I won't let my shadow fall on you means I will stop interacting with you)
• Neither does my editing seem to have been like I was flexing a sledge hammer in a china shop, before I logged out I made major changes to the Shudra page[4], [5], Shudra is the term that was ruffling a lot of feathers, yet the present version have only one difference (barring links), and that is a vandal like removal of cited content[6].
• Take your own time, I'll get back in a week's time. Please add a talk back on my talk page, you see I am taking a wikibreak. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I too have some concerns about Yogesh's block. It seems that some of the users who commented at the ANI were having disputes with Yogesh. Secondly, they seem to demand or threaten community action against anyone who has disputes with them. And for flimsy reasons too.-MangoWong (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, I'm not going to get drawn into this here. If you want to take it further, take it to ANI or open an RFC/U. I won't be responding to any more posts from you on this matter outside an official venue. EyeSerene^talk 16:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene you have pushed my hand and I have to take it up formally, I ain't a hypocrite so I hang on for u as long as it is a reasonable number of days.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene was simply doing his 'job', as it is. I'm sure he doesn't have anything against you personally. If you disagree with the block, please start a thread at ANI; otherwise he has already indicated that he is not going to reply to you. Regards, Allanon ^{[talk] [master]} 21:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For reply pl see hereYogesh Khandke (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi, just wanted your honest opinion, please. Would you say this was a reasonable enough request, and that I approached him fairly enough with regards the matter, without coming across as WP:OWNER? Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 14:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In a word, yes :) I see the issue has resolved itself now though. EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah.. yes - sorry forgot I asked you this - someone actually commented on my first message to him in my Editor Review and said it was good - but he rose his head again and started sock puppeting and edit warring. He's been doing this before.. strange behaviour, no idea why an Aussie would be interested in promoting Wellington's "Irishness", but there ya go. Saw you just dealt with him on the Admin board, thanks muchly!

No problem. As I've just told Richard Harvey it was pure coincidence I happened to see all those threads at the same time. However you did exactly the right thing in first trying to resolve the dispute with George SJ XXI calmly and reasonably, and then getting outside opinions, and finally escalating matters. In addition to correctly following site policy you've managed to retain the moral high ground, which makes things immeasurably easier for admins to deal with (not because we like to see an obvious 'bad guy', but because things like WP:NPA and WP:3RR are bright line rules and it's frustrating to have to disentangle conduct that's poor because an editor is pushing a POV from conduct that's poor because an editor feels provoked; both can look the same from a distance). You've handled this one well :) EyeSerene^talk 09:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I'd really like to see the Wellington article get back to at least A-class.. no reason why Napoleon should be a A/GA and not one of our #1 British heroes. People like "George SJ XXI" hinder that effort though.. although I'm not sure if it's attainable in its present form, it's more of a "trivial" info page, rather than a proper biography, in some respects, and may need a major overhaul to get back to standards. That would mean scrapping a lot of the nonsense, which is likely to be challenged by those who added it. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 10:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly be a major undertaking, though I agree that it's an important article and should be of a decent standard. In my first year or so here I worked with another editor, Carre (talk · contribs), on a lot of Peninsular War articles, but unfortunately he moved on. Battle of Vitoria is another one that needs work but my forte was never sources (my library is broad but not very deep), more copy editing and the like. EyeSerene^talk 10:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've found a lot of battle articles that are just stubs or low-quality articles. Some of the bigger battles like Waterloo and Borodino get the best attention. The Napoleonic era is so big and complex though - so much going on and over a very long time, it's a lot to study. I like the American Civil War, personally, it's nice and short, 1 country, 2 sides, less political, no distinct "good" and "bad" sides (all were good men to me), and some great names/characters. Might have to get back into it, eventually - I imagine a lot of American editors take pride in some of the ACW articles and are very protective of the facts though and keeping things valid. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 10:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	There's no doubt that I'm a pain in the arse sometimes - so thanks for putting up with me and helping get my first article to A and GA standards! Ma®©usBritish [talk] 23:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Marcus! I confess I thought you were heading over the cliff a few times, but it's often as much about how you play the game here as which game you're playing :) I'm glad to see the article's done well and your work with those images at milhist is greatly appreciated. Incidentally, do you do vector graphic (svg) work as well? EyeSerene^talk 12:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. No, I've never used SVG before - not sure how to. I'm more of a Photoshop tinkerer. I like airbrushing and tweaking photos, making small images or wallpapers - I'm no good at art though, so I don't design icons, etc from scratch often. I'm always happy to help MilHist recover photos though - having learned web design, web coding (PHP) and how to use Photoshop, I figured photography would sit in nice, so I've taken to than also and enjoy cleaning up old prints or enhancing poor ones. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 16:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Peer review

Hello! As your are interested in military history,Can you peer review this article.So thata the article is up to the standards of GA criteria.Hope you do[7] Regards Roh^G ??· 05:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

small, tiny little problem

I made a page outside the tree of pages that stem from my userpage, it's called Talk:Penyulap/edit and I read up everything I could trying to find an easy way to delete it without bothering too many people, and best I can do after half hour searching is find someone who might know how to, or be able to, delete it. I figure you may still be online as I thought the history log of ani would be a place to look... I don't know who to ask or how it's done, and my efforts reading aren't helping yet. Penyulap _talk 12:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, still online. Do you want it deleted? EyeSerene^talk 12:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast, yes please, I made it, already copied it, would love to delete it, or if you can please do. Penyulap _talk 12:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that's even faster, it turned red when I pressed save. Thank you very much. Penyulap _talk 12:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

no problem, glad to be of help :) For future reference you can request deletion of any page where you're the only author by tagging it with {{db-g7}} (or by contacting an admin of course!) EyeSerene^talk 12:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll remember that, or copy it to my talkpage somewhere, plus I think I'll have it popped onto those pages that I read first, before I got your help, there must be other people half as goofy as I am, somewhere in the world. Looking at your talkpage and userpage, it looks like I would be an idiot not to invite you, if you have time, to assist me, or comment in any way on anything at all I'm up to. I've been having trouble thinking I should write a book and get it published instead of editing wikipedia's ISS article, trying to bring it up to date. If you do have a moment or two, I invite you. Penyulap _talk 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meital Dohan

Well, I did offer that fixing Meital Dohan was to be my project-of-the-day. Over the last few hours it has gone through massive overhaul for sources beyond the policy-mandated verifiability to most specially provide those you wished offering the WP:SIGCOV that addressed the actress directly and in deatil. I found many and have listed some of them at the AFD discussion. If you compare the version you first nominated [8] to the improved version after I have addressed concerns,[9] you will see why I believe my original reasons for !voting "keep" have been born out through my efforts. The actress is now comfirmed in multiple reliable sources as meeting WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. I hope you might now agree. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do. Thank you for your superb work - I've withdrawn the nom. EyeSerene^talk 06:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It was fun to fix. I almost feel like a detctive ferreting out the clues to find the sources. :) Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

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. BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested in an open discussion

I invite you to participate in a discussion at Talk:Audie Murphy. Thank you, in advance, Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Military History and WP:Espionage Merge?

On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI note, although you probably will not see this until the dust is settled

Mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Veiled_legal_threat_posed_as_a_query.3F. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi EyeSerene, I'm glad to see you're back again. Just so you know, this page has been created while you've been away. I'm sure you're on top of it already, but just thought I'd draw your attention to it (I've been nervously waiting to see if you'd get back in time!). Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Steve, great to hear from you! Thanks for the note. I'm mulling over whether or not to run again - I took on the role of H&S Manager for my employer last summer and the nature of the work so far has been that when we get audits and things coming up (which being a training company is fairly frequently) I have to disappear from WP for weeks at a time. On the plus side, I've pretty much got everything running as I want it now so this coming year should be less intense than the last 12 months. We do seem to be losing quite a few standing coords so I'll probably chuck my hat in the ring again. On that note, I'm sad to see you stepping down, but happy that you'll still be around and very pleased for you that your life seems to be full and keeping you busy :) Best, EyeSerene^talk 11:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I do enjoy Wikipedia, but I simply don't have the same amount of time I used to have. As I can barely work on my sandbox articles, I can't really offer much more as a co-ord than an opinion on talk pages. Happily my busy-ness is because a large amount of my day job involves historical research nowadays. I'm glad to see you're re-standing though, we do seem to be losing a few co-ords this time round, so it'll be good to have some experience on-board. I wouldn't worry about disappearing for several weeks at a time - better that than several months! Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bugle Op-Ed

Hi mate, as a last-minute op-ed for the August Bugle I penned a brief recollection of September 11 for the 10th anniversary. I agreed with Ed that more than one perspective would be appropriate if people can manage it in time (have to be in the next 24 hours or so!) and your name came up as one who might be interested. Here's what's there at the moment, pls feel free to add or comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added something - hope it's okay. Best, EyeSerene^talk 09:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine words, mate -- tks for contributing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

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) 17:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

elections

Thanks for the reminder - I was halfway through writing something last night and got called away! I'll leave a note there just now. Shimgray | talk | 20:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at National Liberation War of Macedonia

Please see my response at User talk:EdJohnston#Jingiby. Consider applying a 1RR to the article under WP:ARBMAC, though a block would clearly be justified. I see you have taken many actions under ARBMAC, but article restrictions are allowed as well as blocks. If you go the blocking route, consider whether other editors might also qualify. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wisco2000 (talk · contribs) comes to mind for sanctions as well. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Yes, I'm not unfamiliar with ARBMAC, but I thought in this case a second opinion would be valuable from someone who knew the editors better than I did. I've plumped for the 1RR article restriction for now, and issued a couple of additional notifications to the ones you gave out. Thanks again, EyeSerene^talk 10:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask

What is a wiki-widow? Reanimated X (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My wife complains sometimes that she gets less attention from me than Wikipedia does. It's not true of course, but women eh? (Unless you're female, in which case she's absolutely right and I should be ashamed of myself). EyeSerene^talk 16:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't say who's right since I'm familiar with the whole situation. But based on my experience, if you don't mind me saying, you should really look into her complaints as it could turn into a serious problem. Because even though you could be giving her more attention than the wiki, she feels otherwise, and at the end of the day reason and logic don't apply to feelings. Reanimated X (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was attempting some lighthearted humour. I have a dry sense of humour and it doesn't always come across very clearly in writing - I apologise for that :( Actually we get along very well - we've been married nearly 20 years after all! EyeSerene^talk 20:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I did get your humour, don't worry. But since there's a hint of truth behind every lie/joke, I thought I'd elaborate nevertheless. Reanimated X (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

[10] (Sorry, just had to post it). --Laveol ^T 09:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty apposite :) EyeSerene^talk 13:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Passchendaele

I've added some detail in the early part of the page on the plan for 31st July and attempted to use the <ref> function for the first time as I could copy it from others already in the text. Do you mind having a look to see how I've done? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor formatting tweaks (not to the refs), but it all looks good to me - I like your selection of quotes. EyeSerene^talk 13:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't done much this year but I think that I've assembled as much material as I'm going to outside the PRO.Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind putting The Eighth Division 1914-1918 By Lt.-Colonel J.H. Boraston and Cpt Cyril E.O. Bax (1999 N&M Press reprint of the 1926 original ISBN-10: 1897632673) in the References for the Passchendaele page please as I don't know how. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

After the Langemarck section (which I think needs to be expanded) there is this, 'Plumer abandoned tactics intended to exploit opportunities created by the 'bite' part of the operation and instead intended to launch a succession of attacks.' Since there is still a misunderstanding in the text over the differences between Gough and Plumer's methods and intentions I'd like to put Appendix XIII 'Fifth Army Instructions... 31st July' and the preamble of Appendix XXV Second Army's Notes... For Offensive Operations' (31st Aug) of the OH in a subsection (if that's the term) with some commentary so that the differences can be seen once and for all. Do you think it's wise?Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback request

Hi Eye, hope you enjoyed your wiki-break – I expect this year might be a little different, what with the loss of several long-term coords, and Woody semi-retiring, there's probably going to be a change of pace and style to the project. What that is, and how it works out remains to be seen. Glad there are still a few old-hands sticking round though. Having only been around for about 7 months myself, I'm easy either way; it's probably easier to accept any change after a short time than after 3 or 4 years involved in a project, mostly with the same group of people.

I'm working more on my next article, having had a brief break after the last one to do other things round wiki. This is Napoleon's battle record – I intend to make it a nice match with Wellington's – but it is proving tough, mainly because Wellington was a "go there; fight them" general, so a fairly straight-forward list and background to write about, and references were fairly good. Napoleon, is very complex, being a conqueror, and books are hard to assess – being that many authors are biased in favour of him or very against him. I have been very selective in picking books that broadly explore the Napoleonic Era without swinging in favour of the French, Brits, Russians, etc, and have got a nice biography by Vincent Cronin, who seems fond of Bonaparte, but does not hold back in pointing out his failings, so the balance is as near-perfect as you might hope from a historian.

Where I am having my problem is in the politics, because I hate politics. Obviously, most military history is politically-motivated one way or another, hence why I like American Civil War, as it's almost trivial (imo) political background is easy to digest, the rest is action, battles and great generals. Napoleon, however, stems from the French Revolution, which I am having to read about in great depth to give understanding as to Napoleon's background and military career, which was in service in the Revolution, long before he became Emperor. Have to admit, I am enjoying it more than I expected – probably because it's fairly gory! I am trying to write the prose sections in concise detail, with a neutral tone, but keeping it light and interesting, heavily cited and wikilinked, with plenty of "see also" support links to give the general reader room to expand beyond the article – naturally I don't want to sway the focus too far from Napoleon and the events that influenced him, but as it's a big topic several hatnotes are helpful, and there are a lot of articles on France and Napoleon to point to, without introducing forks.

I wondered if you could give the first few paragraphs I've written a quick read, and let me know if it comes across well, per the style I'm following, given above. Bearing in mind that this is a looooong way from done, have a long way to go – still on 1789, with 1815 no where in sight, let alone all the campaigns, coalitions and 70-odd battles! But the sooner I know if I'm on the right track, the less I'll have to edit later – I want to make any ACR/GA reviews as painless as possible (for the reviewers that is ) – but I do plan on throwing this straight into ACR when I'm done in.. weeks.. months.. 2012.. the not-too-distant future. Also followed by GA, to round it off. I expect a lot of chopping and changing in the interim to suit myself and others before it's there, but I already know the standard is going to be high, because of the topic itself being so involved and needing cautious referencing and editing to keep it focused. If you can tell me where you feel the strengths and weaknesses lie, in the prose, it would be of great help.

The battle table itself is more or less complete; I will be throwing in any more battles I run across, and strengthening references, but not much else. I am interested in knowing, though, if it is easy enough to follow, given the colour-coding for campaigns/coalitions, which Wellington's didn't require, and of course, the huge array of opponents he fought, which I have used a key and flags for, rather than words, to conserve space and maintain flow. Looks nicer too, but I do like a bit of vexillology.

Many thanks,

Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 15:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Marcus. I'm running short on time but I've had a quick look, mainly at the table. It seems fine to me - I particularly like the flagicons as they make it easy to follow. The only thing that occurred to me is, rather than use a symbol to denote decisive victories/defeats, why not write it in? It's only one extra word and probably wouldn't have too much impact on the table layout (but I'm reading it on a widescreen format, so that might not be true for everyone I guess). I'll try to take a more careful look at the prose style etc over the weekend but it might be Monday before I can get to it.

Re the elections, for me the single most important goal of the project is to provide assistance and services for editors when and where they want them, and to avoid getting in their way otherwise. You're right that we run a risk of getting hidebound and putting process before product if we get too set in our ways, but so far we've always had enough of a turnover to keep that from happening. Over recent terms we've also taken to inviting editors from 'outside' milhist to run (Dan was originally one of these as is Nikki this time). That too seems to help, though the downside can be that other projects/processes can resent us poaching their best and brightest, and editors with significant commitments elsewhere can find it difficult to fit in being a milhist coord too. Anyhow it seems to be a strong field this year, so we'll see how it goes :) Best, EyeSerene^talk 17:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, no rush, I'm away over the weekend anyway. The reason for the Decisive key is sorting. I want all victories to be considered just victories, and same for defeats, regardless of how narrow or decisive each was - they also stay sorted by date when sorted by outcome. If I add in that word it causes Decisive results to separate, creating 4 "blocks" of sorts, rather than 2. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 17:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessment of and help with The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.

Hi, I found you through the FA-Team page, and figured I would try my luck getting some help. I've been trying to get a GA reviewer for The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.. I believe the article is at or very near GA status. I'm most interested in getting advice for preparing it for FA status. I know it isn't military history, but it might be a fun diversion! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sholokhov

Hello EyeSerene. I am contacting you because you are one of the coordinators of the Napoleonic History taskforce. Here's the situation : User:Sholokhov, an editor who is new to en.wiki has been involved in repeated and extensive edits of the articles Battle of Borodino (GA) and more recently Battle of Austerlitz (FA). Here are some samples : 1 , 2. I'll let you get your own opinion about it, but here are the problems : addition of somewhat or completely irrelevant information, sourced to some Vietnamse source (non-mainstream) or websites or other (non-prestigious) author, alterations to referenced text, very bad English. User:Tirronan and I tried to reason with him (3) following his edits on the Borodino article and I've attempted to help him direct his activity to areas that need development (i.e. writing bios of Russian generals in order to get more experience with wikipedia and perhaps improve his English). All that fell on deaf ears and today he "massacred" the article about Austerlitz. He probably means well but he's really a pain and probably thinking that people are out to get him. Could you please have a look? cheers,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2

Hi EyeSerene, Are you willing to help out by closing the above hotly debated community GAR? Don't worry if not. Geometry guy 10:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)