 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Kingdom of This World class Project
Hello EyeSerene!
Thank you for the help you've given us with our class project.
I had previously written about adding a photo to the article. I have found one that is already on wikipedia on our project homepage ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered )which applies to our book. Would you be able to help us put that picture into our project page (Kingdom of This World)?
I would like to thank you once again for your help. --Svetlana 365 (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help!
I have found the picture, its in a great spot indeed! Thanks again!
--Svetlana 365 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Quote?
Hello again EyeSerene,
I would like to ask you whether a quote from the book we are creating the page about should be added within a specific format, (and if so, how?) or whether we can simply include the quote into the text as one would do in an essay, using quotation marks.
Thank you once again for all your kind help. --Svetlana 365 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Church GAR
I note that the RfC has now closed with a consensus to build on the existing "short" version. The article appears to be stable, though I note that there are several citation needed tags. After having the GAR on hold for over a month I feel that it is time for us to look at the article, give some comments and make a decision. I have left this same message on the GAR. SilkTork *YES! 16:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Will do, although I may not get much time before the weekend to do anything much. EyeSerenetalk 07:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the same. I have a long list of things to do on Wikipedia, and find I have little opportunity to do them at the moment. When I do log on it's generally to look something up, and then I get distracted by stuff..... Anyway - I'll take a look and leave some comments. Well, at least that is my intention! SilkTork *YES! 12:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
University course: help is definitely needed.
A while back, you offered to help, and we are now at the point where we need it. If you go here, to section 7 you can see the list of articles they've edited. Some are up for GA already, but most of them could really use some help on the wikification, etc, comments, reviews, and general encouragement. There have been a few instances of them stepping on the toes of people with vested interests (ownership issues), but generally they are finding wikipedians cooperative and helpful. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Good Article Criteria
Dear EyeSerene,
Thank you first of all for the help you have given our group with the Kingdom of This World project. We would like to ask you for your opinion on whether you think our page should fit the criteria of the Wikipedia style guide to be considered a good article. Are there any sections you think we need to improve? What is your overall impression of the article?
Thank you so much once again on behalf of all our group.
Sincerely, Svetlana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svetlana 365 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Blablaaa
Would you be able to comment on this editor's IP editing conduct before registering an account at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blablaaa? Thanks Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Hi , i wanted to say i understand your opinion. But things have changed since the normandy article. I also want to say that your argument of me downgrading german losses is not correct. I give always cited losses for both soviet and german. Our old problems on normandy are over i guess. ok ?Blablaaa (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Update, and yes u are totally correct with your concerns about normandy e.g. But please take a deeper look in the eastern Front issue , iam sure u will see that i have no bad faith. Can we make a new start, i also want to contribute to normandy articles in a good way, though many of the are very good and need no edits... Blablaaa (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, over to you. I'm happy to make a fresh start - I don't really intend to get too involved in Eastern Front articles (although I find it interesting, I'm too busy elsewhere), but as I've mentioned elsewhere I think you do make some useful points. The main thing is not to let it bother you when other editors disagree with you :) EyeSerenetalk 09:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes i learned already. Blablaaa (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Love it
With reference to the last sentence! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Catholic Church GAR
I've left a brief review on the GAR. Please feel free to refactor anything as you see fit, and I emphasise that my conclusion is tentative and awaiting your thoughts :) EyeSerenetalk 14:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
COI "not handled well"
Hi EyeSerene. I think they mean me and Ecemaml, not you! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think the same. If someone handled the issue very badly (even in good faith), it was me and not you. Best regards and thank you for your efforts. --Ecemaml (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I echo the thanks, EyeSerene. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
At least I'm not the only one to have done this...
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#I made a boo-boo ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) sorry again for blocking you ;)
Question on Images
Hi EyeSerene,
For the Kingdom of This World page, i have found it very difficult to find a significant edition cover. I finally did... but it's on ebay.
The only picture i can find for the first English edition is on ebay and is a picture of the book taken by the seller: http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Kingdom-Of-This-World-%2F-1st-Edition!_W0QQitemZ220581726916QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20100402?IMSfp=TL100402153005r18878
Is there any chance whatsoever this could be accepted? --Chris Weber (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, I actually would like your help with the book cover. Trying to crop it proved enough of a challenge: I didn't know whether to try to keep just the cover or the whole book, because both ways would sacrifice something - either leaving carpet in the picture or cutting out part of the cover. I suppose you would have a better idea with that... and then I would be unsure about the resolution policy. This is as far as I got: http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3195/covernw.jpg
- Do you suppose you could give a hand?
--Chris Weber (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks a million! Fantastic job with the cover - much better than i could have done! Your help with this project really has been invaluable! --Chris Weber (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
One you don't seem to have yet...
|
The World War Barnstar | |
| I originally gave one of these to EnigmaMxmxc for a good article, but looking through the edit history today I realised just how much work you have put into the Battle of Villers-Bocage page. It's brilliantly put together in my opinion and your copyediting and prose is as much a part of that as Enigma's gathering of the sources. Like I said to him, if it was a chapter of a book, I'd buy it, (and I'm a demanding reader!) Ranger Steve (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC) |
- No problem. Like I said it reads really well and that's an important aspect of the article. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sockmaster
Hello. Its about this user → Scania N113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ←, this is not the first time he's been caught by us using his IP or sock accounts to conduct such disruptive edits. Isn't it strange that those socks are blocked but his master account remain safe? Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- We can't let that go on forever. You may have noticed that I blocked the account for the same 3 month duration as the IP they were using. Normal practice is that further instances of socking/block evasion will lead to the main account block being reset and possibly even extended. Feel free to drop me a note if they return :) EyeSerenetalk 14:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Noted. However, I'll be back here in about 3 months and 1 week time (give or take 1 week) as he has a bad habit of working with a time-delayed fuse. Cheers and regards~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- After I've read through the entire WP:OWB, I'm not sure if I could be that lenient towards such trouble makers because my first reaction would be to "BAN-ON-SIGHT"/"REVERT-ON-SIGHT" per WP:RBI. But that's just me... toodles~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 21:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
|
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
| For effecting the merger of the various task forces within the Military history Project over the last few months I hereby award you The da Vinci Barnstar. Thanks for all of your help. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
Just for completeness...
...I believe that last ACM award you were kind enough to hand out should also have an entry in the April Newsletter... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Map
Hi E
I will take a bunch of pics today and link to them here as already discussed for V-B; to be honest am not to sure what could be made of but ill feed back once ive taken some snaps.
Also would you be able to knock me up a map of Sword beach if i provided you with the required information and pics?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers E, i will get some pics of the Sword stuff ready some point this week - gotter fit my uni stuff in the next 48 hours!!!!
- So am not to sure what we can actually do for V-B but here is the artistic vision - you may just be awe of this masterpiece!
- From the following two pics Marie shows the carious attack routes the 101st took: 1 and 2
- Forty notes the location of the AT guns and various wrecks, plus ... and ive actually cropped it out for some reason; the attack route of the Pnz Lehr
- This last map is one commonly seen around the net and quite a few sources and gives an overview
- That seems to be the limit of visual media in the sources i have so its really them and the text, unless you have something hidden your sleeve lol?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Tower Records
Thanks for addressing that issue with REFTR. I think he addressed me as I happened to be the one to give him the final warning. Hopefully he uses the talk pages and finds reliable sources. Is there anything else I should have done in this situation? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and vandalpatrol. --N419BH (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
/* Re Tower Records */
Thank you - I completely understand and will comply. This has nothing to do with marketing but everything to do with egregious trademark infringement in Ireland, Israel and Colombia. There is no other stores that exist. Unfortunately, until we file legal papers (which is very unfortunate) I will not have proper identification for the purposes of this article. However, considering one of the infringing parties is selling illegal product our reputation is being sullied without merit. REFTR (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Internet Brands astroturfing operation
- == AfD nomination of CarsDirect ==
- An article that you have been involved in editing, CarsDirect, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarsDirect. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI
You seemed to have annoyed somebody. Check the deleted edits. Ivo Josipović (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Badmintonhist back
- Badmintonhist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Don't know if you recall a few weeks ago, this editor would frequently make accusations of sockpuppetry against editors with whom he disagreed, but refused to file RFCU so he could continue to make the attacks. Anyway, he continues to make snarky attacks to this day... I've filed an ANI report, and I'm notifying you since you helped in the past. Thanks for any help you can provide. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
- Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
- Gibnews (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
- Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
- Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
- Ecemaml (talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
- Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
- Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.
For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
- Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
- Gibnews (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
- Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
- Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
- Ecemaml (talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
- Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
- Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.
For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
User:HoundsOfSpring
He's still at it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your blocking User_talk:41.56.203.237 for their edits to The Shack. Appreciate your involvement. peterl (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Long Range Desert Group
Hi Eyeserene, I'm having real problems with the attitude of Jim Sweeney who has absolutely ravaged the article on the Long Range Desert Group without any discussion or consultation whatsoever; this editor had nothing to do with the article prior to May 14 2010 yet, right from the get-go seems to think that he is entitled to remove entire sections - which have been cited, regardless of his claims, and generally tear the entire thing to peices. I protested, and told him on his talk page that I would help with improving the article yet he removed it without replying directly to me on my talk page [here]. Compare [this] with [this]; On May 18 I added citations for each paragraph but Jim Sweeny reverted and removed them then placed an edit notice saying that each paragraph needed a seperate citation! This is totally unfair and is disruptive editing. In my veiw he is being totally disruptive and uncooperative and his reasoning "The sections were nothing to do with the LRDG. I think the article is improved without them" is a matter of opinion - other editors have worked on the article and haven't so far made any of the sweeping changes that Jim Sweeney has made in just four days. Minorhistorian (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Intervention
Thanks for your time and assistance. I love this site, and frankly seeing little or no action against obvious career vandals is worse to me than their vandalism. Vadon (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Tea Party movement
Related threads merged under one heading. EyeSerenetalk
Hello. Thanks for "locking" the Tea party movement. Well, perhaps that is not the correct wikipedia term, as I am rather new to the whole editing business. However, I was beginning to feel that it needed to be "controlled", and I think someone that is not in the USA is better able to do that in interest of neutrality.
Regards, Chicopadilla (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you locked down this page. I would ask that you view the talk page regarding the U of W study. I have presented the sourcing information and the current wording is clearly WP:OR Arzel (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks both for your posts. However, I ought to point out that as an administrator I have no mandate to adjudicate or "control" article content. It's for editors like you - the actual subject experts - to decide what goes into the article by discussing it on the talk page and (hopefully!) reaching some kind of policy-based consensus. My role is simply to facilitate such discussion by enforcing Wikipedia's policies in a way that enables editors to do their job. By locking down the article my intention is to encourage discussion in an atmosphere where editors don't need to worry about what's going on with the article itself; obviously nothing derails discussion quicker that an edit-war breaking out. If you feel that you've reached an impasse and need outside input, there are a number of suggestions at WP:DR that will be helpful, from asking other editors to comment via a Request for comment, to informal and formal mediation, to ultimately Arbcom as an absolute last resort. I hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Louis H. Carpenter article update
I finally got some information I was waiting for and I added it to Louis H. Carpenter. This confirmed and updated dates for ranks, assignments, and positions. I also finally confirmed his service with the 5th United States Colored Cavalry Regiment. I would appreciate if you took a look at it. With another review, do you think this will finally get to A/FA status?
Please let me know. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP evading block Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hm, see User talk:Syrthiss#Who maintains what. –xenotalk 18:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Previously blocked editor now repeating disputed edits - addition of external link
Hi You previously blocked the user User_talk:41.56.203.237 for disruptive edits to the page The Shack as listed here. Now they are unblocked, they are repeating their disruptive edits. Can you please advise the process to get them blocked again, this time for a longer period (they have repeated their disruptive insert of an external link twice just today). Thanks peterl (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh thank God...
I saw your edit summary for the coordinator page and thought for a minute there that you were also resigning. Glad to see that was not the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thanks for your messsage
thank you for your message, I would like to inform you that I have responded to your threads on my home page and on the arbitration page. I look forward to working with you on a peaceful and productive solution. thanks, mike James Michael DuPont 18:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
one last request
Hi mate, would you mind throwing a glance through my editorial and see if you could give it some tweaks. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- That was perfect, thank you very much! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Adi Da article
Hi EyeSerene, I was wondering if you wanted to take a look at the Adi Da article. Tao2911 has begun to recklessly edit the article, and is showing signs of incivility again. At one point, you had banned some of his sock puppets and said you would monitor the article to make sure things were okay. I think an Administrator presence is needed, if you have time. Thank you.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- There seem to be faults on both sides. I've protected the article for a few days to let things cool off - we'll see how things develop from there. EyeSerenetalk 09:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear EyeSerene, Thank you! Hard to keep up with 80 post in two days! If you would not mind putting protection up a few more days than originally stated that would be appreciated. I have a heavy work load right now. I plan to post, in discussion, suggested compromises and see if we can resolve things. Thanks again. Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Eye Serene,
I think there needs to be some sort of moratorium on entries into the Adi Da article.The "rapid fire" "change in article first "discuss later" approach is continuing without any dialog. The discussion taking place is after changes are made in the article. Some so-called "minor language changes" seems like it is overdone in it's re-phrasing. I have really tried to bring a cooperative consensus to this last week. There is dispute still on one main issue and which sources are accurate and permissible. Your suggestions would be appreciated.
Thank you Jason Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've readded protection for one week this time. Your suggestion of mediation might be the best way forward although all parties have to agree as it's a voluntary process; unfortunately I can't really comment on content issues and remain "uninvolved" (see WP:INVOLVED). If sources are the cause of a disagreement, more advice can be sought at the reliable sources noticeboard. EyeSerenetalk 07:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Eye.- can you make the consensus change we've agreed upon? I'd like to get these witnessed and acted upon as we deal with them - not wait for further points to be brought up and discussed first, as Jason Riverdale is suggesting. His participation has been somewhat irregular lately, and since he's agreed to a point, I'd like to see good faith with the change (however small it is...) Happy to see the lock remain in place for now.Tao2911 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Eyes Serene,-I don't envy your situation here:) Anyway I think if you read addition to Discussion you will be able to follow my point about waiting till all changes are agreed upon. Small wording changes were inserted after agreement by Tao without discussion. THEN after I posted the discovery of this he then changed the actual content of what I put in the discussion. The point being an agreement is an agreement. I am trying to be civil and cooperative, work by agreement.I have to say I kind of thought we had a break through and got excited about it. Kind of disappointing. There continues to be very un-civil language and personal attacks continuing to be thrown back from Tao at most editors .... which also has a long history. Nobody is "ganging up" on Tao right now.Two guys (me and him) both sides being represented. It has just basically been me working with him. Even Goethean, who actually comments on both sides, and whom made a comment siding with Tao argument today, and which I submitted to, is getting lashed with irony and un-civility. I don't know if mediation would work. I would like to work by consensus IF personal attacks, irony, and un-civility can be maintain and no dishonesty like today. But it ain't changing We are SO close... just a few things and the article would come to some rest. Is there a way to make some very small changes via working with a wikipedia formal editor ? I would prefer this rather than continuing this. Like I said I would abide by WHATEVER is decided... even if I don't like it :) Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry that I can't be more help at the moment - I have a number of professional exams coming up (this Friday, to be precise), and I just can't spare the time to do anything more than band aid-type actions until these are over. I'll be happy to take a more detailed look over the weekend/early next week if that would help, though I think your best bet might still probably be mediation. One other suggestion you could both try is to copy/paste disputed sections into the talk page (or even a subpage somewhere) and work on them there; when you've reached a consensus it would then be easy enough to insert them into the article, and it would keep any difficulties off the main article page.
- Tao, I'd also strongly advise you to knock off the accusations however justified you feel they may be (note that I have mentioned this before). It's not only against site policy to cast those sort of aspersions without providing good evidence (ideally in the form of diffs), but it's counterproductive because if you keep it up you will be excluded from editing, leaving the article in the hands of one 'side' only. EyeSerenetalk 16:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Just saw you on the Global Warming page and wanted to say hi from Canada :) *waves* Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
|
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
| In recognition of your work in this now completed CCI. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC) |
- Thank you. Hard to believe it took almost a year to wrap, but that one was particularly grueling. :) Your work there is appreciated! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank spam!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TFOWR 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)