User:EyeSerene/Archive16

For you help and advice in dealing with the IP user

Please accept this WikiCookie as my thanks for your halp. P.S. Do you want me to put it on your user page? -- allen四names 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Note - The reply was made on my talk page here. -- allen四names 19:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edit to Godannar

I have Godannar on my watch list and I saw that an edit had been made so I checked it out. I won't tell you what User:Android 18 lover (talk) did but I think you may want to keep an eye on this user. -- allen四names 03:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Note - The reply was made on my talk page here -- allen四names 19:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the template you added to Android 18 lover's talk page. Thank you. -- allen四names 01:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Favour

Hi Eyeserene, I was wondering if I could ask for a quick favour whenever you have time - no rush. I believe you have secret powers that would allow you to do so. I've standardised my sandboxes and in the interests of keeping my end of the encyclopaedia tidy I was wondering if you could delete a few unnecessary user-space pages that are empty or redirects. They are here, here, here and here. I assume it would be good to get rid of them at any rate. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy! Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

Coordinator of the
Military history WikiProject,
October 2009 - March 2010

Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. --TomStar81 (Talk) 02:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How can neglect my studies when everyone keeps reminding me of my studies? :) Would be hard to get away from school work even here, although frankly its a good thing you and everyone else do keep reminding me since I have a tendency to let my mind wonder into these...more entertaining areas as opposed to actually doing what UTEP asks of me. I guess I just learn things differently. Pity the system does not allow for that sort of thing... All the same, thanks for the kind words. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo

Hey, I just eant to say, I had ben acting under a different set o assumptions. I am not criticizing your own assessment at all! Slrubenstein | Talk 03:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi EyeSerene, regarding the unblock review and terms from last week. Is it just Republicanism in Ireland articles I cannot edit for two weeks (apart from the talk), or does it include the EDL article too? I wasn't sure, about the last one and I just remembered about the block last week, so I reverted my edit on there and came to ask you first, just to be sure. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 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) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Just thought you'd need to know

[[1]] Your mentioned. Abce2|This isnot a test 19:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian - abusive Edit summary - breach of WP:NPA

I understand that User:Yorkshirian has been explicitly told not to use abusive Edit summaries. An Edit summary stating "no food" is clearly code for calling another user a Troll - he has now clearly broken WP:NPA, in addition to several recent breaches of the spirit of WP:NPA. I request that you make it CRYSTAL clear to that User that their pattern of behaviour must stop now. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this user is attempting to bait me in the hopes of getting a reaction. He is following me around to various obscure articles, reverting me and then attempting to create a fuss. This is very disruptive. After I left him a polite message to tell him to disist, he blanked my message[2] and then continued The Game on my talk. He has attempted to play this game twice now in the last few days, both times I've resisted. Could you tell this user to behave himself and to stop trying to antagonise me, especially as I am minding my own business trying to get on with things. I'd like to request that he stays off my talkpage from now on. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary: I have excercised extreme restraint in the face of continuous disruptive behaviour by User:Yorkshirian over a very, very long period of time. But he would try the patience of a saint with his ceaseless WP:POINT campaigning.

I, quite naturally, monitor most of the key Scotland-related articles, cats an templates, including Countries of the United Kingdom. It and its associated cat are NOT "various obscure articles". They are very high-profile topics with a long history of WP:POINT campaigners targetting them.

I explained why I blanked his Talk message: he made a snidey allegation that I was stalking him. I have been previously advised by Admins that I ought to revert such messages without leaving an Edit summary.

I am perfectly within my rights to continue to leave messages at User talk:Yorkshirian for as long as he continues disrupting Wikipedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You have followed me twice to extremely obscure categories which you have never edited before. Within minutes of me editing them. One of these categories has only been created in the last couple of days.[3] In light of the fact that you twice followed this up with an antagonistic message, it seems you are trying to bait me, in the hopes of getting a hotheaded response (naturally I have resisted, merely requesting that you stop) and thus trying to get me reprimanded. I imagine this is because I am a high profile editor of UK articles, who does not promote separatism in the database. An admin has warned you above this kind of behaviour before. You may be "within rights" to edit talks, however out of common courtesy I have requested that you now please leave mine alone, as I feel that you are using it to attempt to create unnecessary disruption out of thin air. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because a User has never edited a cat does not mean that they do not monitor that cat. I would be delighted to allow any Admin to see my Watchlist, and see when I added specific items to it.

You were making highly disruptive edits to topics that you know fine well are highly controvertial. I provide reliable ext refs per WP:VERIFY. You, notably, fail to do so, yet poo poo refs to eg. an official UK Govt and UN document.

Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident: it is your modus operandi.

"who does not promote separatism in the database" -> yet another breach of WP:NPA. When are you going to get round to reading that official Wikipedia policy? (as you have clearly failed to read it, here is the relevant bit: "... some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor." - note my bolding of the rel evant word: political)--Mais oui! (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite Mais oui. Administrators have warned you before about your targetting of UK articles.[4] I added a sub-category, which states that E/S/W/NI are sub-entites of the United Kingdom (which they are), rather than a cat which is used for sovereign states — such an edit is in no way disruptive.[5]. Both GoodDay and the creator of the cat Kotniski have agreed on the talk, that they are sub-UK entites. You followed me to the article, blanked the cat, then left a baiting message on my talkpage in the hopes of A) getting a hotheaded response, B) creating a dispute. You are attempting to manifacture a dispute out of thin air, which I am not interested in. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Very telling that you refer to Admin User:Jza84's message from last year. User:Jza84 has made no secret of his intense dislike for me (indeed his brief essay has an emotional and literary vigour normally lacking in Talk page entries), however Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I could easily ask 10 other Admins to provide statements attesting to the value of my contributions to the encyclopaedia.

However, you (unlike User:Jza84) would be well advised to steer well clear of anything remotely approaching a Personal attack. It is your default reaction when your dispruptive editing behaviour is countered. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• (ec x lost count) I think you both need to stop arguing on my talk-page :) This looks to me like a content disagreement that's become more about the personalities involved than the actual content. I have no opinion on the category edits - those are obviously for you to sort out (bearing in mind the provisions available on WP:DR if necessary). It seems like Kotniski has made a reasonable suggestion on Category talk:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom. It might help if you disengage for a while though, and of course respect each other's wishes not to post to each other's talk-pages. Yorkshirian, when you're making edits you suspect might be controversial, ask for other opinions on the appropriate talk page first. Mais oui, you could have asked Yorkshirian why he made those edits rather than block-reverting them. If either of these two suggestions had been tried, then we might not currently be dealing with hurt feelings and accusations of disruption and bad faith. EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So, can we just clarify this basic point: do you honestly consider "no food" to be an acceptable Edit summary? --Mais oui! (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, and I'm sure Yorkshirian is well aware that the ice creaked underfoot with that edit summary, and he must strive not to let annoyance get the better of his judgement again. EyeSerene^talk 10:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur)

Another editor has created Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur), which has the same name as an article which was deleted earlier as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur). My first reaction is that the subject is notable, but the article is a mess. I am reluctant to invest time in it, though, if the article is going to be deleted. Could you take a look at the references and decide whether there is enough evidence of notability to make the article worth salvaging? -- Eastmain (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another request

Hmmm... I may have just made a little boo-boo. Theirs is the Glory was until very recently under the title of Theirs Is the Glory. I thought this was wrong and indeed, the DVD cover is a pretty good source. Having a capital I never seemed right but apparently it was because of WP:CAPS, although I don't see any explanation there and in fact the examples (eg. Ghost in the Shell) support the small i. I went to redirect it, but was told I couldn't as the page already existed. "Ahh, the existing redirect" I thought, so I copied everything over manually instead, making Theirs Is the Glory and its talk page redirects to Theirs is the Glory. All good I thought, except of course the page histories don't copy over in this way, which seems to me to be a bit of a problem. Sooo.... is there anyway I can fix this, or must I once again beg a favour? Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Eyeserene, another lesson learnt. Does the talk page need doing in the same way? I'm quite happy to re-enter my comment on there 'post move' if it's better. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As with the article page, I copied and pasted the info over and bunged in a redirect. Then I made a comment on the new page explaining the move. It just means that this history isn't on the new page's history. It may not be as bigger a problem as for the article page, jut thought I'd check! Ranger Steve (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, cheers again. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

AnyLogic again

Dear EyeSerene,

Thank you again for your advices how to improve my article about AnyLogic. Based on your feedback I completed it, and now somebody translated my updated text in German. But on German wikipedia there are Flagged revisions, so regular users now can see only very draft version of this article in German. Could you give some advice: how can I mark this editing by Azait as trusted? Probably there is some procedure to prove the changes.

Best Regards, Sergey Suslov (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Blob4president

Yesterday, you advised me that the administrators' incidents noticeboard would be a better place to report the activities of Blob4president (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm wondering how long a grace period I should give him? Since returning from his block, he's carried on with the same editing pattern (e.g. inventing an episode of iCarly,[6] announcing a new Pink album about which the internet seems curiously quiet[7]).

In case I wasn't clear in my report about him, I'm not concerned about his not citing sources – I'm concerned that many of his edits appear to be unsourcable, which rather leaves the impression of someone who's making stuff up (I've gone into more specific detail here). Thanks. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

V-B

Well due to little interest in review the article, and imo on the whole farting around by those who did, the FAC has been closed and the article not promoted; any advice on what to do now?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, guess we wait a week then :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those snasy maps that you have created, what programme do you use for that? Also is it easy to use lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you dont mind, i was thinking of one change to be made to it; that would be to add the location of the 101st battalion. I will upload a imagine with their location pointed out once i have consulted my sources tonight.

I will also download inkscape and have a bash at it too. The only similar sounding programme i have used is photoshop, is it reasonbly like that?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, as promised here is my edited version of the file indicting the location of Wittmann's unit using the two main sources. link. The source material: Taylor, p. 40 and Forty, p. 59.

The Red Cross indicates Forty while the Blue indicates Taylor; the two photos appear to be the same source photo that each have annotated differently. The key to Forty's is as follows:

A - Calvary, B - Les Hauts Vents, C - Cidrerie, D - Point 213, E - Railway Line

1 - 3 Stuarts of the Recon Troop, 2 - A Coy, 1st Rifles transport, 3 - Elts A Sqn, 4 - Several Cromwells of A Sqn, 5 - "Positions of Tigers, am 13 June (approx.)", 6 - Possible attack route by 2 Tigers, 7 - Wittmann's Tiger, 8 - 1st Coy Tigers early PM

IWM doesnt appear to have the aerial shots of the town up for grabs, if they would provide additional help.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, my recent wiki usage has mostly been made up of fighting and dossing about, the map is outstanding!

Do you want me to add a key to the article explaining the abbrevations and full reference material?

Do you remember . . .

. . . that quite some time ago you said you'd be interested in seeing what I made of the Battle of the Nile article? Well now you can! Let me know what you think. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to get back to you and thankyou for your comments. I do have one question, you say that the map doesn't match the text, but I can't see where you mean - can you be more specific? If you do have the time to go over the prose in this article I would hugely appreciate it, although I am aware of how big a job that is! Many thanks, --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, I confess I obviously didn't study the map closely enough before I added it. The trouble is, I think that the map does help a reader understand what is going on, even if it has some inaccuracies (I've double checked and the text does follow the sources, so its the map that is at fault). The question therefore is whether the map's inaccuracies outweigh its benefits in clarifying the initial French position. I will think about creating versions of it (or asking someone else to do it for me!). I have two new sources to add as well, so I'm going to be working on this a bit in the near future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem here, in that the map is roughly taken from a map in the John Keegan book that contains these errors. However, Keegan's text does not contradict the sourced information in the article (although in general it doesn't confirm it either). Would correcting the map be a violation of WP:SYNTH?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, and I may take you up on it at some point, but first I want to do some investigation into these problems as I have found sources condradicting one another, and in some places filling in gaps in other sources' coverage. I'll get back to you on this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye Eye, I've done some investigations into this problem and added two new authorative sources into the article. The results have been incorporated into the article text and I've also replied point by point on my talk page at the original discussion. I'm going to try for an A-Class review soon, so any comments, copyedits or suggestions you may have would be gratefully received.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Essay Article

I'm curious, but under what system would you consider the mecha article "essay like," I mean I don't like to call people out, but yes it needs more sources (Which I will give), but essay like? For an article about fictional works, I'd say it has restraint then half the articles on anime, which are either bablefished, and need copyedits, or fancrufted. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I reverted the remoavl of the essay tag; looking it over, it really does read like an essay. I think getting rid of a lot of the rather random references to programmes and games would be a good idea, as well as adding a fair few citations. I imagine there are a lot of Reliable Sources on the development of mecha-like robots in the past few years. But please don't revert the tag until the article is fixed. Skinny87 (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Jay Sean is Indian

Jay Sean is Indian.

Please refer these:

a) http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080703/NATIONAL/326774476/1010&profile=1010 b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C676HjEMtR0

He is not a Pakistani. Proove! Pakistani Muslim Bastard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrghs jacob (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Mecha

Wow, so if I've got this right, I have to cite well known pieces of information now? Mecha are walking units controlled by a pilot, that is what makes them different from robots, though the mix between a mech and a power armor is ... a subject of debate, though with those Cyberdine suits, its getting clear Power Armor is worn (see Halo metaseries for a recent example). I hate, HATE to say it, but you lack knowledge on this. The first work accepted as anime is astro boy. came out in 1952, according to Wiki. Gigantor, the first giant robot came out in 1964, and Go Nagai, the creator of piloted robots said in his little autobiographical manga he conciders those to be the first Mecha Series (Gigantor/Tetsujin 28 is piloted by a remote control on the outside.) http://www.dra-mata.com/manga/nagai/gn-mazingerz01.jpg Here is the source, cited on the Article for Mazinger Z, as for the expert's own opinion who I feel is an expert source on early mecha, and Gundam Unicorn is still going to be running as of next March, so that counts. I feel you should please back off from this subject. You have said yourself you are into real military history, and I feel that ... compared to the world of mecha anime makes you what I would call a source that is ... rather off.

I could cite things like that, but I really, really feel that you are attempting to clean up an article which due to translation issues isn't fully complete. Then again I feel some of the military articles are self evident but I don't try to show my expertise on military history! --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help on the Devonshire House Preparatory School Article

Hello, many thanks for your help with this article. We are new to Wikipedia and are finding our way a bit with the process. Please let me know if there is any help or changes that are needed to improve the article. The article was marked for deletion - is this still the case? There is now (hopefully) a reasonable justification for its inclusion.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThornhillSquare (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

World War I Contest barnstars

Hi EyeSerene. I have a bit of a request for you today, though, amazingly, it isn't for a copyedit this time. ;-) I have spoken with Eurocopter regarding barnstars and awards for the World War I Contest, and he agrees with us that Roger's suggestion is a good idea. What I am asking is, if you have the time and means, would you be willing to create the barnstars? I pinged Roger asking if he knew anyone able to create the awards, and you were one of the suggested people. Just to refresh your mind, Roger suggested we modify the Milhist service awards to have poppies under the stars, and perhaps place a poppy under the golden, silver and bronze wikis to use as first, second and third place awards. Roger also suggested that perhaps this poppy could be used. However, if you do not have the time or means to do this, than do not hesitate to say so. Thanks mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to duck out of this, ES, but I've only currently got Paint and it's crude. Happy to help with design ideas and so on and even do the modified service awards and golden wiki if things really get stuck.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for Roger, I enjoy the change :) Incidentally, if you're looking for a decent Photoshop alternative, have you tried GIMP? It's open-source (d/l link at the article), and between that and Inkscape to create svg images (also open-source), everything is pretty much covered. EyeSerene^talk 10:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this guys; I'm completely hopeless when it comes to images! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No probs. I'll try to blitz my School Rumble copyedit (finally clearing my in-tray woo hoo!!) and get working on the images either later today or over the weekend. EyeSerene^talk 11:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nagging concerns

I've left it a while to pose this question Eyeserene, becasue I really didn't want the other editor to notice that I was querying their work, and hopefully by now they've moved well onto other things and forgotton about the review they did.

I put Battle of Arnhem up for GA last month, and it was picked up and reviewed by another editor. I have no problem with them passing the article, but I must admit I didn't expect it to be so easy! Now, part of me thinks "Yes dammit, this is a good article and it meets all of the requirements on the GA list and there should probably be a quick-pass option for articles as excellent as this etc...", but the other part of me can't help but notice that this was a new editors first review, and he was done and dusted in 1 hour. I didn't really know what to say to the editor (once I'd noticed how new and quick it all was), I especially didn't want to appear ungrateful either. Also, I didn't put it up for GA in the hope of feedback as some nominations are, so I don't mind there not being any, but..... it all seemed a little bit too easy if you see what I mean.

My plan had been to put this through a peer review anyway, before expanding it some more and then looking at an ACR. But I wonder if it should have had a more stringent review before I proceed. Any thoughts? Ranger Steve (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Eyeserene, I wasn't angling for a 'private review', but thanks for giving it a good look through. I was planning to update it a bit before I put it up for Peer Review (and after I've finished my Arnhem VC project), so I'll take all your comments on board. I'd been planning to collapse the important bits of 'popular culture' into 'honours and memorials' and make it a 'legacy' section anyway. Some of those page refs are a bit broad, trying to condense 10 pages of Middlebrook's immense detail on particular actions is tricky! But I have some more general refs I can use now, so I'll try and sort that out too. Thanks again for all your help, Ranger Steve (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeraz talk page

Kannst du bitte meine Namensaenderung zuruecksetzen bitte? Ich wollte eigentlich den Artikelksnamen des Yeraz, also nicht der Talkpage aendern.

Erivan11 (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

English please EyeSerene^talk 23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

DFTT

Thanks for that, i just cant help myself i get suckered in! >.<--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

lol?

where is your problem? my edits are ok. your friend is making changes which are total uncommon for wiki so watch what u write... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

u come to me and impend me because your friend is coming to u crying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Too fast!

Bah! I edit conflicted with you on the block of BrianBeahr (talk · contribs)! — Kralizec! (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dakota Fanning

Do you have proof to claim Dakota Fanning is an action movie actress? What action movies she played the action scene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.208.239 (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, and neither do I need any to perform administrative actions like protecting a page from being constantly disrupted. If you have content issues, the place to discuss them is on the article talk-page with the other editors concerned (see WP:DR for more information). EyeSerene^talk 12:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

TF mergers

That is an excellent and masterly summary of the position so far. Thank you very much indeed for doing it.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad it's helpful - it was easy compared to facilitating this discussion! I was a little reluctant to put myself forward as adjudicating the consensus because, as I pointed out, I'm not uninvolved. However, I concluded that the discussion hasn't been divisive, and if anyone objected I'd find out soon enough :) EyeSerene^talk 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bronwyn Bancroft

There is a disagreement here, towards the end, about this article's GA review. You are an administrator on the GA task force. Please wiegh in. 18:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Custom Userbox

No thanks. I'll pass. These are good enough.Colleen16 19:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC copyedit

Hi there. The_ed17 recommended you as a great copyeditor. 1997 Qayen earthquake is approaching the end of its FAC run, and needs a copyedit. Could you copyedit the article? ceranthor 20:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for your efforts! Brilliant prose is hard to come by nowadays, with all the other stuff bothering me.

I feel really bad that I wasn't more communicative, but I was literally controlled by my schedule. I think you'd understand... :) Again, thanks a lot. I do hope the FAC passes. So much of our geology articles are focused towards meteorology and earthquakes are a lot more powerful and more catastrophic... it's amazing there are only 2 FA articles on earthquakes, both of which I had a major part in. ceranthor 23:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your block of Ophois

You appear to be offline, so I started this review thread at ANI.--chaser (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Input please

I'm contacting you because you blocked the user in question. Would like your input here please. Note: This is a draft, to be kept in my namespace until the editor is off their block and their new contributions can be reviewed. Frmatt (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mapmaker, mapmaker, make me a map

I saw your beautiful map at FAC the other day and I was wondering if you would be willing to make a better version of this map for an article I'm working on. My map-making skills are clearly elementary and I would appreciate the help! Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Colleen16/InkHeart

I have commented on the ANI about your proposed block of the old account. I thought you might be interested in the discussion, as I'm using your message on their talk page as a reason! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian

Hi EyeSerene, User:Yorkshirian is in breach of his unblock review once again. His unwarranted accusations of bad faith and of a personal attack made by me and similar accusations against User:Jongleur100 here are continued on his, Jongleur100's and my talkpages. Further breaches are noted here: User talk:Yorkshirian#Continuation of unconstructive racist dialogue on talk pages related to Celtic topics. Please advise if anything can be done enforce Yorkshirian's agreement to avoid personal or inflammatory comments. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene, please advise if you are still considering this post. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

First, apologies for not replying to your reminder sooner; I'm not normally on-site from Friday evening to Monday morning. Second, I did look through the diffs you gave, and followed those to other diffs and discussions, and also looked at the recent contribs. Obviously a fair amount of 'frank' discussion had been going on, and Yorkshirian wasn't the only one involved in making comments that some might consider to be inflammatory. My initial hope was that, as things seemed to have died down, by not intervening it would allow editors to move on. I'm well aware of the various nationalist issues in the UK, and I think as long as discussion doesn't get out of hand, a certain leeway has to be permitted. Inevitably those pages are going to attract nationalists of all flavours, as well as those who can rise above (or put aside) nationalism for the sake of neutrality, and strictly enforcing policy would, I think, stifle debate. That said, I've reminded Yorkshirian of his unblock terms; casting aspersions on a national group or sub-sections thereof is not acceptable. I would further encourage all editors to consider whether or not their edit is directly related to improving an article or de-escalating tension in a dispute; and if not, whether they need to make it. EyeSerene^talk 09:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please confirm that User:Yorkshirian will be held to account the next time s/he is in breach of his/her unblock review. If not please advise what the point was of such a restriction. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene, please advise if you are still considering this post. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talkpage. You seem to be suggesting that I had somehow baited Yorkshirian into his unwarranted personal attacks against me. Yorkshirian was completely uninvolved in the discussion between User:GoodDay and I, but chose to become involved after it was over, accusing me of being effeminate and Maoist (here), among other nonsense. And in what way do you think I baited Yorkshirian to lie about what I had posted. Yorkshirian stated that I had said "North Americans are ignorant" "last week" when I had not. Did I bait him into his personal attack on me ("I think the liar here is you.") by noting that he had attributed to me things I hadn't said? And what about Yorkshirian stating that Jongleur100 had said "Aussies are ignorant" when he hadn't said it? How had Jongleur100 baited Yorkshirian into lying about what Jongleur100 had posted?
Although I am disapointed that no mention has been made of Yorkshirian lying about what editors have posted, I am pleased to see you confirm that you will "block him if he insists on making sweeping inflammatory statements about other editors based on their nationality.". No doubt you will have the opportunity soon. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh

Hi EyeSerene, I regret disturbing you but I find this user's contant removal of well known information pertaining to various articles tiring. Everything can not be cited (I'll certainly attempt to do my best where applicable), as certain things are common knowledge, when it comes to cinematics. He has literally gone through all of my contributions and reverted and removed information, which is relevant. The only difference is that whereas the US will credit the foreign films, they remake, Bollywood will not. Hence they will not readily admit that they have remade a movie either, although it is obvious to the viewer. Could you kindly have a look at your earliest convenience as I am not interested in a edit war. This user has also removed links and additional information which is common under movie articles. The user's tone is aggressive and threatening (blocks) in general. Starrylight (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You are right I don't agree but nevertheless, I have tried to add references but of course these along with the factual information, which is common knowledge has been removed. The references were deemed invalid by Shshshsh. I feel his behaviour is bordering on harrassment. The sources are as good as the ones he uses. I feel I am doing everything to accommodate but I have a strong feeling that this user feels threatened by the slightest mention that movies may be copied. The fact remains that Bollywood does copy many of the movies by Hollywood just like Hollywood copies from European and Asian movies. The difference is simply that they credit while Bollywood does not. There are numerous discussion and movie reviews where people discuss the copies. I feel no matter what point of reference I use this will be removed by said user. This is a problem as much of the content in the articles in which he shows special interest do not have any reference or even source attached. Ironically he seems to have no issues with that. I also find it strange that it is interesting that a recent update to personal life for one artist was deemed irrelevant. By that standard half the section under personal life should be removed. I hope you can be of assistance as I continuously find his approach and mode of communication aggressive and dictatorial. Also he has been restoring my talkpage whereas he has been deleting all criticism posted by other users on his own talkpage relating to his deleting information as he basically deems fit. Is that allowed. My understanding is that one can delete after reading the messages posted. I would prefer if you could reply me on your talk page instead in future. Starrylight (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I welcome everything that is properly sourced. The sites the user has added are not reliable in accordance with WP:RS (As I know from my experience from several RSN discussions). I provided the policy in question to the user, but he simply blanked his page, which clearly shows his unwillingness to collaborate and learn more. I did remove his funny warning to me in which he clamed I could not warn him as I was not an admin. I'm not going to revert the film article again, and expect your action on the matter. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What warning? I have to date not posted anything on the page of user Shshshsh, but maybe along with clear unwillingness to co-operate, now false accusations and blatant lies too seem to be a problem at hand. I can not comment on other peoples warnings clearly. Blanking = non-collaboration? Amusing. The sources were valid and so is the info relating to personal life of Saif Ali Khan. I have no objection as to getting more acquainted with wikipedia otherwise. And before removing something, it would be in line with wikipedia to gain consensus or at least discuss or explain why the reference is not valid. Also one can make use of the "add citation" option when one feels a citation is wanted instead of just removal. Starrylight (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You may not know that, but there's one thing called checkuser. It can be easily made on you to check if you were the one who harrassed me under the same warning format I sent to you. And no, everything must be sourced. The particular sources you cited are not reliable. In fact, I did not even touch the Aetbaar article, on which you cited a reliable source, which I have no objection to. Please be serious and respect policies. Onus is on you to prove the reliability of a source, I do not have to prove its unreliability. You are not completely new to Wikipedia (I know who you are, you previously used another account). Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if there is usercheck or not. Another hidden threat. I have nothing to hide and again I did NOT harrass or warn you. My world, as strange as it may seem, does not revolve around you. I was referring to the large chunks of criticism removed by yourself on 19th of November. I think you have serious issues pertaining to paranoia and making false accusations. I suggest you seek help. I will NOT tolerate being accused of things I did not do or say. It is not in my nature to walk about and play an administrator and leave arrogant warnings without seeking a discussion. And you may not know but it is common to try and discuss matters rather than just blatantly remove everything you personally deem unfit. So be serious and try to truthful. And yes you do not know who I am and I did not previously use another account. But then again there may not be a cure for paranoia. It is funny, how you characterize other people's warnings to you as harrassment and funny, but you expect your warnings to be taken as words carved in stone. Hypocrisy is not a good trait. Try to put your personal feelings and problems aside when discussing wikipedia. Starrylight (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Sorry but I'm not going to take seriously a sock puppet who is not aware of WP:RS, and now, as I see, WP:NPA. EyeSerene, I cited proper sources for the article. You can examine it. Here the matter ends. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

More lies. Well I am not going to take seriously a paranoid and lying individual. If Shahid are going to continously lie and dish out false accusations, then at least have the courage to hear the answer instead of playing the victim. I stoppped taking Shahid seriously the minute he started with the false allegations of sock puppets and harrassment, when in fact I have to date never written to him on his talk page. Expect to be called out for being a liar, when you blatantly and shamelessly accuse other editiors of harrassing you and being somebody they are not. This is paranoia and I can not work with that. May I recommend that Shahid acquints himself with WP:NPA. EyeSirene, it is seriously demotivating for any editor to be accused for what actions of other editors. I also find it disturbing that this Shahid expects his warnings to be serious while any word of criticism on his editing policy is removed without hesitation. Again, I did not post the warnings in question which I am positive wikipedia can verify. I also asked in what way exactly my reference was invalid. No reply. Instead the issue has been sidetracked. Starrylight (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I have come to learn that the editor contrary to his earlier reassurance that he would not revert back the article has decided to go back on his words and continue to revert the article without taking a discussion on the articles discussionpage regarding why he believes the references to be unreliable. It appears to be common practice to discuss a change rather than reverting it repeatedly. But perhaps such a discussion is not of interest. Very demotivating. Starrylight (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)