User:EyeSerene/Archive24
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Could you take a look at Talk:Sonny Bono
Hi, EyeSerene
Need your help with this case: A range of ips kept making and reverting the same edits to Sonny Bono, so the article was protected as a result of a content dispute.
However, now that ips are supposed to discuss changes to the article at Talk:Sonny Bono, one of the ips Special:Contributions/75.47.151.134 only deletes any opinion that doesn't agree with her/his viewpoint and is being disruptive eliminating entire sections of the talk page that refer to whether those edits should be included or not. See [1] Is page protection for a talk page the correct procedure? -- John KB (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Coincidentally I've just been in communication with that IP over another issue. I've warned them about removing comments (your article isn't the only one) and will block next time it occurs. I'd be very reluctant to protect the talk page as it excludes all IP contribution to article development, so tends to be a last resort. It is of course a possibility, but if only a few IPs are causing the problem it causes less collateral damage just to block where necessary. I hope this helps - please drop me a note if the situation doesn't improve. Best, EyeSerenetalk 11:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- That article is a complete mess because of that ip, and that's not the only one, there are several of them: was checking the article history and first a single purpose account added all the disputed information, then the ips start reverting any username who removed it, then one of the ips added the weasel template as a way to give some validity to the statements (without removing them). Then the page was protected. It's wow... --John KB (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... well, the semi-protection should see off any disruption on the article (it can be extended as long as is necessary), and I'm prepared to block on sight any IPs that disrupt the talk page. If there is a genuine content dispute over reliably sourced, balanced, NPOV content, the IP's counter-productive behaviour will end up excluding them from the page so they 'lose' by default. Hopefully they'll understand that and start to engage properly with other editors. If not, well (as I commented in the thread you left on JamesBWatson's talk page), we have WP:ROPE. EyeSerenetalk 11:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind - I see James has locked the page so we'll see how things go from there. EyeSerenetalk 11:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- That article is a complete mess because of that ip, and that's not the only one, there are several of them: was checking the article history and first a single purpose account added all the disputed information, then the ips start reverting any username who removed it, then one of the ips added the weasel template as a way to give some validity to the statements (without removing them). Then the page was protected. It's wow... --John KB (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Content created on Wikipedia
I'm trying to find out an specific guideline or essay about content created on wikipedia with no source, that is copied by a news agency, and then comes back to wikipedia as a cited source. Is there such a guideline? --John KB (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CIRCULAR :) EyeSerenetalk 12:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet
You may be interested in the information I have posted there. Best, Black Kite (t) (c) 01:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Kosovo Articles
Hi, I would like to invite you to review my post on the kosovo articles here. you have been in discussion with me on this issue in the past and I would appreciate some comments. User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages thanks James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Re:
Looking at the edits, they feel familiar but I think its just a random disgruntled ‘nazi-fanboi’; the key piece for me is our old friend was convinced the battalion was part of the 1st SS, this one thinks its part of the 12th.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Ernest
Well, its been almost a year... care to comment? - Josette (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Drone attacks in Pakistan
Hi, In case you don't have this watchlisted, I think (as an involved editor) that some admin action may be needed to stop the edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies - I was incommunicado yesterday, but I see that Ed has protected the article. I've also watchlisted it. EyeSerenetalk 09:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Help
Here you informed the user about all important things. You know that user was reported on ANI few days ago. Now, user continue with his endless reverts of housekeeping edits, with some disputed explanation on his talk page. His edits need copy editing, and he revert those. Please help me, as i dont know what else to do with this user, as he is mostly ignoring our advices, or misunderstand it. For more, i will help you. Thanks! --WhiteWriter speaks 16:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note. Unfortunately I'm so busy at the moment that I don't really have the time to look into this in any detail. However, if you believe James Michael DuPont is edit warring the best place to report that is here - administrators will look at the diffs you provide and act accordingly. I'm sorry I can't be more help at the moment. EyeSerenetalk 13:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have had a conversation with him about an online source for the Easter Rising the results on which can be seen on his and my talk pages. Although it was amicable enough you'll see that he always steers towards "attrocites" by the British and never a word about killings by the rebels/nationalists. On other things e.g. my comments about undue emphasis to the Guinness Brewery shootings and subsequent court martial of CQMS Flood of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers there's never any reply. It does appear to me that he wants to demonize anything about the former Irish regiments of the British army and does like to drag ancient history in e.g. this edit of Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts
There are others like his change to the definition of a brigade which obviously upset an IP editor. I wouldn't say it the same way but his edit makes defining a brigade very difficult as it reduces it to "a unit made up of a number of smaller units".
One thing he's sort of right on is the regimental articles where he's deleted bits that say they were disbanded as a result of the Anglo-Irish treaty. He's right that it wasn't a condition of the treaty but (and I'm making a suposition here) because there was an economincally based reorganisation of the army concurrently occurring and the two got linked and it was decided to disband the Irish regiments because the territoires they were named after were no longer part of the UK. Perhaps this needs explaining more and citing if I'm correct.
I'm loathe to get too deeply involved as I can see it just degenerating into a British v Irish argument and that has caused so much grief on wikipedia that it's not something I want to get dragged into. NtheP (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can understand your reluctance - nationalist POV-pushing is not pleasant to deal with no matter what form it takes. Thankfully we have various Arbcom rulings that make it easier. Maybe I'll leave MFIreland a note to that effect, though given the level of concern that's been raised at WT:MILHIST I'm tempted just to block and be done with it. EyeSerenetalk 10:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- PS The above has been overtaken by events; see the thread at milhist. Best, EyeSerenetalk 12:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
|
- Nice work on Five years of military history! Kudos to you, sir! — Kralizec! (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Falcon8765
Hi, I'm just letting you know that I accepted User:Falcon8765's unblock request. He claimed that he believed he was reverting spam/vandalism and I think he was sincere and, since it was a first offence, decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and reduce the block duration to "time served". I hope you don't mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
For You
|
The Guidance Barnstar | |
| In appreciation of the effort you made to help get the other 60% of the academy course for closing ACRs up and polished, as well as trimmed for ease of reading and precision, I hereby bestow upon you the Guidance Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks very much Tom. It's something I'd been meaning to work on for while; your note and the head start you made just provided some impetus that happened to coincide with a fee day I had :) EyeSerenetalk 12:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
|
Asking for a comment in a Move Page request
Hello there! There is an article called "Argentina-Brazil War", it's about an international conflict that occurred between 1825 and 1828 between the Empire of Brazil and the United Provinces of South America over the possession of the Brazilian province of Cisplatina (which had a mixed Portuguese and Spanish population). The problem is that is was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". An editor probably created this name for it.
Thus, I proposed the name to be changed for "Cisplatine War" because it is "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME). A few examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], etc...
Your comment in Talk:Argentina–Brazil War#Requested move would be very welcome! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted post - user:Christineb_213
Hey EyeSerene,
I noticed you deleted my user page. I appreciate your diligence and attention to the Wikipedia community, however, the page was a demo of the code my organization will be using for our Wikipedia page, when we change our name and logo in February. I put it up so that superiors could view the page in the coming day or two, and provide feedback. I passed the link around yesterday, so the intention is to have people look at it today and tomorrow, and then remove it myself once they have seen it. Although this may not have been the best place to post, I am unaware of another such location. Can you please advise on where I could do something like this, or what I should write to avoid this happening again?
74.13.218.58 (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Christineb_213
- Hi Christineb 213, thanks for your note. I may be able to temporarily restore the draft for you while you're working on it, though there are a few things you should be aware of first:
- Conflict of interest: because you're affiliated with the article subject you have a conflict of interest. Generally it's not good for editors to edit in areas where they have a personal stake - although it's not impossible, it can make it difficult to comply with our core editing policy of neutrality. The problem most often encountered is that editors with a COI adopt an uncritical, approving or even promotional tone that is incompatible with a balanced encyclopedic article. As a rule of thumb, a reader should not be able to tell what the article author(s) feel about the subject.
- Copyright: portions of the article (both the currently existing CCFF one and the draft in your userspace) were verbatim copies of material from the CCFF's website. At the bottom of each page on the site is a copyright notice where the CCFF claims copyright on its web pages. This means that for legal reasons we are not allowed to simply copy the CCFF's material (other than, say, for things like short directly attributed quotations). We always take copyright very seriously, which is the main issue preventing me restoring your draft article because by doing so I'd also be restoring copyvios.
- Reliable sourcing: articles should not rely on primary sources. In part the existence of multiple independent sources establishes the notability of the subject, but it also avoids the dangers of a one-sided, limited perspective. Although you've made a commendable effort at referencing the article to ensure verifiability, cysticfibrosis.ca is by definition not a reliable source other than for what the CCFF claims about itself (see self-published sources). To take an extreme example, an article about Union Carbide India Limited that relied only on press releases and company promotional literature might make no mention of the Bhopal disaster. I'm not in any way implying the CCFF has comparable skeletons in its closet, but hopefully you can appreciate the point. As a related issue, if such information did exist in reliable sources you can be sure someone will eventually add it to the article - as long as edits are policy-compliant no-one including the article subject has editorial control over its content.
- As to practical advice, if you have an email address I can send you the raw text/markup of your draft, which you can then repost in your userspace while you work on it minus copyright violations (I think it was mainly the Mission and parts of the Publications sections). Alternatively I can restore the article to your userpage and remove the copyvios myself. Either way you might like to take a look at the current version of Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation to see what I trimmed out - external links (per WP:NOTDIR), non-notable or unencyclopedic content etc. I hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Wolkersdorf im Weinviertel translated article
Hi,
I had translated the article 'Wolkersdorf im Wienviertel' from English to Kannada. Though it is a ditto translation of the information in the source, I don't understand why you have deleted it.
Thanks, Narayan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayan.Shastri (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is the English-language Wikipedia and only accepts articles in English. The Kannada-language Wikipedia is here - I expect your translation work would be very welcome there, though you should be careful about verbatim copying from the source due to copyright. EyeSerenetalk 11:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Christmas greetings
Diannaa (Talk) has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!
Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.
Fred Hofheinz article has been locked down
Hi! Am trying to reword truth into inaccurate, misleading sentence on the page Fred Hofheinz, with NY time references, and an IP keeps undoing it. Here is the current sentence I would like to reword In 2000, Hofheinz was convicted, following a plea bargain, in connection with bribes totalling $1.5 million dollars he had made to aides of the Governor of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards.[3][4][5]
THe sentence I have been trying to drop back in is: In 2000, Hofheinz was convicted in the Federal Court in Louisiana following a plea bargain for failing to report to authorities that one of the aides of Governor Edwin Edwards had tried to extort him.
Verbatime quote from new york times reference printed on November 23, 2000.
BATON ROUGE, La., Nov. 22— A former mayor of Houston, Fred Hofheinz, has pleaded guilty to failing to report a felony in connection with bribes he paid to aides of former Gov. Edwin W. Edwards of Louisiana.
The attitude of the IP in this situation has clearly shown the limits of the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, and you have lost a true fan.
Please regain my faith and print the truth. Nafunafu (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note. As an administrator I have no mandate to adjudicate content where that content is in line with our content policies (see Wikipedia:What adminship is not). However, I will if I may offer some advice. The applicable policy that covers the material you are concerned about is our Biography of living persons policy. This states that all material, but especially negative or contentious material, about a living person must be impeccably sourced. It should also be neutrally written and not given undue prominence in an article. While we won't permit articles to become attack pieces, we won't permit them to be whitewashed either. In this particular case it seems to me that your content suggestion, while supported by the sources, doesn't quite give the full picture either. From the New York Times:
Mr. Hofheinz, who was mayor from 1974 to 1977, was indicted last year on charges of making $1.5 million in illegal payoffs to Cecil Brown, an Edwards associate, in a bid to make three business deals in Louisiana starting in 1993. Mr. Hofheinz reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors to admit guilt in not reporting the bribe efforts in exchange for dismissal of the other counts.
- I have no desire to get involved in editing the article (and due to our conflict of interest rules would be unable to act in an admin capacity if I did). The reason I protected the article from being edited is that this gives an opportunity for all editors involved to discuss their content differences on the article talk page (link: Talk:Fred Hofheinz) without the risk of further edit warring on the article itself. I suggest this should be your next course of action. Ideally, by examining the available sources (you might also find this useful), you and FormerIP should be able to come to some compromise wording that fully reflects the sources while addressing your concerns. I hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Drone attacks in Pakistan
Hi EyeSerene, You commented on the discussion at Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan a few weeks ago, and I think that it would benefit from another intervention by an uninvolved admin if you have capacity. I'm a bit concerned about Iqinn (talk · contribs)'s comments, which seem to be seeking to include his or her perspective in the article while dismissing all others. This hasn't carried across to any article-space edits yet, though I suspect it's a matter of time. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I do keep a sort of watching brief for disruption on that article but I've been busy recently. I've left a comment and will continue to watchlist - feel free to prod me if I don't appear to be paying attention! EyeSerenetalk 14:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
POV-pushing/advocacy discussion
You were right in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#POV-pushing/advocacy. See the unblock request User talk:PeterBln.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow! That's textbook WP:TEND - he's even had a go at you for leaving friendly advice. EyeSerenetalk 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for the barnstar! 'Twas my first! TheMike •Wassup doc? 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Handel's collection of art
Hello Eyeserene. Good afternoon. Quit a few people, who I invited to take a look at my list of artists, thought it was an interesting subject and list. Not very many people added the article, because I seem to be the only with this book on Handel on his shelf. It is not easy for me to express subtle details with my limited English, so I copied the whole sentence in the hope other people would use the information to improve the article. This does not happen and I am a bit disappointed I have to fix the article without any help. Did you check Balthasar Denner, Georg Friedrich Wreede or Isaac Johannes Lamotius? Am I really such a bad author?Taksen (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for those links. The articles are very interesting and I enjoyed reading them. You are very brave to contribute to a version of Wikipedia that's not your native language - I wouldn't dream of writing for the French Wikipedia (my only other language), though I suspect my French is much more limited than your English!
- Regarding the Handel edit, I appreciate the problem you've had now you've explained it. As I wrote on your talk page, we have to be careful when adding opinion to an article, especially when that opinion can be seen as negative.
- For edits like the one you made, the first thing I ask myself is, "Is Thomas McGeary qualified to give an opinion on Handel's art collection?" I searched on the internet and on oxfordjournals.org found what may be a copy of the book you have (see [35]). The article says at the top: "Thomas McGeary has written extensively about the reception of Italian opera, singers, and Farinelli in early 18th-century Britain. He has completed a book-length study on the satire and politics of Italian opera in the era of Handel, Pope and Walpole". From that I believe McGeary's opinion is an expert opinion and can be included in the article.
- The next question is how to write the text. We've established that it needs to avoid being a direct copy or even too close to the original, but it might also help to avoid some of the objections if it includes some positive remarks too. Would you mind if I post something on the article talk page that we can all work on? EyeSerenetalk 13:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Eyeserene, I appreciate your quick answer, and the content. I am pleased. My reply will be rather short because of my kitchen English. I would like to copy it my talkpage and you could copy some to Talk:George Frideric Handel's art collection? Is that a okay? Then you can add there any suggestions you like. The topic is interesting enough to attract a few more readers.Taksen (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad you are pleased. I am also happy that we are reaching an understanding :) Please feel free to copy anything here to anywhere you like. You've caught me just as I was about to log off for the evening, and I don't edit Wikipedia much at the weekend. Before I log off though I will post something at Talk:George Frideric Handel's art collection explaining that we intend to work on some suggestions together and that any other help is welcome. Unfortunately you have upset some of the other editors there, but I hope this will be acceptable to everyone. I suggest that, if you aren't sure about some text you want to add to the article (perhaps because of your English, though it is really pretty good), you post it to the talk page first where we can work on it together until everyone is happy. Then it can go in the article.
- Have a good weekend - I will try to check in tomorrow, but I may not be able to. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 20:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Your message on my talk page
I disagree with you regarding your message on my talk page. I do not have any problem to change the text to up to six people. But i personally would leave it like that as the fist source is an early report and the latest source published the next day verifies 6 people. Regarding the removal of the Haqqani Network connection. That was never verified in any of the sources and you may scold those who repeatedly added this unverified information. Regarding suspected militants. You might have another look at the BBC source "militants" not militants. The BBC makes it absolute clear that they do not verify this. And unknown local official are not a reliable source. Finally i fully disagree with you. I do edit from a NPOV. Regards. IQinn (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks you for your reply. Because you've removed my post to your page I'll reply here.
- Re numbers: there are three sources that state "at least three" [36]; "at least five" [37]; and "six" [38]. Your interpretation may be correct but it's still an interpretation; this is one of the reasons why other editors have repeatedly referred you to WP:OR.
- Re "Haqqani Network": I'm not scolding anyone, including you (in fact I praised you for correctly removing it).
- Re "militants": I don't quite understand the point you are making with "You might have another look at the BBC source "militants" not militants." You seem to be saying that it's up to us to verify the sources that our sources use. This is not correct. All we require is that the information in Wikipedia is verifiable to a reliable source - in this case the BBC. It's not our concern where the BBC gets its information from.
- My intention was to offer some constructive advice that might help you avoid problems in future. I wasn't accusing you of POV editing, I was trying to show you why other editors might think your edits are POV even though you don't mean them to be. The reason I offered the advice was that I don't want you to be blocked. You've demonstrated in your post above that you don't yet fully understand Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies and still have some things to learn (as we all do). You are welcome to disagree again, but if you refuse to take any advice I believe you will eventually end up not being allowed to edit Wikipedia. EyeSerenetalk 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- RE: "Your interpretation may be correct but it's still an interpretation; this is one of the reasons why other editors have repeatedly referred you to WP:OR." This is not OR and i strongly refuse your second accusation that other editors would have repeatedly referred me to WP:OR. First you accuse me of being an POV editor what is wrong and now this... I am sorry that is wrong and not helpful. As already said i have no problem you change it to "up to 6 people" even i still believe my argumentation for the use of "6 people" is write and in accordance with our policies. No big deal here.
- RE: "You've demonstrated in your post above that you don't yet fully understand Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies" I dispute this and i dispute that i am a POV editor and i dispute that i am somebody who would frequently violate OR. Simply baseless.
- RE: Thank you for your concerns but i think you are far off here and i suggest if you are keen to lecture other editors you might have not found the right way yet.
- No offence but your accusations that i would be a NPOV editor that i would frequently violate policies that i would not listen to constructive advise that is would be on the corner of being blocked are baseless. Simply false.
- Let me say it again i appreciate your kind and selfless attempt to be helpful but as i am not an POV editor and i am not an editor that constantly violates policies and i am not an editor who does not listen to the concerns of other and i am not an editor who is going to be blocked for something that i am not and i can just repeat my thanks for your concerns and suggest to go back and continue the great work of content creation and improving. I am always very interested to discuss content related issues but please without the use of ad hominum arguments and in a civil manner. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- About the content. I agree with you the BBC is our source and the BBC has put the word militants into quotations "militants". The BBC does not verify they were militants. By putting the word "militants" into quotation they clearly indicate that this claim is questionable. IQinn (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy 10th
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
User:MFIreland and edits to Hat and Caubeen
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MFIreland and edits to Hat and Caubeen
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Regards Lloydelliot10 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks so much for the A-class medal. It is actually very well-timed as my schedule hasn't allowed me to edit much lately and I've been contemplating taking a long-term wiki-sabbatical. Nothing like a pat on the back to pull you back in! Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're most welcome, though I'm really just the delivery boy - the award is on behalf of all the coordinators. I'm glad if it helps to keep one of our better contributors engaged though, and your work is well-deserving of recognition. I enjoyed reading the articles. EyeSerenetalk 15:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Must be from Hull ay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.237.251 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Good analogy
If I remember, I will be using this in the future. Thanks! NW (Talk) 06:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010
| |||
C is for Cookie
Hi ES, knowing that administrators often perform thankless acts here in the project, I asked Cookie Monster to share one of his cookies with you, and he reluctantly agreed, especially when I told him that you had blocked that silly IP who was disrupting all those Sesame Street articles. I also saw from your userpage that you're female and that you raised kids, which as you know, is a rare demographic in WP. My husband is a wiki-widow too! I see that you're Aussie, too--we are such a Wiggles household here! At any rate, thanks for your hard work and obvious dedication here. Christine (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, your thoughtfulness is really appreciated! I hope you don't mind me making two (minor) corrections: on the balance of the available evidence I'm actually male, and I live in this South Wales not this one. Mr Monster can't have the cookie back though :D EyeSerenetalk 16:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, jeez, to quote another American icon--"Doh!" I need to actually read stuff before going off and making a fool of myself. My apologies. The sentiment remains, including my admiration for your grace and indulgence. That's what comes of editing at 4:30 in the morning. If I were Sandra Oh, I'd bestow upon you The Cookie Touch so that all you touch turns into cookies! ;)
Orphaned non-free image File:CCFFLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CCFFLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
70 years ago Ernst Lindemann
The article is currently up for peer review. Lindemann was the commander of Bismarck. I have been working on this article for some time now and my hope is to bring it to FA status by 27 May. If you have the time it may be a candidate for 27 May FA article. I could use your help and would appreciate your comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll be very happy to take a look (it may be a few days before I get to it though). EyeSerenetalk 15:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Johan de la Faille
Hello EveSerene, again I am in trouble. Could you take a look at Johan de la Faille and at my talkpage? Why did she remove all? There is almost no information available on this man, so I worked one day to fix the article on request of User Notifly. It is stuff for specialists. It is a pity she removed all.Taksen (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
|
March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Drone attacks in Pakistan, again
Hi EyeSerene, if you have time could you please look in on this article and its talk page again? Iqinn (talk · contribs) is labeling material he or she thinks is flawed as 'crap' and adding tags to material which appears to be cited to reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies for the late response - I'm snowed at work at the moment. In the light of the talk page consensus I've warned Iquinn and will block them if they keep it up. EyeSerenetalk 10:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
ARBMAC
Hello, Eye! Hope that you are fine! Just one question, can non-admin user send ARBMAC warning, and add it in ARBMAC log? I find out that Scrosby85 (talk · contribs) edit in a very non cooperative way, so i wanted to send him ARBMAC warning, as most of his edits are just nationalistic pretensions. (diff, diff, diff)
Maybe ARBMAC warning may help? So, can i send him warning, and log it? And to any similar situation? --WhiteWriter speaks 22:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- The 'Discretionary sanctions' part of ARBMAC is really written for admins only, though I'm not sure how far that applies to handing out warnings - I'd imagine that any editor can notify another about an arbcom ruling. However, to save any procedural objections I've warned Scrosby85 myself. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 10:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. But i really think that only sending warning is ok. Anyway, if any user can warn anyone about anything, ARBMAC shouldn't be so different... Thanks anyway! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 18:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
A major thank you
EyeSerene, I just wanted to give you a huge thanks for helping us (the MMA Wikiproject) with the block on Eyriq86. This guy would change tons of articles, and none of them seemed to be in good faith. Anyway, I touched on all of that earlier, this message is just to express my gratitude for your response. It means we can get back to serious editing and not have to worry about ridiculous disruptive edits from that user for a bit. Thanks again. Dachknanddarice (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're most welcome :) I know there are few things as frustrating as trying to communicate with someone who won't respond and won't follow advice. If they show up again in other guises feel free to drop me a note. EyeSerenetalk 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that Eyriq may have begun IP-hopping. 68.120.85.76 (talk · contribs), at the time of this message, has only edited articles that Eyriq edited shortly before the indef block on March 15. Diffs: [39][40][41]. Two of their edits matched Eyriq's exactly: compare [42] with [43], and [44] with [45]. I'm not familiar with sock puppetry cases, so any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. —LOL T/C 21:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Another IP, 67.125.159.15 (talk · contribs), appeared after 68.120.85.76's most recent edit and exhibits the same behaviour as Eyriq; compare [46] with [47], and [48] with [49]. Would a block or semi-protection be out of the question? —LOL T/C 07:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Notification and a comment
Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, (you've not the subject, but are involved).
I should note that I've received emails from JamesBowen (talk · contribs) which, on the basis of the email address used and their content, strongly indicate that he is the James Bowan who has been involved in advocating the concept of a Battle for Australia. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
|
Deletion of Among the Echoes
Hello EyeSerene, a speedy deletion was removed from this article by the user Porchcrop. There were references and 20 Notability were asserted. Markdashney (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's borderline to be honest. However, to be sure you get a fair hearing I've restored the article and instead taken it to Articles for Deletion, where it will be discussed by other editors for a week before any decision is made. You are very welcome to contribute to the discussion (located here). There is a guide to deletion discussions here you might find useful too - they can get jargon/acronym heavy sometimes. EyeSerenetalk 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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.
Why did you delete my Christian Laurin article
Hello Eye Serene,
Could please explain why my Christian Laurin Article was deleted.....There was already an article on Christian Laurin in the french Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Laurin. Christian Laurin is a canadian bilingual (english and french) actor who has worked on many canadian and american film and tv series including the very popular The Sopranos . I did have the IMDB website as reference and also the NorthernStar website http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0491446/ http://www.northernstars.ca/actorsjkl/laurin_christian.html. Maybe i didn't use the proper guidelines to write the articles....But I based my article on Frank Chisuerin (also a canadian actor with the pretty much the same credentials) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Chiesurin. The purpose of writing an article on Christian Laurin was to have the article available also for anglophones. Thank you for looking into this matter more closely. Rutabagan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutabagan (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I appreciate the good reasons why you wrote the article, but the reason I deleted was that it made no assertion of notability for M Laurin that would meet the criteria for actors set out at WP:ENT, and being a biographical article about a living person it didn't meet our strict biography sourcing policy. I notice the fr.wikipedia article has no sources - the many different versions of Wikipedia all have different policies, but unfortunately this is not permitted in a bio article on the English-language Wikipedia. I hope this helps explain why the article was deleted, EyeSerenetalk 08:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
- thanks for leting me know, I had it in my mind from the previous AFD dicussions obviously they were wrong. all the best. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Anber
May I suggest a talk page message to him? Cause what I've seen at List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes he will just revert your edit. CTJF83 12:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're too quick off the mark - I was just typing out a note on his talk page when you posted :) I'd hope that Anber sees the sense of what I've written, but if the removal is reverted there are other options. Best, EyeSerenetalk 12:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks...I'd hope he would listen to an admin. CTJF83 12:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you take a more active role in this discussion, or pass it on to another admin that will? It is ridiculous Anber just blatantly ignores consensus and policy and has no repercussions, like being blocked or the page protected. I'm not trying to be rude, but the ANI discussion is out of control and nothing has come of it, when the consensus is clear. CTJF83 08:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the blocking!
Thank you very much for the blocking on my account, it had show me so clearly the power of lobbying, and also that what is important in Wikipedia is having as many users as possible as allies, no adding information or sources, thats minor. Sad but important lesson. Ah, as User:Omar-Toons had deleted sourced information and even whole subsections of the article in 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests, with no one opposing it, I would add more reliable relevant sourced information to the article, instead of deleting others work with false reasons or directly no reasons. Am I gonna be blocked again for it?. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, this isn't a "good" come back after a blocking.
- As reported by many users on the admin's board, your edits are clearly PoV because of using one of the belligerents' (Polisario Front) website as a reliable source, despite it is a primary source (with the opposed reported by the other belligerent's (Moroccan gov) website, naturally), and that's why many people (not only me) undo your edits. It is not a conspiracy, it is supposed to make you thinking about the way you contribute to WP.
- Regards,
- Omar-Toons (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- As I explained in your block notice, the reason you were blocked was because you were persistently edit-warring. Site policy is that if you edit war you get blocked (it's all set out at WP:EW). Admins have no mandate to decide content issues. If you're in a content dispute with other editors and you can't come to some agreement on the article talk page you should pursue dispute resolution. EyeSerenetalk 07:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Omar-Toons, it is funny that you talk about POV, when there are several examples of double-standarts on your edits. For example, you deleted the expression "allegedly over-runned" when the victim was a Sahrawi, but maintain it when the victim was Morocco. I would not call that NPOV. ¿More examples? Of course, you talk about SPS not being a reliable source, but you maintain that MAP is a reliable source, dont you?. More double-standarts. The same happens with Afrol news and Jeune Afrique, double standarts again. And not to talk about the deletion of whole subsections of the article simply because you think is not related. Also, stop trying to manipulate, you are the only one deleting information, because that is what you do, I would be happy if you contribute to the article intead of trying to erased the work of other users.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks like HCPUNXKID is back with his combative editing style on the 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests page. Anytime someone makes an edit to be neutral, he furiously reverts like he owns the article. I think you should watch the page closely. TL565 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:HCPUNXKID. Since no amount of advice seems to make any difference, it is possible that a longer block of this editor may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)