User:EyeSerene/Archive20

You Have Been Blocked

Happy April Fools Day!--RM (Be my friend) 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of raising your blood pressure....

See Talk:Gibraltarian people, as usual it is degenerating into a tag team baiting and wikilawyering fest.

For reference, read History of nationality in Gibraltar. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just another confirmation why we need ArbCom in the Gibraltar space, if we cannot even have a well-mannered discussion on an article talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Short of fully-protecting the talk page - which I don't believe I have the remit to do (on present evidence anyway) - I think the only solution is to disengage. One option might be to request Arbcom to employ discretionary sanctions while the case is underway and lock down all the articles, but I don't know if they'd go for that. EyeSerene^talk 13:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think the discussion in that article is a good example of what any discussion in WP should be: we have proposed changes, have discussed about content and sources, nobody has made any changes to the article so far until we are done discussing it thoroughly and civilly... I don't manage to see the tag team, the baiting and the wikilawyering fest... In case there's anything wrong with the discussion, please tell us so that we can either disengage or change the type of discussion, please. Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have disengaged, deliberately so, however were I to suggest that in good faith the response, as you can see above, will not be. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

blocked user still doing vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChristiaandeWet blocked for a week continues editing and disrupting wiki content with another account.[[1]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

Pietje96 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic_Church#New_GAR

I have taken up your suggestion and proposed that the current GAR is closed and that you and I open a new GAR. SilkTork *^YES! 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cobra

The new wording is much clearer. Apologies for my earlier blunderbus reversion. HLGallon (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

advice

Am adding stuff to the VB article; Marie notes the below. It might be due to the poor translation however it seem that Marie is hinting that looting did take place. However Goerge Forty notes that such action was punished severely so its doubtful that photos of Germans infront of smashed up shops is incriminating evidence and that the battle caused the damage and they didnt pinch anything.

"Withough going in for systematic looting, they did perpertrate some damage in revenge..."

It then goes on to talk about the Germans buring houses, shops and the town hall to

"hide their misdeeds"

Is it advisable to steer clear of the mention of looting and just stick to the burning (i know that sounds terrible) as the latter is in black and white and sourced. To note i will be adding the latter bit in, in just a moment but will hang fire for feedback on the looting point.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Time

Is there a time limit to provide evidences? My newborn child is ill and, as long as my paternity leave has ended, I don't have much time to gather the evidences I need. What can I do? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's recommended to do it within a week or so, but it looks like some other parties are delayed too for various reasons, and I don't believe the time limit is very strict. I think if you make a note of your circumstances that should be fine. Incidentally, I've forwarded all the emails I received on the the committee. EyeSerene^talk 08:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

re: Mail

Hello, EyeSerene. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 09:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ACM awards page

ES, next time you may want to be a little more cognizant of where you put them since this was incorrect. You added Ian's two ACM with oak leaves to the section where the normal ACMs are listed. I've gone ahead and fixed this. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurfurst

As an editor who understands the history, and exactly who casuses trouble, could you offer any input here:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Kurfurst is causing trouble again. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurfurst is trouble making. This time he is going after me on the Battle of France page. Dapi89 (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Noone is "going after you", don't be paranoid and stop block shopping. And especially stop making personal attacks like this. There are some problems with your edits ("There is no evidence" - POVish, " disputed by a large number of academics" - whom?, "they were not acting upon the concept of Auftragstaktik " - according to whom, is there a source? And why is a negative claim is neccessary? The article isn't about pushing forward personal beliefs, but describing the Battle of France... this appears to be a minor point as I noted on the talk page). So stop owning articles again when you ought to discuss your edits with other editors.. Kurfürst (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene is not stupid. So stop trying to con him into believing I made any such 'attacks'. Kurfursts eargerness to revert everything I do is apparent by the simple fact he refuses to wait for any source before reversion. In light of past troubles, it obvious harassment. You are nothing but trouble. Dapi89 (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I appriciate your irony about "reverting everyting". That is what you do. Oh, might I also note that reverting everything also means you delete all request for cites, discussion of the subject? So much about 'refuses to wait for any source'BS... I also appreciate the irony accusation of harassment from you, since you openly admitted before that you are set out to harass me. "I along with quite a few others have done a lot to defend wikipedia's NPOV intergrity from User:Kurfurst's Germanophile editing agenda". If you'd have a case, you'd have filed an ANI for ' disruption, but with your history, your previous statements and editing 'style', it would only bring unwanted attention to your attitude. I stictly adhere to the wiki's rules while you completely ignore them and try to have to last and only word in everything in every article you touch. Hence the block shopping while not even trying the proper ways of DR. Yup, go explain that to neutral admins, which Eyeserene is obviously isn't. Kurfürst (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You fail to see the illogical madness in your own posts. I along with other editors...what does this tell you Kurfurst? Its a statement of fact. You have been in conflict with practically every editor you have come across. This latest abuse makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not going to allow you to waste my time any further. I am hoping when EyeSerene gets back (as he knows you well), he will take action to stop your behaviour which is always directed at me. Further, stop accusing this admin of being bias. He has not even responded yet and your are already making personal attacks. Dapi89 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this thread, but while doing something that demanded my full concentration, so sorry I haven't responded sooner. I'm also well aware of Kurfürst's opinion of me :) I think enough is enough - there was no cogent reason for that revert - yes, Dapi's text was unsourced, but so was the rest of the section. I've indefblocked Kurfürst and will request review at WP:ANI. EyeSerene^talk 13:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish to make something perfectly clear: I have made rapprochements to Kurfurst before to no avail. At times I honestly thought there were signs that this was possible to no avail, so I have come to realise my own stupidity in that regard. I have (and there are 3-4 other editors) had to endure this behaviour for nearly three years. None of us have ever sought out conflict, unlike Kurfurst, and every editor that has had even the slightest brush with Kurfurst has been harassed at some point. So this saga isn't just about me although it seems I was always no. 1 on the list. Dapi89 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of us have. His reaction to my first block was concerning - everyone was wrong except him - so I'm not surprised it's come to this. Disappointed, but not surprised. ANI thread here. EyeSerene^talk 13:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Dapi89 (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction - thread moved here. My fault, I posted in the wrong place. EyeSerene^talk 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I've posted some comments. I'm angry that PBS is plugging for an unblock. Its just unbelievable. Dapi89 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating but please don't let it get to you. If - if - Kurfürst is unblocked he'll be on a very short leash. PBS is a good admin in my experience, and I'd trust him to monitor Kurfürst and take appropriate action if necessary. EyeSerene^talk 23:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

PBS is determined to get this overturned. For the momement he is alone. Are these comments designed to anger me? (here). Apparently, my experiences and others are 'bias'. Is insulting. Dapi89 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

Kurfurst has replied. No appology. None of its his fault as usual. And as a condition (his condition) he want me not to revert his edits. Can you believe the cheek? Dapi89 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If there's consensus to give him a final opportunity to contribute constructively, so be it, though personally I find his response inadequate. One definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting different results. We'll see... EyeSerene^talk 09:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I'll have to look it up! Dapi89 (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with Nobel Prize Images

Hello! I saw on the FA-Team that you could help with image related copyrights. I am soon hoping to nominate Nobel Prize for FA but before I do that there is some images left that I have problem with. They are located on Talk:Nobel Prize under the logical section Images Copyright (from FA page). The images is File:Melvin Calvin and Swedish king.jpeg and File:Nobelpristagare Fleming Midi.jpg

I'd be happy with any help I can get! --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of audiobook information

In the Deathstalker page, you removed the audiobook infromation. Why? I do not work for graphic audio, I just feel that the article was incomplete as it did not list all the formats the books were available in. Do you remove any and all reference to audio books from the pages or is it just select publishers? I am sorry if I sound a bit put out, but the fact is I am as well as confused. I've seen links to other publishers websites that are not blocked. Any further explanation as to why the entire audio book section was removed would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slingbld (talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your violation of WP rules.

Are you aware that it is in violation of WP rules to semi-protect both an article page and the talk page at the same time? Why did you do that? 71.36.119.226 (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DUKW

I resent what you put on my talk page, it was completely out of the blue. Seemingly you have no knowlege on the subject of the DUKW, and I am simply trying to make the point that Dennis Puleston was British and helped create the DUKW, thus a minority. Please try to be more understanding.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdasmiffking (talk • contribs) 10:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice that Eyeserene committed a "Freudian Slip", saying: "please don't keep inserting unsourced minority viewpoints on the above article." The implication is that unsourced majority viewpoints would be okay. (Could have said: "please don't keep inserting unsourced viewpoints on the above article.") Unfortunately, some people turn into thugs when they are made administrator. 97.120.248.208 (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

War Edition at Dili

Users J. Patrick Fischer (talk) Merbabu (talk) and Darwinius (talk) are removing systematically the symbols of the city alleging they are not used anymore. The problem is that they doesn´t quote any relevant source to remove the symbols and prove they are not used anymore, despite there´s a law supporting them. I gave the data, he is disputing it, just for personal taste. Domaleixo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

71.246.35.80

I notice that you've blocked 71.246.35.80. As you haven't mentioned this at this relevant section of WP:AN/I, it occurs to me that you may not have noticed that the IP has very recently been discussed there. -- Hoary (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out :) I do recall seeing part of that thread a few days ago (the reason I watchlisted the article in the first place). I'll drop a note on ANI to update the thread. EyeSerene^talk 15:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

IP 69.237.116.229 posting attack on former editor

Hi Eyeserene,

The following remark has been posted on the Talk:Adi Da page: [[2]]. The IP may be user:Tao2911. David Starr has not edited since Feb 16 but I feel the incident still needs to be investigated. Tao2911 has not edited under his user account since returning from his enforced Wiki break. Since you took an interest in the problems at Adi Da last month I thought you could check this out if you have a minute. Thank you. --Diannaa ^TALK 19:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your reply and good advice. It looks like the attack was an isolated incident; if things heat up again I will report it as I am still monitoring the article. Right now the remaining editors have been working hard to make a neutral informative article with an eye towards GA status so all seems to be resolved. See you around! --Diannaa ^TALK 14:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC) PS. I was not comfortable with removing the comments but decided since the remark was practically libellous to go ahead. Normally talk page comments should not be removed, I know. --Diannaa ^TALK 15:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology prepared and ready to be posted

I've prepared an apology to Blaxthos and to the anonymous editor that I incorrectly accused of sockpuppetry. Where would be the best place to post it? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your responses and diligence in posting that notice; I have no doubt it has resolved the issue. In the unlikely circumstance that the same situation continues now or in the future, may I seek your assistance directly or should I venture over to the craps shoot that is ANI?  :) Thanks again! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. 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. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tangier Ibn Battouta Airport

Hi EyeSerene,

you may remember my report on above mentioned article on AIV. As a result you semiprotected the article for one month. the protection ended a couple of days ago, but the first edits by an IP out of 82.83.* was again problematic. Not only does he still not mention sources he although changes right spelled names into advertising spelling. You offered to protect the article for a longer time periode (see here). Could you please enforce another semi-protection? Thank you in advance, --Blunt. (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected for 3 months. EyeSerene^talk 07:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the vandal has now registered an account named Legomaschine (talk · contribs). Could you block him? Bye --Blunt. (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again. I guess you didn't notice my last post here. The vandal is still active. Greetings --Blunt. (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right I didn't notice (I should really check the page history every now and then). Because they've now got an account I've left Legomaschine a note about the importance of sourcing as they seem to be doing this across a number of articles. If it continues and they make no effort to source their edits or to communicate in edit summaries or on talk pages, I'll block their account. I'd like to give them a last chance to come around first though. EyeSerene^talk 08:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. It's fine with me to give him another chance. I just don't think it will bring anything, as he already used about 31 chances/accounts in German wikipedia without any sign of improvement. --blunt. (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 44 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 14:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Lara :) EyeSerene^talk 17:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Coordinator of the
Military history Project,
March 2010—October 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) 00:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou - and to you! Ranger Steve (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude of your service as a coordinator for the Military history Project from September 2009 to March 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tom! EyeSerene^talk 17:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Just one more quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Catholic Church GAR

Is anything happening with this? I notice an RfC has opened... EyeSerene^talk 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Today is the day we are due to look into the situation. I was aware that an RfC was being opened, though as the agreement was to leave the article alone until now, felt it would be inappropriate to get involved. I've not yet looked at the article nor the RfC, though will do that during the day, and then get back to you with my views. SilkTork *^YES! 08:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK :) For some reason I had it in my mind our deadline was the 20th, not the 30th (despite just now noticing I have the correct date in my first post above...) My apologies if I've seemed to be nagging! EyeSerene^talk 09:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally my bad! I had 30th on my To do list, so that is what I was working toward. When responding earlier I noticed "around 20 March" and thought that it was my comment and I had put the wrong date in, so I "corrected it", but it was your comment, and it's correct. I checked on the GAR and I do say 20 March. Ho hum. Better get to it! SilkTork *^YES! 09:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked over the article, the recent history, the RfC, and some of the discussion on the talkpage. My feeling is that we cannot do a GAR at the moment because a) significant changes are still taking place and b) a RfC is in place the outcome of which will have a significant impact on the article. However, the article has not been subject to disruptive edits (and I include the recent POV tagging - I feel that can be counted as a question of difference of opinion, and as long as there isn't a tagging war, then that matter is minor and is over), and there is a general feeling that the article is moving in the right direction, so there is no reason to close the GAR at the moment. I feel we could put a statement on the GAR to the effect that we are holding off a bit longer to allow development to continue, and for the RfC to be resolved. SilkTork *^YES! 10:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

COI Allegations & Gibnews

I was aware that you were forwarded a dossier of evidence and I seem to recall you gave an opinion that there wasn't a clear COI but that only arbcom could take it further. Is my memory fading? I can't find it at the moment. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I said that although the concerns had been noted, I wouldn't comment on Wikipedia based on evidence I'd received and it was best to drop it to avoid even accidental WP:OUTING. I was basically trying to avoid fuelling the speculation so the evidence I had could be considered privately by Arbcom, respecting the identities of those involved. I don't recall saying that either there was or wasn't a clear COI, because I was deliberately being non-committal and simply confirming that the evidence would be made available to the proper people at the proper time. I hope this helps. EyeSerene^talk 14:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It does to some extent, I just recall that was when Red Hat and Ecemaml started to lobby for a hearing at arbcom and wondered if the two were connected. My query was prompted by Red Hat's latest statement yesterday. I just can't remember where that particular discussion took place. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church GAR

In the light of the ongoing(ish) RfC, this thread at ANI, and talk of Arbcom, do you think it's time we take a decision on the GA reassessment? EyeSerene^talk 08:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the GA criteria do not take into account discussions or activity "off-stage". I feel that the main options open to us are:

• • Close the GAR and delist because the article is unstable.
  • Apply the criteria on the current version.
  • Wait.

As the article appears to be more stable now than when we took over the GAR, I feel that delisting would provoke a reaction and wouldn't help the situation.

I'd be uncomfortable trying to apply criteria to an article undergoing significant changes.

Waiting prolongs the uncertainty regarding the article's status as a Good Article, however, is the least problematic and calmest option.

Whatever the decision, I still feel we need to make some statement on the situation before proceeding with an action. I would still recommend something along the lines I suggested earlier: "we are holding off a bit longer to allow development to continue, and for the RfC to be resolved", though am quite happy to look at other options and other wordings. SilkTork *^YES! 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've just replied to an earlier post of yours that I hadn't noticed, and missed the more recent one! Sorry - I am a little distracted at the moment by some real world publishing deadlines. SilkTork *^YES! 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The article now has a major revamping template on it? here Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the right approach is to wait for a while, though not indefinitely. We can't realistically assess the article while it's undergoing changes, and while delisting it might be justified from one perspective because all we're really concerned with is WP:WIAGA, there are wider sensitivities to take into account. Maintaining the status quo for a little longer would seem to be the least potentially disruptive option. EyeSerene^talk 15:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is actively being edited. The relevant criteria that applies is: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." And the footnote to that, reads: "Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold." SilkTork *^YES! 15:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

But this is a reassessment that is clearly failed and none of the involved editors are even interested in the review. Its getting 40 edits a day to and fro for the last 14 days, none of the editors have joined in in the good article review, there is basically an unstable edit warring article that I would like to see removed from good article status until it stabilizes and can be reassessed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point and I understand your concern, but much (if not most) of the editing seems to be constructive. It may well eventually be that the article is delisted or that any GA reassessment we undertake will be largely irrelevant to anyone but us, but I don't think it will do any harm to give everyone the benefit of doubt and be as accommodating as we possibly can be. EyeSerene^talk 16:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am fine with that, but I don't think we need to fear delisting it, it would be a good wake up call to involved editors. I know that some people who use the wiki for educational purposes only access the good article list, as that is a guideline that the article has a stability and has been assesed in that stable position and has not changed much, but I am OK about it and will happily leave it in the good care of yourself and SilkTork. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On hold for 7 days

In line with our discussion I have left a note on the GAR, and on the talkpage that we have put the GAR on hold for 7 days, and that we will be looking for significant progress on resolving the dispute when we look at the article again in seven days. Please feel free to add your own comments. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good - I've got nothing to add to that. EyeSerene^talk 10:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes good idea, lets see how it unfolds, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Extended

I have extended the hold for 7 more days so that we will look again after finish of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church and your return. Have a nice break! SilkTork *^YES! 14:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources removal

Hi EyeSerene, 'scuse me for posting about this nonsense on your talkpage, but I'm feeling a little desperate and disillusioned right about now. Could I ask you you have a look at this? Its about the sources removed with the this edit. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was just reading that thread :) I'll respond soon. EyeSerene^talk 16:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

LoL I thought it might be up your alley. Anyway, thanks for responding to the post. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. I look forward to working with you during this term. – Joe N 14:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Traveler's Dream AFD

I know that you are a volunteer, and thanks for your work. I was the originator and most frequent editor of the Traveler’s Dream article which you decided to delete. I was noodling on a possible request for a deletion review and I think the the info there which said to talk to you first is good advice. PLEASE just take this as the friendly “brain dump” that it is! Regarding deciding whether to appeal or drop this, I think that here are the main relevant possibilities in both directions, thre the first two would say "yes”, that the third would say “yes” if I had more energy on this than I think I have, and two would say “no”:

1. That the assault on this article was so clever and wiki-savvy , and the happenings in the last 2 weeks of this article so complex, fast moving and intertwined, that a reviewing adminwould need to spend at least 4 hours of analysis on this to pare away the irrelevant stuff and get to the heart of it, more time than I assume you have been able to spend. For 2 examples of many, simultaneous mass deletions by the AFD nominator (and partial recovery process from them) or that wiki-savvy deleters subtly went to great lengths to cleverly paint thoughts by “drop-ins” as a negative conspiracy which may have influenced you.
2. The possibility that you did not approach the requirements and debate structurally. I.E., with presentation that asserted meeting 7 of the requirements, (and meeting only one required) that “deletion” should occur only if you decided that none of the seven were met.
3. That there were things that I didn’t do that should be done. One was for the wording of the article itself to work towards establishing notability. It had some more direct words in it regarding this (mostly because somewhere it says the article must “assert notability” ) the AFD nominator took all of those out, and I did not put them back in. To me such wording appears contrary to the “spirit” of what an article should be, which is to provide information to the reader, and it would seem even farther off base to orient the article towards meeting the WP:Band notability criteria in the article itself. Another would be, during my main presentation, to do a greater amount of tying references to each assertion. Since I asserted meeting 7 of the criteria, this would have turned my “presentation” into a book.
4. That there is fundamentally not enough in the references to be used for fulfillment of wp:music notability requirements. At the heart of this question would be a nexus of criteria #1 (of the 12) and your comments. And at the heart of that would be that the coverage in most of the 6 publications citied for meeting #1 is reviews of CD’s and interviews of the principals. (and I think that there are not a lot of other sources out there that are hugely different in that respect) While these meet the “non-trivial” coverage standard, these publishings generally do not address or cover the notability of the band.
5. That the band’s inherent level of famousness (or lack thereof) does not meet some intuitive or unwritten (but nevertheless applied) standard of “famousness” or “hugeness” For better or worse, they are exactly as written in the article and AFD discussion. They are huge and prominent in the narrow field of historical folk music, medium-scale in the world of current folk music performers, and tiny in the world of mass media bands / performers.

I was wondering what your “gut feel” thoughts are in these areas. Again, I know that you are a volunteer, and thanks for your work and wisdom. .

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. I have no objection at all to discussing this, and appreciate your courtesy in bringing it here (though I wouldn't have been the slightest bit offended if you hadn't).

I sympathise greatly with your position, both from the perspective of an article writer seeing their hard work deleted and because I think that Wikipedia policy sometimes isn't particularly good at handling these types of article. An article on Wikipedia stands or falls on the twin pillars of notability and verifiability; the first asserts it's worthiness for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and the second proves that worthiness through use of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Notability as we use the word doesn't mean "famous", "popular" or even necessarily "important"; it simply means that the subject has enough suitable published coverage that we can write a properly sourced article about it. This is the thrust of the general notability guideline (often referred to as the GNG), and all other notability guidelines (bands, people, companies, books etc) are developments of the GNG tailored for specific subject areas. This has to be borne in mind when trying to establish notability. The role of subject-specific guidelines like WP:MUSIC is to give examples of the sort of band/artist we might reasonably expect will have that significant published coverage to make an article writeable, not to trump the requirement for verifiability by saying that "bands that meet one or more of these criteria will always be notable no matter what". Notability is a guideline and open to some interpretation; verifiability is a core policy and non-negotiable. This means that assertions of notability are nothing without the sources to back them up, and perhaps goes some way to addressing your point about removal of content that you feel may have prejudiced the debate.

Regarding your concerns about how I read the debate, I hope I can reassure you that I did my best to conduct the closure neutrally and in line with standard AfD practice. I paid little attention to those elements of the debate you feel may have unduly influenced me. We are used to far more complex and acrimonious discussions (although this AfD proved too much) and as I wrote in my rationale, while single-purpose accounts turning up at AfD are viewed suspiciously (for good reason - see this train-wreck of an AfD caused by offsite canvassing), their contributions are taken into account where they are in line with policy. As the closer I had to try to interpret consensus by weighing policy-based argument, so it's my decision, not the article itself, that would be reviewed and perhaps overturned if you decide to ask for a deletion review.

Because you've asked for my gut feelings: you do have some options (including, of course, deletion review). I think trying to establish the notability of the band members is probably a blind alley; the standards for living people are deliberately very strict, and even if you did manage to show notability the article would be under the individual's name and the band likely a sub-section, rather than the other way around. Your best bet it seems to me is to prove your assertion that Traveler's Dream are "huge and prominent in the narrow field of historical folk music". The reviews on their own are weak (many bands get reviewed) although they can make a nice supplement to back up a stronger claim of notability from elsewhere. What you really need (and this is speculative) is something like a writeup mentioning the band's significance by a respected writer in a well-regarded music (or genre) publication - a folk-music journal or magazine, assuming such things exist. I'm also more than happy to move the former article content into your userspace for you to work on if you like, with a view to moving it back into mainspace once notability has been established. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind and enlightening response and kind offer. I would like very much if you could put it into my user space. Feel free to wipe out any "Traveler's Dream" folder or redirect that is confusing things...I've been trying to get rid of all of those.

My previous impression was that WP:Music was a more specialized notability guideline which was used in place of GNG for bands, with GNG still applying (only)in areas where WP:Music invoked it. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the applicable notability standard is GNG, and that only real purpose of WP:Music is to give an idea of the likelihood of meeting GNG? I guess that that would mean that if a band meets GNG, then it doesn't have to meet WP:Music? Or,is WP:Music a second test that must be met of a second type of notability, like "prominence" notability. And if so, does the coverage who's mere existence satisfies GNG also have to establish that second "prominence" type of notability? I'm only posing these quandaries to try to build a clear picture in my brain. Or maybe there is no clear picture in this respect and each admin had to sort of interpret their own "order" out of all of this?

Thanks again. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The first part of your post is indeed what I was getting at. A band could theoretically meet the GNG without meeting the specifics of WP:MUSIC (though on the face of it that seems unlikely unless the band is notable for something other than its music). From the other direction, if it meets WP:MUSIC (including the vital "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true" clause at the top of the page) then it follows that it must automatically meet the GNG.

My understanding of how the notability guidelines developed is that the GNG set the original standard of notability being established solely by coverage in independent reliable sources, and then the subject-specific guidelines grew up, often written by individual WikiProjects, to help editors apply the GNG in their subject area. Perhaps this can be illustrated better by looking at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines - the parent Wikipedia:Notability (the GNG) is listed first, with the daughter guidelines following. Thus my paraphrasing of what WP:MUSIC is saying with its 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' is: "taking the GNG's requirement for establishing notability by citing suitable reliable sources as a baseline, if a band meets the following criteria that's a good indication (but not a guarantee) that such sources will exist." I've recently been involved in developing a notability guideline for biographies within the Military history WikiProject, and we had to be careful not to over-reach ourselves and inadvertently produce something that appeared to contradict the GNG.

I hope this helps to clarify. Wikipedia is a mass of policies, guidelines and conventions (written and unwritten), and many are poorly understood. There can be a tendency for some to treat the subject-specific guidelines as holy writ, forgetting that while they do reflect consensus and best practice, they are still subordinate to the GNG. The subject-specific guidelines can sometimes be stricter than the GNG - some subjects are not considered encyclopedic no matter how well-covered in reliable sources - but they can't replace or mitigate the requirement for verifiable sourcing to establish notability, only build on it.

Anyhow, I'll move your article for you and leave a link on your talkpage. I'm going away for a few days, so if you need anything else you can try another admin or editor, wait until I get back, or post here and see who responds - I believe there are a few friendly individuals who watch this page :) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 23:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I think that it is clear that you impartially and thoroughly applied the Wikipedia standards. I think that by a through applicaiton of those standards, about 3/4 of all Wikipedia articles would get deleted. I think that the practical distinction is which ones do and don't have people trying to get them deleted. Letting a big gap between the rules an reality as WIkipedia is doing (e.g where much must happen by ignoring the rules)empowers the wrong type of people. In this case (long story short) by a preponderance of evidence, I think it clear that this underwent an intense assault by someone who is both wiki savvy and obsessive about getting the article deleted. And I think that (in my words) you have pointed out that the article (and references of the needed type) is not bulletproof enough to survive such an assault. With your teaching I was able to come to understand this, and I do not plan to ask for a review of the decision.

Again, than you soooooo much for your wisdom, efforts, explanations, and everything else above !!!!!

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Books12\It's All Good To Me

I noticed you deleted this page earlier with the cmt "Wikipedia is not a private web host" - well it is back. Codf1977 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and account blocked. The actual page link was User:Books12/It's All Good To Me; it looks like they'd got confused over / and \. Thanks for the note :) EyeSerene^talk 15:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

no problem - your welcome. Codf1977 (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 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) 21:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect File:Bookshelf-40x201 6.png

This image no longer needs to be protected, it is the commons version that is used at http://wikipedia.org --Svgalbertian (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Only a couple of archive-type links, so I deleted it. The page now transcludes the Commons image. EyeSerene^talk 09:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

V-B

Right i think the team has cracked it! Would you care to give the once over and then we can let the reviewers point out all the problems!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the lede is fine imo, do you think everything is sorted on the Buckley front; per your note on Friday and mine and Keith's reply?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok its up: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive3

Sorry about this but am having a complete and utter brain fart!

"Under cover of British and American artillery and a smoke screen laid by 5RHA, the infantry pulled back; last to leave were the tanks of 4CLY."

If we wanted to specify that the 5RHA also contributed to the artillery fire, as well as the smoke screen; how would we word this sentance per the FAC review?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that, you wouldnt believe how hard it was to try and think how to reword that last night!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Per the FAC request for a tactical map; do you have time and are you willing to knock one up? I can provide a shed load of photos from the various sources but the problem is they really only concentrate on the tank fighting and they dont pinpoint the infantry locations down exactly.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

pip-pip, what-what and all that, old boy! Cheers :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)