User:EyeSerene/Archive3

Cavendish experiment

Just wanted to thank you for your thorough GA review of Cavendish experiment. We'll be working on the deficiencies you identified. --Chetvorno 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Brunswickers

I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. I may, however, have missed something, so if I have, please point it out, and I would be more than happy to fix the problem. Thanks again for your review. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be extremely grateful if you could follow through with the copyedit, as my online time (and, indeed, my time on the computer) has been severely limited at the moment, because of technical issues. Thanks alot. :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything seems in order. As for the ref - it refers to the one book in the references section. I have remedied the issue. Thanks for your help with the article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ISNB obtained. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

saw your comment

at afd for list of composers; I appreciate your comments, and I really do apologize for wording things the way I did. DGG (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LoCE template picture

Thank you! Cricketgirl 10:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Wood As Seen On TV

Thank you for your suggestions to improve this to 'good article' status. I have changed the article to comply with your suggestions and would be eager to know if you think it has reached the accepted standard yet - bingo99 13:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey EyeSerene - thanks for the congrats you left on my talk page, but I don't really feel I deserve it! To be honest, I went there to do the GA review myself, but ended up fixing the problems I could see and sorting out that {{cite episode}} bug - bingo99 deserves all the credit! I thought it was a good article when I first got there, but somewhat daunting to review as one of my 1st GA reviews! Carre 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: GA review on Battle of Barrosa

Hi again again,

The A-class and GA thing was a bit confusing for me, and due partly to my impatience. I nominated it at GA before A-class, not knowing how long the whole GA thing took (the backlog doesn't help, but I'm trying to assist in that!). I just got fed up of waiting, and nominated the article for MILHIST A-class review in the meantime. I was actually contemplating removing it from GA, and going straight to FA instead, but you beat me to that decision...

A similar story applies to the LoCE - the article's been there since early September (although the current listing has a later date, because instead of moving the 1st listing, I removed it and added a new one); again, I didn't appreciate how long these things take, and again the backlog is the cause (and yes, I'm copyediting away too, to help out there ;)) At the moment, my main concerns with the article is the prose & grammar, so if you feel up to it a copyedit would be more appreciated than a GA review. One thing to note is that there was a change to the {{citation}} template today, that means my on-line citations look a little odd (ending ".;") - I have a request in to get rid of the horrible full-stop, but if it's a problem I'll remove the semi-colons for the time being. Template was sorted, so not a problem any more :)

I notice you have an interest in Military History too, so if you have opinions on the chance of the article getting to FA I'd be very interested in hearing them - the MILHIST peer review was very useful, and the A-class review didn't throw up a lot.

Thanks very much for your offering to CE! And I'll take the smarties for that article, definitely! Carre 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know about the Sandhurst training area name - is it worth mentioning in the article? I don't think so. I think my prose isn't bad, but I've long had a problem with comma usage (as hinted in my LoCE application, and MilHist peer review & A-class review, so if you can check that out, I'd be more than happy). Don't forget to send the smarties!

(edit) And don't worry about the spelling of Barrosa - in the course of my research on this article, I've seen so many spellings you wouldn't believe it! Napier, Fortescue, Gates et al all spell it differently; Esdaile even spells it differently between his index and his main text! And the Spanish call it the Battle of Chiclana. Carre 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Scalies and irrelevant guff

LOL - and the world is smaller and scarier than you might think; the old man was Scalie for 22 years, and spent his last few years of service at Catterick - if you were there in the 80s, you may even know him! That is scary! Carre 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Ostend Raid

Thankyou very much for passing Second Ostend Raid as a GA recently, your comments were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: B of B CE (if that makes sense?)

Hi,

I saw the copyedits you'd made to date, and they seemed an improvement to me. The only thing I'd mention was the use of hyphen in Anglo-<whatever>, rather than endash; endash would be what MoS requires, and what's used throughout the rest of the article. Unfortunately, endashes and hyphens look the same in edit mode, so almost impossible to tell apart - perhaps I should change them to explicit –? Similarly, the emdash (—) - MoS insists that isn't spaced. I have no preference in the matter, but if you feel strongly for the spaces, we can always change it to spaced endash instead, which MoS allows as an alternative. Don't worry about those yourself though - once you've done with the CE, I'm going to go through it all adding additional references (just got hold of Fortescue and Napier accounts), so I'll sort out those final annoying MoS things then, prior to trying for FA.

Now, on to the Anglo-<whatever> question. Generally, when talking about the whole task force, I've used either Anglo-Spanish or Allies (ie no mention of the Portuguese). Where talking about Graham's division specifically, I've used either British or Anglo-Portuguese. I did the latter to avoid offending our Portuguese brethren, who may feel left out otherwise, but I'm easy about it - the prose does mention Bushe leading a couple of Portuguese companies from the 20th, so that may be enough to allow a change from "Anglo-Portuguese" to simply British throughout. Then we can leave Allies or Anglo-Spanish, interchangeably to limit repetitions, when we refer to the whole force. Apart from anything else, Portuguese is a pig to type! How's that sound?

In a similar vein, I've considered removing the reference to German casualties under Brit command in the "Consequences" section - they were KGL troops, but strictly speaking at the time they were a British regiment, not German. That would gel with the idea of leaving the Portuguese out too.

Thanks for the efforts so far :) Carre 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nearly there

Mostly looking good so far - the only thing I need to think about is "Browne dispersed his men amongst the cover provided by the slope and returned fire." (1st para, Barrosa Ridge, Battle section). My interpretation of the sources is that the men just did that themselves, and one can hardly blame them - the 1st French volley alone took out 1/2 the officers and men, so I doubt there was much order involved. Fortescue is actually slightly scathing about Browne for taking his men up in line rather than skirmish order, but his is the only such critique.

Regarding Duncan's artillery - they made very good progress through the woods, and surprisingly managed to deploy in support of Barnard's light battalion (the skirmish line), before Wheatley's main brigade got there and formed up. Therefore, what you've written is spot on.

[edit]Actually, thinking about it, the artillery weren't actually "on the end of the skirmish line", just in support of it. I've slightly tweaked the relevant bit - see what you think... it could possibly be "in support of the" rather than "to support the". Duncan's guns were ~1500 yds from the French when they engaged, while Barnard was ~300yds away on emerging from the woods. It's even possible the cannon engaged before the infantry, if Fortescue is to be believed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carre (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll check what MoS says about re-form...I have a feeling that where the 2 parts of the construct aren't, and can't be, independent, it should use hyphen, not endash (cf mid-Feb, using hyphen), but I get what you mean about re-form vs. reform. WP:DASH is the relevant bit, off the top of my head.

All in all, I like what you've done so far - I've had to shuffle a couple of refs to avoid mid-sentence citations (something I was warned off in the MilHist peer review, although not a policy), but nothing else - I even only spotted one of the spelling mistakes! Think there is one more I need to move around, but that's trivial.

Thanks again for the work - hopefully will be in shape for FA soon (if you have an opinion on the article's chances, then I'd appreciate hearing them too). Carre 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll need to find a couple more references for some of the bits, but I was planning that anyway. I'm not sure about the position of the first paragraph - it reads (and always did) as something like a summary of the entire section. If it were to be moved, I'd say to just after the para ending with Salamanca.

You sure about the last sentence needing a ref? It's not particularly controversial :shrug: - I don't think the wikilinked articles have sources, and I certainly don't... I'm inclined to agree with you and leave it to see what the FA crowd think.

Regarding the "incompetence" bit: I'll need to add a citation, since the current one only supports the boost to Spanish morale. However, let's see what the sources have to say:

• "la Pena, a man whom even Spanish sources are agreed was a man of neither courage, nor energy, nor ability" - Esdaile;
• "weak and timid" - Glover;
• "The Spanish commander in Cadiz was the totally incompetent la Pena" - Paget;
• Gates is actually quite kind to the man, and doesn't criticise him for Barrosa, but accuses him of "disgraceful behaviour" for his actions at Tudela, where he'd done almost exactly the same thing.

All of these are just descriptions of the man, not down to his (in)action during this battle. However:

• Oman describes his behaviour as "astounding", "selfish", "timid", "deliberately sacrificed his allies", "unsafe to go out in la Pena's company" etc
• Fortescue is even worse - "It was nothing to him if the opportunity for a great victory were missed. That was of small account compared to the integrity of his person and reputation."

Enough said, I think ;)

Thank you, once again, for the great effort - I'll stick in the extra refs, check the existing ones are still valid (think they are), and throw it at FA! Carre 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I quite like it as it is now, although I had considered splitting it into two (and certainly using Aftermath as one of the section headings). At the moment, I think I'll hold such a move in reserve, in case the FA nom gets bloody ;) Incidentally, I'm trying to get permission to upload this image, which I think would look great in the article. Fingers crossed! Carre 17:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Green Wing Special

You left a message on the Green Wing Special talk page about it's GA nomination. You said there were a few minor problems. Can you tell me what they are, so I can improve the article? ISD 12:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article according to the recommendations you have given me. I've reduced the plot section to the length you gave me (the special is 90 minutes long), reduced the in-universe content and added and improved references. ISD 13:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Official Invitation to GA Sweeps

I would like to invite you to participate at GA Sweeps. We decided it's time to give GA a good sweep to ensure the qualities of all GA articles. You recevied this invitation because we felt that you can improve and uphold the quality of Good articles. This is the reason why only experienced reviewers who are established (trusted) within the project should participate in this sweep initially.

Please take a look at the project page and see if you wish to participate in the Sweeps. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Horseshoe Bend

Your copy edits all looked good to me, you didn't mess up any information or anything and all of the changes seemed accurate when compared to the source material. Thanks for the work. IvoShandor 10:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, with this GA pass the Black Hawk War collaboration I started with some other editors will have achieved GA status for 10 of the battles and skirmished found in the campaignbox template. This will leave six articles that need to achieve the status (trying to get all battles to GA then the main war article to FA for a featured topic) of the battle articles. They are Battle of Apple River Fort (at GAC right now), Sinsinawa Mound raid, Plum River raid, Attack at Ament's Cabin Minor attacks of the Black Hawk War, and Battle of Bad Axe. Bad Axe hasn't even been worked on since it is the last battle my goal was to make sure everything else was in line first. Anyway, I just thought you might be interested. IvoShandor 10:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for the user box. Two of the articles above will be headed for GAC eventually, Sinsinawa Mound raid and Plum River raid, which I think GA was especially made for articles of the type. They are shorter, but on very obscure topics, there has been little published, either modern or historically, on either event, but I think we've managed to piece together pretty good descriptions of the events. I was hoping for an outside copy edit from Cricketgirl but she is on a hiatus, so if, and when, you have time, a look at, and any edits on those would be appreciated. IvoShandor 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

John Henry Cound Brunt

Hi there. I just wanted to thank you for your improvements to the John Henry Cound Brunt article. They were small changes, but very important ones. I'm glad to see it's still considered worthy of Good Article status. I made one slight modification - the comic is/was actually called The Victor, so I re-capitalised the The. Thanks again. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit on BHW article

Per Sinsinawa Mound raid, thanks for the work, much appreciated, and needed, extra eyes go miles. As for the unclear sentence, I tried to clarify it, check it out. My source material is limited so if its no good I can just remove it. Thanks again. IvoShandor 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Smedley Butler Article

Thanks for letting me know I started making the necessary corrections. I already added a reference for using public information in the public domain for the Marine Corps, I cited several paragraphs, I nested and added to the banners on the talk page and I will be adding the age shortly. One question though, I am using the same reference for multiple paragraphs, so on the bottom that reference is listed several times. Is this ok or do I need to site a different reference for each paragraph?--Kumioko 22:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I added his age, added more info and clarified or rewote several paragraphs. Please let me know what else you need me to do to get this article up to GA status. If its not too much trouble what does it need to get up to FA status?--Kumioko 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to get back again so quick. Me and ERCHECK have fixed a lot of the problems with the article and we added wuite a bit more info. I am going to find a few more photos to add but other than that I think its pretty good. Please let me know if you need me to change anything else.--Kumioko 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will get working on that.--Kumioko 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I have added several photos and some more information and me and ERcheck moved some of the info we couldn't find citations for to the talk page until we can find a reference. I wanted to ask you, what did you mean by prose, could you give me an example?--Kumioko 01:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am going to do some more work on this article but once I get done what do I need to do to start the process to get it up to FA status?--Kumioko 14:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Barrosa

LOL - thanks, although you can keep the orange smarties, since without your copyedit I wouldn't have dared take it that far! At the moment, I'm struggling to keep civil when responding to Pmanderson's pedantry, but as you say, finally the supports are coming in :)

As an aside, in a few days I was going to be cheeky and ask you to copyedit another rewrite of mine - I've done the rewrite offline, so you can't see it yet, but it will be at Battle of Albuera. You'll need to be feeling daring and have a lot of time on your hands to take it on (it's pretty big!), but if you're willing I would be extremely grateful. Carre 18:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: GA sweep: Stephen V Báthory GA status on hold

i have left a msg on bathorys page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anittas (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Smedely Butler Peer review

I know that we just got this up to GA status but I think with a little work we can get it up to FA. I have submitted the Smedley Butler article up for Peer Review and I would appreciate any help you can provide. I have never gotten an article up to GA status and I learned a lot so I want to keep going on it until it gets to FA.--Kumioko 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Apple River Fort

Sorry if I came across as brusque on the talk page concerning the GA review a few days ago. I was having some problems on wiki in other places and I am afraid I let it affect me quite a bit, my activity was nil for about four days, and I am slowly easing back into the project after a few days off to relax. I was wondering if it was possible to extend the on hold for, say, two days? IvoShandor 02:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article should be ready for your eyes now. I have commented on the talk page, found more than I thought I would. :) IvoShandor 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Barrosa FA!

In case you hadn't noticed, the article got promoted in the small hours this morning! I don't know if there's one of those fancy userbox thingies like the GA one, but if there is, you fully deserve to award one to yourself. Thanks for all the help with the copyedit and the like - it wouldn't have got there without you. Smarties all round. Carre 08:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I just remembered... I've been holding off on asking you to do the copyedit on Battle of Albuera because I've had it at MilHist peer review, but it's not attracting many comments (must have got it right this time!), so if you're feeling brave and have time on your hands, dive right in! It's a lot bigger than the Barrosa one, since the battle was more important and longer lasting. I'm probably going to move some of the background and prelude sections into other new articles eventually, but won't change the prose significantly, so a CE on those bits won't be a wasted effort. Ignore the Organization section, as I'm probably going to lose that at some point. Carre 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Eeek! I've just looked at the article for the first time in several days, and even I can now spot some seriously bad prose! I didn't mean to throw you at an article in that state, but I'd been editing it for days on end and didn't realize just how bad some of it is! There are instances of (if I may blow my own trumpet) very good writing, but the bad is really bad. Bah - I'm sure you can handle it, and I go away understanding the need to leave an article for a week or so before doing anything else. Carre 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding GA Sweep on Saprang Kalayanamitr

Thank you for your suggestions regarding the GA Sweep on Saprang Kalayanamitr. I have updated the article to account for current events, and in the Talk page have responded to your note that the main sources used have not reflected NPOV. Your contributions to the article are greatly appreciated, as would your feedback regarding my edits and response. Cheers, Patiwat 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review on Battle of Kranji

Hi, thank u for your earlier review and suggestions on the abovementioned. I've follow-up with the necessary edits and replies at the article talk page. Kindly review & comment if necessary. Thanks! -- Aldwinteo 08:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: LoCE

Thanks. I think every project page could use a little color. :) Lara❤Love 14:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Deathstalker Cover UK.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Deathstalker Cover UK.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done FUR added EyeSerene^TALK 07:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Albuera, Longford & Wellington

Thanks for that! I was considering having a bash myself, but I always find it hard to fix my own words, even after a break. If I get my creative muse back, I'll concentrate on creating articles to support that one, rather than CE.

Re Longford. Everything I've seen in printed form is complementary about Longford's work, but I have seen some criticism (see Talk:Peninsular War for a comment from Albrecht) on-line. I think, generally, it depends on what it's being used to source; if Wellington himself, I doubt there's anything better or more reliable, but she uses (and occasionally criticises) Oman quite a lot and hence inherits some of his prejudices regarding, for example, the Spanish during the Peninsular War. For an account of a battle, I wouldn't rely on her books, although I may consider using them occasionally. I only own the single volume précis of her works on Wellington, so I can't comment from personal experience on the more comprehensive multi-volume biography. Carre 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

PS on thinking of it, saying "I wouldn't rely on her books" might give the wrong impression: I don't mean she's not reliable, just that there are other sources that could/would be better in some cases. Carre 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, and hope you had a pleasant, relaxing break (with kids... probably not ;) ).

Spotted the CE on the Lead; the writing is certainly a lot better now (can't believe I wrote "army [...] were"!). It does seem like the lead is now a bit bloated, especially the second paragraph, but I'm not sure what and when I should address that. I can see bits that could be pruned without spoiling the intent, but I'm inclined to leave such pruning until I've finished all the supporting articles and can also cut down some of the excess detail in the body of this one. Even if I did prune that paragraph, I like it enough that I think I'd save the current version somewhere off-line and re-use it in the Lines article.

Am awaiting your questions with bated breath :) Carre 17:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My quick response to your quick response: Gates (the cited source) says this:

Reluctant to face such overwhelming numbers in open battle, Latour-Maubourg left 3,000 men in the fortress and a weak battalion in Olivienza and retired to the Andalusian border.

Oman, undoubtedly, provides more details, but it'll have to wait til tomorrow before I can elaborate more if the above doesn't answer your question. Carre 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Urgh, now that one is really hard to answer, and in retrospect "the situation had changed considerably" may be slightly (but not totally) misleading. Let me give you an example: Masséna sent a dispatch to Napoleon, then in Paris, in October 1810. Foy, who was carrying the dispatch, didn't arrive in Paris until November. Resulting orders to Soult weren't sent 'til December, and weren't received until late January 1811. Therefore, we instantly have orders based on intelligence 4 months old. Now, what had changed? Soult had previously been pressed by Boney to send a small force into Portugal, but there was no way Soult could do that (for the reasons mentioned in the article - 30,000 allies, 6 fortresses), and so by the time the most recent orders arrived, in Jan 1811, Soult had already launched his expedition into Extremadura and against Badajoz. I actually had a lot of difficulty unwinding the time-line on that particular part, thanks to the lack of the instant comms we take for granted these days; off the top of my head, in addition to the 2 pages cited for that statement, Oman has a further 4 or 5 discussing the problems and reasons behind the difference between what Soult did, and what Boney wanted (and Boney even approved of Soult's actions, at first).

I'm beginning to think that I should perhaps rewrite that small part, because as it stands, it's not ideal. We have Boney sending orders to Soult to send small forces; we have Soult ignoring those orders. We have Soult coming up with his own plan to take Badajoz, we have Boney approving, then disapproving, and we have the final orders sent after Soult had already set off. A real mess!

I think this partly addresses your additional question, too.

By the way - is it easier for you to do as we have been, using each other's talk pages, or easier to concentrate in one place? I'm easy either way. Carre 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, here's an idea for an easy get-out-of-jail change though... just say that Soult had already set off into Extremadura by the time he got those last orders. It's not inaccurate, but it would need a bit of a tweak to the passage, maybe along the lines of small forces orders, ignored cos of 30,000 men & fortresses, Soult goes in, new orders, too late. How's that? Carre 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[←]I've copied threads from both here and my talk page to the article's talk. About the only changes I made were to try and get the indents sorted, to explain your additional question while I was typing my response to a former one, and to try and thread questions/replies in order – if I've made a mistake doing that, please do fix. I have the page watch-listed, so I'll still notice things quickly enough (not quite as quickly as with the "new messages" thing, but no biggy). The main reason is to ensure future editors know what was going on with all these changes happening. Carre 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Rememberance Day

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No Man's Land

No Man's Land; read the lyrics. At this time of year, this always comes to mind but, year-round, June Tabor's rendition never fails to bring a tear to my eye. Carre 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

defense vs defence

LOL, after moving all the previous to article space, this one I'm bringing back here... and "defense" was my fault originally. See Chambers... I also checked my 1993 edition hard copy, and "defense" is definitely down to Webster, "defence" being BrE! (I'm the ardent proponent of BrE mentioned in my edit summary, btw - I hate what Webster did to our language, and the confusion it has caused). Carre 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no worries... it was me wot writted "defense" in the first place, and I had to look "defence" up to make sure it wasn't one of those valid "practice/practise" differences. And lemme guess - Mary Woolstonecraft - that means Awadewit. Not a chance in hell I'd touch her work; it's brilliant, and I could only make it worse! Carre 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I was wondering why you hadn't undone the change yourself after this little exchange! I did much the same thing recently on an article about The Buffs, getting totally confused between Oxford English and en-GB (-ize vs ise)...ended up reverting myself within about 10 seconds! Carre 12:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the message. -- Whiteandnerdy111 00:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest EyeSerene,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 20:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Ngo Dinh Can

I think I have done the needed tweaks. Please have a look. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Standard

Thanks for the comments. I took care of the easiest few right off the bat, though the rest are a bit harder for me, as I don't have direct access to the cited works (though I can use them in my college library). However, I will be internet free over Thanksgiving break starting today, and so I wanted to inform you that I may ask for a short expansion on the article's hold if I can't get to it in time, depending on circumstances. Thank you. Cromdog (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

EngVar DIY conversion kit

I know you're busy but I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers all (plus some) of the variants I've personally encountered on Wkipedia so far. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? The idea is to de-mystify EngVar conversion, as I'm sure fear of the unknown is the root cause of many disputes. Many thanks,--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Albuera GA

Yay - I finally had the patience to leave a GA nomination long enough for it to get reviewed! Albuera passed with no problems :) That means you get one of these :

This user helped promote Battle of Albuera to good article status.

Another fine piece of work, and fulsome praise from Jackyd101 in the GA review too. Carre (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh - "wisely" - to be honest, I was surprised that survived your first pass through :) I'm pretty sure the source says it, but it is definitely commentary, and should probably be hit with a big hammer. Carre (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)