User talk:EyeSerene

It's been a while. Maybe cleaning up my talk page should be priority number one! Number two: remembering how to do all this wiki stuff. EyeSerenetalk 20:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Home

Talk

E-mail

Watchlist

Contribs

Sandbox

Essays

Userboxes

Notices

Scripts

Awards

Menu

Archivebox

Quicklinks

messages

Talk archives
	Sep 06–Jul 07		Jul 07–Sep 07		Sep 07–Nov 07
	Nov 07–Mar 08		Mar 08–Apr 08		Apr 08–Jul 08
	Jul 08–Aug 08		Aug 08–Oct 08		Oct 08–Dec 08
	Dec 08–Feb 09		Feb 09–Mar 09		Mar 09–May 09
	May 09–July 09		July 09–Aug 09		Aug 09–Sept 09
	Sept 09–Nov 09		Nov 09–Dec 09		Dec 09–Feb 10
	Feb 10–Mar 10		Mar 10–May 10		May 10–June 10
	June 10–Aug 10		Aug 10–Nov 10		Nov 10–Apr 11
	Apr 11–Oct 11		Oct 11–May 15		May 15–

Click here to leave me a new message, or use the various edit tabs on the page. Don't forget to sign your message by including four tildes (~~~~) at the end - I like to know who I'm talking to ;)

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, EyeSerene^talk 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. EyeSerene^talk 11:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - I see James has locked the page so we'll see how things go from there. EyeSerene^talk 11:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, EyeSerene, will let you know of any other problematic case in the future. It's been an education. --John KB (talk) 11:57, 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 :) EyeSerene^talk 12:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have a candidate, since it also feels like WP:OR. Thanks. --John KB (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it amazes me how often we hear about journalists using Wikipedia for their research. EyeSerene^talk 13:13, 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)

Commented :) EyeSerene^talk 09:52, 17 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. EyeSerene^talk 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. EyeSerene^talk 13:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MFIreland and Possible POV editing on Irish related articles

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. EyeSerene^talk 10:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

PS The above has been overtaken by events; see the thread at milhist. Best, EyeSerene^talk 12:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on Five years of military history! Kudos to you, sir! — Kralizec! (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! EyeSerene^talk 08:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, EyeSerene. You have new messages at Osarius's talk page.
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)

No problem. Thanks for the courtesy note :) EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 26 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 :) EyeSerene^talk 12:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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, EyeSerene^talk 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. EyeSerene^talk 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, EyeSerene^talk 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! EyeSerene^talk 14:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 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. EyeSerene^talk 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? EyeSerene^talk 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, EyeSerene^talk 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. EyeSerene^talk 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

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

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!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - same to you! EyeSerene^talk 11:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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. EyeSerene^talk 15:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Must be from Hull ay?