User talk:Hamiltonstone/Archive 7

Ratings

No worries. I wasn't sure I knew enough about the subjects to give them all B ratings, although I appreciate that little more information may be known about them. Obviously they could all be taken to GAN.--Grahame (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Glad Steve Dodd got promoted. Jonyungk (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Add my congrats on that too. I'd never heard of him but he's an intriguing individual. In my other life I'm a journalist writing on Indigenous Affairs, so I may track Mr Dodd down for an interview. --Roisterer (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Deletions

Thanks for your comments. I won't question your deletions re the KWA murder, but to be pedantic the language used for an appeal to the High Court of Australia is Special Leave to Appeal, not Leave to Appeal, and the persons appealling are the applicants. I'm not going to edit the words to include the word special. The list of persons is a useful reference. Several authors are interested in the case, and the material listed should be sufficient background if anyone desires to pursue it, and it may be no one will. You never know. In one instance in another criminal matter Wikipedia was used as a source and Wikipedia got it wrong, at least at the time a certain book was written, but it has been corrected since on Wikipedia, not by me. Lazy authors shouldn't accept at face value anything on WP and I'm sure you agree. At least all the legal steps in the KWA murder are mentioned and that is important. The case was a very long one by any standards. Lovitt is certainly a notable figure.

In regard to Northcote High School you have removed a number of notable alumni. They were not placed there by me but I believe some of them went to the school. Max Lay certainly did. There has been some vandalism on the NHS entry and non-existent persons have been listed. One ex principal was deleted and a person with an Arabic name was added. This was pure vandalism and was soon corrected.

Of the notable ex staff I can assure you that all of them did go to the school. I will need to look at old school magazines and perhaps cite these as a source, as they did list all staff. The persons concerned were all staff in the 1950s and early 1960s. I haven't got the time to look it up just yet. A school history might is being published and if it is published that would certainly be a good source.

You removed a reference to Bruce Ruxton on the republican debate placed by me. Ruxton is an eccentric, presently has alzheimers and lives in retirement in Queensland, and is quite outspoken. I won't seek to replace your deletion but the reference to Ruxton's views is certainly accurate. Whether or not it should be included on the republican debate topic on WP is of course a matter of debate which I think we will agree to disagree on. A journalist once told me that if they were short of copy they'd phone Bruce and he'd always give them something that was lively and entertaining. I won't say any more on that.

You are always reasonable to deal with and I appreciate your explanations. Best wishes Carola56 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Amendment XIV

Reply on my page. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update

Progress as of January 2010

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hamiltonstone. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations.
Message added 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied to your concerns -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User Talk:MWOAP, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Could you please sign it now, after, it helps me keep track of things. I don't care that it keeps a later timestamp. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review at Obscene Publications Act 18571959

Thanks for your comments there. I'm sorry; I just realized I forgot to mark it as "under review" at WP:GAC so apologies if I caused any kind of "review conflict" or such with you. I'll be sure to mark it off next time. Anyway, between your comments and mine, I've put the article on hold. Thanks for the insight. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

no problems, always good to have people doing GA reviews. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, sorry; I've been meaning to review it but keep getting distracted. I normally mark something as "on hold" because I write reviews in a single sitting, and it's needless faffing to retag as "reviewing" and then "on hold". I've got annoyingly backlogged with other stuff; you're welcome to review it if you so wish. Ironholds (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Flower FAC

I've tried to go through and fix your concerns about Flower (video game), so I hope you can come back to the FAC and support! --PresN 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC: Caesium

I went ahead and did multiple edits to the article since you mentioned the problems. There are still a couple of issues that will be dealt with but it should be in much better shape now. Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bronwyn Bancroft's husband

I saw that the question of Bancroft's husband came up at the FAC. You might find the transcript of this talk she gave at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra useful. She says his name was (is?) Ned Menning. [1] --Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. How did you find that? How did i miss it? Revisions starting shortly... hamiltonstone (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Leod

Hello. Thanks for reviewing and touching up the article. I worked on the footnotes. I put the website first, and then the publications it contained or cited after. I noticed that WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT has it the other way around. The published work first, and then the website you got it from. But that seems backwards to me. If I saw a footnote in the order, I would think that writer had read the actual book, and was just noting that it was also online too. For the article, I've only read the web pages, not the books they referred to.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

EInsiders as a reliable source

I know you responded in the reliable source section on EInsiders. I'd like to point out that another user (though they claim it is me, they just found out the IP addresses don't match), was given previously given permission to use EInsiders as a reliable source. Here it is:

"Accounts are not allowed for organizations. You may have an account here, but it will have to be your account, and not Einsiders. You are free to declare that you work for Einsiders if you want, in fact it's a good idea so that you're up front about your conflict of interest. As for credit there are really two types of credit: credit for encyclopedia work and credit for source material. If anyone uses Einsiders for source material, that ought to be properly credited (source credit), a nd a link is normally included as a convenience to readers. So Einsiders certainly should get credit for source material it provides, meaning, when Einsiders publishes material that is used as a reference in an article. Credit for encyclopedia contributions (authorship credit) is different -- when any user makes a contribution, the contribution is logged and credited to the user. If you go to any page on Wikipedia and click on "history" you'll see this revision list. That is Wikipedia's way of maintaining its authorship. However, Wikipedia doesn't view those edits as contributions of the author's employer, they view those edits as contributions of the author themselves. Now, the history links to your userpage and if you identify yourself as an Einsiders employee, that is probably the closest Einsiders can get to authorship credit. From what you're asking I suspect you're talking about crediting Einsiders as a source. The only issue here is that it's inappropriate for you, as a representative of Einsiders, to go adding a lot of credits to Einsiders to articles, because there's the appearance that you might be doing this in order to promote the encyclopedia. So what we would ask is that you refrain from adding lots of citations to Einsiders yourself, but you may certainly suggest any Einsiders source material to independent authors. Mangojuicetalk 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I note that Cirt, the latest reviewing admin, has protected this page so that you can't make further unblock requests. My offer still stands, though: if you are willing to change your username and agree to abide by WP:BESTCOI I will unblock you; just email me the new username you would use and your statement. Mangojuicetalk 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)"

Pharaway (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

They weren't "giving permission to use EInsiders", they were explaiing how to deal with appropriate credit to sources and how to recommend it to others. It's a free encyclopia, but i would not be using it, i would advise others against it, and would refer to them to the discussion you initiated at the noticeboard. I still believe the source is unreliable. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Steve Dodd

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Steve Dodd.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bancroft

A pleasure. And I would be honoured if you participated in the photo voting :) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reviewing Seibal, all comments taken on board. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Hi Hamiltonstone. I used a quote from you in my filing statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Catholic Church. Please let me know if you feel I've misrepresented your intent, or if you are otherwise uncomfortable with my using your words. I'll be happy to fix it/remove if you feel it is necessary. I wasn't sure whether to name you as an official party. It's possible someone else will add your name, and you are, of course, welcome to add yourself if you think it is appropriate. Sorry to drag you into this.... Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no difficulty with your addition, thanks. I have made a statement, mainly in order to give the arbitrators some more diffs. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

TLDR

Hi Hamiltonstone, I hope my response here is not "too long; didn't read" but I thought it would be clearer with a little explanation. Regards Hekerui (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I responded again. Best Hekerui (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Second verse, same as the first :) Hekerui (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Thought you'd like to know that I nominated this article for featured article of the day for March 18, which is Rimsky-Korsakov's birthday. If you would like to put in a vote to either support or oppose this request, please feel free to do so. Thanks very much. Jonyungk (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hamiltonstone. You have new messages at Talk:Windows Product Activation/GA3.
Message added 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Bronwyn Bancroft.

• Congrats! Its a very interesting article, and your hard work on it is appreciated! Please note, however, that this is my first time reviewing and passing a Four Award nomination, so if I made a mistake please let me know. Congrats again! — Hunter Kahn 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

GAs

Hi, Hamiltonstone, I've passed Wintjiya Napaltjarri and Tjunkiya Napaltjarri for you. I haven't provided a thorough review because I'm happy they meet the criteria and I'm trying to clear a few of the older nominations, but if oyu want more feedback, I;ll be happy to have another look later. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Portishead

Thanks for the heads up. I try to keep out of the wikidrama side of this place & just build better articles. I'll take a look at issues re Portishead.— Rod ^talk 08:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Indeed I am DharmaDreamer although I thought I was acting within the guildlines of WP:CLEANSTART. I was doing it all in good faith so I could leave behind the 60% or so edits of mine that were based around the BNP edit war. I was planning to just use this account for WP:UK Geography etc. Anyway regarding portishead, maybe you could do the review as i've only had experience with 1 article. LucidLinus (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have had concerns (as have others) with sockpuppetry at GAN, so was being especially vigilant. I will come back in next day or two and provide some input at the Portishead review. I've also left some comments at the sockpuppet report, indicating i'm happy for that to be cleared if a reviewing admin agrees with your position. I apologise if i have unwittingly sabotaged a legit cleanstart. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I was probably a bit silly, should have done 50 or so minor edits, reverting vandalism etc to aovid suspicion. I'm going to go on a wikibreak for a month or so. I'm not sure if you'll take over the GA review of Portishead, But I hope you do, That way I can see what I didn't pick up on and gain some experience for future reviewing. LucidLinus (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kala (album)/archive2

Many thanks for your comments at this FAC, I have addressed them to the best of my ability. Please let me know if anything still needs fixing. Cheers!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Shout-out

Thanks for suggesting people participate in reviews, like you did here. It's much appreciated - it's always good for any Wiki page to have more eyes on it. Hekerui (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

credo offer

Hey hamiltonstone, tks for the offer! I dunno how long my subscriptions will hold out. Please do keep me in mind. I will ping you if the need arises; feel free to do the same. Thanks! • Ling.Nut 09:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Muckaty station

On March 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muckaty station, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama on Marriage Equality

While the President once publicly favored same-sex marriage, his current official opinion is that he does not. I followed Prop 8 quite a bit....many noticed that although some politicians don't believe in same-sex marriage, many opposed Prop 8 not because they updated their opinions on same-sex marriage but because it took an existing right away.

I would say that instead of saying "considered" it should remain "considers." Can I get your input? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My edit arose from two points, one stylistic, one that concerned content. The minor issue was the stylistic one: it was odd to read a sentence that wrote in the past tense about the views of someone in the present tense. The more substantial point is this: how do we know that Obama still thinks this, given that the reliable source is quoting his views two years ago, when he wasn't president, and in the context of a particular ballot? I put these two concerns together and came up with the change in tense as the solution. What do you think? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:19, 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 17:38, 25 March 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 eight 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 14:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Thanks also for your efforts with Good Articles and trying to improve standards. Regards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Another GAN to look at

Talk:Ivar Hippe/GA1 → Trying to be as nice as I can (not to be WP:BITEy here), I'm not sure about the quality of this article, as it's very short; I understand size shouldn't be an issue provided it meets WP:GACR#3 which is my concern here. Another concern is the quality of the review itself. I also note that he nominated Manchester United F.C. for GA, which after taking a quick look would likely be quick-failed. But anyways, just wanted to let you know about that. We also need to remember that there are non-GAN drive participants reviewing GANs as well.

Also, thanks for volunteering to provide some good quality-control for these reviews, it's very appreciated. –MuZemike 04:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daisy Jugadai Napaltjarri

The article Daisy Jugadai Napaltjarri you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Daisy Jugadai Napaltjarri for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire/GA1

I'm sorry it's taken this long, but I won't be able to complete the necessary changes to the article. Although I had intended to see the article to GA, my free time is now limited and I'm afraid I can't improve the article in the time I have; it's already been on hold too long. Nev1 (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism GAN

Hey, thank you for your suggestions. I've responded to your concerns at the GAN.UBER ^(talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied to you again at the GAN.UBER ^(talk) 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Tit subspecies

The reference would be the general source used (Handbook of the Birds of the World entry). I guess I could put the same cite at the end of every single bloody line but it seems kinda overkill (which I concede seems to be de rigueur these days amongst certain editors). I've put an extra line in to cite, will that suffice? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i was just looking for a source for this - a single cite in an opening sentence would do it, rather than the same cite on each line. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Brachiopod

This is the most difficult zoology article I've worked on, because everything is debated by scientists, including whether brachiopods are protostomes or deuterostomes (I know of just one other phylum that may be protostomes or deuterostomes). I'll have a go at making the lead shorter, but it will need to make readers aware that it's a difficult subject. --Philcha (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That'd be good. Readers won't have a clue about what protostomes or deuterostomes are or why they matter :-) Maybe focus as much as possible on the areas of agreement and the descriptive material? I'm sure it will get there. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Holmes a'way

Thanks for that link fix - teaches me to save and run - cheers SatuSuro 08:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Top Hat

Yep, I nominated it. Are there problems? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No (well none other than the one i raised just skimming the article); we just don't get many IP-based noms at GAN, and I've had a couple of experiences of them being either 'hoax' or not following up. Happy for it to take its course and get reviewed whenever someone gets to it in the queue. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Kinda sad that most anonymous editors aren't really here to improve Wikipedia, no wonder registered users have a general feeling of distrust towards us. But anyway,I tried placing the GAN template at Talk:Top Hat, and for some reason it doesn't come out the way it should. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK now. Any issues, ping WT:GAN. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the article as you advised me to. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

re: The Open Boat

I understand and appreciate your concerns, and would be quite glad to address them despite the article having already been promoted to FAC. You're quite right that an editor tends to "look too close to the subject", but understand that one does not intend for this sort of misrepresentation to occur; rest assured that the citations exist and will be instated, and that no OR has taken place. Again, thank you for your comments. María (habla conmigo) 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly did not imagine it had been intended; your work is excellent and i have always found you to be thoughtful and to take great care in your work here. I'm sure this can be resolved. Would you drop me a message once you've had an opportunity to go through it and have had a shot at fixing the issues? Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added two citations for now.[2] The Red Badge connection was previously questioned by Scartol on the talk page, so rather than scrounge for a questionable source for a questionable quote, I've just removed it for now. While the connection seems important to me, it isn't worth fighting for. :) Does this address your concerns? María (habla conmigo) 00:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

knock knock!

Hey. Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Funerary art/archive1. While I cannot reply as well as Johnbod would, I have attempted to address your concerns. Tks. • Ling.Nut 13:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hamiltonstone. You have new messages at Talk:2005_Cronulla_riots/GA1#3rd_opinion_2.
Message added 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcoming me to Wikipedia

Why did you just welcome me to Wikipedia when the very contribution page you linked to clearly shows that I've been here since 2005? I'm trying to Assume Good Faith here, but you're not making it easy. Vassilissa (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

<scratches head>Sorry if I've disappointed you. I'm not sure what possible bad faith interpretation could be made of my belated welcome. I had checked your contrib history. I saw you'd been here a while, but that about half the edits had been done in a single day, and that you'd only done a few dozen in all. I didn't know much about wikipedia for months, perhaps a year after i started editing. It was ages before I read any of the key policies. I just thought I should belatedly welcome you and give you those links in case you didn't know about them. Best wishes, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Referances

Sorry, I really was not thinking about the referance part....Would the webpage for the show on the stations website be a source? Thanks. Joemama993 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That will be a good source for stuff like station broadcast frequency, number of staff, some format stuff. But remember that some of these details change, and the station's webpage will be updated, and as a result will then not be valid for the historical info. Don't use the station site for comments about popularity of shows, reviews of shows or presenters, or ratings, as it isn't an independent source. Hope that helps. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitlam

Thanks for weighing in. I think the image is proper as Australia has freedom of panorama and there is a sheet prepared for the Australian Copyright Council which discusses this issue. Could you take a look here and also look at the linked materials? I'm hopeful that once you've viewed that, you'll withdraw the support (and who knows maybe even ...) Many thanks, --Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I work on art-related articles in Oz in particular, and am embarrassed to have forgotten that, having had to use it on previous occasions. Sorry, will fix. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the Catholic Church article today

...is the first thing that's truly made me laugh around here for a long time! Thanks so much. You are absolutely correct. And the criticism does not only apply to Bokenkotter - in my view it should apply to Norman as well. Well done for starting a lively discussion. I think you should stick around. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega edits

They edits that added Mr. Ticsay were not good faith edits. Edits were also done by the same editor on List of Alpha Phi Omega members with Mr. Ticsay which contradicted this one (had him as an APO in the Philippines brother).

OK, thanks for the heads up. hamiltonstone (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: A-class

Thanks for your work on this. A quick thought, though; I know that I said that Milhist's standards were higher, but now I am not so sure. They may be slightly higher, but I think that it is just a better-defined definition of the A-class standard. For example, WP:A?'s sentence "Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate" covers the more explicitly-defined WP:MH/A A2 criterion "The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail."

Does that make sense? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense, but those two things look a bit different to me - i can imagine people very easily arguing whether something met one and not the other (even though I agree with you that it looks as though the intention is merely to give greater clarity). regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Point. I've modified it slightly to this: "While A-class may be a cross-WP standard in theory, as it is supposed to be assigned by WikiProjects it is not uniformly applied; Milhist's standards (WP:MH/A) are much more explicitly defined than 1.0's. As a result, there may be less certainty for readers about what an A-class symbol means compared to FA or GA."

I think that we can all agree that it is "much more explicitly defined," right? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's good :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that isn't going over so well. :-) If that gets moved to VPP or somewhere else, feel free to leave the A-class section off. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Canberra and Australia FAR

Dear Canberran and decorated FA writer, please lend a hand YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Argh, I knew you'd come knocking eventually. I'll see if i can get to it. As you know, i've just signed myself up for a bit of busy-ness at that GA discussion, but we'll see how we go. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I apologise that I've stopped working on those two in the last week. I feel rather abandoned and boycotted YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is destined to be the feeling of people trying to keep FAR ticking over :-) I'll see what i can do next week. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the lack of reviewing but the lack of interest given the fact that there are 5-6 Australians who write FAs all the time and the fact that the average guy doesn't need any FA-skills to add sources YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your ongoing contributions YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Gascoigne/GA1

Hi, I reviewed your GA nomination and left a few suggestions at Talk:Ben Gascoigne/GA1. It is a very nice article. Xtzou (Talk) 18:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple more suggestions. Then its good to go. Xtzou (Talk) 16:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't address my last few comments, which is all that is holding me up! Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 18:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FACs

To be honest, I'm not very good at judging FACs. If I were I wouldn't be so mercilessly grilled in them as I am :) I tend to do more scientific FACs, which are a LOT easier to get to the top than historical/biographical FACs, but I did do the bio of JK Rowling, so I might be able to draw some advice from that. Serendi^podous 06:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Google book links

Why removing them? Is there a clear policy on that? They are almost same as other url links - we don't say "Google the title, its so easy" but provide a direct link for other reference types, don't we? ISBN is different from more direct doi/pmid. Materialscientist (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: because Google books is one, commercial, platform for accessing material. Providing a google books link is a kind of linkspam. The ISBN takes people to a platform-neutral page where they can choose how to try and track down that book. This was written up on a guidline or policy page at some stage but I've been unable to lcoate it so far. Will keep looking. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(First, I have great respect to your work and don't mean slightest offense below) if there is no clear policy then maybe it is your personal opinion, which shouldn't be enforced? Google books provide free text, which none of the others on that "platform-neutral page" do. How is that overly commercial? Come to think another way, the vast majority of doi/pmid links are much more "commercial" than Google, yet we keep adding them, not removing, for good reason. Materialscientist (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are fair points. I've never been sure about the wisdom of adding links to commercial paywalled sites of any sort. However I was removing the google book links on the understanding that this was an agreed approach. As i cannot demonstrate that, i will desist. Thanks for the heads-up. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't know, I'll tell you what I've heard and think: "Google book links expire" (seem to take very very long - never seen myself) and are "violation of privacy" (the coded link to a book is user-specific, though I haven't heard anyone able to decode/use that information). That might be true, but I still add them wherever possible because of the enormous advantages of direct links.

I think the idea behind adding doi/pmid links is that they (i) verify the reference (ii) lead to an abstract/1st page/free text (sometimes for everyone, and many universities are subscribed) (iii) We are not yet at the stage of requesting free information only - most high-quality sources are not free, and it is not considered outrageous. Materialscientist (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hamiltonstone. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics/1#Section break.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'd be interested to hear what you think is missing from the article that could be added to make it broader in its coverage. Cheers -Basement12 (T.C) 07:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Glenrothes

Thank you for your help on this. Much appreciated. Mcwesty (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ben Gascoigne

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm so sorry ...

... that I forgot about my promise to look over Ben Gascoigne. If it's OK with you, I'll raise any issues I have here on your talk page, rather than clutter up the FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 18 "May 2010 (UTC)

No trouble. Either here at Talk:Ben Gascoigne is fine. You did make a couple of tweaks, and i know you're in demand! Also, Iridia was a big help. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The science may be good, but the writing is ... well, not so good, at least not in my opinion anyway. But who cares about my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I do. Bit embarrassed though. :-( Anyway, all changes and suggestions gratefully received. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A few questions

Lead

• "... was an Australian specialist in optical astronomy". Couldn't we just say that he was an Australian optical astronomer?

• waves* Sorry to butt in. I did a few of these, and thought I'd mark them off here to save time. This one's done. Iridia (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Early life

• "He came at the top of his physics classes each year at the University, with five years of study including a first honours degree in mathematics and a second honours degree in physics, before completing his Master of Science in 1937." With hardly ever works as a linking word, and it certainly doesn't work here. Does this mean that he came top of his physics classes every year during his five years of study? The sentence is probably trying to say too much anyway, as the last bit about his MSc doesn't seem to fit with the opening.

• I hacked it about a bit. See what you think. Iridia (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I have the impression the web reference is wrong there. He himself in the interview doesn't say he got a Masters: he got two Honours, which makes a lot more sense, because there's the photo of him graduating with a BSc in 1936. The interview says "I was taking a degree in science, taking my honours in mathematics". Masters is an extra 18 months-2 years after a BSc. You don't really do it if you've done Honours, which is one extra year. But then "I applied for a second honours degree, in physics, and this time I got a First all right". So the count is 1 BSc (maths), 1 Honours (maths), 1 Honours (physics). Iridia (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

War service 1940–1945

• "Returning to a job in the physics department at Auckland, Gascoigne worked on military optics, involving technologies such as gun sights and rangefinders." I wouldn't call gun sights and rangefinders "technologies".

Done. Iridia (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Gascoigne was offered a research fellowship ...". Presumably by Woolley? Could this not be rewritten in the active voice?

• Checked the source - yes that's right. Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "The Solar Observatory staff had some similar responsibilities ...". I can't quite get my head round what "some similar" means. Why not just "similar"?

Someone got to it... Iridia (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mount Stromlo

• "In 1949, the Gascoignes' third child, daughter Hester, was born. Throughout this period they lived, like many Stromlo personnel, in residences on Mount Stromlo ...". Throughout what period? "Lived ... in many residences" also seems a bit odd. Makes it seem as if they lived in many residencs simultaneously. Could they have lived other than in a residence? Would it be enough to say "lived ... on Mount Stroml", or "onsite", or something?

• Done, though i've added some new text as well which doubtless has its own problems :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1957, the Commonwealth Observatory was transferred from the Australian Government's Department of the Interior to the Australian National University (ANU)...". It wasn't really the Observatory that was transferred, surely, it was the responsibility for it.

Done. Iridia (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• "... in January 1956 Woolley also resigned as director of Mount Stromlo ...". The "also" makes it look as if we're talking about another thing that Woolley did, but the context implies that we're talking about something else that happened in 1956.

• done, i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "It was also the year in which searches were undertaken for a new field observatory site for the Mount Stromlo team ...". I've lost track by this time of whether we're talking about 1956 or 1957.

• done, i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1963 Gascoigne developed a piece of technology, called an optical corrector plate ...". Who called it an optical corrector plate? Gascoigne?

• got rid of "piece of technology" (what was i thinking??) - it is jsut what i udnerstand the thing is called - not particularly a name developed by gascoigne, but the way in which a professional astronomer would describe such a device. See whether the revised version presents any problems. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "... Gascoigne was made its first Vice-President". Not sure that "Vice-President" should be capitalised there.

• done. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "When Bok retired as Stromlo's director in early 1966, Gascoigne was acting director for three months ...". The way that's written makes it look like Gascoigne was acting director when Bok retired, but I guess what's meant is that Gascoigne took over the role temporarily after Bok's retirement?

Changed "was" to "became". Iridia (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Although Eggen and Gascoigne had previously been successful academic collaborators ...". I think this is trying to say that they'd previously succeeded in working together, but it might also mean that their collaboration was successful in that it produced something of academic worth. It could also mean that they'd both succeeded in collaborating with other academics, but not with each other. Perhaps someting along the lines of "had previously worked together successfully"?

• You are right - and i was trying to avoid using the word "work" again. See if my alt revision is ok. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Artist's assistant and historian

• "Gascoigne was offered a career ...". You don't get offered careers, you get offered jobs.

• done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "... his wife was emerging as an artist of significance". Could this reasonably be rephrased as " a significant artist"?

• done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "... he decided to return to a position at the Australian National University in Canberra and support her work." Couldn't we just say that "he decided to return to the Australian National University in Canberra ...". I' m missing the significance as well of how Gascoigne going to Canberra was supporting his wife's work.

• done both things (I hope). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Rosalie Gascoigne's artistic career came late – she was in her late fifties when she held her first solo shows ...". Can we reword that to avoid the "late ... late"? "Almost 60", for instance?

• done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "As well as being an astronomer, Gascoigne took an interest in the history of the discipline, writing about the Melbourne Telescope, and authoring biographies of the first trained astronomer at Canberra's Mount Stromlo Observatory, William Bolton Rimmer, and pioneering Australian astronomer Robert Ellery." That sentence is far too long, and needs to be split.

• done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• "As well as being recognised for his own achievements, Gascoigne also helped ensure recognition of those of his gifted artist wife." Multiple problems with this sentence. First of all, "gifted" is a value judgement, but whose? Yours? The bigger problem though is that the first half of the sentence doesn't match the second half. The passive voice in "as well as being recognised" clashes with the active voice in "Gascoigne also helped ensure".

• The sentence really didn't fit with the section. I removed it and moved the National Gallery statement to the section on Rosalie. Iridia (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)