This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Hawkeye7/Archive 2011! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2010 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill[talk][prof] 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I regret the delay that you have experienced in getting a review in response to your GA nomination. I have taken over the review and placed the article on hold. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I need to know if you are planning to pursue the GA review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I apologize; I had not noticed that it had been reviewed. I will get working on the suggested corrections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent changes. We still have a few concerns but are very close to finishing. Racepacket (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to step out of my role as a fair arbiter of just the GA criteria, but have you considered my suggestion of moving the four grad students to the Security panel section and attributing it to the accusers instead of speaking in the voice of Wikipedia? Whatever you think is best, I will not hold up the article on this point. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Horace Robertson
Hello! Your submission of Horace Robertson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GregorB (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Singapore Strategy GA Review
Hi mate, just letting you know in case you hadn't noticed that I completed the review, awaiting your response to a few fairly minor points when you get a chance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Battle of the Bismarck Sea
Hi, Hawkeye, I've made an attempt to copy edit the Battle of the Bismarck Sea article to address Wikicopter's concerns on the GA review page. I'm not sure how to expand the lead, though, sorry. Are you able to address this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to provide a longer lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, it looks good. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Horace Robertson
On 20 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Horace Robertson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Horace Robertson accepted the surrender of an Italian general, an Italian admiral and a Japanese general? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Battle of Sio
You reverted the Fix bunching template back in. Does it actually bunch for you or anyone else? Please have a look at Template_talk:Fix_bunching#Change the documentation. Looks bad with the the template here. So unless there is an actual problem I'd say leave it out. Cheers 217.235.23.141 (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It always looked okay on my screen, but another editor had problems and put the fixbunching in. Therefore, I am not taking it out. It is supposed to make things looked better, so if there is a problem with it, we need to get the fixbunching templates fixed instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Going forward
I was hoping for some input from others in MILHIST; I generally prefer for others to make the "big" calls, I try to stay focused on getting a relatively technical and boring job done. But it looks like we're not going to get it, so I'll make a suggestion. Going forward, I have no trouble with leaving your A-class articles alone ... I already generally leave the non-AmEng articles alone, because I'm really in no position to make judgments on English other than American English (and arguably Canadian English; Chicago has been influential in Canada for 100 years, and Canadians tend to follow the American model that favors conformity). Concerning Manhattan Project, I've got concerns, and since I've put a lot of work into it, I'd rather the problems be fixed before it gets promoted, and AustralianRupert indicated that we were out of time. FAC is another story; maintaining goodwill at FAC by giving them a standard they can rely on will help all our FAC writers, so I tend to get involved in all the articles there, AmEng or not. I'd appreciate it if you (and everyone) would give me a shout before taking articles to FAC if I haven't already reviewed them for A-class ... generally, my reaction will be to do any work myself that needs doing, although if it looks like a tough slog, I'll say so. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I accept that you have your concerns and am willing to work through them. The A-class reviewers should be focusing on factual issues related to military history (and in this case, nuclear physics). FAC is another story. Changes based on style have to be based upon the MOS. Changes based upon grammar are always welcome. My next step with the article will probably be a pruning process to reduce it in size a bit without reducing the factual content. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Please remove the text you have interspersed into my review of this article Fasach Nua (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a common way of responding to comments in FAC's and Hawkeye has signed his comments... Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hi mate, before I get on to my main point, I'm sorry I didn't get in and review Manhatten Project when I had the chance but if/when you renom I'll try and make a better effort to do so -- I continue to be impressed with your willingness to take on big and controversial subjects. Now the question... I'm working on the article I threatened recently re. former Duntroon cadets who joined the RAAF in 1923-30 but I'd be interested in your opinion on an appropiate title. I'm not calling it "List of Duntroon graduates in the RAAF" because one of the whole points of creating such a list rather than relying on the current "Duntroon graduates" category is that some of the key people went into the RAAF without graduating. "List of Duntroon alumni in the RAAF" would cover everyone but are we in the habit of using "alumni" in the Australian military? Do you think "List of former Duntroon cadets in the RAAF" is more appropriate or a bit of a mouthful? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard "alumni" used in the Australian Army, only "graduates". I would go with "List of former Duntroon cadets in the RAAF". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks mate -- actually looking at Moore's book on the college and its list of cadets, it sounds like some still go into the Air Force as "Ground Defenders", so I may even want to put "pilots" in the title as in "Duntroon-educated pilots in the RAAF" or some such, or put a year range in -- but I'll definitely leave out "alumni"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Manhattan Project
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Manhattan Project article.
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) 15:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Leslie Groves
Two quick things about this article. First, it seems a bit short. Do you have access to The General and the Bomb? It seems like there's some good stuff to add. If you don't have access, I can easily get a copy to look through. Second, I'm of the entirely personal opinion that "was in charge of" is rather clunky and imprecise. I think it would be more forceful and concise if you could substitute an action verb, such as directed, led, supervised, oversaw (which obviously doesn't work given that you use it for the Pentagon), etc. Sir Nils (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I do, but Norris is generally better. What points/issues do you think it should also cover? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Just checking
You didn't intend to remove John, King, right? [1] WSC reinstated it with an edit summary that it was probably just a mistake, so I'm just checking in case I missed something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a mistake. Early in the morning here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks, just wanted to be sure. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Gareth Kirkham
Hi id like to view an article that was deleted in 2009. The article in question is Gareth Kirkham. can you help?82.3.203.127 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It was just a stub. All it said was; "Gareth Kirkham is a rugby union player who currently is under contract for the London Wasps." Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Dwarves and dwarfs
Apologies for the misunderstanding at FAC about that spelling. I've struck that part and said I will raise it elsewhere as it relates to more than just this article. One thing, though, when you reverted my change you may have gone back a little bit too far. Could you double-check the diff here and see whether the other edits I made (it was some minor copyediting I did) should be reinstated? Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
FAR notifications
Hi Hawkeye - Last fall, a new requirement was put into place at FAR that necessitates a notification on the article's talk page prior to FAR. This requirement was neglected on your recent nomination of Association football at FAR. Due to this, I have placed the review on hold and made the notification on the talk page. If at least a week goes by with no work being done on the article, the article can be relisted at FAR - you are free to do it yourself or let me know and I will do it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hawkeye, I am willing to tackle any issues you have with the article. I think it is somewhat unfair to say that it has "few references" it has over 50. I am also not seeing any outstanding issues from the last review, they were all tackled and hence why it was closed as kept. Can you note any specific areas which you think need referencing? Thanks. Woody (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Woody. Unreferenced sections include:
The first and fourth paragraphs of "History"
The first, third and fourth paragraphs of "Duration and tie-breaking methods"
Last paragraph in "Misconduct"
The whole "Governing bodies" section
The middle paragraph in "International competitions"
The first and second paragraphs of "Domestic competitions"
Thanks for those Hawkeye7. I've had a run through just now and added references in where I thought they were missing based on what you noted above. Could you please have another look and see if there are any more areas you think are under-referenced. Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: I've copied this discussion over to the talkpage, probably best to carry on the discussion over there so anyone else can get involved. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed section head "Post-war legislation" as not descriptive of the content of the paragraph, which is about the actual dropping of the atomic bombs. If you're planning to extend the article to include the committee's work on post-war control, that's another matter, so good luck with it. Cheers, Cuppysfriend (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppenheimer
Just wanted to express my admiration for the great job you've been doing bring the Oppie story up to FA standards, almost singlehandedly. Sorry I wimped out on the GA review. Figureofnine (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Best of luck with the article on Opje's hearing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Netball
I've waded in with my 2 pence as well. No idea what he is doing. no wonder why people loose their temper with some of the reviewers. Personally I don't see why that user is so poor at English since he is apparently Indian. Most people in India have a good grasp of English right? KnowIG (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have placed this review on hold for you to address some areas. I am looking forward to seeing you again. Racepacket (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
J Robert Oppenheimer FAC
Have all your concerns been resolved? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a couple of minor changes and then I can support. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and resolved my remaining concerns. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I can help regarding SV's apparent oppose, if you like, but what she wants is going to take some dialog(ue) and some effort. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'd like to expand on that. I'm never annoyed by email (from people like you, anyway), but since most Wikipedians prefer on-wiki dialog, I'll speak my mind here ... for as long as I'm saying something useful, which is up to you.
I've been skimming FA bios lately to get a sense of what's expected, and I've read the last parts of all 7 of your FA bios. None of them had the detail that Oppenheimer does, and I don't think the extra detail is helpful. Normally, I try to limit my so-called copyediting (it lacks a lot when compared to professional copyediting, although that's partly on purpose) to things that are as mechanical and inoffensive as possible, because I'm covering a lot of ground at peer review, A-class review and FAC, and I just don't have time for more drama than is necessary to get the job done. But I do try to pay attention to the preferences of the most active contributors, including you. So if there's something going on here I don't understand, let me know. At FAC in particular, I think it's a very good idea to be conservative, to pare back things that might cause confusion, if you can do it without damaging the material (in your view).
Okay, stuff I'd leave out:
These were not curative and the tumor spread to his palate, affecting his swallowing, hearing and breathing. [Our FA bios don't in general give the gory details of what exactly went wrong as they were dying of cancer.]
Okay, I have removed after "spread". The problem was a wiki-category about the cause of death, which is very specific, and had me run through a literature search to determine the precise form of cancer that he had. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see your dilemma. Still, I'm going to shorten it a little; as always, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
600 of his closest ... associates [600 associates ... no one has 600 closest associates]
An Americanism I picked up in New Orleans, where Mardi Gras is attended by "thousands of your closest friends". Deleted "closest" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You're right, that one is our fault :) - Dank (push to talk)
Bethe, Kennan and Smyth gave brief eulogies. Oppenheimer was cremated and his ashes were placed in an urn. Kitty took his ashes to St John and dropped the urn into the sea off the coast, within sight of the beach house. [In a novel about Oppenheimer, sure, you'd want to know. I don't see any of this kind of thing in our FA bios, and IMO, this makes me think that I'm reading an obituary rather than an encyclopedia.]
Again, the problem stems from the wiki bio pro forma, which wants to know the exact place of burial. I've spent a lot of time tracking down the graves of general officers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Aha. If you don't mention the beach house and St. John and the urn, you haven't specified the place of burial. It still feels like too much, but you make a convincing case. - Dank (push to talk)
the beach property in St. John was inherited by their daughter Toni. [I think this is the first mention of the beach property; if it didn't play a significant role in Oppenheimer's life, then short bios in general and FAs in particular generally don't mention this kind of detail. Same goes for "... in the beach house" and following. OTOH, his daughter's suicide after being denied a security clearance could certainly be relevant to his bio, although the implication of the link between the two might make for some fireworks. I haven't read the source, so I can't say.] - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The beach property appears at the start of the "Final years" section. Of course, the ranch and beach house figure much larger in biographies of Oppenheimer than they do in the article. The bit about inherited stems from discussion about where his money went, which goes back to the bit about his political beliefs. Toni's depression was probably genetic, and her security problems were solely due to her father. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, my search failed, thanks. Do we need the sentence about the community center? - Dank (push to talk)
I'd like to thank you for your proofreading efforts. I find myself having to write to unfamiliar grammatical and spelling rules without the aid of my automated assistants (which are currently warning me that you misspelled "encyclopaedia"). I wish they would just let us write in our own English. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure; ideally, you'll feel supported by me and the other copyeditors at A-class and FAC, that is, you'll feel free to write and not worry so much about catching every mistake and meeting everyone's expectations. Btw, I was concerned about SV's impending oppose, but it looks like she's plowing on ahead with her copyediting, and she's doing a generally great job IMO so I think the FAC is on the right track. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
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) 21:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Milhist ACRs
I've closed Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Singapore_strategy as "no consensus"; although some development work was underway, the review was well over the allowed 28 days and in the interests of fairness to other reviews it unfortunately couldn't be extended indefinitely. However, on the plus side Manhattan Project is now A-Class so please accept my congratulations for its successful nomination. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Pity about Singapore Strategy but sure it will sail through next time, Hawkeye -- anyway, great work and big congrats on Manhatten Project, and I can't see much holding up Oppie from a successful FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which ... one of the things the delegates pay particular attention to (sometimes) is WP:LQ, so I'm going to move some punctuation outside quotation marks. If I've got it wrong ... that is, if the punctuation was inside the marks in the source, and the punctuation could make a difference to the meaning, please revert me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Netball in the Cook Islands
Hawkeye7:
I have enjoyed working with you on J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Interim Committee GA Reviews, and I want your guidance on Netball in the Cook Islands and Netball. Although I write in American English, I never insisted that my spellings carried over to those articles. I am a bit puzzled by User:LauraHale's reaction to my questions and suggestions and am not sure what prompts that.
I see that you have signed on as the reviewer of Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3. Is it possible that (diff and diff) are "significant contributions to it prior to the review?" Maybe we should let a fresh pair of eyes figure out how to take the GA process forward.
In the meantime, I have gone through all of the talk page and review comments on Netball and made a check list of remaining items. I hope that you will work with me to conclude the Netball review. Many thanks for all that you do for Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
User:LauraHale is a doctoral student whose expertise is in social media, particularly in its relationship with sport. She has done a lot of work with Wikimedia organising conferences and events for them but is a necomer to Wikipedia as such. She was commissioned to write about the Wikipedia and decided to create a featured article as part of the exercise. Her experience so far has been very negative and I can only anticipate a scathing indictment of the Wikipedia, its editors and its policies. Being an American herself she has not been on the recieving end of American cultural imperialism before, and is shocked and indignant, whereas an Australian would just shrug. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that frame of reference. Again, although I insist on my talk page statements being in American English, I do not expect the spelling of postings on article pages conforming to American spellings. I also reject the claim that grammar rules in New Zealand are different. I want all of my GA reviews to result in a "passed," and I felt a sense of defeat when Netball in the Cook Islands resulted in my first "fail." Racepacket (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well you can put your talk page comments in New Zealand English. That would be common courtesy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
American English Spell checkers and a lack of New Zealand spelling would make that very difficult to do. On another point, I was surprized to learn that asking for help in spot checking sources for copyright infringement would be "harassment." How do you deal with reviewing materials that are not available on-line? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
On the Oppenheimer article? I borrowed the books from the library. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:Olympic sports
Will you please give me a valid reason - why you reverted my change of removing this category from Netball? This category only contains articles about past and present Olympic sports; or do you've some other definition of Olympic sports? which even ignores the IOC.Bill william comptonTalk 20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the category description and it said no such thing. See the article on Olympic sports for details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This category contains articles about past and present Olympic sports and links to the categories for those sports. - from category
The Olympic sports comprise all the sports contested in the Summer and Winter Olympic Games. - very first line of article you suggested to me. What you think i'm a bull who hit for no reason, of course i'm aware of this article and category's description. Now tell me where you read this thing that this category also include all IOC recognized sports?? thanks Bill william comptonTalk 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Netball
Are you interested in continuing and finishing the GA review without the original nominator. If so, please let us know on Talk:Netball/GA1 Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The nominator has withdrawn the article from consideration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but are you willing to step in and finish it without her? Racepacket (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hawkeye, Racepacket (talk·contribs) is appealing their block. I think that you should post an explanation of why you implemented the block on their talk page for the benefit of the reviewing admin (including links to diffs and/or relevant discusussions and reports which led to the block, of course). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Nick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
"World War I", "World War II"
Hmains is making a lot of changes again to non-American articles. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Fix bunching
It was my understanding that this problem was solved, see Template talk:Fix bunching, in almost all cases. Could you tell me what difficulties you were seeing that required your reversion of my edits at Manhattan Project. We are working to resolve any outstanding issues. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 05:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Could be. I never saw any problem. But if there is no effect to keeping it there, why remove it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Compare without and with the additional {{fix bunching}} templates. Notice how in the version with the additional template, the text is pushed farther left of the infobox, introducing additional whitespace. Now, this may not seem like much space, but if you scroll down and expand the bottom World War II collapsible box (within the larger World War II series campaign box). When that bottom box is uncollapsed, it increases the width of the campaign box. Now, if you scroll back up you will see that pushes text next to the top infobox in the case that we have {{fix bunching}}, but it does not in the case without it. The reason is that {{fix bunching}} links these two elements, making it so the left margin for both is set by the widest of the two elements. If one element is wider than the other, or becomes wider when it is uncollapsed, it creates unnecessary whitespace since the text does not wrap around each element individually. Does this make sense? Another reason for removing it is that some editors don't fully understand how it works, and end up putting too much inside of it. Yet another reason, right now, is to get feedback if this particular [edit] link float bug is actually fixed. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll tell you what I see. On the one without the template, there is slightly less space between the infobox and the WWII campaign box, but slightly more space after the campaign box. There is noticeably less white space to the left of the one with the template as you say. Both versions look fine to me. But someone else did have a problem and added the templates.
The templates claim to fix bunching and therefore they should fix bunching. If this is best done by doing nothing, then that is what they should do.
Because I wanted to prepare the article for FAC later in the year, I did not want any drama about white space and infoboxes. So what I am going to do is remove the templates and see if anyone complains. If someone does, the templates go back in and stay there. You will be informed but usually the complaints about layout are too vague to follow up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if you are free, could you please examine this Good article candidate. I give a thank you in advance. I Help, When I Can.[12] 23:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah... The editor who nominated those articles... He just popped up out of nowhere and nominated them, then he doesn't fix the articles after they are put on hold. Personally, I'd give a quick fail to whatever he does. He's not even a regular contributor. I Help, When I Can.[12] 20:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Parphrasing accusations.
I've posted the following to USer:jayvdb's talk page.
If there are genuine concerns regarding close paraphrasing that could be problematic (and I've checked and I've asked User:Hawkeye7 to verify already [where he found none]) and help resolve the issue of whether or not I actually did it as relevant to the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2, I am more than happy to ask User:Hawkeye7 to scan and e-mail the relevant pages to you. (I'm not at home at the moment so I do not have access to the exact text myself.) Most of the sources are available on Google Books. I think there are only two books in question. I'd like to get that issue out of the way because it is annoying. I've already had one person verify it. No one has found any inappropriate paraphrasing with the publicly available texts and I'm rather annoyed that the accusation continues to be repeated with out anything to back it up. --LauraHale (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
If you could find the relevant texts that Racepacket was citing (very handy that they were the only ones not publicly available. Because yes, I went to all that work not to do inappropriate paraphrasing with all the rest of the sources but I chose to do it for the book sources.) and scan the I think 5 pages in question and e-mail them to User:jayvdb, that would be awesome. I want this stupidity to go away and it looks like people won't until I prove my innocence. --LauraHale (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Which books are we talking about? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Newsletter column on FAC reviewing
We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Realise that the circumstances of the editor who submitted the article may differ from yours
It is unreasonable to expect a quick turn-around to your questions from an editor in another timezone. Moreover, since FAC submissions take so long, the circumstances of the editor may change. The editor may be a schoolteacher who has ample time to edit during breaks but not once term has started. Or may have been shipped to Afghanistan where she is currently fighting for her life. Similarly, do not say: "you'll never get all that fixed in a week" because the editor may be in Antarctica with nothing to do but edit all day every day.
Realise that some common terms may have very specific meanings to an expert on the subject
Good faith efforts to improve wording can result in a loss of meaning, or an incorrect meaning when technical terms are involved. "Critical mass" means something very specific in an article on nuclear reactors. A soccer player knows that her "goal" is behind her, not in front.
Realise that not everyone is seeing what you are seeing
One of the most frustrating forms of complaint is about layouts. In a nutshell, other editors may not be seeing the same layout as you are unless they are using (a) the same browser (b) sized to the same width on (c) a screen of the same dimensions running on (d) the same operating system. I cannot duplicate it unless I have this information, which for some reason many editors are reluctant to part with.
Realise that only one article is being reviewed
Template X may be inconsistent with its use of full stops but template X is not up for review. I am willing to leave a message for the maintainer but that is it. Similarly, I will not entertain requests to overhaul a subpage, or to incorporate information that properly belongs in the subpage merely because the subpage "sucks".
Be nice
There is a widespread belief that FAC is a gauntlet like RfA where the WP:Civil does not apply. This is not the case. I have been involved in FACs where the coordinator had to caution a reviewer for incivility. Railing that MILHIST should never have given this article an A-class rating will not be appreciated.
Be constructive
The article has more than likely already been checked over several times by several editors aside from the nominator. Simply saying that it contains spelling or grammatical errors is not sufficient; you will actually need to point them out. It is more than likely that with many editors involved, multiple date formats may have crept in. They can be hard to spot in a long article. Point them out, don't just say that there are there. Avoid arguments like WP:UGLY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT that do not fly at RfD.
For outstanding work on Manhattan Project, Horace Robertson, and Walter Bedell Smith, all of which were promoted to A-Class between and March and April 2011, I hereby award you the A-class Medal with Swords. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Personal congrats on becoming only the third bloke to achieve this milestone -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! It is a very exclusive club. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
One I intend joining shortly -- I'll soon have three (3) Duntroon-educated Chiefs of the Air Staff up for A-Class Review, and look forward to your input there... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I look forward to it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
All there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If you find Wikidrama as tiresome as I do, the quotes on my user page might cheer you up (they work for me - particularly the first one). Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I really like the first one. The whole netball thing has spun completely out of control. Three editors have been blocked, there has been two RfCs, and now an appeal to arbCom. Your efforts on World War II seem quixotic. After all the wrangling, is the article any better than one you would have written yourself? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No, probably not. But given the prominence of the topic and the amount of historical and political baggage associated with it, it's a minor miracle that it's as good as it is. I took an interest in the article a few years ago when there was a successful campaign to develop the article from a total embarrassment into a reasonably credible overview of the topic and am trying to fight the good fight (along with a number of other editors) to keep it in an OK state and slowly improve it. The key lesson I've learned from the saga involving the World War II article last year is that Wikipedia is really bad at dealing with irrational and aggressive editors who cite sources (even misleadingly) and loudly defend their conduct on the grounds that they're trying to improve articles while throwing mud at anyone and everyone - this gets put into the too hard basket by most admins, and those who are prepared to tackle this kind of stuff often end up being hounded for their troubles. From the little I've seen, this applies to the netball-related dramas. Nick-D (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Laura is not a Wikimedia employee (and has never claimed to be) but he did indeed attempt to contact her employer. She was very upset about this. He claimed that Wikimedia is exempt from the usual rules. Maybe so; but the intent was to get her in trouble. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
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) 01:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppenheimer
Are you quite sure? From the beginning of J. Robert Oppenheimer: "He is often called the "father of the atomic bomb" for his role as the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, the World War II project that developed the first nuclear weapons.[1]" I can pull out my Oppie books to get further corroboration but I think it was the whole project not just Los Alamos. Figureofnine (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm quite sure. Oppenheimer was head of the Los Alamos Laboratory. Richard Tolman was senior scientific advisor. Don't know how that one in the Oppenheimer article snuck through. Probably when we were fiddling with the quote. Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Because of the unique circumstances of the two GA reviews for this article, and continued claims by Racepacket and others that the article does not meet the GA criteria, I believe a reassessment is required to avoid the status of the article continuing to be under a cloud. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Netball/1. Chester Markel (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Be Someone else's review
Hello there! I've just finished the article Be Someone Else and I was wondering if you cloud make its GA review. I've already nominated the page. Thank you. Salgado96 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Frederick Browning
I've reviewed the article Frederick Browning and left notes on the GA talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. WELL DONE very little to comment on.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi in connection with the Frederick Browning article you may want to include that Browning Barracks was named after him. This [2] would seem a reliable source or I have a book source if needed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. I was looking for material on the barracks closure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
One additional question. Many thanks! 15:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I found your questions and will get on researching them. In the meantime, could you please answer my question from 15:39? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hawkeye7: Could you please answer question 4? A lot depends on the answer. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
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, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Hawkeye, just wanted to drop in and thank you for writing that piece. Interestingly, I had much the same beginning with my Latin American dreadnought project – buried in the middle of this section is Le Deluge asking "...or perhaps do something about the List of battleships where there's lots of battleships which don't even have an article at all! OK some of them do but are red-linked there, but even so, it's a classic bit of WP:BIAS. You want MILHIST to be a "quality" encyclopedia - where's the article on the Minas Gerais then?" And that's how it all started. :-) As for the rest of your editorial, it was very illuminating. I have never tried to write a high-profile article, so your editorial was extremely interesting for me. Again, thanks very much, and I'll see you around. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Very interesting editorial. Thank you for it. Comment, you write "The article is the only featured article on a Second World War Generalfeldmarschall". Not sure if this is true because the Walter Model article is also featured and Model was a Generalfeldmarschal as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right! I thought I had checked them all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
One more thing for you – I added this to the end of the editorial, but I'll be happy to remove it if you want. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 09:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Hawkeye7 (talk·contribs) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
LauraHale (talk·contribs) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Cf review
(moved from article talk)
(Hawkeye) Actually, I am sort of playing match-maker, but I think it would be great if you gave Californium FAC a review. And "mav" gave your article a review. I sorta suspect you are stronger on the history and he on the chemistry, but the two topics are pretty strongly related...so bet you can each give each other useful feedback...and looking at each others articles will be "interesting"TCO (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I would just let the guy have his say, but I like the article as written. It has always had a narrative structure. And has had a lot of the "chemical engineer" story, and that has been increased at my request. Yeah, Dick was there, but so were a lot. His article should link here. Not ours to him. (Although I do think an eventual FL of notable people of the MP would be interesting.) Your article does a magnificent job of covering the landscape and organizing and linking to the various parts of the project. It was clearly much more than just the drama of Los Alamos. DuPont come out looking good, for once! ;-) TCO (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Dates
I did not know American military history used British formatting, thanks for letting me know. The article already used mixed formatting anyways, so I also though I was just making the article consistent. 96.25.248.210 (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Stephen J. Chamberlin 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:Stephen J. Chamberlin for things which need to be addressed. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Triple Entente
Hello,
I was just wondering whether you could help me out with a troublesome editor(212.13.86.194) who keeps adding a short paragraph about Macedonia to the article which shouldn't be there at all. I can't seem to be able to explain it to him/her and therefore wondered which courses of action are open to me to deal with this issue. I'm sorry to trouble you like this but it's the first time i had to deal with such a thing (as i am quite new to Wikipedia). Thanks, --Macarenses (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
It also might be a good idea to explain the meaning behind the templated warning you issued on User talk:JamesBWatson, since there doesn't actually appear to be a personal attack anywhere. —SW—talk 23:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Having been absent for a while I'm in the process of catching up, and wanted to thank you for your insightful and entertaining Bugle editorial which I've just got round to reading. I recognise much of your experience in some of the article work I've been involved with. Most of my stuff relates to the WWII Normandy Campaign though I have worked on the Napoleonic Peninsular War as well; the difference I find is that WWII seems to be only really now starting to undergo meta-analysis from historians looking, not at the event itself, but the various phases of historiography since. It's frustrating wrt WP:VERIFY/WP:UNDUE etc when one suspects an analysis is coloured by a certain approach but no historian has of yet analysed the analysis (if that makes sense!) Anyhow, thanks again for your article. Best, EyeSerenetalk 09:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Kitty wuz bold
FYI: I nominated your image for Featured Picture: [3]
Could you review the A330 article? It's a young Aussie who wrote it. Not asking for a support, but just an FAC heavyweight to look at it. I copyedited it, but if you find remaining mistakes, would just fix them. Unless you find so many you just need to fail it.TCO (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Something that may be of interest
Just this... (CC: Nick-D) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Citation style on Manhattan Project
Hi, I suggest changing the citation style on Manhattan Project from Harvnb to sfn, as it is more simple and doesn't require excessive <ref></ref> tags. TGilmour (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I have closed the GAR as delist, so I will revert your reversion(s). Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
My apolgies. I was expecting the decision to be more clearly marked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
No probs, but it does say Result: delistJezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Kenneth Walker
Congrats on getting the article to FA! This is officially the first recipient of the Medal of Honor to make it to Featured articles status. --Kumioko (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Really? I am very surprised at that. I tried to get Douglas MacArthur there, and will make another attempt later in the year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah its surprising that out of about 3200 there is only 1 (there are a bunch of lists though and the Medal of Honor article itself). There are a lot that IMO could get there with some work (Smedley Butler, Charles Lindburgh, Dougy Mac and a bunch of others. --Kumioko (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Smedley and Mac are nearly there. Lindburgh could make it, but need needs some citations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia triple crown
Your Majesty Hawkeye7, I am pleased to award this special edition triple crown in thanks for your contributions of DYK, GA and FC at WikiProject Australia. Thank you for volunteering to build a better encyclopedia. – SMasters (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't get discouraged, Manhattan Project is close
People are just engaging since it is such an important topic and a difficult one in it's size/complication. Think people want us to have a starred article, but also to make sure content all there (more so than when people look at the typical tiny topic of an FA and just do a prose review.) TCO (reviews needed) 19:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Neil Hamilton Fairley (1891–1966) was an Australian physician and soldier who was instrumental in saving thousands of Allied lives from malaria and other diseases. A graduate of the University of Melbourne, Fairley joined the Australian Army Medical Corps in 1915. In the inter-war period he became renowned as an expert on tropical medicine. Fairley returned to the Australian Army during the Second World War as Director of Medicine. He played an important role in the planning for the Battle of Greece, convincing the British Commander-in-Chief, General Sir Archibald Wavell, to alter his campaign plan to reduce the danger from malaria. In South West Pacific Area, Fairley became responsible for coordinating the activities of all allied forces in the fight against malaria and other tropical diseases. After the war Fairley returned to London where he became a Consulting Physician to the Hospital for Tropical Diseases and Wellcome Professor of Tropical Medicine at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. A serious illness in 1948 forced him to resign his professorship, but he retained his practice and membership of numerous committees, becoming an "elder statesman" of tropical medicine. (more...)
I read this article and checked out the history of it. I see that you did a great deal of work on it. Just wanted to tell you that it is a fascinating article. Good work! I do edits here as part of the history project and have started or added to several military bios. However, I work as an entomologist and often lecture on how insects have affected history. This is why I read the article. Of course, my appreciation of the subject of this article is helped by the fact that my mother is Australian. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
API is a bit cumbersome. Dropped it down a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Manhattan Project review
I've been checking back at the review page for the Manhattan Project for a few days now, but I haven't seen any response yet to what I said about external links and the material that I think is missing (this was on the main review page, not the subpage). I can't really say more until there is some response there. I'm never sure what to do when points raised are not responded to, so I thought it best to ask here first, as maybe you just haven't got round to considering it yet? Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see it is being discussed at Talk:Manhattan Project#Heritage or Culture section?. I'll raise the external links issue there as well. In case it's not clear, I expect disagreement with some of the suggestions I make at reviews, and am always happy to agree to disagree, but am never sure what to do when points raised are not responded to. I hate coming to user talk pages to chase up things like this - maybe a better option in future would be the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this: leaving me a comment to fix the template would have been nice, or at the very least an example page in the summary. I can't see that there's anything wrong with the current image code in the sandbox, even on the old version of Stafford L. Warren with the obviously broken image code. Is this actually a problem? If not, I'll re-sync from the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The image was reduced to the size of a postage stamp. The imagesize card was being ignored. I regarded this as a major problem. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this: do the images in the examples on the test cases page have different sizes for you, and if so, have you changed your default thumbnail size? That's what the image falls back to. The default is 220px, but if you've reduced yours then that would explain the "postage stamp" problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that I had never touched this preference. It was set to 120px, which was too small. The manual says that 180px is the default; but that may have changed over time. When I reset it to 220px, all the pictures on the test page had the same size. The point is that the image should show the default unless another size is specified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The default size was increased to 220px over 18 months ago: where did you see the comment about 180px being the default? Anyway, it would be better defaulting to the user thumbnail size on the Warren article, as not only is it pretty much the same as the one you'd declared but it means that users who have (purposely) changed their thumbnail size will get this correction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In the MediaWiki manual [4]. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
On reflection, I'm sorry that my tone about some of your edits could come across as vaguely disapproving. I don't always agree with your AmEng wording, but that doesn't alter my general impression of you as a guy with exceptional productivity and knowledge ... just to be able to produce a fraction of your output would make me very happy. So, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been staring at Sandy's "I am still waiting for a close paraphrasing check" on your FAC wondering what to do, since no one has stepped up and done it yet, and if history repeats itself, it may not get done at all. I'm wondering if it's possible for a nominator to spotcheck themselves? It ought to be. Almost anyone who might do a spotcheck won't have the books, so they would only be looking at the online sources ... if you produce the text from the online sources followed by your paraphrase, for each online source, that seems like a valid spotcheck to me, since anyone could verify what you're saying. Other than that, I'm out of suggestions. (I could do it myself but I'm really trying to stay focused on writing rather than reviewing, I need to shift gears for a while.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, GermanJoe got it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I see a reviewer just made 3 more requests. I think we can make a case that at some point, the nominator not only is allowed to stop answering questions, but even has an obligation to, because there's no guarantee that the original supports are still valid after the article has been tweaked hundreds of times. But I haven't looked at what he's asking for, you may be happy with the suggested changes. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not "soccer" it's association football
My edit was not disruptive. The name of the code is "association football". The tern "soccer" is a diminutive and in a lot of cases in Australia is used pejoratively. It is not the official title of the code. Throughout Wikipedia it is "association football" or even just "football". Reading through the comments in the so called discussion it is clear that the decision to rename the article and others and categories is the result of a peremptory and high handed decision made at short notice by AFL bigots. 02:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Additionally the discussion in the talk page did not by any stretch of the imagination reach a consensus. A lot of it was the setting up of straw men and then knocking them down. Really the only people who wanted to amend the title were AFL zealots and strangely some folks with an American background. Silent Billy (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
caption
I think second bullet of MOS section on captioning says complete sentence gets a period.TCO (reviews needed) 15:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Gary R. Englert
Please see the discussion on my talk page, [5]. For the reasons given there, I have suggested to the subject that the best chance of having an article would be for you to write one--if you are willing. Since you are an admin, you can restore it yourself as a draft. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Hawkeye7. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
tb
Hello, Hawkeye7. You have new messages at WT:MIL. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
In recognition of the knowledge, insight, skill, and persistence you demonstrated in taking Manhattan Project to Featured Article status. Orlady (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Seconded, Hawkeye -- and what a good idea for an award, Orlady! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Not an original idea with me. This same barnstar was awarded to me a few years back for my efforts to clear up some grievous errors on articles related to U.S. atomic history. I was happy to pass it on to Hawkeye, who greatly deserves it. --Orlady (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I was coming here to issue the same award! So a hearty thanks from me as well. – Quadell(talk) 17:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, I thought I'd try and drum up some more Aussie players in the September MilHist coord election, especially since we're losing Rupert, and AnotherClown has politely refused to run. SpeedyPhil looks like having a go and I'm asking Nick to consider coming back but, regardless, it'd be great to see you there... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
How much work is it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Well I reckon I'm reasonably active, and don't find it arduous. I participate in pretty well the same reviews and discussions I would if I wasn't a coord (maybe a few more on the coord talk page). All coords technically are stewards of a number of Task Forces but in practice there's little to do there (the last thing I did was help start the Brothers at War special project for the American Civil War TF). Rupert and I effectively appointed ourselves custodians of the article writing contest, but others help out as well -- again it's not a huge effort, and only at the turn of the month. The main thing for me is overseeing reviews and open tasks, particularly closing/promoting ACRs, which can take 15 or 20 minutes an article but has to be done, and by people other than the reviewers of the particular article -- we've been well behind in this area lately. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Plus, think of the joy you'd get from overturning our decisions. Why wait? - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Very happy to see your name in the pile. - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Heh heh, he must've believed that bit about it not being arduous (evil grin)... ;-) Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Did you protected the TFA with not enough vandalism or sockpuppetry, indifinitely, and when there is a clear COI with the article? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 05:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no COI here. But I have set the protection to 1 week. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is. This is an article you has been written, and you are overreacting with the vandalism the page is having at the moment. I don't know if you have had TFAs before, but if you didn't know TFAs receive vandalism as they are the most visible page of the day. WP:NOPRO was demoted from guideline with the condition that the article would be protected if there were extremely excessive vandalism (e.g. 1April 1-2, 11 March). See Wikipedia:Main_Page_featured_article_protection#Semi-protection for why the page: a) you should remove the semi-protection and b) when apply a short-term protection. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 05:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to remove the semi-protection. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I created a bunch of articles today about some Australian basketball players. This involved creating a number of articles with (basketball) in the title because a non-(basketball) article already existed. Could you please take a look at the base articles for the following and help make sure they are properly disambiguated?
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ooops. Had missed them. Will get onto it tonight. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Good show, I thought I'd wait till you actioned HJ's comments before reviewing (no sense doing more work that I needed to, eh)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I waited too long on this one. FWIW, I think it may have made a difference that the A-class review was over two years ago. Recent A-class reviews tend to produce more reviewers at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh crap, I waited too long too. Sorry, did a couple of FACs, then a couple of ACRs, just had a GAR to get out of the way and then was going back to FACs again. Will try to get to this one early next time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hawkeye, I have reviewed the article for GA here - just one minor issue needs to be addressed before I'll pass the article for GA. Great work as usual! Parsecboy (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hawkeye, I've recently started an article on the Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy and am wondering if you know where I could find some information about the dozen or so Australian Army officers which took part in the landings. I've been able to determine that Jo Gullett was one of the officers involved, but can't find a general source describing this. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I have a book, Wahlert, Glenn (1995), Australian Army Amphibious Operations in the South-West Pacific: 1942-45 : edited papers of the Australian Army History Conference held at the Australian War Memorial, 15 November 1994. Canberra: Army Doctrine Centre. oclc 33123834. Jo Gullett describes his experiences in the Normandy operation on pp. 151-160 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that. I think that it might also be online. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Elizabeth Edmonson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mikenorton (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations!
I am pleased to inform you that you have been elected as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations on your achievement, and thank you for volunteering!
Discussions of our plans for the coming year will no doubt begin in the next few days. In the meantime, please make sure that you have the coordinators' discussion page on your watchlist, as most of the relevant activity happens there. If you have not already done so, you may want to read the relevant courses in the project academy, as well as the discussion page and its recent archives.
If you have any questions about your work as a coordinator, or anything else, please don't hesitate to ask me directly. Kirill[talk][prof] 02:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Well done, Hawkeye -- tks for standing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations also from me Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
MilHist IRC
Hi Hawkeye7, I'm not sure you're aware of it, but MilHist's got an IRC channel at [6]. I'm getting some people to join it, and because you're a coord, I'd like to ask you to join to make yourself available to others who need help. Dank, The Ed17, Adamdaley, Ian Rose and a few guys are on it, so please join and tell others about it as well. Sp33dyphil"Adastra" 09:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2010-September 2011
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
You can go ahead and put your name down for the Task Forces. Today, I've been put into "my place" by a couple of Coordinators already. So your free to put your name down for those you want to help with over the next year. Adamdaley (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this. I meant to remove it myself (per my edit summary), but wanted to test if it was viable wikilink first. I obviously forgot to remove my test when I reverted the edit. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Blamey
Hi mate, I've had this on my watchlist for a while and see you're improving it. Time someone did, and I can't think of anyone in WP better qualified to do it than your good self. Couple of things though, do you think we could ditch the list of promotions and, more particularly, the Awards section? I don't think you've participated in the sometimes heated discussions on the latter subject but if you've scanned them you know my feeling, that it largely (if not wholly) repeats the info in the infobox and the info+citations in the body of the article, plus the medal ribbons (not once but twice, in their neat little rows simulating what's on the subject's chest, and beside each award name) make it look like a children's book and not, IMO, an encyclopedia at all. Obviously there are others who feel the same way and, just as obviously, there are some strongly in favour of it. All the A and FA CLass Commonwealth military bios I'm aware of, however, have managed to avoid this (except I did yield to a collapsible section of such awards in Frederick Scherger ages ago to keep the peace -- never been necessary since). Should we have a policy on this? Yes I'd have thought so, and Tony1 from outside MilHist recently brought that up, however no real consensus has ever been reached, except perhaps to not use it where the prime editors of an article don't want it. I think probably the best we can do is keep it out of Commonwealth bios, as it seems a bit more entrenched in articles by our American brethren. Anyway, for your consideration... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I can work on it now that a certain person has been relieved of his command by the Minister of Defence. I hope to get both it and Big Mac done over the next few months. I will remove the promotion dates when I can. The medals are currently serving as place holders for their references. I don't want any references in the infobox. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
No prob, I get leaving them in the separate section as placeholders for their citations until they get written up in the main body, and I agree citations don't generally belong in the infobox. Hopefully at completion the awards section can just disappear then... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It the meantime, it would be good if someone could take a look at the Battle of Kaiapit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Canberra Roller Derby League.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me replacing it with a SVG file, based on the logo on CRDL's facebook page (for some reason I can't add a facebook link, but others can. Odd). I make the logo which has the full text as well. Bidgee (talk)
No, that's great. Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
History of atomic bombs
Bit of a random note, but I watched a bit of Copenhagen (film) the other night, and I was reminded of the Manhattan Project and various articles related to that (and was half-wishing they'd done something like this with Oppenheimer). It was a fascinating concept, stringing out a whole film with three actors (it was originally a play) and exploring some of the issues and personalities in depth. Was wondering if you had ever seen this film? If not, maybe try it if you get the chance. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Since your interest is
Since you're interested in military history, not to sure if you would be interested in the open day at Kapooka, I doubt photographs will be allowed though. Bidgee (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
On 17 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniela Di Toro, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that two-time US Open women's wheelchair tennis champion Daniela Di Toro became paraplegic when a wall fell on her while she was competing at a school swimming carnival? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniela Di Toro. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello Hawkeye. Just thought I would point out a sentence that doesn't seem to have a subject or object that isn't ambiguous in that the original subject appears to be the Syrian campaign and then switches to Torbruk:
In recognition of your work on Singapore strategy, Frederick Browning and William Sterling Parsons, all of which were promoted to A-class between May and October 2011, I hereby award you the A-Class Medal with Swords. On behalf of the Military history Coordinators, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
Top bloke award, for taking the time to review and comment on my FA nomination. Marj (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Request for feedback
Hi Hawkeye, I was wondering if you could give some feedback on a hook I suggested for an article you were reviewing at Template:Did you know nominations/Stauroteuthis syrtensis. It appears that the hook is the only thing holding the nomination back. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Gerry Hewson and Casey Redford and Steve Graham
Can you please nominate Gerry Hewson for WP:DYK? :) I think it should be long enough. --LauraHale (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
While at it, because I know how much you absolutely love the DYK process, can you nominate Casey Redford? The article should be long enough. It is 306 words and the DYK check says it is there. More sources hard to find. :( --LauraHale (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hawkeye7/Archive 2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
DYK review templates
Regarding this edit: there is no justification for reverting to an outdated version of instructions. Those instructions tell nominators how to fill out a part of the nomination page that isn't even made anymore (the templates are not automatically included in nominations, so there's no point giving people instructions that say "fill out the template that's on the page").
Furthermore, per Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 74#Getting rid of the checklists?, the review templates are no longer required or even recommended. If you want to use them in your reviews you have that right, but you shouldn't suggest in the instructions that others are required to. If you can't remember where the templates are and need links to them, you can keep them on your own user page or a sandbox. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not aware that the requirement to review DYK articles had been dropped. No template, no reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "no template, no reviews"? You refuse to review without a template? rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I just noticed this comment of yours, which I don't think is fair. The fact that the review process has gone through several changes recently doesn't mean the review criteria have changed at all. If you actually read that discussion you will see that no one suggested there are no longer any requirements, and I would appreciate it if you didn't represent the discussion like that. ~~
Yes. Without the template, there is no indication of what was checked, or what was found. As you say, the review process is too obtuse and burdensome, so why review? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Read the discussion. Without the template there are still plenty of ways you can indicate what you checked in your review (indeed, DYK worked for years without it). And like I said above, you can still use the template if you want. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, regarding "I was not aware that the requirement to review DYK articles had been dropped": that requirement has not been dropped. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for Assessing the above article. It's appreciated. Anything in return, I'll try and do if I know how. Adamdaley (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
You're invited to the Canberra WikiMeetup on 20 November 2011
Hi! We're having a Canberra Wikimeetup on 20 November 2011 at Siren Bar in Gunghalin from 2pm to 4pm. It's most just a chance to chat with other local Wikipedians, get a chance to go a different sort of bar (which is reasonably kid friendly, serves real food, and has non-alcholic options), and, if you're interested, learning more about what Wikimedia Australia and local GLAM projects are happening. We'd love to see you and any Wikipedia/Wikimedia/wiki loving friends you have there. --LauraHale (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I am calling on you in your capacity as an adminstrator to deal with a persistent and consistent vandal. I have checked the entire edit history of the User at 38.116.202.8, and it is 100% vandalism. Can you block this ignorant destructive sod?
Blocked account for a month. Protected Billy Bishop. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A month's ban is a good start. However, because he/she/it has been vandalizing from this account at erratic intervals for a year, including a vandalistic post proclaiming, "I'm bored", I have my doubts about reforming it/she/he. Smells like an adolescent with a school computer, or some similar situation.
Hi! :D See page 17 for information on the Nuclear Institute. Can you possibly see about giving them a call to see if we can set up a time to talk to them or do a workshop or ANYTHING for our Micronesian adventure? :) You love nuclear weapons after all. :) --LauraHale (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your addition to the J. Thomas Looney article. However, it's not true you wont find this bit of information on Wikipedia. In fact we have a whole article on it - Positivist calendar! Paul B (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
In a globally syndicated article in the Guardian, Shapiro claimed that "you won't find this on his [Looney's] wikipedia page". But now anyone who checks will find it. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I must read it. Strange thing for him to say, since Looney's role in Positivism is covered. We can't list every detail. Paul B (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, he says "Though you won't find this on his Wikipedia page, Looney was a priest in a cultish Victorian religious group called the 'Church of Humanity' in Newcastle" Well, if he'd bothered to read it, he might just have noticed that the info has been there for months. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Astra 400
The Astra 400 has been expanded and more sources have been added accordingly. I would like to give you the chance to reassess it as you were the one who did the previous assessing. Any tips on getting it to GA class or how to propose a merger with the Astra 600 article would be greatly appreciated. Much Ado --MOLEY (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
B class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Hawkeye, I wanted to let you know I have reviewed the MacArthur article here. Parsecboy (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Troy Sachs
On 10 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Troy Sachs, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Australian men's wheelchair basketballer Troy Sachs(pictured) has won seven championships in four different club leagues and gold medals at two Paralympic Games? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Troy Sachs. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Sam Bramham is kangaroo boy. It is DYK ready. On 2 November, Matthew Cowdrey was completely gutted from a 400 word article with one citation for one sentence to about 29 total words that were properly cited. This was then expanded on 12 November 2011 to 744 words words, with every single thing be cited. I'm not entirely certain if this counts as a BLP expansion. :/ If it is eligible for DYK, I would like it nominated. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Another vandal in the works
This time it is 80.88.220.5. I did not have time to check entire edit history, but it seems to another of a cyber-graffiti account.
Working on it - thanks. Verne Equinox (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Done - but why did you delink Willoughby? There is no other ref to him in the body of the article.Verne Equinox (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is; several. He first appears in the Escape to Australia section and then appears sporadically thereafter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'd better check a bunch more, double what I did last time :) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
2/1st Pioneer Battalion 2 AIF
Hello, in Your library I found book: Osborn, Gordon (1988). The Pioneers: Unit History of the 2/1st Australian Pioneer Battalion, Second AIF. I was a reenactor from Poland and became interested in the history of the battalion from the period of fighting in North Africa - especially in Tobruk (midsummer 1941). Whether you would be so kind to do for me copies of pages (scan or photo) for the period from start of the battalion for his return to Australia in March 1942? I do not have an account on Wikipedia. Please please reply to my e-mail: futerko (at) gazeta.pl
Best regards / Piotrek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.20.19 (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Need help dealing with a problem
Hello, Hawkeye,
Once again I call upon your good offices in the service of Wikipedia. The posts on the Discussion page of Flying ace are becoming quite heated, and are on the verge of a flame war. As I am partially responsible in that I originally revised the article sections that are now under contention by others, I feel bound to straighten out the mess–with your assistance.
First, I suggest that you protect the talk page for two or three days while tempers cool.
Second, I will perform a rewrite of the article sections that will favor neither point of view. I hope the parties involved will calm down and accept my rewrite. If not, whoever wants to be angry can be mad at me, and I won't care. However, whatever I write will be NPOV and consonant with the remainder of the article. Consensus will be on my side.
Thank you very much. I really appreciate receiving this award today in recognition of the improvements to the Sinai and Palestine campaign. Thanks once again. --Rskp (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
On 19 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Julianne Adams, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Julianne Adams was recruited as a wheelchair basketball player while still in a hospital bed following the accident that severed her spine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julianne Adams. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for your candidate questions, Hawkeye7; I wanted to thank you especially for writing questions that more directly pertained to my personal activities, rather than philosophical wiki-beliefs. It's refreshing to know that you (and I hope, other editors too!) are looking at the personal contributions of individual candidates. Risker (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Darren Gardiner
On 23 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Darren Gardiner, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that dual Australian Paralympic powerlifting silver medallist Darren Gardiner is known as "The Bear" because of the roaring noise he makes in his pre-competition warmup? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Darren Gardiner. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Orlady (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Edward Ford (physician) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mikenorton (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your assessment on Captain Bill Bellamy MC. I'm extremely pleased to note that only referencing and citation is needed to get it to B class. I'm a little perplexed though because I've used the only sources I can discover. Perhaps you wouldn't mind giving me a heads up? I'd be very grateful. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It is very close to a B. All you need to do is replace the three {{citation required}} tags I've inserted with the source where you got the information from. Then comment back here or on the assessment page and I'll upgrade it for you. I have given it a copy edit, corrected some spelling errors, replaced the bare URLs and repaired all the ambiguous links. Once you have fixed up the three citations, you can nominate the article for Did you know (DYK) or a Good Article (GAN). Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I've sourced those tags and would invite you to take another look. I'm very pleased you've been so much help with this. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Aargh no, still one reference short: you can't cite the Wikipedia as a source. I have sourced it for you, from the Northampton Chronicle and the London Gazette. The article is now a B. You should consider nominating it for DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The Did You Know? column on the front page. Go to Template talk:Did you know and fill in the nomination form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It's very kind of you to ask me to participate in something like this but I've read it and really don't understand what it's all about. Nor do I understand the template. If it's ok with you I'd prefer just to edit a few articles every now and then and do my best to enhance anything I'm interested in. I waive rights to the Bellamy article and invite you to assume authorship and submit the article to the DYK page yourself. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
That is not necessary. I can nominate on your behalf. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much.SonofSetanta (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Battle of Milne Bay
Hi, mate, I think we had an unintentional edit conflict at Battle of Milne Bay. I lost a few refs for the initial strengths that I'd added in. I've tried to add it back in, but I think I might have cut some of your edits. Apologies for this. I will take a break from the article now. Can you please go back and check I didn't cut anything vital? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I was only trying to fix the references up. They are okay now. I'll leave the article alone now. But if you could delete the reference to the British Fourteenth Army, that would be good. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Do you think that part is okay now, or does it need further work? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've placed a question about airpower at Milne Bay on my talk page which you might be able to help me clear up. There seems to be some discrepancy in the sources. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know your thoughts on the matter. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
G'day, Hawkeye, one minor inconsistency in the article that I've noticed is the name of the airfields. Sometimes "No. x Strip", but sometimes "No. x Airstrip". Which do you think is the most accurate? The majority of my sources seem to use "No. x Strip", but I don't really have a preference, so long as it is consistent. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Hawkeye, can you please check the recent IP additions on this article? I've tried to clean it up and work it in where it might be appropriate, but to be honest I don't know about whether it should stay. One of the books looks like it is self published. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Pfenigworth is okay. I have removed the self-published source as it is not necessary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
For your efforts in expanding Battle of Milne Bay to Good Article status. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Arthur Denaro
You have been amazing in helping me get this and other articles to B Class. Could I ask your advice3 on something though? You've removed the link for Brigadier Andrew Bellamy which went to Bill Bellamy. Andrew Bellamy is not notable enough (in my opinion) to warrant his own article but he is the son of Bill Bellamy. Would it not be thr right thing to do to maintain this link? I'd appreciate your answer because I'm unsure of what the correct convention is. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
You are quite right. Unlike generals, brigadiers are not automatically considered notable; they have to have done something extra special (WP:SOLDIER). Bill Bellamy's article has a sentence about Andrew, but the article is about Bill and not Andrew. So there should not be link, because someone clicking on the link would expect to get an article on Andrew. (WP:EASTEREGG) Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that is a very reasonable explanation. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In the Legacy section of MacArthur, a sentence you wrote "He championed a progressive approach to the reconstruction of Japanese society, arguing that all occupations" simply ends without finishing the thought. I do not know what you intended to finish it with, but thought that I should point it out so that you could fix it. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Another vandal in the works
Hello, again,
Once again I call upon your good offices on behalf of WP. This time, it's 208.122.74.254 that is vandalizing. I checked out every edit for the past month—some 32 entries—and they are 100% vandalistic. Could you please slap a block on this account?
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ka–Km)
Hi, I find your comments very interesting, especially that because I tend to disagree with your verdict. I can to some level understand that the notes column, which I reserved exclusively for noting posthumous presentations and references to higher grades of the Knight’s Cross, versus the footnotes, which are used to indicate discrepancies in sources, cause some level of confusion. What I have difficulties with to understand is how the same structure and presentation of the information, which happens to be in line with the official KC documentation, seems to be misinterpreted by you and has been rated all the way up to featured list. The KC has no citation it only notes rank, name, role and unit and date of the presentation. I hope this helps you understand the layout. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Battle of Goodenough Island
Hi Hawkeye7, I was just wondering if you could have a go at expanding the Battle of Goodenough Island article. I have attempted to expand and do not have anymore resources to draw from. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Colin Hall Simpson
Gday, just letting you no I've added my review now to Colin Hall Simpson. Just a couple of points for consideration / action. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You really ought to think about that for a second. Please reconsider, we can reimpose blocks after discussion, a user conduct RFC would be a better step here. Prodegotalk 07:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Eh, actually I didn't see the latest. mmm. Ok. Perhaps change the reason though. Prodegotalk 07:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
No, you are right of course. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In case you are not aware: You blocked Malleus with the block reason "Long term abuse", which is obviously completely inappropriate. Even without this bizarre block reason this would be bound to escalate. I believe it is in your interest to apologise as soon as possible. HansAdler 09:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
He can apologize any time he likes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to jump in (as a talk page stalker), given that Malleus' block log looks like this, it seems quite appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
"Long term abuse", in the Wikipedia sense, was not an appropriate rationale. But bureaucratic bullshit aside (we all know what the block was for), I'm in full support. Enough is enough. SwarmX 10:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, OK. He or she doesn't fit that definition of 'long term abuse' (I was more thinking 'long term misconduct', which I think is what Hawkeye was also getting at with "long term pattern of abuse" as part of the block rationale on MF's talk page). It's clearly a very good block. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Totally inappropriate response. You are responsible for your block reasons and for where they link. Have you even looked at that page? What does inacceptable use of language to do with long-term abuse as defined on that page? If I were an admin I would block you for a week for your response, as your block reason was a far worse personal attack than anything I have ever seen from Malleus. It was a pretty precise statement of fact, and it does not appear supported by any evidence whatsoever. HansAdler 10:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Please calm down. If you really think that Hawkeye's response is worse than what Malleus was blocked for, try saying what he wrote to someone in a white collar workplace, school, university, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I have actually heard similar things said at several universities, though only by tenured staff and only about third parties. If you seriously believe that this kind of strong language is worse than immortalising seriously false accusations in the block log of one of our top contributors just because he lives the principle of immediate grounding (through swearing) of static electricity before it accumulates to a dangerous level, then there is nothing I can say that wouldn't be considered a personal attack by some tool-bearing Randy. HansAdler 11:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It is comical and sad to see anyone arguing about the precise wording in a block summary regarding an editor with a long term history of deliberately insulting and abusive commentary. Malleus's "contributions" at Rfa talk have provided ZERO improvements to the Rfa process and if anything, have driven others to avoid the page so as they can avoid his behavior. The reason he keeps getting blocked or nearly blocked is because his commentary warrants it...it really is that simple.--MONGO 11:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Without getting into the rights and wrongs of your one-week block, what exactly did you mean by "Per consensus on WP:ANI, you have been blocked"? Where was there a consensus for a one-week block? When making controversial blocks I think it is always helpful to write a rationale somewhere central. Apologies if you have and I have missed it. --John (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Well done for taking assertive action. Its time more admins. stood up for the rights of all rather than fawning over their idols. Don't be discouraged when someone who thinks they've got a bigger stick than you unblocks him. Action is required to in the interest of all editors in good standing, not just those who swear blind allegiance to great content writers. Leaky Caldron 12:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Arbcom Case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Malleus Fatuorum and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I believe you do not have the ability to accurately judge consensus, have wheel-warred, have been uncivil and fail to meet the standards required of admins. Under what circumstances will your resign your tools "under a cloud?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, if you had any honour you would resign immediately. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Resign, for the bad block and then for your hypocritical personal attack calling MF a "koala" ("a protected species that is usually stewed"). You may wish to consult an administrator who behaves with greater intelligence and honor than you have displayed today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
...And there was a great gnashing of teeth... I suppose I'll be accused of bias because I'm a fellow Aussie but it's because I'm an Aussie I can say that the koala simile is not uncommon when referring to people seen as protected, and in such a case is generally considered appropriate, witty, and hardly some awful "personal attack". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, see Koala emblems and popular culture#In popular culture (the "not to be exported or shot at" bit is often used for people who are considered 'protected species'). The irony is that some of M-F's supporters are seriously arguing that he or she comes from a cultural background where it's considered perfectly fine to call people a 'cunt'... Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I live only a couple of miles from Malleus and it is indeed quite normal to call people cunts around here. Parrotof Doom 02:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The only thing I would ask you to resign over is the 206 entries on your talk page which makes it very difficult to find the section I'm looking for! Please check out WP:ARCHIVE. ;) Leaky Caldron 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is certainly rapidly ascending towards the heights of utter ridiculousness... Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Although I do also think that Hawkeye7's false consensus block was entirely uncalled for. Then again... so was the initial indef. Anyway, you'd better put you best suit and tie on... looks like you're going to the supreme wikicourt. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas! 22:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
As a courtesy, this is the draft of the evidence that I will present to Arbcom to ask for your desysopping. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If that was directed at me, I would've lost my fucking cool right there. I'mma leave it at that. Sorry for budding on your usertalk space (and others as well). Sauce Masters (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Have a happy New Year! Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, in regards to this edit, the material on the casualties for the bombing in the Air raids on Japan article you've re-used include those from the two atomic attacks, so you might want to tweak this. Great work with improving this article by the way - it needs it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I suspect that you should have posted this on the evidence page as that page isn't meant to be edited. I have to say I'm bemused by the number of people who didn't get the 'koala' reference and think that this is some kind of extraordinary Australian insult... Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
For your work on Thomas Blamey, Relief of General Douglas MacArthur and Battle of the Bismarck Sea, all of which were promoted to A-class between October and December 2011, I am pleased to present you with the Military history A-Class medal with swords. On behalf of the project coordinators, Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your hard work on Military related articles which would have been left untouched for the years to come. Bidgee (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Horace Robertson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GregorB (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
.png)
. 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:Stephen J. Chamberlin for things which need to be addressed. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes.
; see Talk:Stephen J. Chamberlin for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
