User talk:Jackyd101/Archive 4

Archives

Archive 1 (Apr. 2006 – Apr. 2007)
Archive 2 (Apr. 2007 – Dec. 2007)
Archive 3 (Dec. 2007 – May 2008)

Map

Sure, go ahead and email it to me and also email me any online refs you have (if there is something I could look at). My email is enabled - probably have to email me first, then I'll email you back, etc. ~~I'll email you now so you have my address~~ Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC) PS I will wait for your email ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking at Worlds End State Park - it is in peer review now? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for your review - I have some more pictures to upload and plan to take more before FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's the map - I used your scratch map mostly. Please let me know of any errors or corrections needed - congrats on the GA for the article. Thanks again for your review of Worlds End State Park. which became FA today: formal thank spam to follow ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are very welcome and thanks for the congratulations. Glad it was OK and did not need tweaking. Let me know if you find anything that needs to be tweaked, and keep up the good work. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicookie

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald

Knowing it was 1838 may help track down the GCMG, so I'll try to have another look tomorrow. Battalion certainly sounds more likely for the Rifles than battery. Come to think of it, I didn't actually search on colonel commandant, so that might turn something up. David Underdown (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing I'm afraid. Other appointments as Colonel Commandant of rifles defintiely refer to "of a Battalion" though. David Underdown (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re request

Hi Jacky, and yes, I had noticed you were back per your sterling work on the GA sweep (you've overtaken my count anyway!). No probs re your request, I'll take a look at them & see what I can do. Just to double-check, if possible you'd like the page histories for the userspace versions of the article to be merged into the page histories for the mainspace ones...? EyeSerene^talk 07:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, and something I'll probably steal! I haven't been active there for a while now (tied up with copyedits) but hopefully I'll be heading back that way soon... EyeSerene^talk 07:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do use templates from my sandbox for reviews, but trying to improve my sweep efficiency is one of those things I keep meaning to think about and never actually get round to doing. Vetting the entire section before beginning detailed reviews is definitely an idea I'll be adopting though, and it makes so much sense I can't understand why it never occurred to me! I'm in your debt ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Speirs Bruce: inline citations

Thank you for your comments on the talk page. I have formatted the inline citations in accordance with {{cite web}}. However, I would point out that this information, in {{cite web]] format, was and is available in the Sources section, as has been my previous practice. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History merge

OK, I've done that for Battle of Lissa (1811) (after reading up on the procedure!). If you don't mind checking the article to make sure I haven't bodged it up, I'll do the other two. I also deleted your userspace version, which was automatically turned into a redirect by the move - if you want this restoring, let me know. EyeSerene^talk 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief! It looked ok, and I'm glad not to have to put everything back (which looks even more fiddly than merging). They aren't ideal for a history merge as a few edits overlap between the versions, but not so much as to make things incomprehensible. I'll sort the others out tomorrow, now that I know what I'm doing. And yes, the tools have come in pretty useful (there's more of a point to WP:RCP when you can actually do something about some of the nuggets out there!) EyeSerene^talk 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done EyeSerene^talk 10:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you're welcome. Great articles BTW. I love reading your work; it's almost always about something I've heard of but knew little about, and it's really gratifying to see those stubs turning into proper articles. The token below is long overdue. EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Presented to Jackyd101 for his exemplary work in improving Wikipedia through consistent, high-quality article writing and reviewing. With much appreciation, EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, and again, you're welcome. I rarely vote on RfA's myself - it's not really an area that I have time for - unless I happen to stumble across one because I know the editor (for good or bad!). It was very 'out of the blue' when someone offered to nom me, and it took two days to decide whether to accept or not. I went in completely blind, and not knowing what to expect :P It seems to make a big difference who nominates you though, and the regulars were a good bunch. I was slightly miffed that the one oppose I got was because an editor didn't want me to be a admin because he thought I might get hassled, stressed, and leave... that's an argument there's no answer for (but flattering in a way, I suppose!). It wouldn't have been good for my ego to get 100% support either ;) I very much appreciate your kind words though, and the sentiment behind them! All the best, EyeSerene^talk 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Speirs Bruce GA Review

Thank you for this review and for your helpful comments. I expected to wait longer, so your rapid response was a pleasant surprise. I have adopted most of your suggestions for improvement, but I was a bit at a loss regarding your third point, concerning the Dundee Whaling Expedition. My introductory sentence seems comprehensive to me; could you say why you think it inadequate? Best regards, Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds End State Park thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your helpful peer review comments on Worlds End State Park which made Featured Article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 22 February 1812

I have begun a GA Review of Action of 22 February 1812 and am notifying you that the article is currently On Hold for seven days so that corrections can be made. Skinny87 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, the article has passed and is now a GA Article! Skinny87 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of cannon.

It's actually a direct copy of the history section (and the lead) of cannon, an FA. Very good work, though. :) · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commented here. · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the Argentine air attacks at Bluff Cove

Although I agree with your decision, as it violates WP:MEMORIAL, don't you have to have some sort of consensus based decision process, like a RFD or something??? Ryan4314 (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, there's no dispute from me and you're the author, so "as you were" ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Gomez

Just to let you know I have finished up the revision of this article, in keeping with the comments by you and other reviewers at the FAC page. Thanks for bringing that article to my attention, I'd almost forgot he has a fight on Saturday, so there would be a media buildup. I've incorporated information from some of this week's interviews into the article. Risker (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting Coat of arms of Amsterdam

Why haven't you notified the relevant projects and users about your intention to delist Coat of arms of Amsterdam as a good article? Not very considerate. – Ilse @ 12:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the sweeping process guidelines don't mention it, I still think it is not very considerate. – Ilse @ 12:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Battle of Lissa (1811)

Congrats on making it to FA-Status, excellent article and effort!

One thing, the banner across the top-right of your userpage, the one with the FA-Stars & the GA-Symbols; I've been trying to figure out how to put that one on my userpage, but I am completely at a loss of how to do so. Would you happen to know how? Cam (Chat) 04:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Speirs Bruce at FAC

Just to let you know that William Speirs Bruce, which you recently passed at GAN, has reached FAC after a number of improvements suggested by its peer review. I'm keeping my fingers crossed! Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Ambition (Family Guy)

Just wanted to say you are doing a damn good job on this. I wouldn't be surprised if you're as good or better in this as Qst. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ripon College

I know this [1] is an old edit, but please can you explain it? Ripon has never, to my knowledge, been a PPH of Oxford. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It is certainly true that Ripon College students use some Oxford University facilities, and even sit Oxford exams, but that doesn't make it a PPH. What makes something a PPH is defined by the statutes of the University. Students of Ruskin also use University facilities (e.g. they get reading rights at the Bodleian), but that doesn't make Ruskin part of the University. When I can spare the time I think I'll go digging to see if the error has been propagated anywhere. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Robert Nivelle article

Thank you for your review. I have addressed your concerns on the relevant talk page. If you could spare a moment to look, I would appreciate that. Thanks in advance. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted additional comments, including one regarding a concern I have that I shouldn't have been failed in connection with references. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated review. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I should update you on my attempts to get more info on Robert Nivelle's early life and legacy. Unfortunately, despite notifying three WikiProjects, several task forces, and messaging many editors, there has been no outside assistance forthcoming yet. I feel I will be able to eek out a Legacy section, but I don't have any more information about his early life. Fingers crossed other editors contribute to the article by the end of the review. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. You have been a very helpful reviewer, and I greatly appreciate that. I have been able to arrange some free time for myself to go down to a local library tomorrow to look for some books relating to Robert Nivelle. Hopefully, I will be able to find some useful material to use for the article. If I am feel I am in a positon to upgrade it sufficiently, but that I need more time to do that, then I will make a request for an extension to the review deadline. I shall let you know what position I feel in after I have visted the library. Thanks for all your assistance. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been able to obtain more information to allow me to create a significant Legacy section. Info on his early life still lacking. Nevertheless, I would like to ask for a 2-day extension to the deadline to allow me to replicate the info I have found onto the article. Thank you in advance. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Bath

Just for future reference, the Order of the Bath was completely reorganised in 1815, so if you come across anyone who was made GCB or KCB they'll almsot certainly be in the list which was published in January 1815 when the reorganisation was announced - this page seems to have suffered particularly badly so it often doesn't come up in searches, or in the list published later in the year of Companions (CB). Gazette refs for both are given in the Bath article. David Underdown (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate that.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Munich

Thanks for your review. I agree that expansion is realistic - of course as the prose is mainly translation based I do not have as much access to sources as I might do otherwise. Notwithstanding, I'd like to think it's a reasonably solid article. I'll tackle those citations shortly. Cheers. This is somewhat amusing timing: a list I brought to Featured status was promoted today too - feels like I've gained an FL and a GA in 24 hours. WilliamH (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA under review messages

It is heavily debatted whether we should include the GA process into the military history project's infrastructure. Your many messages are nice in my opinion (I'm one of the few supporters of GA review), but they need to be improved and standardized. I will ask Kirill to create a template for this purpose. Please do include the name of the article with a link in the header. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinators are discussing this issue. Looks like there will be a slot for GA reviews and no more messages on the main page that has already quite a lot of traffic. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope

I recruited a copy-editor who is currently working on the article. Other than prose, I have no issues and for this reason I suggest an A-class review when the prose is finished. The problem is that you have short sentences which repeat their structure again and again and sometimes unnecessary fillers like however, however, however. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Hi!

Can a bot do the citation fixing work? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Battle of Tory Island

As always, it'll be a pleasure. I'll try to get to it sometime tomorrow. EyeSerene^talk 16:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Johnstone Hope

Well, when the articles are created we can re-add the links. Or we could re-add the links now and have them red? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The only reason I did that was for cosmetic reasons. Re-adding now. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 20:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horses in warfare reassessment

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that it would be appreciated if you would be a little patient with Horses in warfare. It is not going to be easy to get the WikiProject Equine GA crew to drop everything and fix this article instantly. And, furthermore, some of the comments about the article appear to have nothing to do with the GA standard, but are simply disagreements about style or the relevance of some material to the topic, yet others reflect ignorance of the topic (horses are ALWAYS measured in hands in the English-speaking world). I will acknowledge that some areas of the article need a tuneup, as the GA standard has tightened, particularly the citations, but I am quite unhappy with your approach. My real life has made it difficult for me to access wikipedia on a daily basis lately and it was quite upsetting for me to see things go so far with a potential delist in so short a time without so much as an inquiry to the lead editors or to Wikiproject Equine as far as asking us to explain or look over some things. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR for Cesc Fabregas

Hi there. First, thank you for copyediting that article. But what I really want to know is this GAR process -- how in the world does it work? How is it that an article is suddenly put through GAR and nobody is told until it has been done? What was the criteria used in identifying Fabregas as an article needing GAR? Chensiyuan (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I understand the process now. Chensiyuan (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!

English cannon GAR comments responded to. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA thanks

	<font=3> Thanks again for your support and comments - Forksville Covered Bridge made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tory Island

Finished the copyedit now (I think!) - apologies for the delay over the weekend. Another excellent, fascinating article (I'm hoping you'll give the Jackyd101 treatment to the Battle of the Nile one day...) ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, only just saw your reply. As usual, you're welcome. I think the wikilinks may need checking over though - I spotted a few duplicates, but I'd be amazed if I got them all :P. I'll look forward to your next article anyway, whenever it comes! All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tory Island FAC

Thank you very much for your comments and support in this FAC, the article has now passed. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Thank you for your work on the article.—RJH (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Pathan

hi Jacky, Please have a look to ssee if things are ok. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up to speed on Murali Kartik as well. I'm on my way to McCabe and Fingleton. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Dinesh Karthik since we seem to be going chronologically through my GAs...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Need Some Help Please...

Hello, Jackyd. You helped bring September 11, 2001 attacks to good article status. Now, a user in disagreement with the majority of the editors has decided to undergo a reassessment of the article here. His main reasoning is that the word "terrorist" appears multiple times within the article and violates WP:TERRORIST. He has refused to listen to the counterarguments we have presented that reliable sources from across the world, not just America or the west have labeled the perpetrators as such. Remember that WP:WTA says There is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article, but some words may mark contentious or unclear presentation. Such words can, if misused, convey different meanings than intended. We have not misused the word to convey anything flippant or pejorative. Please remember that the version you promoted carried this term without incident. Additionally, on the the talk page I have presented sixteen arguments (and there are many more) where the editors upheld the use of this term through consensus. I ask that you please chime in and help us out. Thanks for your time. -- Veggy (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you may wish to revisit your promotion of the article to GA status. I can see multiple problems with the version linked to above, besides the issue of whether WP:TERRORIST applies. This issue on its own, it seems to me, automatically invalidates the promotion, as WP:TERRORIST derives from WP:NPOV, a cornerstone of our work here. Articles which do not follow this policy cannot really be regarded as "good" within our criteria, and to promote this and continue to defend its status seems to me rather to devalue the whole GA system. I'll put together a list of my other concerns at the review page, but I urge you to please think again about this issue. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thanks for your comment on my talk page. I am replying here because I have decided not to involve myself further in this issue and will not be commenting further in the GAR discussion. I think Arthur Rubin's summary of the terrorist issue is a good one and I think the points you have raised are certainly valid (although I don't think they are serious enough to delist this from GA; they are all fairly easily fixable). Regards the terrorist issue, I think if the usage of the term terrorist is widely and repeatedly documented in reliable sources (as here) and that if there are few dissenting opinions in reliable sources (as here) then the term should be acceptable provided it is used in the correct context (as I believe it is here). That said, I also can't see why "hijacker" cannot be the most frequently used term in the article with "terrorist" only used to provide context and opinion.

I have, and have always had, serious reservations about WP:TERRORIST. Wherever I have seen it invoked prior to this case, it has been in an effort to excuse or distract from a violent act in the name of a political cause, often by a supporter of that cause. I have always believed that as long as WP:V and WP:RS are consistenly applied there is no need for this kind of political correctness. If reliable sources say that majority opinion is that an individual or organisation is terrorist then they can and should be called that within the proper context wherever appropriate, with minority opinions stating the opposite given appropriate coverage.

Finally, personal feelings aside, I do not believe this article should be delisted as the result of this GAR because I think that the reasons it has been brought to this review process are flawed. GAR is not a forum for debating article content in this manner. The instability, tags and other causes mentioned in the debate are the result of an argument between editors over content. The problem should therefore be dealt with on the talk page or even in arbitration, but not here. Once a solution has been found then it should come here to make sure the article conforms to the solution. Articles should not be dragged through GAR in this manner because of a content dispute between editors. If you have any further questions I will be happy to respond but I will not be making any additional statements at the GAR for a number of reasons.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; I've moved it here to keep the conversation in one place. There are a number of points you make which I disagree with; I can best summarize them by saying that the good article criteria specifically mention MoS compliance, including the section you say you disagree with. I am not going to badger you about this, but I do think you should consider recusing yourself from any GA work in future which will expose your disagreement with the very criteria under which a GA is meant to be evaluated, if the process is not to be weakened and discredited. However I do appreciate the spirit of your response and share your confidence that a happy compromise can eventually be reached. Best wishes, --John (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do perfectly understand your points and point of view, but am maintaining my keep !vote for the present time both for the reasons I gave in the GAR and the in final paragraph of my reply above. Without accusing you of any wrong doing, I think it is a quite a serious precedent to set, with quite significant negative consequences, where a group of editors can disrupt an article to this degree because of a content dispute and then use that disruption that they themselves caused to argue at GAR that the article is not stable. I realise this is not the only or even the most major issue under discussion, but I feel very strongly that GAR is not the place for these types of debates. I know that in the past, articles listed at GAR as the result of such issues have often been removed from the list and the disputing parties instructed to sort out the problem, establish consensus and then come back then to make sure the article conforms to the criteria after the dispute is resolved to prevent GAR becoming a forum for this type of disagreement.

Although I have little sympathy with those who wish to remove the word "terrorist" from this type of article, I do actually believe that from a prose point of view most uses of the word "terrorist" might be better written as "hijackers" in the context of this article. These changes could be easily addressed by a proper discussion to achieve an acceptable compromise on the talk page and if properly conducted there would be no need for a GAR (which is not designed to arbitrate in these debates) at all. Such compromises take time and yet it appears that this debate is (in its present form) less than a week old. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying. Regarding the precedent argument, I think there's an argument that the way 9/11 articles have been dealt with historically has been problematic, leading to several RfArbs that I can think, culminating in the last one in April. It's worth noting that the issue of the "terrorist" wording is an entirely different one from the one which led to the arbcom, which hasn't stopped the "CTer" terminology from surfacing anyway in the debate.

I've been interested in this, at arm's length, over the last couple of years. I've come to believe that one of the problems is that the dialogue has become too polarized, between those labeled by each other as "truthers" and "pro-establishment lackeys", and that this has led to our coverage becoming a little frozen. I came this time to the area because someone I know on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft mentioned they'd tried to add something on the models of the planes used in the attack, and been reverted with a snarky edit summary. As he put it "The warriors on the ramparts seem to eager to protect this article from any new submissions." I thought I'd head over and take a look, warned someone who I noticed was at 3RR in an edit war, and then saw the arguments which led to the GAR being started. There do seem to be a few areas for improvement in the article besides the "terrorist" issue, and it's good they can be cleared up. Whether you agree with me that "terrorist" is a bad choice of word for the lead on aesthetic or on policy grounds is immaterial really, if we can both agree about it needing tweaked, that's good enough for me. Progress is being made.

Maybe having the arb remedies hanging over people has been good for the article if it has led to people being more careful to adhere to policy, but in this instance of someone with (AFAIK) no history of editing in this area, being rebuffed from a good faith addition, and then me poking my nose in as a follow-up, I just know that neither of the two of us is trying to be disruptive. I know BigDunc pretty well, and we certainly haven't always seen eye to eye. I don't think even he was trying to be disruptive, although he is apparently using the GAR as leverage in a content dispute, and it's not something I would do myself. Not very classy, perhaps. However, I have to recognize that he may be right on the issue, even if he is not addressing it the way I would hope to myself. I do therefore understand the point you make about the potential disruption possible if this was to be thought of as a precedent, and of course I do also thoroughly understand the power to cause controversy that this issue has historically had on Wikipedia.

My real hope long term in this area is twofold. On the one hand is the idea that as time goes by (and perhaps the new US administration taking power will be a turning point), the events of 9/11 can be seen in a more historical light and excite less passion from both "sides". On the other, I believe that if we can apply our policies as fairly and stringently as we can, stay civil with those we disagree with and respect the other guy's point of view, we can all constructively work to improve the articles, as is being done. I also understand why you don't want to get further involved in the main discussion; this area can be rather thankless and fraught. Anyway, sorry to ramble on so much on your talk page. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Thankyou for your very interesting response. I don't have a huge amount more to add to my previous comments but after hearing your story I do see that this article has some problems with what is effectively WP:OWN. Regarding "conspiracy theories", I said in my GA review some months ago and I still think that these need to be kept to a minimum in the article (i.e. given their own small properly sourced section and expanded in a different article). Without accusing anyone, I do agree that the way this article is being maintained could lead (and apparently has led) to a) information unconnected with "conspiracy theories" being removed inappropriately (which is a very bad thing) and b) those who support "conspiracy theories" of any type being excluded and mocked in relation to the article. Both of these need to change.

I accept that several changes are required to this article fairly urgently, but I don't think they are serious enough to warrant a GAR (they all seem reasonably fixable via the talk page) and I think GAR is the wrong place to hold this extended discussion on the use of the word terrorist, especially since it seems this is an individual GAR rather than a community reassessment, which would still be the wrong place but more appropriate to the situation. My immediate reservations were and still are the result of the reasons for GAR given in the opening statement, which are all directly related to the "terrorist" issue.

On the subject you raised of BigDunc, I certainly don't wish to single out any editors in this dispute but its true that his presence and that of one or two others is one of the reasons I am avoiding this discussion. If you remember, he was on the other "side" of the debate from me a year ago over whether IRA men imprisioned on terrorism charges should be considered prisoners of war. That debate was marked by "bullying tactics" from certain editors (of which BigDunc was far from the worst offender) and I found it extremely unpleasant (Vintagekits got his first indefinate ban there; the eventual result of calling me a "chunt" and other bad behaviour). In the aftermath I resolved not to imbroil myself in such discussions any further but to concentrate on article creation, development and quality control. Again without pointing fingers, I see some of the aggressive behaviour that characterised that debate beginning to seep in to this one and I don't wish to get too deeply involved again.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2008 - woo hoo! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will watch it when it is on the Main Page Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From me too ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. Especial thanks as well for all your help when the article was under development. It would never have reached the main page without the help of you guys and others.--Jackyd101 (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Maxwell DYK

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Murray Maxwell, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 23:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 29 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murray Maxwell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Congratulations on the latest FA and thanks for your note on my talk page. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCabe and Fingleton

Hi there Jacky. I'd like a bit more time for McCabe and Fingleton because I'm in the middle of totally expanding and overhauling it completely. Best regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, thanks for that I should have read more carefully. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horses in warfare

In July, you posted a note on the talk page of the Horses in warfare article, stating that the article needed some work before it could remain listed as a GA. Since that point, the article has been extensively reworked by three editors, and I believe that we have addressed all of your concerns. If you could take another look at this article and let us know if there's anything else we need to do before you close the review, that would be great!

Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackyd, I noticed your reply on Dana's talk page. I think it would be courteous that, given that you started this whole thing by listing the article, if you would assist us in closing it as well by providing some positive comment at the community page to create the "consensus" you say we need. We have been dropping other projects and working our butts off on this for the last couple of weeks, (particularly Dana!) just because of YOUR tag for review, so it would be gracious for you to be part of the solution. Sorry if I sound pissy, but I am really irritated at your attitude. You made us do a LOT of work, and I would appreciate it if you did more now that throw up your hands and say "not my problem." Montanabw^(talk) 00:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd - I noticed your reply on Montana's talk page, and thought I'd toss in a comment. I don't think Montana wanted you to close the GAR personally, and I agree that this would be a conflict of interest. However, what I think she was asking you to do was post something on the GAR page saying that you have re-reviewed the article and now feel that it should be kept. I don't believe a simple post saying that you have changed your opinion would be a conflict of interest. It would be along the same lines as EpicAdam changing his vote from a "delist" to a "keep" (as he has done within the past couple of days). Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes more or less. But I frankly have no clue how the review process is opened or closed, all I want is to have it OVER. And I know I can't do that, someone else has to. Sorry if I'm snarky, but frankly, I really did not need any of this right now when my own real life is also extremely busy and stressful. All I know is that slamming the article into a formal reassessment without any warning whatsoever was using a sledgehammer for a flyswatter and the GA team of WikiProject Equine could have tuned up this article - and in a similar time frame - without having a great big stick held over it. People had to put other projects aside to focus on this brushfire, and Dana, who was trying to do some major work on another article, bore the brunt of it. I also resent the daylights out of having the article described as "substandard" when it obviously was perfectly fine for GA at the time it was originally approved (and by, among others, User Wandalstouring, who you know, and who was a major force in the original round of improvements that got it there in the first place). The condescension toward experienced editors that was characteristic of this whole process really was obnoxious. There are better ways to do these things, starting with some assumption of Good Will and competence. The last time someone challenged the GA status of an article where I was a major contributor, they just mentioned the problems on the talk page, and after a bit of minor spatting, we fixed the problems without having a huge formal process, and everyone was satisfied at the end. That approach left much better feelings all around. So whatever. If you have no power to end this nightmare, I'll find someone who can. Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and apparently you never read the community reassessment criteria at WP:GAR: You should have used the individual reassessment instead of a community reassessment in the first place: " A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review and individual reassessment..." You never discussed this article with us at all, you just slammed it without warning. Yes, I have a bad attitude. So please take responsibility for your actions and comment as Dana has suggested. (And thank you for acknowledging her hard work, I know I'm not helping by getting snarky here, but you think you have stress, trust me, right now I can top it.) Montanabw^(talk) 02:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we agree on something. At least it's done. Montanabw^(talk) 02:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

Hi Jacky, Dincher and I have Leonard Harrison State Park up for reer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leonard Harrison State Park/archive1 and were wondering if you would mind taking a look at it? We appreciate your helpful comments on a previous article state park PR, and our plan is to take it to WP:FAC after peer review. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to when I can.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - I somehow missed the note up top before, if this is too much, please say so and I will ask someone else (it is no problem), Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the peer review, especially when you are so busy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	<font=3> Thanks again for your peer review comments - Leonard Harrison State Park made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Medal of Merit

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		I award you this medal for your dedicated and excellent work in reviewing more than 100 articles for GA sweeps! You are instrumental in upholding the quality of our GAs, and have remained focused during a difficult task. Keep up the good work, and I hope to see you pass my total (no pressure!). Happy reviewing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles

Would you mind taking a critical look at the Alexandria expedition of 1807 and John Thomas Duckworth--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look, but please don't expect anything very quickly. I'm very, very busy right now. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, thanks. I'm going to be in a very similar boat myself during same time frame (pun intended)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeps review

In March you delisted the article Aymer de Valence, 2nd Earl of Pembroke as part of the GA sweeps project. Your issues have now been addressed, would you care to have another look? Lampman (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Lampman (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Battle of Tory Island FAC

(copied over from my talk page:) (Belatedly) Congrats! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasganj level crossing disaster

Hi!

When you get a moment, can you have a look at talk:Kasganj level crossing disaster where I have posted some questions about sources for this article? Many thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Anderson Wark & Hughie Edwards

Hi, I would just like to thank you for promptly passing Blair Anderson Wark and Hughie Edwards for GA. To tell you the truth I was a little worried about Edwards as I believe it still needs quite a bit of improvement to get to the standart I would like it at. Also, I thought I would answer some of your questions both here and on the talk page of the article; Thomas Dunhill was just a drunk, and I'll clarify this; the bio of Edwards is listed as a source yet not used in the article as someone else had already placed it in a bibliography section and the reason I didn't remove it was because I have just purchased a copy of the book from eBay and it should be arriving early this week, so hopefully I can add some more information out of it! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Lingan

On 10 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Lingan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in the Maldives

Hi, can you please check if the sentence "The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) believes drug trafficking in the Maldives is a side effect of the nation’s increased exposure to the other countries" in the second paragraph is grammatically ok or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the sentence is from this reference. The reference states it as "outside world" which I reworded other countries. I agree the meaning of the term "other countries" is vague, I will reword it outside world as mentioned in the reference. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by...

...to say 'hello', wish you all the best with everything you've got going at the moment, and congratulate you on an impressively high edit rate for someone "with very little time for Wikipedia between now and the end of September" ;) Have a pint on me - and look forward to seeing you around (but don't forget that thesis!) EyeSerene^talk 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope everything went well... All the best, EyeSerene^talk 08:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Herbert Cherry

Hi Jackyd101, I would just like to thank you for another thorough and detailed review of an article that I had nominated for GA, and eventually passing it as such. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Simpson

Thanks for the review. In regards to the cultural influence section, I have always felt that it is the weakest part of the article, but you would be surprised by how little there is out there on his influence. Anyways, I have responded to your concerns on the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have done some work on the flow of the section. I've added a paragraph to the beginning that mentions some influence and quotes some historians. I also added some purpose to each of the sections, the second is his impact as a role model/influence on health, the third talks about his influence internationally, and the fourth mentions some apparances on other shows. I still haven't had any success on finding some info on specific shows/characters that were influenced by him, but I think the section is better than it was before. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the FAC failed. I would like to have your concerns addressed before I resubmit another one, so if you could take another look at the article and continue our discussion on the talk page, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry to bother you again, but I was wondering if you consider all of your concerns addressed. If you do, then I will nominate the page again. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-853

Thank you again for all your help. The article seems ready. I am moving along to Unterseeboot 550 and Unterseeboot 505.Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysius Lardner

I just wanted to thank you for the tidbit about Lardner. I've been very busy as of late and not able to properly drop a note, but I do appreciate being able to fix Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men. This is what wiki is all about! :) Awadewit (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U 552

Thanks for your reply. I have reverted another change to this article by 75.181.153.57, and left comments on the talk page (and his). The only thing I can think of at present is to press it to a 3RR warning.
I have also made some changes to your account for neutrality. Please tell me if you have any objections to these. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jacky
Our friend the Road Runner seems to be quiet, though I really don’t expect it to last. Thanks for plugging away at it; I think that tipped it on Wednesday.
To let you know, this is logged as a 3RR breach here, and I had this discussion with the admin here. It’s also logged as a NPOV breach here.
Nice working with you! Xyl 54 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-boat designations

I noticed as well you were working on the List of U-boats page. I’ve made a proposal about using ther term Unterseeboot, here, and here; Do you have any thoughts on that? Xyl 54 (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Point State Park question

Hi Jacky, a question has arisen at Talk:Colton_Point_State_Park#Format on possibly moving the "Pine Creek Gorge" section to later in the article, after "History". Since you weighed in on the FAC, would you mind weighing in on this? Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Murray Maxwell copyedit

It'll be a pleasure, though as you noticed it might be a while :P I've stuck it in my in-tray... EyeSerene^talk 07:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gilbert Perreault/GA1

I've done my best to address your concerns. Can you have a second look, please? Thanks, --Maxim_(talk) 01:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Point State Park

	<font=3> Thanks again for your careful proofreading and contributions - Colton Point State Park made featured article today! Dincher (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add my sincerest thanks too - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 13 January 1797

Action of 13 January 1797 is ridiculously good, all my congratulations! Rama (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the article, I must agree with this sentiment. I just have a couple of questions before promoting it: (1) the infobox gives the date as "22 February 1812". Can I assume that this was either a mistake or vandalism? (2) the image in the infobox gives the date for the painting as "1796". If the action did not take place until 1797, how is this possible? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homer has passed

		The Reviewers Award
		For all of your excellent help with the Homer Simpson article. Without it, the page likely would not have passed as easily as it did the second time. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Bill Oakley, a former Simpsons writer and executive producer who I have been in contact with for some time and asked for his opinion of the page on September 8, e-mailed me this week and said he really liked the page. [2] -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at Bart Simpson, the page has come into form much quicker than Homer's did, so I would like to have it FAC ready by this Friday. If you could take a look at any point, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Singh Dhoni

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me with the article Mahendra Singh Dhoni. As you know, I am doing a GA sweeps of sports persons and this guy has been on hold for several weeks because the page has two ^{[citation needed]} tags I added. Although by rights I should delist the article, I thought I come to you as someone I know is keen on cricket and see if you had the time to take a quick look and dig up a couple of sources rather than lose an otherwise perfectly good GA (barring some vandalism and a funny () in the infobox). If you can't then just let me know, and I'll delist the article if nothing happens soon. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article hasnt been expanded since mid-2007 when the original author retired. Since then he has become the ODI captain and reshaped the team by turfing out the oldies and introducing a whoel fresh set of youngsters, he also became TEst VC and was the captain in two matches when teh captain was injured and won both of them which has led to calls for him to be made the full-time captain. He also skipped a few international matches citing fatigue while playing in million-dollar club matches which caused other controversy. And also he once used these oversized gloves that were ruled to be illegal. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Harvey

Moved to Talk:Francis Harvey

U 552, again

Hello jacky
This again!
You did the original version of the Atwater piece, is that right? There’s a query over a change; can you give an opinion? Thanks.
Also , it looks like the roadrunner is back. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to look at this again; I’ve put a post on the talk page there. Can you comment? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

I have reviewed Raid on Saint Paul and placed the article on hold, pending responses to the comments made in the review of the article. Skinny87 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Raid on Saint Paul is now a Good Article! Skinny87 (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Maxwell

Just to let you know I've started on the copyedit (apologies for the delay!) EyeSerene^talk 19:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review for SM U-15 (Austria-Hungary)

I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns regarding the Good Article nomination of SM U-15 (Austria-Hungary). I hope you can take a look at the changes when you have a chance. If the changes are not satisfactory or you have any other suggestions, please let me know. Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR for Tony Parker

Hi. We've met before, re: GAR for Cesc Fabregas. I notice you failed the Tony Parker article in one of the GA taskforce sweeps. As far as I can tell, the sole basis of the failure is the zero-mention of his purported affair. I cannot agree to this as a basis for failure on at least two counts.

First, nobody has ever come forward with a credible source. Sure, WP may say it's not concerned with "truth" and as long as a verifiable and credible source says he might have had the affair, we're good. But nobody has even come forward with a credible source -- you can see that from the article's edit history. To my mind, the fact that reputable news agencies and other legitimate sources of news have not made a real issue of it tells me that the evidence is thin (see also google results here andhere). In other words, I don't think WP should facilitate rumour mongering. If not, every single allegation against a celebrity that is picked up by a couple of mags has to be reported by WP.

Second, how can an article fail just because it does not mention what is, comparatively, a minor aspect of the biography? Even if someone can find a legitimate source that talks about his alleged affair, it was really a tiny ripple in the pond, a hoo-ha that came and left in a matter of weeks (cf. maybe someone like Beckham's). I will imagine that if the affair is true his wife would have come out and responded. But that is not WP's business anyway. I'm just talking about weight here.

Overall, I appreciate the fact that you reviewed the article again as part of an project seeking to keep GA standards. But the overall fail, absent of legitimate reasons, showed poor judgment. Regards, Chensiyuan (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all I have no objections to posting the correspondence on the review page. Looks like I misunderstood you -- perhaps I misinterpreted the minus sign beside the "overall". In any event I think your proposed insertion is fair and can be included. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Maxwell

Just to let you know I haven't abandoned the article! I got an urgent request for an article that's currently at FAC, and what with other stuff too I've got myself sidetracked. Sorry about that - the ce will get done. EyeSerene^talk 08:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review request

I was wondering if I could impose on you for a GA review, if you've got the time and don't mind. The article in question is Sandra Cisneros; it's another of those FA-Team/academic assignment collaborations, and I've been helping the WP:NRG editors get it ready. It's listed at GA, so if you can't fit it in, no worries; I'm sure someone will pick it up. Thanks very much! EyeSerene^talk 10:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Jacky, that's hugely appreciated. I'll be back on the case at Murray Maxwell when I'm done with Herr Freddy, which should be soon. Thanks again, EyeSerene^talk 11:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I hadn't thought of it that way :D Your comment did bring someone else to mind though! EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's surreal, I was covering Charles's Law with a class of apprentices just this morning... EyeSerene^talk 11:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's great, thanks. I'd just about finished a rough copyedit, so the timing has worked out quite well (and part of the reason I asked you was that you're aware of the editors' background and have done an excellent job of writing the review to suit). EyeSerene^talk 11:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[Bart Simpson

I don't want to rush you, but my goal is to get the Simpson family to FT by 2009. However, my window for achieving that is quickly closing (due to time, I need another FA which will take at least 10, plus a FTC), so I need to get Bart to FAC soon. Unless there are any complaints, I'm going to nominate it on Friday. I guess there is no reason why you couldn't leave comments during the FAC, but I wanted to have all issues addressed before going there. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mazagon fort

Thanks for your GA review. I will look at that at a later stage. Please keep it pending for the next fortnight. I am unlikely to edit WP for the next few days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni of xxx College, Oxford

Good stuff! Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou too!--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Matthews

Hi, I was wondering if I could ask a favour of you. At the beginning of the year, you reviewed Mark Matthews for GA. Since then, a user has come and changed a lot in the article. Some of it is good, but a lot it I feel removes important MOS material such as the entire lead and references to particular material (such as the possibly years of his leaving the army). Since the user refuses to discuss these changes with me, I was wondering if you could look over their version (the current one) and compare it to the one that you reviewed for GA (the one that was just reverted) and give us your opinoin. Cheers, CP 16:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Boyd GA reassessment

Who do you inform when reassessing a Good Article? The first I knew of Adam Boyd's reassessment was when I found out it had been delisted. Is it possible to drop a quick note to the relevant wikiproject(s) so that any concerns can be addressed? --Jameboy (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no worries, thanks for the reply - if it was just an oversight then no problem. I'll keep an occasional watch on WP:GAR from now on in any case. I've mentioned Boyd at WT:FOOTY#Adam Boyd, so we can probably get the article back up to GA standard fairly soon. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Île Bonaparte GAN

Hi, I have just completed reviewing the above article against the GA criteria, and have placed it on hold until a few issues raised in the review have been addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration (FLC)

You recently commented on and registered support for the above FLC nomination, for which many thanks. Another reviewer has suggested that some of the images, in particular the FU one, "may have to go". The comments of an experienced image reviewer are awaited.

None of the images are essential to the table, but they add to its interest and aesthetics. Could you let me know whether it would affect your declared support if I was required to delete some images? It is important that this list gets featured status, because it is the future parent to a Featured Topic (seven of the expedition articles are FA so far). If in your view a loss of images would fatally impair its chances of becoming a Featured List, I have the option of withdrawing it and reformulating it as an article, along the lines of Farthest South (FA). That would enable a different approach to image selection. But I don't want to do this unless I have to. I'd welcome your comments on this matter, either here or on my talkpage. I have sent this message to other declared "supports". Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mont Sorrel

You will find the suggested changes from the GAR to be complete. Please review at your earliest convenience.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mazagon Fort

This GAN hasn't been touched since put on hold by you, and it's been a while. You should probably go fail it. Just pointing it out, since I stumbled across it looking through the massive on hold backlog. I'd do it but it's not my review. Wizardman 06:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fail it. It's been over a month. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Preventive medicine in islam for speedy deletion with the reason "it is a clear POV fork". However, "it is a clear POV fork" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the page to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Gugelmin

Hi. The GAR template you added to talk:Mauricio Gugelmin seems to be broken. Could you fix it? It wasn't obvious to me how to do so. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Pugh

Hi, I've been doing some work on Marc Pugh, and thought I'd ask how much you feel still needs doing on the article? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Kingsbury

Hello. I have made the changes you suggested on the Bruce` Kingsbury article. I was wondering if you could take another look. \ / (⁂ | ※) 01:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the point about Avery. What do you think?

Growing up in the suburb of Prahran, Kingsbury befriended Allen Avery when he was five years old –- the two would remain lifelong friends.
— \ / (⁂, ※) 10:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Corbet

On 19 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Corbet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

Jacky, when you have time, I wonder if you could look at New South Greenland on peer review? It had ships and voyages, plenty of seafaring stuff, though no battles. I would very much value your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Campaignboxes

It's a general issue with having different-width right-aligned items next to each other on a page. One fairly easy way to get around it is to use an abbreviated infobox to hold the image (as here), but you could probably achieve the same effect by tweaking the image width if you prefer not to use the template. Cheers! Kirill 02:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment

I would just like to compliment you on your well written GA Reassessment on Akhenaten's talkpage. His article has been subject to so much IP vandalism that it has now had to be protected indefinitely. Anyway, it was I who wrote and referenced this chapter on this king's foreign policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten#Akhenaton.27s_international_relations and I sourced this image of Akhenaten (which is used in his article) File:Akhenaten as a Sphinx (Kestner Museum).jpg I did not really write the rest of the article.

With kind Regards and Merry Christmas, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 13 January 1797

Thanks for the note and thanks for such a great article. Congrats on the FAC! --Chasingsol ^(talk) 12:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814

Congrats on the promotion. It is a fine piece of work on an underrepresented topic in our Featured lists. Hope to see more from you. A pity that you had to wait nearly a month to see it promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, and congrats.--S R X 03:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

New South Greenland

I thought you'd like to know that I have nominated this for FAC. I have also done more work investigating the feasibility of a Benjamin Morrell article, as you suggested, and have found some more sources, so it's a definite possibility for the future! Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Stanton GA review

Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll get to work fixing those things right away. It's rather interesting to compare that article, which was one of my earlier Wikipedia contributions, to something I've done more recently. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Let me know if you'd like me to take care of anything else. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Babtiste Hacheme

Hey. I've responded to all your concerns at the GA1 page (and no, I didn't take anything personal :)). A google search throws up 283 results, and none except the book are of any value. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

I'll trade you one of your articles (whichever one you'd like), for Wehrmacht forces for Ardennes Offensive. I found that bartering is the fastest way to get articles through the GA review, and so it's beneficial for the both of us. :p Thanks for your time. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the A-class review is actually having a similar discussion about the article's title. I chose "for" because it doesn't cover Wehrmacht forces which may have been deployed after the start of the offensive. It just covers forces which were deployed for the offensive by 15 December 1944. "In" would imply forces that also took part during the entirety of the offensive. I hope that makes sense. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Bob‎

Hello,

Would you please be willing to review Sideshow Bob‎, an article that will be arriving at FAC soon (hopefully next week)? It's shorter than the previous articles and an easier read. Thanks a lot, Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonic wars in the Indian Ocean

Monument erected for Corbet in Sainte-Rose, Réunion.

Hello. As I am from Réunion, I am very interested in your work about the raid on Saint-Paul, the battle of Grand Port and so on. It might be possible to add some data produced from a French perspective. Yet, I am not fluent enough in English to do so. That is why I think the better would be for me to translate your articles, add my stuff and then let an English speaker translate backwards. What do you think?
For the moment, I have only two remarks. The first is that Saint Paul should probably be written Saint-Paul, as it is nowadays in French. The second is that there was an event that preceded the raid on Saint-Paul and was perhaps as important from the French point of view. That was the raid on Sainte-Rose by Corbet/Corbett. As it was the first real attack that took place on land, it was psychologically the beginning of the real action there. Taylor does not give a lot of details about this. Yet, an article can probably be created, and the event mentioned in the one about Saint-Paul. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all. I'll try to help when you have finished. Let a message somewhere on my French page. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll try that. Look there for some famous local participants. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I have just looked at my books, and have found that there is enough data to make an article about the raid on Sainte-Rose thanks to the French historian Roger Lepelley and an article from the Journal de l'île de La Réunion. Thus, I have started a stub here. I'll try to bring it too good article standards during the next two weeks. Maybe will you be interested in having it translated after that. For the moment, please check for me your English books. I'd like to get anything that might have been said about the raid in their pages, in order to be as exhaustive as possible and have more sources than just a couple of books. If you have some data, put it in English on the French discussion page! Thierry Caro (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf campaign of 1809

Hi. I am reviewing your article Persian Gulf campaign of 1809 for GA and have entered a few comments so far at Talk:Persian Gulf campaign of 1809/GA1. The article looks very good. I am doing a little copy editing of minor fixes. Hope you don't mind. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the heads up about the good articles. There really is no other place to go to find detailed info on Song Dynasty military events than History of the Song Dynasty and Jingkang Incident. I don't plan on creating new articles on the subject anytime soon, because I am already engaged in another subject, the Han Dynasty. Recently, I created History of the Han Dynasty, and plan on creating three more branch articles for Han (society and culture, government, and science and technology). As for reorienting yourself, look to Timeline of Chinese history. That may help. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Capper

Hi, I am reviewing your article John Capper for GA and have left a few comments at Talk:John Capper/GA1. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]