User talk:Jackyd101/Archive 6

Talk:SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm

Don't forget to replace the template when you pass a GA nominee :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 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) 20:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Grand Port

Congrats on it passing. It was a strong read. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is always nice to see a page that is well produced and then tested from every possible angle and proven to be worthy of the FA star. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special Troops Battalion, 10th Mountain Division (United States)

Responded to all of your suggestions on this article and awaiting further instructions. —Ed!^(talk) 06:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at User talk:Featured article candidates/Hermann Detzner/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Map assistance

I would be glad to - I have a fairly full plate at the moment but should be able to do it in the next week or so (is that OK)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request!

Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

AshLin (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could reply here itself on your talk page since it reflects your work and would be visible to your visitors to know more about your accomplishments. AshLin (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts as a former co-ordinator I found my time as coordinator disappointing because it coincided with a sudden decrease in my available time: I got a new job that kept me away from my computer for extended periods of time in the same month as I was elected. In addition to my basic contributions as co-ordinator, I had intended to 1) Contribute extensively to the academy programme 2) Participate in every Milithist FAC, Peer review and A-Class nomination 3) Improve the may Milithist works in relation to GAs (which I consider to be a working "Basic Minimum Standard" for articles) - perhaps begin a programme of regular review of Milithist GAs, fast tracking GAs towards A-class (and vice versa) and introduce the list of Milithist GA nominations to the Milithist review page to integrate the systems more closely. However with the new demands on my time I found it impossible to maintain my basic responsibilities as co-ordinator and my article writing (a number of other projects and areas I was involved in also suffered, not to mention aspects of my personal life). In the end article writing - the whole reason I am here in the first place - won out, and my standing down at this election makes it official. It was a pleasure to serve as a co-ordinator and should I ever find the time in the future I would be very keen to resume the role if elected. I will continue to write and participate at Milithist and look forward to the project going from strength to strength. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 6th/1806

During the "GA" review, I made some minor tweaks to text and prose, and in one case, it looked like half a sentence was missing, so I tried to fill in the blanks. Better read it through to make sure it says what you mean it to say! It's a pass, btw, and I thought I'd let you add it to the GA list. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have replied at the review page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. --TomStar81 (Talk) 02:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Scottish on hold

I have tweeked the lead abit, but im unsure what to do next or wether the article meets GA standards. thanks Tsange ^►talk 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1918 section has been readded and has been referenced by original uploader SoLando. Tsange ^►talk 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		I would like to give you this award for your GA review of Liverpool Scottish. Tsange ^►talk 20:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What photograph

There is no photo of course. That is a bit of the template that I didn't see that stuck into the GAtemplate code. So I removed it now. There is no problem with the article.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 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) 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Hey. Was wondering if you'll be using John Keegan's Intelligence in War for the Mediterranean article? He has some excellent stuff on the Nile campaign, nice analysis as well. Just a thought, cheers. Skinny87 (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good suggestion. Part of the problem is that there are so many books, and so many viewpoints on this that I could be at this article forever. I will use this book and thankyou very much for reminding me of it. If you can think of anything else that might help let me know, I have at least four more books still to add myself. --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem, it's only because I came across it spring-cleaning and flicked through it. I'm afraid I don't have any other ideas; naval history isn't my speciality! Anyway, good luck, and if you need any help I'm always around :) Skinny87 (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 18 October 1806

Jackyd, nice!! I passed the article for GA. I did make some fixes. You had some awkward prose in the lead and the first para of the first section. In a couple other places, just some minor tweaks for easier reading. Take a look, and of course, if you have issues with what I did, reverse, fix, tweak again, whatever. I may have messed up the cites in the first paragraph of first section. i'll leave the honors of entering the article into the lists to you. :) Nice work on this.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I be cheeky...

..and ask you to review James Hill (British Army officer) which is up for an GAN? Skinny87 (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A much delayed map (or two)

Hi Jacky, I finally finished my other maps and made File:Sulawesi blank map.png just now. Please let me know if it needs any tweaks or has any errors.

I am also working on removing borders from the png version of File:Indonesia provinces blank map.svg - the problem there is that the shoreline of the parts in off-white will be blue, but the shoreline of the parts in tan will not be blue. I think it would be easier to take away the blue shoreline - would that be OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went to Online Map Creation and got a little carried away and made File:Indonesian islands map.png. I can crop it as needed, it was fun to make. Let me know. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So glad you like it - I was worried it would be too wide. As I said, if you need me to crop it, just let me know (that would be fairly easy). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Nile

Hi, looks like a great job on this article, nice one. But you've added a quotation that pinged my radar. The text states Although Nelson had previously been castigated in the press for failing to intercept the French fleet, firm rumours of the battle had begun to arrive in Britain from the continent in late September, and the news Capel brought was greeted with celebrations right across the British Isles." and you use a reference of page 277 of "Most secret and confidential: intelligence in the Age of Nelson By Steven E. Maffeo". Can you double check the page and reference for this, as the copy with ISBN 1557505454 (9781557505453) doesn't state "celebrations across the British Isles". Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the article's talk page (I've copied your question there to keep the thread together, hope that is OK). I will make a small change to the article pending further discussion. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rice University alumni

This is strange. You added Category:Rice University alumni to the Allan H. Stevenson article, but that category doesn't appear on the Stevenson page. It does appear, however, if you open the "edit this page" tab. Stevenson also now appears on the Category:Rice University alumni page. Is this a bug that needs reporting, or am I missing something simple? Regards. Ecphora (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It works from another computer. Thanks for your comment on the article; I enjoyed working on it. Ecphora (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Nile

Great article - a really gripping read. A couple of comments though (!):

The battle map of the ship positions doesn't match the text
Surrender of the French van, para 2: "langrage shot"?
Same section, para 3:"Detching the ship, Lieutenant Robert Cuthbert..."

If you decide to head FA-wards, I'd be very pleased to give the prose a once-over. A damn fine job :) EyeSerene^talk 13:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re File:Battle of Aboukir Bay.png:

Text: Goliath anchored near the bow of Conquérant & also engaged Sérieuse and Hercule
Map: Goliath anchored near the bow of Spartiate, Sérieuse looks too far south for Goliath's starboard guns (if positioned per the text), Hercule not shown

I believe this is a map error, placing Spartiate too far south and putting Goliath's initial position across the bow of Guerrier instead of Conquerant. All sources I have consulted agree on this point, including Keegan (despite his map). No maps show the location of Hercule specifically, but on other maps there is a cluster of minor French warships sitting in the bulge in the shoal just to the left of the word Zealous.

Text: Theseus crossed French line between Guerrier and Conquérant
Map: Theseus crosses head of French line

I got this from a source that appears to be poorly worded - All others agree the Theseus rounded the head of the line and roughly followed the track described on the map. I will change the article to reflect this (probably next week as I am going away tonight).

Text: Implies Audacious followed Theseus between Guerrier and Conquérant, states she anchored between them in a position to rake both
Map: Audacious passes round head of line & anchors to port of Conquérant, not in a position to rake either

Sources vehmently disagree on this, probably because Audacious's log was very incomplete (Warner, p. 207). I believe on balance that the article text has it correct, but I may add a note on this issue.

These are the main discrepancies that caught my attention - there may be more, but at this point I stopped referring to the map :) File:Battle of the Nile PW4704.jpg seems to be a better match for the text. My apologies to the mapmaker too... EyeSerene^talk 08:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to simply correct the current map - I don't mind having a go if you like :) EyeSerene^talk 15:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so; WP:SYNTH forbids reaching a novel conclusion not given in the sources, which we wouldn't be doing as the information to correct the map is taken directly from the sources. Many of the maps I've done use information from a number of sources, and I think it's important that they gel with the article text. You can take a look at the sources sections of File:Charnwood.svg (passed FAC) and File:Villers-Bocage ambush.svg for examples. EyeSerene^talk 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries. Good luck with untangling everything:) EyeSerene^talk 17:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured

Hi, there is currently a proposal to raise the percentage of articles featured topics need to have featured to 50%, from 1 September 2010, and as someone with a topic with less than 50% of articles featured, this change if passed will directly affect you. Any input on your part to the discussion, and opinions both for and against the proposal, would be most welcome - rst20xx (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This passed, so your FT(s) need more articles featured by 1 September 2010, or else they will become GTs - rst20xx (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Crombie GAN

Hi Jacky. Thank you very much for taking the time to review Charles Crombie for GA. I think I have now addressed all of your concerns. :) Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuffield buildings

Many thanks for your kind words at the FAC, which has been closed today as "promote". Please let me know if I can help you with reviews or comments in the future. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 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) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

advice?

Jacky would you take a look at Battle of Stockach (1799) and see if you think I should add it to the ACR? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfalls, waterfalls, waterfalls!

Feeling wikistress? Wish you could have a vacation someplace with two dozen waterfalls? Well the next best thing is here!

If you want to, please come look at pictures of waterfalls and pick which ones you like best. You'll be helping make a better article too.

Thanks, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That wikilink again: User talk:Ruhrfisch/Waterfalls

GAR of Pax Mongolica

Thanks for the prompt review! FYI, I am the course leader, do let me know if you have any questions about the course or the assignment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, let me know if there are any concerns you have about my review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something to be on a lookout for when dealing with educational assignments (I do it as much as I can but more eyes...): potential copyvio/plagiarism problems (as seen here). I don't think it is a problem at Pax, but... PS. Proof that copyvio/plagiarism is not an isolated problems. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	I, Piotrus, award you The WikiPen, the award of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Thank you for helping out with the classroom assignment! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 20:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

take a look at Klenau now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of Battle

Please reconsider your plan to rename Castiglione 1796 Campaign Order of Battle and others to "Order of battle Castiglione", etc. I think it's a better idea to put the battle name first so that the articles sort alphabetically. Blenheim order of battle, Naseby order of battle, Eylau order of battle, Ligny order of battle are examples. Please see the List of orders of battle article for many examples. Thanks for the note. Djmaschek (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel called to standardize the "French Revolutionary Wars orders of battle" category, then please do not let me stand in your way. All the non-standard OOBs are mine (Jemappes, Fleurus, Arcole, Rivoli, etc.). In future I will try to follow the prevailing standard. The only thing that really makes me unhappy is when my articles are obliterated (text removed) by subsequent edits. For my part, when I add stuff to existing articles, I do my best to include previous work. However, if the writing is filled with typos, poor syntax, or outright inaccuracies, I am guilty of ruthless editing. I'm glad to deal with a fellow history buff. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernouf article

I applied the same recommendations you gave me for Klenau to the Ernouf article. It's also in need of a GA review. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of executed French generals during the Revolution and the First Empire This leads to a list on the French wiki. There is also a category for the generals, French generals of the revolution and 1st empire and many of them have English articles (if you don't read French). Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re French republican Calendar

Weird - they're auto generated from templates, but I'm honestly not sure what their purpose is. Since the calendar was only in use for 12 years, I don't know that there's any special benefit in calculating an equivalent modern date. On the other hand someone's clearly put a lot of work into them, so WP:TfD seems a bit mean :) EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised that :) However, my note does read as though I read yours that way - not my intention, but mea culpa. I did briefly contemplate deletion, but decided they're doing no harm. EyeSerene^talk 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA: Thank you! Added a bit on marriage

Thank you so much! That's my first GA! I was still thinking of a better word regarding the marriage. I have added a half-sentence to the lead; hope it's not too complicated now. In the body I've added a bit of King Edward's funtime there. I am happy you liked it and thanks for your encouragement! Buchraeumer (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Electress Anna Maria Luisa

Thank you so much for reviewing the article, Jackyd101. I have altered the text as per your reccomendations. However, I am at a loss for things to do regarding the "How syphilis affected her" question. To be honest, all I do know is that it caused a string of miscarriages and lead her to ban the embalming of her remains, ostensibly for fear of others seeing her syphilitic womb. Thanks again, -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean campaign of 1798

Hiya, yes I can only respect the amount of work that has gone into Mediterranean campaign of 1798. You obvioulsy love your History. On the talk page You state historians of the Georgian period frequently used the term... British Isles. William M. James did not use it once in his book. Indeed The Times does not mention the term once in the period 1784-1803 - hardly a frequently used term. The first use in the archive was July 9, 1804 - Ironically a little piece of War proganda regarding the threat from Napolean. I do think you have a blind spot; your use of the term BI is not more accurate. Yes it is simple in the same way that The Sun is simple but the term is increasingly irksome to the Irish. ref Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable and the term itself remains unreferenced. Þjóðólfr (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per the SE page, I've reverted to the references terms in use. British Isles is certainly not to be used for convenience, especially if incorrect (as it is in this case). The discussion is not about the geographic grouping that is the British Isles, but about separate parts, so lets stick with what is referenced. --HighKing (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment from my Talk page to here --HighKing (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Hi, you left a note on my talk page to say that "As per the SE page, I've reverted to the references terms in use. British Isles is certainly not to be used for convenience, especially if incorrect (as it is in this case). The discussion is not about the geographic grouping that is the British Isles, but about separate parts, so lets stick with what is referenced" in relation to Mediterranean campaign of 1798. I have a number of questions / comments in relation to this notice, to which I would like answers.

1) I have no idea what the "SE" page is. If you want to discuss this arbitrary change then please link to whatever it is that you feel justifies the move.
2) The term is not incorrect in this case the sources as given describe invasions or planned invasions of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland - all four of the nations of the British Isles - in case you missed it, a new source has been added corroborating this fact. Clearly this is correct in the geographical sense of the term.
3) You may recall that we discussed this before at Talk:Battle of the Nile, where I explained to you that relying on older sources for the specific use of terms is rather pointless, as such authors frequently used Britain, England and British Isles and variations thereof as synonyms. At the time the source here was written (1827), all of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and sent representatives to the Westminster Parliament, so the distinctions of the finer points of this terminology was lost on them. Frequently the terms they used do not (in a modern sense) reflect their actual meaning, and context is far more useful in establishing meaning than vocabulary.
4) Where does it say that "British Isles is certainly not to be used for convenience"? I can't recall any such rule and if it does exist then I find the prohibition of a near-universally accepted term very bizarre. How was it decided on and when?
5) As you should know by now, it is considered rude to make arbitrary changes to an article that are still being discussed on the talk page, particularly if they have already been reversed once. ~~Please revert yourself as soon as possible and comment on the talk page so that this can be discussed further. If you do not, I will revert for you.~~

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackyd101, the SE page can be found here. The term is incorrect as none of the sources state there were planned invasions of the "British Isles". You say *all* four of the nations of the British Isles - what about the IoM and the CIs? It's clear that Napolean was trying to invade Britain, not the British Isles. You say that relying on older sources is rather pointless - I would argue that using "British Isles" as a convenient geopolitical shorthand for the UK is more inaccurate than pointless because it assumes the term really only means the "four nations". Trying to argue that your interpretation that the "Frequently the terms they used do not (in a modern sense) reflect their actual meaning. is WP:OR. --HighKing (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, front page

Thanks for noting the problem and trying to address it. I've blanked the article now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in GA Sweeps

Thus far, you have 192 listed reviews. For this very impressive and appreciated work, I hope you enjoy this award and display it proudly. Lara ☁ 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nadira Alieva

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nadira Alieva, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadira Alieva. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rootless Juice (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ostrach at A review

Would you take a look at the Battle of Ostrach. It needs another pair of eyes and another voice. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you good with the changes now? Support? Oppose? More tweaks? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

...on today's vandal magnet :) I enjoyed re-reading that article. EyeSerene^talk 10:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are welcome. Your help with it was much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too (a bit late) and by the way...

	<font=3> Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2010! Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 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) 18:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 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) 03:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at Talk:Action at Winterthur (1799)/GA1.
Message added 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

should be good now. take a look? MIght be too much detail in the background. Should there be a separate section describing the force? I'll rename after all this is over. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 00:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

see Battle of Winterthur (1799). I think (most of) your suggestions have been met. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The so called task force

I do think something needs to be done about that situation there, it seems to be some kind of pointy joke, you have a lot of patience to continue commenting there, it appears to me that it is simply an attempt to erase the expression the british isles from the face of the earth. Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very tiresome, but the only way to cope is to remain calm and ensure that it doesn't simply become a log of changed articles but that real debate takes place before any changes are made. I've said it before - that page should only deal with clear inaccuracies and no changes at all should be made until a neutral admin can be found to monitor the situation.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have the patience of an angel, well done. Tomorrow I am going to look for a volunteer independant administrator for the job, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACR and FAC

Johann von Klenau is at FAC now, and Battle of Winterthur (1799) at A-class review MH. I'd appreciate your chiming in on these if you have the time. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to have a look at Klenau tomorrow, although i have reviewed both articles once already. Good work with them (and just in case you missed it, Battle of the Nile is at FAC too). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Frigate action of 29 May 1794

On January 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frigate action of 29 May 1794, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at Johann von Klenau's talk page.
Message added 22:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

should be good now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Action of 31 July 1793

On January 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 31 July 1793, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category for deletion

The following subcategory of the Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts has been proposed for deletion: Category:People from 18th-century Boston, Massachusetts. A link to the discussion is provided at the top of the subcategory page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7th Infantry Division (United States) Copy-edit

Hello. I am in the process of pushing the 7th Infantry Division article to Featured status, however it failed its most recent review because one user requested a copy-edit. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a copy edit for the article or if you knew someone else willing to do so. Thank you, —Ed!^(talk) 23:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Oops, I didn't even notice that the main article was an FAC, but if I did I'd have leant my support. Glad they both got promoted, you've done a fantastic job on them both. I keep meaning to get the Nile Clumps sorted one day! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

thanks for your help with Johann von Klenau, which was promoted yesterday. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Nile, again

Hello Jacky
I made some changes here, on sources for casualties; you reverted them, with the message .."can we take this to the talk page?". So I’ve done that; can you say what was wrong with them? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nile articles

Congratulations, just noticed the FXC passes. The articles are looking fantastic, nice work :) EyeSerene^talk 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Rugby flag

You are receiving this message as you previous participated in a Irish rugby flag related discussion (WP:RUIRLFLAG). There are two ongoing discussions which may interest you here and here GnevinAWB (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pyongtaek

Another user made all the fixes on this article you mentioned in its GAN. Please see if it now checks out. —Ed!^(talk) 18:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

check the GA review on Malta and March 31, please. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA on Malta and 31 March

no problem there. It seemed silly to hold them back, when they are quite good. I'm sure you'll smooth out the bumps before you move them any further along. I have an article to email to you when you have a chance. Email me and I'll send it along. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Yes, meant to blank that page after I discovered the other one, and combined the two articles. Thanks for catching that! Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pyongtaek

I have addressed all of your concerns on the article's GA review. Take a look to see if there is anything else, when you can. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 15:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February GA Sweeps update

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

Kenilworth Castle

Hi Jackyd101, after your comments on Château-Gaillard's FAC, I was wondering if you could comment on the structure of Kenilworth Castle's article. For Château-Gaillard, you said that you preferred to have the layout section first to better understand the history section. I thought it wasn't too important as it was built in one phase, so the castle's plan wasn't integral to the understanding of the site. A similar approach was used for Bodiam Castle's article for the same reason: it wasn't important to say which bits were built or rebuilt as the history was mostly about the castle changing hands through families with little alteration to the structure. However, Kenilworth is a trickier site as it was built and tinkered with over several centuries, and the rebuilding is an important part of the history. I like the idea of having a separate layout section which explains what each part was for and some details about when they were built and so on, as it means the history section doesn't have to be clogged up with digressions which would make the prose clunky. This is essentially the approach of the guidebook by English Heritage (in several of their guidebooks, not just the one for Kenilworth), but I'm not too keen on ripping off their ideas. I think there will still be some repetition between sections as I want the history to be as independent as possible (the guidebook assumes you’ve read the "tour" section first so the chronology is a bit disjointed). Nev1 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Your suggestion sounds like a good one and as not much work has been put into the article yet it should be fairly easy to implement. I'm also a lot more comfortable with that than too closely following the guidebook. Thanks again and happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Camperdown

Hello Jackyd101, I,m willing to translate the required articles or items, just tell me which one you need, cheers, --Antiphus (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Malta

Hello Jackyden, I left my notes here [[1]]. Cheers. Osannapia (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at Antiphus's talk page.
Message added 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback (again)

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at [[User talk:Antiphus#--Antiphus (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)|Antiphus's talk page]].[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Basilone

Thanks for the review on this article. I already completed most of the items you identified but I am going to have to research a couple over the next couple days. Please let me know if you notice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg

Do you have time to take a look at Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg, now at FAC? It needs some commentary on content, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not immediately, but I should be able to take a look over it tomorrow. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FT sup nom?

Hey, I was wondering if you were planning to add the Frigate action of 29 May 1794 article to the Atlantic campaign of May 1794 FT? rst20xx (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I hadn't thought about it. I probably will in a bit but there is another project I want to finish first (is there a rush?). Thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're meant to get it included 3 months from the article's date of creation so that would be... March 28! Supplementary nominations aren't hard to put together though, and this one should sail through without any controversy - rst20xx (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I nominate it on your behalf? As I said, it should pass without any problems - rst20xx (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should get round to it in the next week or so but if you'd prefer to do it yourself please go ahead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it can wait then - rst20xx (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Would you cast your eye over the latest exchanges? I think we might be getting to some high level principles on "Home Nations" and "highest geographical unit". --Snowded ^TALK 08:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that things were getting heated. I'm very busy in real life and working on a major article in the wikitime I do get, so I may not be able to contribute to this debate immediately.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 192 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles SE page

Your final remarks on the above page are accurate. I agree with them and accept your criticism of me. You are right in what you say. I have found my actions to be the only way of limiting HighKing's activities - activities which I believe bring Wikipedia into disrepute, more so than the actions of a single editor such as me. Unless you object I will copy your most recent paragraphs to the page where there is currently an attempt being made to have me blocked. Your remarks should provide some background to those not familiar with the dispute. Please remove them from that page if you do object. Mister Flash (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that if it assists in providing context. Thankyou for checking with me first.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] I'm not trying to get him blocked, I'm reporting a 3RR breach. I don't believe your comments are being placed in the proper context, but I'll leave that to you. But I didn't come here to say anything about that, I just wanted to say, for the record, that over the past few months on the SE page I found your comments to be very helpful in most of the disputes. I know we might disagree on some issues, but that's not to say that I'm not taking what you say on board. I also hadn't seen your guidelines on the other page, but I believe that is the start of a framework we can build on. I'd appreciate it if you stayed involved. --HighKing (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing - just leave off for a few weeks and I will as well. You're doing my head in! Mister Flash (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've wound each other up enough for a while. I'll leave off editing articles for this long weekend (at least). Apologies for this evening if I've overstepped. G'night and enjoy the Easter break. --HighKing (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks - Happy Easter! Some more comments below. Mister Flash (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(editconflict) @HighKing: I appreciate you leaving this message here. Firstly, I have (and wish to have) no control over how Mister Flash uses what I wrote (I haven't looked and I am not going to), provided he doesn't misquote me (he didn't actually have to ask me before he did it, although I appreciate that he did). You equally have my permission to comment on or use that text as you wish. On the second note, I am truly fed up of fighting the same arguments over and over again, and (with the exceptions already mentioned) I will no longer comment on individual articles. However, I do think that the only way to move ahead is to develop guidelines that can be acceptable to all sides and I may return to the guideline discussion once I have had a short break from this issue (RL is heavy next week anyway). Thirdly, I apologise if I offended you with my comments. I do however urge you to take care when performing reverts in such a charged atmosphere - although I disagree with you on many issues I think in general that you are a good editor who is willing to compromise, but that you can sometimes become bogged down in argument and occassionally act rashly. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I'll accept that criticism. I'll have a think about your guidelines and work on them. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples#Suggested ToR for New Guidelines. Please move it elsewhere if this is not the best location. Mister Flash (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Roberts (computers) page move

I don't agree with your page move of Ed Roberts (computers) to Ed Roberts (computer engineer). For one thing he spent most of his life as a medical doctor. This article has many wiki links and external. Doing a page move when an article is going to get massive hits is going to break the page view counter. http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Ed_Roberts_(computer_engineer) Please reverse this move. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for the page to be moved back on WP:ANI. I just don't agree with the timing of the page move. SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented at the ANI page - apologies for any disruption caused.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All is forgiven, your page name is better; it will just be more difficult to track the page views from yesterday. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - Daniel J. Callaghan

Hello Jackyd101, thank you for reviewing Daniel J. Callaghan and promoting the article to GA class. I appreciate your time taken to assess the article and your feedback on it. Janggeom (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image assistance requested

I would be glad to help and it looks like it would be fairly easy to do. Can you let me know where the dots should be? Would you be able to peer review the article on Ganoga Lake? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the map - I switched it to png format as the jpg was pretty noisy (cleaned most of that up). If anything needs to be changed, please let me know. I kept the SUMATRA label all on land so the seas would be free for red dots ;-) Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments at PR and glad the map is to your liking. I kept the labels all caps like the original, but was not sure after if that was what you wanted. I do not have anything else ready for review now, but Dincher and I are working on the article for Ricketts Glen State Park (which adjoins the lake), so I'll let you know when it is as at PR if you like. I will also make a brief reply at the PR - the main problem with more sources on the lake is that it is privately owned (I have never laid eyes on it myself as they have a gate up on the access road). If it were public (in a state park or state forest or state game land) then there would almost certainly be more on modern recreation available. Thanks again, I think I will nominate it FAC soon. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SInce you asked, it is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ganoga Lake/archive1. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACR Order of Saint Hubert (Bavarian)

Would you chime in on this ACR please. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunda Strait campaign of January 1794

Hi, I have reviewed Sunda Strait campaign of January 1794 and placed it on hold for seven days with several small concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Sunda Strait campaign of January 1794/GA1. Canadian Paul 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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) 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jackyd101. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Atlantic campaign of May 1794/addition1.
Message added 03:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

not sure if you had seen this since you haven't responded -MBK₀₀₄ 03:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, this time there is important information about keeping this featured long term, as well as your other topic: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814 -MBK₀₀₄ 05:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tellicherry

Hi, I have reviewed Battle of Tellicherry and placed it on hold for seven days with several small concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Battle of Tellicherry/GA1. Canadian Paul 20:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zmaj

You recently added the article on Zmaj to the category of Aegean shipwrecks. I'm not sure if she really qualifies as her wreck was salvaged after the war. But I don't know if your criteria was that she was sunk in the Aegean or if her wreck still remains there. Just curious.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always assumed that the World War II shipwreck categories were for shipwrecks in those regions created by World War II regardless of whether they were still extant. I'm happy to be proven wrong however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with it, I just wasn't sure if it was justified or not. But the category page, now that I've looked at it, does seem appropriate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ganoga Lake

	<font=3> Thanks again for your peer review, kind words, and support. Ganoga Lake is now a featured article! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of Camperdown

On April 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Camperdown, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 5 May 1794

Hi, I have reviewed Action of 5 May 1794 and placed it on hold for seven days with several small concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Action of 5 May 1794/GA1. Canadian Paul 01:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/* Army of the Danube order of battle */ renaming

give me some help here? I've already renamed it once based on instructions, now I'm supposed to rename. ???? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to renaming, I just was told to rename it as it is, and now I'd like the definitive instruction , please Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far.

We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns.

See you at the finish!

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mediterranean campaign of 1798

The article Mediterranean campaign of 1798 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mediterranean campaign of 1798 for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Battle of Camperdown/GA1

Hi, I have made a few comments in my review of the article you nominated at Talk:Battle of Camperdown/GA1. Thanks! Xtzou (Talk) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is excellently written and sourced and I passed it as a GA, since our discussion about "notes" has nothing to do with the GA criteria. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 16:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]