Jump to content

User talk:Renamed user df576567etesddf/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Wodehouse, again

Thank you so much for your comments at the recent PR for P.G. Wodehouse. The article is now at FAC should you wish to comment further. Many thanks once again. – SchroCat (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edits. Just one point -- where a ref indicates that the subject of the article is "x", please do not ... on an article on the subject ... revise that to delete that fact, and to instead indicate what the family the person was born into was. First of all, the subject of the article is our main focus of interest. Second of all, we follow the ref. We do not say "s was born into an American family", but rather that x was American, for example. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also -- where an infobox parameter exists for ethnicity, and the parameter is filled in, and RS-sourced, please do not delete it based on your personal view that the person's ethnicity should not be reflected in the infobox. If you would like to have the infobox revised to delete parameters that you dislike, seek consensus at the infobox talk page. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Hello, Cliftonian. When you moved Roger Hawkins to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Roger Hawkins" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah—thanks for this Russ, on oversight on my part. I will rectify this when I have time. Thanks! —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
That was a new experience. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Many congratulations on the promotion of Mutiny on the Bounty, easily one of the best articles I have read in a very long time. The article is a prime example of what can happen when two great contributors get together with a load of books. CassiantoTalk 15:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the star, your help along the way and the extremely kind words Cassianto. It was a fun one, that's for sure! Cheers and keep well! Have a great week. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on getting Mutiny on the Bounty up to featured status, John! You and Brian did some great work there. My heart sank when I read your most recent note on the JC's Girls FAC. I apologized there and wrote an extended note. I hope you are having a good weekend as well. Neelix (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this David. Have a great week and let me know if there's any other way I can lend a hand. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the Mutiny collaboration was most enjoyable, and it would fun to work again with you in the future. In the meantime, could I request a small favour? Could you find time to do a short talkpage review of The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold? I'm not going to put it through a formal peer review, but I'm asking one or two trusted colleagues to cast an eye over it and give me opinion. It is fairly brief (under 4,000w, anyway). Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Certainly—I'll try to get something done this evening. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Congrats and thanks also for today's Robin Friday, - I would have scheduled him on a Friday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I tried to have him scheduled on Good Friday a couple years ago. Didn't succeed. Cheers Gerda. :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Beadle

This is just a quick note to let anybody watching this page know that I have put Hugh Beadle up for a peer review with a view to taking it to FAC. All comments welcome. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just submitted Marshal Clarke to GAN, so my next task is now to review Beadle. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Baie dankie mynheer —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes obsequy and sic

I don't think you should have removed the [sic] template from the Cecil Rhodes article. The author seemed to use wikt:obsequy incorrectly, if wiktionary is to be believed obsequy means funeral rites, which makes no sense in the Rotberg quote, and so the sic template was placed there to show that the quote does actually say obsequy, but it's the wrong word. sic means "yes we know it's the wrong word, but that's what the author wrote" Wayne Jayes (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wayne, thanks for the note. How's it the wrong word? It's an obscure and old-fashioned word, yes, but so far as I can see it is being used here to refer to a summary examination of the person's life, similar to a eulogy given at a funeral (and therefore perhaps unduly sympathetic). Some more examples of this usage in scholarly works are here, here and here. I must admit I am no expert here and I think a third opinion would be helpful, so I will defer to someone more acquainted with this kind of thing than me. In the meantime I have added a Wiktionary link to the word in the article. @Dank: I hope you don't mind me pinging you here. What do you think on this? —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I would get rid of the quote; not many readers will understand it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, out it comes. Thanks Dan. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

St. George

See User talk:Lazyfoxx. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would undo your last revert as it is in violation of the revert rule. Lazyfoxx (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What? I haven't violated WP:3RR. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:1RR rule for Israel/Palestine related articles, St. George falls in that spectrum, just letting you know. Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
St George has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Go on then. Tell me how he's relevant. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
If the article had nothing to do with the subject area why do you care so much that the word Palestinian is not used on it? Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I want to replace the word "Palestinian" with "Palestine". This is not a political issue. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
St. George is a part of the History of Palestine which makes him subject to the I/P 1RR. Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
If we go to dispute resolution and they decide to interpret the rule that way, I'll accept it. But, with respect, I don't think they will. I'd appreciate if we could stop having two streams of conversation and continue the chat over at your talk page. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I was just notifying you, cheers. Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Charles Coghlan

Thanks for the copyedit on Coghlan. Once I've got a couple of items out of the way, especially getting Marshal Clarke to GAN (should be next week), I'll be working on Coghlan again to get it to FA. All help greatly appreciated, as ever. FunkyCanute (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're interested in a collaboration on Coghlan for FAC, I'd be happy to take part. I'm going to try to find a better image for the box at the top. Do you have copies of all the books/articles in the bibliography? If not, which do you have and which not? I own a copy of Blake's History of Rhodesia (1977), which may come in handy. Cheers and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd be very happy to collaborate on it. I don't have Blake but I have access to most of the others, either through JSTOR or the British Library. There are one or two further items that I didn't add to the bibliography and that I suspect will be valuable, especially work by M.E. Lee as cited in Hummel 1977. FunkyCanute (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
PS I have Sir Hugh Beadle up for peer review at the moment with a view for FAC, if you are interested in looking in. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Great. I'll take a look over it when I get a chance to do so properly: Sunday or later in the week. FunkyCanute (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Tatenda shamwari —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Loo

Your "toilet is just a bit garish" edit summary did make me smile—it's exactly what my mother would say! Cheers and I hope you're well. :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well then, I shall give your mother at least half the credit for the edit! I enjoyed reading your article Robin Friday. Well done! --Wapiti (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Michael. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't really object that strongly to having the original "toilet" sentence in the article! If you like you can certainly change it back to the way it originally read. Actually, I got a chuckle out of it when I first read it ... it was an eyebrow-raising word for certain!! I'm cool with whatever you decide to do, leave it as is or change it back. --Wapiti (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's an extraneous reference anyway and one that we don't need. Thanks for your help here and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Alas

Sorry about the brevity of my response on my talk, I am on my cell phone. I am well and hope you are too.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

All fine this side, cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Double request

I have sent Pinfold to {{WP:FAC]] on the basis of the talkpage comments to which you kindly contributed. I have been saving my peer review slot for the much more substantial Jeremy Thorpe. The PR is now open, and your comments there will be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes sir —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Pat Hughes

Hi John, hope you're well! This article I improved has been sitting at GAN for some time and I thought you might be interested in taking on the review as the subject was a contemporary of Caesar Hull (in fact they died the same day). FWIW, the ultimate destination is FAC (via ACR) but I thought I'd go through GAN first to give it a shot at DYK. If you think you might follow it through those subsequent reviews, pls feel free to give it FA-level scrutiny at GAN to save time later... ;-) Anyway, only if you have time, no pressure... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to do it either today or over the next couple of days. Things here are good, though a bit busy with packing and what have you (home in two months!); I'm sure you know the feeling. Anyway, cheers and I hope all is well with you. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Pony!

Pony!
Congratulations! For your assistance with Ahmed Zayat, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 04:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

What a nice surprise! I think I'll call him Gregory. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Carrots!
As a previous recipient of the Pony Prize, here are some carrots for your pony, recognizing your work in helping sort through the naming issues on Ahmed Zayat, but also recognizing the fact that ponies do not like breadfruit and even the most good-natured among them are likely to mutiny if they find themselves floating aimlessly on a raft with nothing else to eat! Thank you for all your good humor and diligence across the broad boards of Wikipedia. Much appreciated! — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Well, that's terribly civil of you. Thank you Vesuvius Dogg. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Dave Gallaher FAC

Hey Cliftonian. I nominated the article Dave Gallaher at WP:FAC about ten days ago but haven't yet had a single comment (other than an image review). You did comment at the peer review (archived here), so I was hoping that if you had any time you'd mind commenting at the FAC nomination page (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dave Gallaher/archive1). You're feedback is always appreciated so I'd be very grateful. Thanks. -- Shudde talk 08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll look in at some point this week. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinfold

Ian is asking for a sources review for the Pinfold FAC. I think it's straightforward – any chance you could revisit and add one? Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

AP at FAC

Not sure if you ever do FAC reviews, but if you do, American Pharoah (Ahmed Zayat's triple crown winner) is at FAC now, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Pharoah/archive1 and I need some reviewers. I've pinged both horsey and non-horsey people as both have valuable input. Montanabw(talk) 02:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll happily look in. Thanks for the note and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Diaries, again

Many thanks for your excellent comments on the recent Hitler Diaries PR; the article has now moved on to FAC, should you wish to comment further. Thanks again – SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Thorpe – FAC

This is to advise peer reviewers of the above article that I have now nominated it at FAC, and will welcome any further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Battle of Malvern Hill FAC

Hello Cliftonian,

While I'm begging for reviews, I was wondering if you could throw an eye at Battle of Malvern Hill. I would like to get it to FA, and I'm sure your review would be helpful. I don't mind if it's not what your into/don't have the time/just don't want to. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, Ceradon, thanks for the note. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian Smith image

The current image is extremely blurry and does not depict the subject of the article well, so I decided to replace it with a clearer image that helps better represent the appearance of the man in question. UASR (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@UASR: As I explained to you in my last message on your talk page—please, in future, try to keep threads of conversation on either one page or the other—we cannot justify using a non-free image like this to illustrate a deceased person when we already have free images of that person available. I don't agree that the 1954 photo is "extremely blurry", and even if it is then we have several free alternatives and no need for this copyrighted image. Look at the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Number 1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." On the image page at File:IanSmithClear.jpg, we're claiming there is "no known representation [of Ian Smith] under a 'free' license". It is quite simply disingenuous for us to use the image under these terms as we have no fewer than seven images of Smith without copyright restrictions at Commons:Category:Ian Smith. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@UASR: Please note that I have nominated the image File:IanSmithClear.jpg for deletion under the reasoning I have outlined above. If you wish to dispute this please follow the instructions there. Oh, and another thing: when uploading the image you gave the author or copyright owner as the government of Rhodesia, and the creation date as c. 1960s. Where did you get this information? Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Clifftonian: None of the free images available adequately depict Mr. Smith's physical appearance for the need of biographical purposes, the main image of a figure should always if possible be as clear and fluid as possible, and it to me is woefully unacceptable that the main image on the article of a man like Mr. Smith was the one that it was; hence my belief that my image is most approrpriate for use as the main image in the infobox (and I have contested it's deletion using the proper coding)
As for the information, both were guesses based on the most likely possibilities; as I found a woeful lack of sources about this particular image. UASR (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and the constructive response, UASR. I disagree with you regarding the quality of the images—I frankly don't think the fair use image is a particularly good photo of Smith, and if it is superior to the free images we have already the difference is marginal—but this is a matter of opinion. However I would appreciate if you could stop edit warring over at the Ian Smith page while we wait for an administrator's judgement on whether File:IanSmithClear.jpg is necessary (based on a comparison of the contribution histories I presume IP 97.97.33.181 is you). I am putting the 1954 image back in the meantime. Thanks, —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I suppose so. UASR (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_df576567etesddf/Archive_15&oldid=1141423781"