User:Grandiose/archive3

Featured article candidates/Background of the Spanish Civil War/archive1
It came as a surprise to me that this was archived, and I've asked about that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also asked if it could be brought back in 10 days ... no answer, so I'm assuming the usual 2 week delay after archiving is applicable. I'll give it a look soon. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're in any hurry, but Ucucha just okayed this one; it can come back to FAC any time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

James Cook
Thank you for your message. I agree that the best course of action at this time would be to withdraw the article from ACR. I investigated the sources more thoroughly last night and realised that some of the books cited were less than scholarly. Also, the topic of James Cook, his voyages and legacy needs more consideration. I have ordered (yet more!) books, second hand, of course, and I shall pursue Cook at a more appropriate pace.--Harkey (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Related information heading
F.Y.I., here is a page discussing some objections that have been raised in the past: wp:Related information/answers. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Grandiose, you seem to have dotted a few i's at BSCW and various other massive improvements. ;) If you want to eventually bring the article to a successful FAC, I will confidently predict that the "Related informstion" section will have to go, from my understanding FA status requires rigid adherence to the MOS exactly as written when the article is evaluated. You will certainly have to face that decision when you go again to FAC, but you don't necessarily have to make the decision just yet, you can think about it for a while.

IMO, including the heading in the article as it stands right now just makes it a more professional looking article, and it's a good example of the whole concept. Assuming the large navbox is going to stay there (and I think it should, and someone would add it anyway), then why is it listed under Sources? Pretty much the first thing a good Wikipedian would tell a new reader is that a wikilink is not a source, it is a resource. We're normally very careful about separating the 'cyclo from its underlying real-world backup, but (IMO from sheer exhaustion when WP:LAYOUT was first hammered out) we let things tail off at the end. In the case of your article [to which you have substantially contibuted], there is a clear visual distinction between the long sections of reference material, and the in-wiki linking at the end, including the category (s.b. Category:History of Spain there too?) listing. It seems natural to me to use that separator, which yes, definitely, is not a mandated part of WP:LAYOUT.

For your reference, here is where I first formally proposed the concept. It was met with mixed but not wholly negative reaction, and the main message seemed to be "try it", because of the "accepted use" paradox. If it doesn't serve the purpose for the article you are working on, your opinion is just as good. But I think the article is better with the heading than without it. Long-term, I think See also should be merged in too, to unify the layout. Franamax (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Croatia GA review
Hi! Thank you for taking time to review the Croatia article GAN. Your comments were helpful and constructive and they really improved the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh
Greetings! Thank you for helping improve the article on Bhagat Singh. Do you think it is ready for a WP:FAC or do you think there is still some substantial work remaining? The nomination for WP:GAN could be withdrawn. Look forward to your opinion. Bye. Have a nice day! Tinpisa (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Grandiose! I've requested the article to be copy-edited here and here. Just to keep you informed. Have a nice day! Tinpisa (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sagem/Orga and deletionism
PS. Deletions would be bearable if editors who contributed to a deleted artcile could undo the deletion just like they can undo any other edit. Or, at the very least, if they could retrieve the deleted article in a read-only, non-indexed mode. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

PPS. Again, sorry if my complaint seemed a personal attack; it was not. It was just a general complaint about the policies of page deletion. Unfortunately there doesn't seems to be a really general and effective forum for such policy discussions. The village pump is not it. All discussion pages connected to with deletion policies seem to have a very limited readership---low tens, at most---comprised almost entirely of people who like those policies. Actually that is the case of many other unfortunate "features" that have been added over time, such as article-side editorial tags, navboxes, and the "like/dislike" panel. With the current "consensus" philosophy, a new feature that has the support of half a dozen editors will be implemented, even if millions hate it. That is how the "notability" criteria and the AfD mechanism were established. (Yes, I have checked their histories.) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ely, Cambridgeshire
I much appreciate your recent edits to Ely, Cambridgeshire though I should point out that the peer reviewer asked me to put the geographic prose at the end. I leave the decision to your judgement though be aware the lead was a recent first attempt of mine (see old lead 2 days ago) so your work is sincerely appreciated, though more needs to go into the lead (see the peer review) which I am slowly working on --Senra (Talk) 15:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion. I see you removed the "... 6000 sqmi ..." area of the Fens from the geography prose of the lead. I was curious. Is this because with that value in, the sentence becomes cumbersome and the body of the article contains that detail anyway? Or is this for another reason? I felt with that figure in, it showed the size of Ely in relation to a very large area. Could we feed the value in later? Perhaps "Major rivers including the Witham, Welland, Nene and Great Ouse, feed into the 6000 sqmi of the Fens and, until man-assisted draining commencing in the seventeenth century, formed fresh-water marshes and meres within which grew peat.". Just curious, as I really like the work you have done simplifying my first attempt at this lead and am definitely more than grateful. Thank you --Senra (Talk) 16:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your message
Thank you for your message. I did not assert that there was a difference between the two references. I have not looked at the other references. That said, I am inclined to think that there is a difference between a proposition that the legal effect of a enactment is X (like the reference that I changed), and a proposition that its verbatim text reads "X" (like your example). James500 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to explain what I think this way. If I wrote "this page on the website legislation.gov.uk has the force of law and itself authorises the citation of these two Acts as the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949", I think that would be wrong. James500 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

White Horse Prophecy
Hi. Thanks for taking this article for review. I'll work on your suggestions right away and get back to you. — Rich wales (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the &mdash; thing. As I ramble in tangents too much, I end up wanting to use them too much. So knowing how to add them on a PC is great. --Squidonius (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rae GAR
I left a comment for you at the GAR for Rae. Thanks. Rain the One  BAM 20:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Joanna Yeates
Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for passing the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Spanish translation
I re-translated yor Spanish text at Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2011_December_26. Hope it's not too late for you. --Error (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Florence Violet McKenzie GA review
I've responded to your second round of comments at the GA review. Thanks for taking the time to do this reviewing :-) Wittylama 22:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you could see the few citation needed tags, I think that will be sufficient. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded to the three citation needed tags on the GA review page. Basically, I'm asking whether you think it would be acceptable for me to cite the Dictionary of Sydney's as the source for these because they are a WP:RS or if that's inadmissable because that's also where the content was copied from under a free-license. Sincerely, Wittylama 21:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've got the last 'citation needed' now :-) (diff). On a related note, I've also got this (hilarious) article with the same DoS origin: Henri L'Estrange. Do you think it's up to G.A. status too (once the copyright origin's confirmed next month (see talkpage)? Wittylama 23:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! My first ever GA, woo hoo :-) Do you reckon Henri is up to scratch too, should I list it for GAR? Wittylama 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wuffa
Right, I've had another go at the Nennius confusion. Hope it works! Hel-hama (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
[...]
 * OK, all done. Nice little article, sorry about the stretched out review, but I think it will get through now.  Let me know if you wind up short a reviewer and I'll see who I can dig up.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Uffa - John Speed.JPG
Hi - I scanned the image myself; it's a small cartouche from his Heptarchy map. I can't recall the precise edition of the collection of maps, but the maps in the book were intended to be unaltered reproductions of the originals. Warofdreams talk 11:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Constitution of May 3, 1791/GA1
Sure I did, I'll get on it right away. For the future, I recommend notifying nominators on their talk pages after the review is posted. For people like me, with thousands of pages watchlisted, a ping on the article's talk page is not always enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 13:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Non-fatal offences against the person in English law
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Paul Robeson and the Spanish Civil War
I am editing the Paul Robeson article. Can you suggest a couple of books that describe European societies' view of the struggle. I am specifically concerned with why Robeson felt so strongly about it that he decided to go to Spain. Payne's 1999 book? The splintering of Spain? Thanks in advance. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is what I want. Into the Heart of the Fire. Thanks 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you consider this a representative, center of the road statement if I wrote something like this in the Robeson article?

The world-wide view, on the left, of the SCW, was that the defense of the Republic combined two important themes - defense of the working class and antifascism, (Into the Fire p. 111) and for his part, Robeson....

I can't find, or missed, a world-wide view, on the left, in the SCW article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:2010 Riksdag Structure.svg
I see you made up an SVG version for File:2010 Riksdag Structure.svg. Looking briefly at the source it looks like you did it in Inkscape; if so, that sounds like a real chore. I was thinking about writing a little program to emit these kind of things (given just a list of parties' colours and their # of representatives, and maybe a couple of tuning parameters) but I wanted to make sure that such a thing doesn't already exist. Do you know of such a program? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)
Just to let you know, I responded to your comment at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Radzymin (1920). Hope that clears the issue for you.  // Halibutt 14:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bautzen (1945)
Are there any issues remaining, or could you consider supporting now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanisław Koniecpolski
I've replied there. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)