User talk:H1nkles/Archive 2

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 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) 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Raja of Panagal
I've resolved a good number of issues. Please do have a look.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've clarified in the review page. Regards- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 02:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hebron glass review
Well, the week is up, and I'm pretty sure we've taken care of the issues you brought forth. I also added a color image of the actual glass after persuading the photographer (on Flickr) to change its license for commercial use. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
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 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request
I'm sorry I don't know whether my comments on the same would be useful enough for you. You are partly right in your assumption that Indians have close cultural affinities to Bangladeshis. Bangladeshis share a close cultural bond with the people of the North-east Indian state of West Bengal. They speak the same language, have the same customs and celebrate the same festivals. Actually, when the British left, the two entitites of West Bengal and Bangladesh (East Bengal then), were created primarily on basis of religion. Now having said that I'm actually from South India and have rarely been north; and I've never been to West Bengal or the north-east. Nevertheless, I have close relations who had lived in Bengal. I could give some hints based on what I've heard from them. From what I know, all Bengalis are obsessed with rasgulla and soccer. They are also fond of fish and rice so much so that they eat them on an almost daily basis. I do not know whether your guest is a Hindu or Muslim or atheist, but if he is a Hindu, then he surely celebrates Durga Puja, a festival dedicated to the Hindu goddess Durga which usually comes around early October. I know a few words in Bengali, the language which Bangladeshis speak


 * Bengali: Kemon Achi?
 * Meaning in English: How are you?


 * Reply in Bengali: Bhalo Achi!
 * Meaning in English: I am fine!

Also, Bengalis address each other respectfully as "Babumoshai" which corresponds to our usage of "Sir" in English. They also have the custom of affixing the suffix "-dha" to the first names of people while addressing them. For example, a person with the first name Sourav is addressed as "Souravdha", etc. Hope you find this useful.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's my pleasure! And regarding the cultural impact, West Bengal and Bangladesh jointly formed the oldest British colony in India. Maybe, that's the reason they had the Bengali Renaissance. Anyway, gotto go now. Bye. tc. - The Enforcer Office of the secret service 17:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Raja of Panagal
Some of the items you pointed out use footnote 20 and 21 apart from 19. I have an interview tomorrow and I don't think I would be online atleast until it gets over. Would you mind if I give a detailed reply the day after?- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 18:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that you use footnote 20 and 21 though I thought I only brought up sentences that relied on footnote 19, I could be mistaken though. It is totally fine if you have to wait a day or two to reply.  Life takes precedence.  I will copy this response to your talk page to ensure that you receive it.  H1nkles (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! I've made appropriate adjustments to the article- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations
Thank you. My next goal is to try to get it to FA and have it as the TFA during the 2010 Olympics. Speaking of which, I noticed that you have started work on Winter Olympic Games. Do you need any help with anything? -- Scorpion 0422  15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I absolutely think the article could be an FA and it's a great goal to have it on the main page during the 2010 Games.  I'll respond to your question here and copy it to your talk page.  I'm currently sifting through the article enhancing the prose, adding references (a glaring problem), adding photos etc.  One thing I need help with is determining what other topics to cover in the article.  It's basically a synopsis of each of the Winter Games, then a table of sports followed by discontinued sports and a list of demonstration sports.  I feel that more could be added.  Perhaps a scandals section, maybe a list of athletes with the most medals, perhaps a politics section.  I will need to get some input though because this article's structure will likely determine the Summer Olympics structure as well.  If you could give some suggestions that would be a good place to start.  Thanks!  H1nkles (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * References is definitely a problem. I was surprised at how few books on Winter Olympic history there are. Luckily for me, the IIHF has a list and desctiption of the top 100 international hockey moments on their site, and many of them were about the Olympics. (sports-reference is a good one, it has a brief history in most of the event sections) In regards to sections, basically what I did was group everything together in a history section, then I went through and looked for things that could be grouped into sections. There should be a "background" section that has a brief overview of Olympic history. Controversies/scandals is also a good one (maybe even a doping sub-section). In regards to sports, maybe you could add a brief history of each (you may have to remove my table to do that). Perhaps a section on amateur vs. professional athletes? There have been various controversies, for example, alpine skiing coaches were barred from participating in 1936, and there have been many disputes over pros in ice hockey. Another possibility is "notable performances", ie. Eric Heiden, Janica Kostelic, Ole Einar Bjorndalen, Lidiya Skoblikova, etc. -- Scorpion 0422  16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestions, thank you. I was debating a "notable performance" section as being a bit biased/hero worship.  Though there are athletes, like the ones listed above, that would certainly warrant being listed as notable athletes.  The table of Olympic Athletes who have won the most medals is dominated by summer Olympians, only Bjørn Dæhlie makes the list representing the winter athletes.  This is a shame.  I'll keep working through the article adding citations and expanding the prose.  Then start restructuring and adding full sections.  Thanks again for the suggestions and the help.  H1nkles (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you need a quick list of athletes with the most medal in a sport or at a certain games, there is one here. -- Scorpion 0422  17:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ananda Ranga Pillai
Hi! How are you? I would like to know what chance has this article got of successfully passing a GA-nom- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll be happy to take a look at the article. I'll leave my comments on the article's talk page unless you have any objections.  H1nkles (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! Ive replied to some of the points you've made- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 15:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games
Hello, I gave the page another somewhat-major re-formatting today and I was wondering what you thought (I added another 11 K, I'm starting to think I should templatize the statistics tables). I moved the stuff about NHL participation to the rules below the professionals section because it worked best in that order. However, I'm still not completely sure about it, because it did heavily support the entire section "NHL era" section. Perhaps, I could move the professionalism paragraph to after the 1980 section and the NHL participation one to before 1998-2006. That way, it would work better chronologically. -- Scorpion 0422  21:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll probably have to take a look at this tomorrow, my wp time is just about up. I hope that's ok.  I'm having a good time working on this article with you and I think it will do a great service to the Olympics Community when it passes FAC.  Keep up the good work.  H1nkles (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left my thoughts on the article's talk page. H1nkles (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had much time to work on the article recently, but I have made some changes. I changed the last bit of the lead from rule change info to doping rules. I also added a bit about why it was added from a book (the book is ridiculously pro-Canadian, so I don't know how much I can use), I added more about Sochi to the "NHL involvement" section (I felt it worked better there because it fit in more) and I shortened the doping section a bit. Is there anything that I have forgotten to do? (I'm sure there is some stuff you have recommended that I haven't gotten to yet). -- Scorpion 0422  01:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the article today if I can get some time, otherwise it will be tomorrow if that is ok. I'll leave my comments on the article's talk page.  H1nkles (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a small table which has info about the players that have tested positive for banned substances. Also, I was considering adding a brief (two-three sentece) explanation of ice hockey (just the basic rules of it), or is that unnecessary? -- Scorpion 0422  19:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to your question about ice hockey rules here. I don't think it's necessary.  I think the reader can link to the ice hockey article if s/he wants.  Less is more with FA's.
 * I've added my comments on the article's changes to the article's talk page. It's really coming together nicely.  Keep up the good work!  H1nkles (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Zappas
And I was wondering how did this stuff was added in the lead?!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First off I wanted to welcome you back to the article my friend, it's been a while. A little background, I submitted the Olympic Games to FAC and it failed due to last minute critique that I didn't have a chance to respond to.  At any rate I let the article sit for a while just to collect my thoughts and work on other things.  When I returned I noted that this statement on Zappas was in the lead.  When it went in there I don't know.  I toyed with the idea of going back to look for who added it but thought it would be a waste of time since so many people were touching the article during its FAC.  At any rate my stance on it is that this issue is contentious and it doesn't belong in the lead.  The debate is discussed in the body of the article and so I think it is fair to say the Modern Olympics were founded in the 19th century and leave it at that.  What are you thoughts on it?  H1nkles (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tyson Gay
Thanks a lot! I have to say that Gay is a bit of a lightweight target for GA, given that he's only about half way in to his career. Athletics is still a relatively new interest of mine so it's natural that I'm more interested in contemporary athletes. Still, I'm thinking about doing older athletes, like Kim Collins etc. To be honest, the whole drugs thing puts me off of a lot of other sprinters. Maurice Greene would be an obvious choice to improve, but I'm worried that I might have to rewrite the whole thing if my suspicions are confirmed. Excellent work on Olympic Games by the way. I know first hand that FA can be an awful drag, but I think the FAC helped improved the article and even if it's not "FA good", then it's pretty good nonetheless. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Merit!
In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 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) 02:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Batavian Republic
I only noticed your GA-evaluation attempt of Batavian Republic today, though I do watch that article (as the main contributor to the current version). I also noticed a number of unwanted "improvements" that had slipped by me (so I wonder if the "watch" actually works), like the photo you objected to, but that has fortunately disappeared. I hadn't nominated the article for GA-status myself, so I am actually quite flattered. And I am sorry that nobody reacted to your edits on the Talk:Batavian Republic/GA1 page. Anyway, I think I have today addressed all your concerns with the article. Would you please take another look? Do I have to do anything else to have the article reconsidered?--Ereunetes (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to take a second look at the article. Unfortunately due to issues with programming and the Bots involved it is not possible to revert the article from fail to pass.  Instead it must be renominated and reviewed for GA status.  If I get some time in the next few days I'll go over your article again.  I recommend renominating soon since it takes several weeks for the review to be accomplished.  H1nkles (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I encounter this process, so please bear with me. I understand there are two ways to "appeal" a GA-fail assessment: renomination and reassessment. I think in the circumstances reassessment would be most appropriate as the rather simple concerns with the article were not addressed within deadline, but now -belatedly- have been. Renominating would uselessly start the whole process over again, whereas reassessment would take up the process where you left off. So I looked at the reassessment page and though it mentioned the possibility of a reassessment in the sense I mean here, the process seems primarily aimed at delisting articles that have been GA-rated in the past. So I wonder: if I use this alternative, will it not cause more problems? Please advise.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually the reassessment tool is used to delist GA articles but it isn't exclusively for that as far as I know. I haven't used the reassessment tool before either so I can't guide you with experience.  Go ahead and post the article there and we can see what happens there.  H1nkles (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Apparently my "watchlist" does not work properly, because (though I watch this page, like I did the Batavian Republic Talkpage) I did not get the usual warning. Five days wasted therefore. But I'll now do what you advised.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Batavian Republic has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.
 * You see, I followed instructions to the letter, even the one about leaving a GAR-message for the people concerned. If only you'd left such a message on my talk page at the time :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was away from my computer all weekend and am now just getting back into WP. I have been consumed with real life recently and have been able to really give anything a good look.  I'll try and get some reviewing done today on your article.  Please accept my apologies.  H1nkles (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said on my own talk-page where you left a similar message: no apologies necessary. I hope we get this thing squared away.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have finished my own CE. I'd like you to take a look and if you can agree to these I'd like to start addressing the more serious stuff that you enumerated in your GA-review. Please let me know what you think.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I have finished replying to your major concerns on the GA/2-page. If you have time, I'd appreciate a reply there.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will give it a look, I have an article at FAC right now so my attention is a little divided. I'll likely get to it some time today or tomorrow if that is ok.  H1nkles (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I have finished the clean-up now (though I probably overlooked something, knowing myself). Thanks very much for bestowing your Official Blessing on the article. I also enjoyed doing business with you and I am glad that you took my sometimes sharp remarks as they were intended:-) Thanks very much also for putting that star on my talkpage. If I had such a commendation symbol myself, I would return the favor!--Ereunetes (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'm not sure what you mean by "If I had such a commendation symbol..." but if you're not aware all barnstars can be found at WP:BARNSTAR. H1nkles (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Christa McAuliffe GA
Thanks so much for your input. I'm sorry I didn't respond to the earlier query; things got too busy in "real life." Your input will serve as a great guide to anyone seeking to improve this article. --Jh12 (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Review request
Heya, if you aren't too busy, would you be willing to do a review for Forbes Field in anticipation of a FAC? We'd really appreciate, so we can get to FAC in time for the 100th anniversary. Thanks,  Grsz 11  23:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to take a look and honored that you'd ask. H1nkles (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you so much for that. I am really honored. Regards; Felipe ( talk ) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, it is well-deserved. H1nkles (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work
Thanks for participating in the challenge! You did great work, and I know it's not easy. I'll be happy to award the second barnstar of the challenge if you do another 15. Best regards —Eustress talk 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks! I'm going back through and adding more detail. In the instances where I was unable to find the specific degree the individual earned I put "Law degree".  I hope someone will be able to find the missing information, I'm sure it's in the UT alumni directory but I don't have access to that.  Thanks again! H1nkles (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah thanks!!! H1nkles (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reward board posting

 * Yes, if you would like to act on it, you can extend the time by a month and refer to this edit to show I agree. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I will do so. Thanks!  H1nkles (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 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) 23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. Indeed in the past we did ask for experienced/established reviewers, and that was to ensure that articles were properly reviewed. If you have reviewed just a few articles and believe that you did it to the best of your ability in meeting the GA criteria, then I believe you'd qualify as experienced. I believe before the experienced/established wording kind of prevented some reviewers from signing up, so hopefully now more people will join in. We have talk pages and other reviewers to talk to if you run into any issues, so let me know if you ever have any other questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. I think this process has improved my ability to write articles. Since first starting I've written over 20 GAs and reviewed over 500 GANs/Sweeps articles. I know some don't respect GAs, believing that FAs are the only important articles to consider. However, I think all new editors should get involved with the GA process to learn more about editing guidelines, interacting with others, and building article content. With this sort of training, editors are more likely to move on to featured content. I've done my best to improve the quality of the process, and hopefully by completing these Sweeps, it will help further. Have fun reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added your name to the list. Make sure to update any articles you review or exempt ones you run across. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm off and running now!!! H1nkles (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you ever run across a GA that you think doesn't meet the criteria, no matter if it was reviewed before, feel free to state your objections. You may hurt some feelings (or people won't care), but the improvement of the article, will help out more in the long run. I would recommend that when you leave an article on hold that you also contact all of the main contributors to the article (use this tool to find them) as well as the WikiProjects listed on the talk page. This will help to ensure that more people see the review and will be more likely to address the issues you raise. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've notifed both involved projects and one of the primary editors. I'm starting to get the hang of this.  Thanks for your guidance.  H1nkles (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Thank you for your work on Cham Albanians. I am making the changes you propose in order to pass the GA standards.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey good to hear from you. As I said on the assessment page, I will likely review to a point where I put it on hold and wait for work to be done, even though it isn't all the way reviewed.  Given the length of the article I want to break up the review to make it more manageable for you and me.  I'll likely get to that point today.  Please feel free to comment on suggestions that I've made, I encourage dialogue throughout this process.  H1nkles (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Olympic Games
Great job on the promotion, it really is a great article. I'm still pecking away at Ice hockey at the Olympic Games and I hope to have it to FAC soon. There is a bit of a nationalist edit war (they always pop up just after the hockey Worlds) because a user wanted the mens and womens tables seperated so that Canada and the Soviet Union would be tied in golds. At least he didn't want to combine the medals (that will come in February if Russia wins gold). The medal table now accounts for both the mens and womens events. I don't like it, it's unnecessarily complex and cluttered. So, I won't be able to nominate it for about another week. Would you be able to take another look at it and possibly copyedit? Content-wise, I think its ready, but the language tends to be a tad repetitive and uninspiring at times. Thanks, Scorpion 0422  19:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First off thanks for the kudos, I appreciate it. Whew what a process.  What the FA reviewers are looking for is very fresh in my mind so I'll be happy to go through the article again.  I noticed a lot of edits done on it recently.  Be sure it's stable before you nominate it.  I'll put some work in on it this afternoon.  Thanks again and keep up the good work on this article, I look forward to returning the favor soon.  H1nkles (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats from me too. You've done great work here! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I honestly couldn't have done it without your help Jonel, there were times of frustration when you stepped in at the perfect moment to take up the editing. Honestly I really appreciate it.  Cheers!  H1nkles (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, take your time, and thanks for all of your help so far. Also, I'll try and chip in what I can at the Winter Olympics page. -- Scorpion 0422  21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cham Albanians
Yes, I would appriciate some more days on hold, since I was too busy this days on real life. I think that tomorrow, I will start my work on it. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for getting back to me I was getting a little worried. I'll extend the hold for another week.  Will that suffice?  H1nkles (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it will be enuagh, since sunday, I`ll start wiki-working again:-). Cheers, Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have made some changes in the article, and I have discussed on the page review. Cheers, Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look at it today, if not today then tomorrow for sure. Keep up the good work.  H1nkles (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if you have checked again the page, and if it seems ok for GA status? Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, real life threw me for a loop the last few days. I haven't had any computer time but I will tomorrow and this article is my #1 priority.  Thanks.  H1nkles (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have finished the review. Thank you for your patience.  H1nkles (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made some other changes, what should I do more (except the lead)?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you have my answers on the POV issues you raised. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi H1nkles, whats up? We have rewritten the lead on Cham Albanians and I think it is ready to becaome a WP:GA. Cheers, Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I will call you back for other articles :-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New section
Thank you so much H1nkles! Cheers; Felipe ( talk ) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process 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) 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As MF pointed out on my talk page, these articles were chosen based on a date at the time the GA criteria were significantly changed. As a result, all of the articles prior to that needed to be re-reviewed, thus Sweeps was required. With almost 7,000 articles now, re-review of all of them (at our current pace) would take about 5 years to complete (not a scientific estimation). However, once Sweeps articles are all reviewed, any article can always be re-reviewed by GAR if there is conflict with the GA criteria. The only way I foresee us having to re-review a large batch of articles again is if the GA criteria is significantly altered again in some way (I think they are fine as of right now). Hopefully once we are done, I will never have to hear the word Sweeps again (unless there is a broom involved!). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oblivion GAReview
Hi, could you list the dead links you found at the review page? All of the links you mentioned by number worked for me; not sure if the numbers are off or what. -- Pres N  22:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Actually my checklink tool was off by one number on all the links.  So the bad references are: 42, 44, 53, 57, 59, 69, and I also found 85 to be dead.  I will update the GAR with this new information.  Thanks for catching that.  H1nkles (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GA articlehistory errors
When updating the article history template, pls see the instructions at Template:Articlehistory, and scroll to the bottom of the article talk page when finished to see if the red error category is lit. (I repaired Talk:Crossair Flight 498 and Talk:Arkia Israel Airlines.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ok thanks for the heads up!! H1nkles (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Another reminder: please scroll to the bottom of the article talk page after you update an articlehistory. If you see the red error category there, among the cats, pls locate the error. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I thought I had done that, but obviously I didn't. I have to slow down.  H1nkles (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Lady Records
Hi. I've responded to your review of this article, please see its talk page. Better lead, deadlinks fixed. You asked for free use rationales on the images, but they aren't free use, they're fair use (also known as non-free use), and do have rationales. "Fair use" and "free use" are not the same thing, careful not to mix them up! <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#28c">fish &amp;<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#D33">karate 14:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool I'll take a look, thanks for reminding me about the difference between Fair and Free use. H1nkles (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 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) 22:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture question
''This is moved from a discussion on User:Durova's talk page. I'm putting it here for future reference.''

Hello, I'm reviewing your GA candidate Jean Desbouvrie. In perusing your user page I noted that you're expert with images. This is an area of WP that I am absolutely ignorant about. I'd love to start adding feature images to my (very small) repetoire of featured content, but I am neither a graphic artist nor a very proficient photographer. Is my quest hopeless? Can you point me towards any materials or give me suggestions on how I can become active in the restoration of old photos, which seems to be a pet project of yours? I'm particularly interested in Olympic Games images to help augment the articles I am working on for that project. Your help would be genuinely appreciated. H1nkles (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, probably your best bet would be looking through archives. In particular try for material that falls under US Government public domain.  Sometimes the US Armed Forces sends military photographers to cover events.  No idea whether any of those were at recent Olympics (perhaps the Atlanta games?)  Otherwise, general military and science subjects are often available in good copy on government websites.  Does that general direction interest you?  Durova Charge! 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, does one then run the image through photoshop to sharpen and "touch up"? I'm not sure if that is kosher or not.  I also noticed your link to the Commons site with several images that need work.  That might be a good place to practice, if that is allowed.  Again being so new and inexperienced at this I don't want to break anything or step on someone's toes.  I'd like to start with images that are already uploaded before venturing out into uploading my own.  Sorry I'm a bit of a chicken.  H1nkles (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well those are set up as beginner restoration jobs. Feel free to apply Photoshop or Gimp to them (it's what they need).  With regard to the government archival material, often new material doesn't need much (if any) work.  But a good close-up look always helps.  Let me know when you find something you like.  Best wishes!  Durova Charge! 21:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for your advice, I'll get to work! H1nkles (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tsar
"I don't see enough here to delist it... Overall I will keep the article at GA." I'm not too happy that this message seems to lean towards a GA Tsar that has the sole power to approve or disapprove of all GA articles. Leaving a message like this seems more like a threat than help.--andreasegde (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input, I am trying to refine my communication and I am certainly not trying to come across as a GA Tsar. I'm not sure which article you are referring to.  The difficult thing with the GA Sweeps project is that single editors are reviewing articles and truly making the decision to keep or delist articles.  I will take more care with how I communicate while doing the GA Reassessment and I appreciate your criticism.  H1nkles (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thank you kindly.--andreasegde (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii House Bill 444
Hi, thanks for doing a review. I made some changes. What do you think? Hekerui (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the work, I've responded to your edits on the article's talk page. Let me know if you have any questions.  Keep up the good work!  H1nkles (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I added the section. Hekerui (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

South Sydney Rabbitohs GA Reassessment

 * All the relevant dead links have now been fixed whilst a handful of obsolete links have also been deleted. Sattlersjaw (talk)

South Sydney Rabbitohs GA Reassessment
Hi,

All the relevant dead links have now been fixed whilst a handful of obsolete links have also been deleted.

Re controversy, my understanding is that the main controversial issues affecting the club during its long history are already in the article - i.e. its exclusion from the competition in 1999-2001, court battle for reinstatement, subsequent privatisation due to financial problems, subsequent falling out between owners Russell Crowe and Holmes a Court, underperformance on the playing field just before and after exclusion and bitterness over player losses and gains with rival teams - apart from the above, there has for the vast majority of the club's existence been far more positives than negatives - and these positives are of course also highlighted. During the history of rugby league in Australia there have been many more clubs with worse troubles than Souths, and not many that have the same long history of achievement.

Hope this helps in your assessment of the article.

Sattlersjaw (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good thanks for the response. I read the various legal battles and the shenanigans between Crowe and Holmes a Court.  Being an American; when I was reading the article I likened the Souths to the New York Yankees, who have an amazing record of acheivement in baseball but have also had some pretty spectacular falls.  At any rate I'll take a look at the article, thanks for your work.  H1nkles (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

George Washington Article
Not sure if this is still at GA but I am working on cleaning it up. I just stumbled onto it. No big deal either way I'll will just resubmit it in a couple days when I am done if you can't hold it any longer.--Kumioko (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I'll take a look at the article, if you feel as though you can make the fixes in a week I'll hold it for another week.  Let me know.  H1nkles (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Loose Fur
Greetings. You recently reviewed Loose Fur for GA sweeps. Loose fur has neither toured nor put out any new material since 2007; since the band is a side project, the members are usually busy with their own projects. You brought up an interesting problem, however. I checked all of the links, and they're fine. Puzzled by this, I ran the page through Checklinks and it came back with the same results that you did. I checked another article that uses Billboard citations and found that the problem is with Checklinks, not with the article citations. Teemu08 (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, that's an interesting problem with checklinks. I'll note the page and keep the article.  Thank you for your response.  H1nkles (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations...
Thank you, it was a lot of work but I think it was worth it because even some tougher reviewers said they thought it looked great. My next project might be Ice Hockey World Championships and I'll also help out wherever I can with the 2008 Summer Olympics page (as well as a few lists here and there). -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Accounting ethics GAN
Thanks for reviewing the article, that nomination seemed so long ago. I addressed all of the issues you raised, and let me know if you'd like to see further clarification/expansion on the changes. I recognize the article is brief in some areas (I think this is the shortest article I've worked on), and plan on expanding it further when I get my hands on some of the available books. I look forward to addressing any other issues you see with the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finalized my review and posted it. I've passed the article to GA.  H1nkles (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary editor?
I am just amazed and amused that you (or anyone) would think that I am the primary editor of special relativity. It existed long before I came here and I have never had the courage to try to do an over-haul of the entire article (just a section from time to time). My edits are only a tiny fraction of the whole. Perhaps you mean that I am the primary offender against the requirement for in-line references (since I usually work from my accumulated understanding of the subject rather than look things up again)? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "title" of primary editor is taken from a tool that looks solely at edit counts. You have nearly twice as many edits on this article as any other editor, hence you get the "honor" of being the primary editor.  The article has had several thousand edits of which yours is a very small overall percentage.  The tool is  here, if you'd like to take a look.  I'm sorry if my message was offensive, it wasn't intended as such.  H1nkles (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I am not offended, only very surprised. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

LANSA Flight 502
Hi H1nkles, can you take another look and see if there are any remaining issues? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's on my list to do today. Thanks for the reminder. H1nkles (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort, H1nkles. I appreciate it very much. Crum375 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
for your peer review of Chinese classifier; your comments have been very helpful! Best, <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 14:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and I wish you the best in your efforts. Please take a moment to review one of the backlogged WP:PR articles. H1nkles (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. debate question
seen about the liverpoll article like... did u decide to make the amends or not, to be fair it needs a fix up or ppl are going to be MISGUIDED about this team and this team and their acheivement —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRC4Life (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned there are only minor changes needed to the article. My role was to apply the new GA Criteria to the article and I found that it meant the new criteria so I kept it.  I replied at the article's talk page.  H1nkles (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Henry College
Out of curiosity, why did you exempt it from GA Sweeps? <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I noted a GA Reassessment done in November of 2008, which was focused on the sources, and then an article overhaul done in May of 2009 see here. I checked the links and fair use rationale on the photos.  If you feel that I was hasty I can certainly do a full reassessment.  H1nkles (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Love Hurts Tour
Hi H1nkles, can you see my work on the page? Kekkomereq4 (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

GA
Sure, I'll try and get it done by the 26th. — Please comment  R  2  16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done and replied. — Please comment  R  2  17:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Paralympic taskforce/project
As this proposal has recieved some support from you, I wondered if you thought there was enough support to start the project? al.is.ta.ir.jh ta.lk co.nt 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC) *      This user will be away for about two weeks, so don't expect a quick response to any comments that you leave.

Hi
Hi H1nkles, whats up? We have a content dispute on Cham Albanians article, which you passed on GA status some days before. The dispute is about NPOV, and you may read it on Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. I need your opinion, cause I cannot handle the other editor in this dispute; he is at least unwilling to cooperate. Thanks in advance, Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point the only way I would get involved is if I had access to all the sources mentioned in the dispute. I have read the entire dispute and I feel it is primarily over the interpretation of the information in the sources.  Since I don't have the sources I really can't comment on how they are interpreted.  If you could provide me with the google books links with page numbers, I'll happily take a look.  Bear in mind that I am going to be on vacation from June 29 through July 10 and won't have access to WP for that time so anything you would like me to comment on should be given to me as soon as possible, I will be pretty busy in prep for my trip between now and when I leave.  Best of luck.  H1nkles (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I think there is no any problem any more; there was only one editor, with whom I could not find a way out (other editors are fully cooperative) and he is topic-banned, so I do not think that other editors have any real problem with the page, except minor fixes which will be done. Thank you, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)