User talk:H1nkles/Archive 3

GA Sweeps July update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure 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) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles
It says this: "Currently undergoing a good article reassessment" at the top of the page.--andreasegde (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the GAR notice, not sure if that addresses your concerns, if not please go ahead and fix it. H1nkles (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment of Golden Film
You have started a GA reassessment for the article Golden Film on 14 May, and I have posted some replies on 11 June, but it is still open on the article's talk page. Do you think it can be closed? Rubenescio (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the GAR tag, my apologies I forgot to delete it thanks for the heads up. H1nkles (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rubenescio (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 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) 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics
Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics article is under a current Peer review. Could you participate? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 15:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a brief hiatus due to Real Life concerns and a little burn out. I will give it a look over and see if there's work that I can do but it will be in bits and pieces.  I hope that is ok.  H1nkles (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Kenwood, St. George's Hill
Can you do a GA reassessment of Kenwood, St. George's Hill?--andreasegde (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiya, the article doesn't fall within the GA Reassessment criteria used in the GA Sweeps project, so it doesn't require a GA Reassessment from that standpoint, but if you feel as though it should be reviewed to see if it still meets GA Criteria I'd be happy to do that. I'm on a bit of a WP hiatus, just letting the fields lie fallow a little bit to keep me from burining out, so it may be a week or two before I get to it, but I will do it.  Let me know if there is anything specific that you'd like me to concentrate on, if not I'll do a general GA Reassessment.  Thanks for asking.  H1nkles (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Accounting ethics
I just wanted to let you know that I went to the library and found some new sources to expand on information in the article. The article still has a long way to go before it could be considered for FAC (if I ever were to consider that path). I'm still keeping an eye out for other books and articles as I run across them. Anyway, thanks again for reviewing the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey that's great news, I know that the article has potential and given today's culture I can't think of a more topical article. Keep up the good work!  H1nkles (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Love Hurts Tour
Can you see??? Kekkomereq4 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was busy with other pages and I don't see the page since late August. So, this is my answer:
 * 1) Mackie designed all her costumes?
 * 2) *Sorry I can't find a cit. about it, I know only that Mackie work with her since 1971.
 * 3) What is a "tailleur"?
 * 4) *Taillur in italian mean Suit (clothing).
 * 5) This is not covered in the source and I'm wondering where you are drawing this information from?
 * 6) *I got one DVD with the Brussels show, I see that here.

I apologize if I made you wait...Kekkomereq4 (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I took the liberty of doing a prose review and then passed the article to GA.  See my final thoughts and a last question on the talk page.  Congratulations.  H1nkles (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Really thanks!Kekkomereq4 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC

GA reassessment of Bleeding Through
Hi,

I came across this article whilst doing sweeps and realised after reviewing that you had commenced this on June 19, but no review was posted. I conducted a reassessment at Talk:Bleeding Through/GA2 and after placing it on hold things were fixed and I subsequently passed it. Your startr is at Talk:Bleeding Through/GA1. So I meant no disrespect, but as you hadn't posted a review or placed an on hold tag, I went ahead. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah my fault, no problem and I appreciate the notice. I must have forgotten.  I appreciate you undertaking the review.  Thank you!  H1nkles (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review and rating
I would like to request a peer review and rating on my recent contributions on George Washington's Farewell Address.

--Epignosis (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have begun reviewing your article. You ask for a rating and I'm not sure what you mean by that.  If you wish to have a GA review then you'll need to nominate it at WP:GAC and go through that process.  I will do a peer review and then give my opinion as to where the article stands.  From what I have read thus far I do not believe it is at GA standards just yet.  There are some issues with tense, referencing, and prose that will need to be addressed.  I'll keep chipping away at the article as I have time.  H1nkles (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have completed a peer review of the article as requested. H1nkles (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you time and effort on the article, I appreciate the review and will begin working on addressing some of the issues and areas of possible improvements as time permits. --Epignosis (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure and good luck! H1nkles (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again, I have decided to step aside on this article mostly because I have come to realize that I am severely lacking when it comes to the final editing of an article and also because I believe that my time and effort would be better utilized in conducting basic research on other U.S. history articles. I have put out a call for a final edit and draft by a more skilled Wikipedia user and although I know you are probably busy it would be silly not to ask you to do so since you have provided an excellent peer review of the article. I have included some of my final advice on the article and am willing to discuss the content of the article and these final suggestions if you would like me to. Once again thank you for you time and effort and let me assure you that it was my own deficiences and in no way the content of your peer review which has led me to this decision. Thank you again. --Epignosis (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughts. One thing I do enjoy about this project is that it provides people of all different talents and abilities a place to contribute.  I also acknowledge that what you are asking is basically entrusting your hard work to another.  I will consider taking on the article though my writing focus is elsewhere, primarily Olympics articles.  Rest assured though that should, by any of my efforts, the article attain GA I will let you know so that you can receive the credit you deserve.  H1nkles (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for leaving you hanging on Anyang Halla a few months back. I got pulled away and haven't been able to get back here for more than a few minutes, I'm going to take your suggestions now and clean it up over the next few days!--Crossmr (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When you conclude a GAR...
...can you make sure you remove GAR/link from the article's talk page? Otherwise it'll appear that the GAR is ongoing. Thanks - rst20xx (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, my apologies, I do try to do that but I sometimes go a little too fast. I will do better at that.  H1nkles (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure 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) 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 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) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Florida State University
Thank you very much for your review of the article. It has been some time since I worked through it and now is as good a time as any to update it. I will work through the various issues you have raised as I can and would ask you to hold off on judgment until I am finished. Please contact me on my talk page if you need to. Sirberus (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, just checking in on this review, I don't see much work done yet. I can extend the hold if necessary.  Please advise.  H1nkles (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the article and I believe most of the concerns you have have been addressed. I am not finished with the cites (an endless task as when I review the existing ones I find ways to improve the work and this leads to new writing, new cites...new information...new cites...you get the picture) but will continue to chip away at them.  Please let me know if you think the article is now worthy of GA re-certification.  Thanks! --Sirberus (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. The style of the cites is still inconsistent, but I will work on them.  A new goal for me is to make all the cites conform to WP:CITE.  Hopefully this flaw will not preclude continuation as a GA. --Sirberus (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Real life has attacked with a vengence, I'll try to look at it this weekend, otherwise it will be next week, hopefully, I will get to it though and I do thank you for your work on the article. H1nkles (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How does the article look now? I've spent some time cleaning up the various issues you presented. --Sirberus (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review European monarchies
I'm currently on holiday (until 23 August) and have only limited internet access and limited time, so I don't think I can make the corrections in time – I hope someone else will be able to...? — Nightstallion 11:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem I can extend the hold. H1nkles (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

GAR of Alcohol in the Bible
Please see Talk:Alcohol_in_the_Bible/GA1. Thanks! --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to, I'll put my comments in the section you have referred me to. Cheers.  H1nkles (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Forward Intelligence Team
Hi, I've had a go at improving the article and getting it more neutral. Do you think you could take another look and leave any comments? Sorry for being rather slow on the uptake - been a bit busy and it's taken a while for me to work out a way of sorting the article out. Thanks Smartse (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've passed the article, I felt it was good enough for GA though still a bit unbalanced, you can read my thoughts on the talk page of the article. I put it under Law, Ethics in WP:GA, if you can think of a better place to put it, go ahead, that's the best category I could find.  Thanks H1nkles (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open 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 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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) 19:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

HP Influences and Analogues
I've trimmed the sources. But I don't think it will ever have a picture, if past experience is any guide.  Serendi pod ous  19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work, why do you doubt it will have an image? What past experience are you referring to? Should I just read the talk page posts?  H1nkles (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it has been discussed on that talk page. But every image I have ever put up for that list has been taken down. I believe the response from one user I queried was "some pages don't have images and never will."  Serendi pod ous  11:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, ok, I'll note that on the review and finish it up. H1nkles (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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) 00:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

GAR: Mythical origins of language
Hi. I have concerns about the above article, and intend to start another GAR. I saw you did a GAR back in June for sweeps, and got some improvment done in the sourcing. I think other areas now need a significant amount of work - if you have any comments, agreeing, or thinking i am being too strict, or see more areas needing work, your input would be welcome. Thanks! Yob  Mod  14:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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) 18:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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) 18:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

V. S. Srinivasa Sastri
Hi! How are you? do you remember me? I just wanna ask you if you could review V. S. Srinivasa Sastri article which I have recently nominated for a GA. I will not be able to frequent Wikipedia as I do not have an internet connection at home and can only log in occasionally and for short periods of time from internet cafes. Still, I guess there are people around to keep an eye on the article. In case, there is any major sourcing issue or any thing which demands my intervention I will do so whenever I happen to log in to Wikipedia. Normally, I do visit Wikipedia once or twice a week.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 08:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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) 18:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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) 03:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu
Thank you for reviewing Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu a few months ago. I note that no one from WPMA has addressed your comments yet, and the article is outside my expertise, but I will update the article's status following your review. Thanks for your time and efforts. Janggeom (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Games as TFA?
Hello, I just thought I'd let you know that users have been discussing articles that could potentially run as TFA during the 2010 Olympics here. I think there's a good chance Ice hockey at the Olympic Games will run on February 28 (date of the men's gold medal game), but there's the possiblity that another will run on February 12 - the opening day. The main Olympic Games article has been mentioned as a possiblity for the 12th, so if you would like to comment, or if you were hoping to have it run at a different time, your input would be welcome. -- Scorpion 0422  20:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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) 03:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweeps
Thanks for continuing to help out, I, and others, appreciate it. I'll be sure to send you out any more updates we have, but hopefully there isn't going to be any more after this month or the next. I'd really like this to be done soon. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, glad to see you back! I believe I transferred and took care of all the oustanding reviews save Alcohol in the Bible, which I never got around to and was rather dense :P I migrated it to my running total, but you can slot it back to your count and finish it off :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you my friend, since I really left them hanging you can certainly keep them. I note that Alcohol in the Bible is left open for another review.  What do you think about putting up for a community reassessment.  I did put a lot of time into that review and I wouldn't mind putting it under my total but of course that isn't the most important thing here.  I do know that it is a very contentious and dense article with a lot of very "touchy" issues.  A community reassessment may be the ticket, if there are other editors willing to touch it.  What do you think? H1nkles (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be fine by me... I took one look at the issues on the GAR page and kinda' was scared off... :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha yeah, that's what I'm afraid of, even by putting it up for community reassessment. Oh well I'll put it up and give it a shot.  Thanks.  H1nkles (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations on Ice Hockey at the Olympics Main Page status
Thank you, and thanks for all your help. I felt kind of bad when requesting it for the main page, because Olympic Games would have worked just as well, though this is a unique opportunity for the IH article. I expect the nationalist debate to return within the next few weeks, especially if Russia wins the gold (and there's a good chance that will happen), and hopefully I won't get blocked this time. -- Scorpion 0422  16:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha yeah well I think we all get a bit protective of our articles and I don't blame you for pushing the boundaries in your defense of what you felt was right. Oh and I'll be shocked if Canada doesn't win, though stranger things have happened, just ask the Russians :).  H1nkles (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the nationalists got an early start this time. --  Scorpion 0422  16:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Crap, well I'll keep half an eye on it when I'm online and do what I can. As you said, once it hits the top spot and probably throughout the Games it will be a target.  We can only do our best right.  H1nkles (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get why they only seem to go after the hockey pages. They don't seem to care about other sports that both nations excelled in, like figure skating or biathlon. -- Scorpion 0422  16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, perhaps hockey is seen in a different light, point of national pride and all that. I'm not sure.  But your observation is very interesting.  And I know that putting the article on the main page will bring out all those with an axe to grind.  I've been spending the last few minutes getting reacquainted with the issue, such a small thing really.  It's amazing!  Unfortunately I live in California and the main page flips over sometime in the middle of the night for me.  By the time I get on in the AM the battle will already be heavily engaged.  Good luck my friend and I'll have your back.  H1nkles (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. I wonder if anyone will bring up the fact that Russia isn't mentioned in the main page blurb (it was in my proposed version, but Raul trimmed it due to length issues), although the Soviet Union is. -- Scorpion 0422  16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sure it will be noticed. I guess just point to the editing done by Raul if it raises people's hackles.  Have you thought about protecting the article?  Just a thought.  H1nkles (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried adding "other medal winning nations" to the blurb. As for protection, I would request it, but there is a rule that TFAs should only be protected if there is very heavy vandalism. -- Scorpion 0422  16:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok yeah I figured they want to put their best foot forward on the Main Page, it would be unseemly to have protected articles out there. I guess we'll just have to be diligent. H1nkles (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Timoshenko
Hi there, H1nkles. I'm pretty much finished revising the Murder of Russel Timoshenko article, per you suggestions here. I did have one comment about the map, which you can see on the talk page. I want to thank you for your very helpful suggestions, they really improved the article. Let me know over on the nom page if you see anything else that should be reworked.— DMCer ™  21:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll take a look at it. H1nkles (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I finished a second review, the article is coming along but I did find a few things that I missed previously, sorry. H1nkles (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. My second revision is complete, thanks to public computers. Let me know if you spot anything I overlooked. — DMCer ™  18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Delist
No problem, go ahead, just remove the entry under my total :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! H1nkles (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Something rather interesting
Yesterday Ice hockey at the Olympic Games had 44,000 page views. This is almost 20,000 more views than it got on the day it was the TFA. On that day it had a very shocking and disappointing 26,000 views, but has consistantly gotten 15,000 views ever since. I guess I picked the wrong day to have it as TFA, there wasn't enough Olympic spirit yet. -- Scorpion 0422  00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, my only guess is the effect of the US/Canada hockey game. BTW what is the sentiment up in Canada after that game?  I hope there isn't panic, Canada has the best team in the tournament without a doubt.  The stories are certainly developing and they are very compelling in the hockey tournament.  Perhaps it should have been put up for Main Page on the gold medal game day as originally planned.  Oh well, there's always four years from now.  H1nkles (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my guess as well. I think a lot of people see it as Brodeur's fault, though I disagree. I think the loss might serve as a wake up call to the team that while they are the best team, they can still be beat, and hopefully that motivates them to keep winning. It worked in 2002, when the team had a worse loss against Sweden. -- Scorpion 0422  00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I think Canada is back! 7 to 3 beating Russia.  Whew.  Should be an interesting semi and final!  H1nkles (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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) 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Paralympics Task Force

 * Started a Paralympics task force: WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics. Please feel free to edit and or join. Bib (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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) 22:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image review for 1956 Winter Olympics
I think that those images would be fine at FAC. I'm not as much as an expert as User:Elcobbola, but seeing as they are pictures by an Italian photographer (as seen by the fact that they are in the official Italian report) and given the upholding of the PD-Italy template, they count as free-use in America. The only question, therefore, is whether they are "artictic" photos or just regular photos, but given that they were used in a report rather than published as "art", I think that counts for the 20-year rule. What a weird copyright law- every time I learn more about copyright laws in other countries for photos then used in the US, my head starts to spin. Good luck with the article, and with your Olympics project! -- Pres N  22:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

1956 Olympics
Are we now removing the links to the Olympic web site for the games in question? When I started editing, External links for most of the games contained a commonscat entry (the template for this says it should be placed there) and the official site (which is usually considered an external link), and most didn't work because the IOC site had just been revamped, which is why we created the template. I am not reverting your edit at this time, but I'm not sure I understand it unless we are planning to change the general layout of the main articles (which, IMHO, should be consistent). Donlammers (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is currently in FAC, the review is here. I removed the external link per the recommendation of a reviewer who said that since I use the link as a source in the article I shouldn't include it as an external link.  I'm all for consistency so if you feel strongly that the link should be in the external links section would you kindly make that suggestion at the FAC review page so that it can be on the record there?  Also I really appreciate you coming here to discuss the issue rather than just reverting the edit, I wish more editors would do that.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 17:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yah, that occurred to me and I found the FAC page. Also, you've been doing a lot of good edits (I have a watch on most of the past Olympics articles), so I'm not going to revert something just on the basis that I disagree, when it's clearly not vandalism. I'm not sure I've seen anything that says what the referenced editor says, but I will need to poke around to be sure (I'm still relatively new at this). Then again, if it gets the article FA status, I probably won't argue too hard. Sorry, I may not get to do much else for a day or two as I'm in the middle of several other things. Donlammers (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FAC is a tricky balancing act. Thanks again for your help and discretion.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 18:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I posted a comment, hopefully not too controversial. We shall see what happens. Donlammers (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed to support, well done. Not a fan of alt text at all myself. Dincher (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your commitment to FA reviewing. H1nkles citius altius fortius 18:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Video game refs
I got your point. The fact referenced is part of a trivia that you obtain my scouring the map. I'll go remove the refs I placed elsewhere. Sorry. Buggie111 (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is that this article is right now a Featured Article candidate. As a result every part of the article is being scrutinized including the sources.  So if you can support that the video game reference is the most credible source for the information then I have no problem leaving it in.  Please reply here and we can discuss it.  In the meantime I'll look for other sources for the facts.  Also I apologize if I was a bit rude in my edit summary.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. Personally, I don't think you were mean, as it clearly stated the problems with it. For all I care, I just made a small errata. Good luck with FAC. Buggie111 (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lynn de Silva article updated
Just to let you know that I've updated the Lynn de Silva article. Basically, I've added the evangelical viewpoints, removed most references from the lead, and cut down on the overly long footnote to about one third of its original length. I'm happy to delete the Salvation subsection if the Theology section is now too long. Thanks for your detailed review! Ldesilva (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article looks great, I'll happily pass to GA well done. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1956 Winter Olympics
Hi! I very much like the article, but in general am surprised at how sparse the Winter Olympics articles are. Would something like this from a contemporary news account be helpful to add detail? Just wondering... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it's a travesty that the Winter Games are so poorly written. That is why I'm trying to navigate this one through the FA process; so that I can have a template from which to go back and fill in the rest of the articles.  This link that you have is great!  Where did you find it?  I'm always trying to figure out new sources of information and I'd be very interested in hearing where you found this.  I'll try and incorporate it and thanks for taking an interest in this little article.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 20:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I went to Google news archives and used "1956 Winter Olympics" as a search term. Most of the articles cost money, but it's always worth combing through the entire list to see what pops, like this one. One a separate note, for some reason I seem to think the men who won gold and bronze in figure skating were twins. If I'm correct, that would be worth mentioning in the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info I'll add Google news archives to my list of source searches. I'll check on the Hayes and David Jenkins, I hadn't heard that they were twins.  If so that would certainly be worthy of inclusion.  BTW the sub article on the Men's Figure skating competition was featured as a DYK today.  I note that you're a DYK contributor as well.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm wrong. They're not twins. But David Jenkins won gold in 1960, which is vaguely interesting. Now I'll go to the main page and read the DYK! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's off the main page now, it was on this morning (in the US), also of interest is that Hayes Jenkins married Carol Heiss the 1956 silver medalist and 1960 gold medalist. How's that for a bit of trivia?:)  H1nkles citius altius fortius 20:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's it! The 1956 male gold medalist married the 1960 female gold medalist, and the 1956 male gold medalist's brother won gold in 1960. That always confuses me! I've made a few more comments and left you a bit of work to do. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right on much appreciated. I'll get on it pronto!  H1nkles citius altius fortius 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics/archive2
Hi, can you revisit this FLC? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Tablighi Jamaat
Honestly, it's very good to see that at last this page is now getting closer to getting reviewed for a GA. I saw that you made some minor edits to article. You've already reviewed many articles for GAs. Can you give any general comments about it, any casual observations etc. —  Hamza  [ talk ]  09:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I'd be happy to, I'll leave those comments on the review page as well. I'm fascinated by Islam and I am enjoying your article immensely!  H1nkles citius altius fortius 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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) 21:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources to add to the collection
Hi! I was looking for images for the 1948 Winter Olympics and found this article. I imagine the image can't be used, but thought you might be interested in adding the information to your collection of Winter Olympics related sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey awesome! Thanks a ton, I'm going to be augmenting the '48 Games today, thanks to your review of the '56 Games FAC I realized that the '48 Games article needs some added info so this site is very timely!  Thanks again.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 14:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciation
Hello H1nkles, Thank you so much for the comments and feedbacks, they are very helpful for me. As you might know, I have been editing on Wikipedia for over one month, so any kinds of comments or feedbacks are very useful, and so I will learn from them. Sp33dyphil Sp33dyphil 03:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey my pleasure, it's important to help wherever possible and I do hope that you will enjoy your experience here in Wikipedia. H1nkles citius altius fortius 05:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

On the page Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnam Airlines/archive1, you asked me what a code-share agreement is, so now I'm going to answer that; Code-share agreement is an aviation terminology, which means where two airlines co-operate to deliver a flight. An airline, let's say Vietnam Airlines, is code-sharing with Cathay Pacific Airways, one of them, Cathay Pacific, arvertises the flight on its website, while Vietnam Airlines operate the actual flight, using their aricraft and flight crew. Also, the flight code of CPA (in this case) is used to on the flight; this is just the basic meaning to code-share agreement. If you have any other questions relating to aviation, please feel free to ask, because I am a commercial aviation fanatic. ;) In addition, I've got a question relating to tables in articles, where do you get all the codes for colours, used for highlighting the first row of a table? Please expect a lot of change to the article Vietnam Airlines during the next two weeks because it'll be the holidays in Victoria, Australia. Sp33dyphil 07:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right on thanks for the information, I always wondered why sometimes I was flying on one airline but the flight code was for a totally different airline. Now I know!  Regarding your question about color for tables here are a few links to help get your started: WP:COLOR - this page will help with font colors and also some basic information about colors used in WP.  There are also good links at the bottom of this page.  See List of colors - the list of colors will give you a good idea of what some of those codes will produce.  Regarding how to put color into tables I'm not great with tables so what I do is steal from articles that have acceptable tables, so here are some examples of Featured lists/articles that have color in tables.  If you need more input on how to format the tables using color let me know.  Also when using color keep WP:ACCESS in mind.  Color should be used wisely and sparingly.  Usually with color less is better than more.  I hope that helps and feel free to ask away if anything comes up.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1948 Winter Olympics
Is now a GA. Nice job with the expansion. In case you're intending to take the article to FAC I may tweak the prose a bit (to prevent prose related comments) if you don't mind, but really nothing jumped out regarding GA quality. Congratulations. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks a ton! I'm not planning on making a run at FAC with this article, the official report for the 1948 Games, which I relied on heavily for the 1956 Winter Olympics, is much less detailed and in French.  I'm content to leave it at GA.  I'm very grateful for your review of both of the articles, they are better for your input, and I'll show my appreciation shortly.  Thanks.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly, it's a subject I know well, so I'm happy to see these articles promoted. Good luck with the others. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the pretty award. It's nice to be awarded for something so enjoyable! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, being a reviewer myself it is often a thankless job so whenever I come across an editor doing good work I try to acknowledge it. Keep it up!  H1nkles citius altius fortius 20:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Jhalkaribai
Hi, Thanks for reviewing Jhalkaribai. I've read your review thoroughly. I will make the changes in the next 3-4 days as time allows. Thanks once again.  Shivashree ·  talk  07:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: When a Peer Review is finished question
Hi H1nkles, first off, thanks for your reviews. As far as closing a peer review goes, there is a bot that takes care of all that. It is and it archives reviews that have not had a non-ninor edit in the past two weeks, or that have not had an edit in the past two days if it is over 30 days old. It also archives PRs if the article is listed at FAC or FLC. The person who intiated the PR can also archive it when they feel they are done. Generally reviewers do not worry about archiving the PR - I know I do not watch PRs I review (and leave a note to that effect at the end of my reviews). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say that if a PR is listed on the backlog, it is fine to remove it from the backlog after you leave substantial review comments (no bot for the backlog). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I didn't know if I had to finish the review prior to removing it from the backlog, good to know that I can remove it after I've done a large part of the review. Thanks. H1nkles citius altius fortius 03:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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 106 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 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)