User talk:H1nkles/Archive 4

Could you please review the article 'Vietnam Airlines'
Hello, I have just editted the article Vietnam Airlines, could you please have a look and give me some feedbacks and recommendations. Also, could you please tell me how you find someone's list of contributions? Don't worry about the last request;I've found the way! Thanks Sp33dyphil  01:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll be happy to, I'll leave my comments on the article's peer review page. H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can carry out the task of putting citation templates into the article-it is such a big job. There are at least fifty different references in the article. But, I'll try my best. :) Sp33dyphil 00:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've finished doing what you asked me to do regarding the article Vietnam Airlines, if you would like to see what I've done please click the following link User:Sp33dyphil/My sandbox. Thanks :) Sp33dyphil  talk 01:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm about to expand the section destinations and include citations for training and maintenance, as well as starting a new section about the airline's frequent flyer programme - Golden Lotus Plus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd like me to review your work, let me know when you're done and I'll take a look. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sharabha
Please take a look. User:Dr. Blofeld has copyedited the article. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please check. I have made some amendments. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, it is ready. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive criticism and GA pass. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck with the Cup! H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Request peer review of item
I am requesting a peer review of The Whistler Sliding Centre. It has not appeared in the Peer Review list, but I have put it in. This will be on the list shortly.

Thanking you in advance. Chris (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to review it, I am dealing with some RL concerns but will get to it hopefully tomorrow. H1nkles citius altius fortius 23:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. User:NVO did a review and I have made some adjustments from his remarks so far. Chris (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to review this article either in Peer review general or in the Olympic peer review? Chris (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No sorry not yet I'll take a look at it today. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally got Peer-review done. Sorry it took me so long to finish up, but I was waiting on the FIL report to be released on th 19th which it was. Chris (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's FA Now!
Congratulations in pushing the 1956 Winter Olympics article to FA status. It looks like SandyGeorgia promoted it but left a couple of tasks as well.

The template for the See Also section was developed mainly to make sure the information was in all of the articles, and the "variable" information (like other Olympics hosted by a country) were centralized so they were easy to update when a country got another Olympics. From the comments, it looks like it might be better to create a standard sentence for the "other Olympics in this country" part of this so that we can include it as part of the narrative (or perhaps a navbox at the bottom?). Then we would need to decide what is a "standard" set of See also references that we want (or if we want them at all). If we can make these decisions, it should not be difficult to update all the main articles to match. Perhaps in your "style guide" for these articles, we can actually include all of what's in the See also section somewhere in the relevant sections. For instance, the IOC code reference might be appropriate under the list of countries (I certainly find that handy, as I have not yet memorized all the codes).

I took a look at the table that solicited the color comment. Perhaps the Opening and Closing ceremonies could be "Open" and "Close" rather than just a dot? I guess we could also add a different symbol for the "Event competitions" (for instance, "*"). This would require us to count those, or to relabel it "One or more event competitions," but I think it would answer to the objection.

We still did not get an answer to my comment on the external link to the official site. Having thought about this for at least 3 minutes, I think we can solve this by only including the full Olympic site link for the year in the external links section, and referring only to the medals table or other sub-sections of the site elsewhere. The medals list already has a template so that we can change it if the site changes, but I can create other "sub-reference" templates the same way if we want. As for the organizing committee report (which can be a very good source), we can solve the duplication by using page-only references for inline citations, and putting the full reference in the References section. This meets the "no repetition" criteria AND puts a reference where the reader can easily find it. I just did this in the 1964 Summer Olympics article so you can see it, and it's not difficult to implement it elsewhere if needed. Donlammers (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I just noticed you already did the reference thing, with the exception that the page-only references don't link to the main reference. I can add this to the 1956 article if you want. Donlammers (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work! I am glad to see that there is another editor that understands the importance of this FAC.  It now sets the format for over 25 articles.  I figure that many of the early Games (from 1900 through 1912) will be unique articles given the fluid nature of the Games during their formative years.  Also probably starting with the 1984 Summer Games the articles will become more complex due to two realities: that the Olympic movement really started to fast track after those Games and the explosion of available information thanks to the internet.  That still leaves 27 articles (by my count) that will follow this basic format, which means we need to get the templates and common information uniform.  I think that the color issues with the calendar will need to be addressed at WP:OLY since the calendar was decided by community consensus and since it will impact just about every YEAR at Summer/Winter Games article.  My wife and I just took custody of two foster boys so my chances to edit are dramatically reduced right now.  Hopefully I'll get some consistent time in towards the middle of this week.  Thanks so much for all you've done and let's work these issues out so that we can have a coherent and consistent format for the rest of the articles that are in real need of work.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 22:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my God, there was a long column of H1nkles in the 1956 Winter Olympics history page. Sp33dyphil 22:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know that makes it look like I did more work then :). Actually I save a lot due to losing information when my editing timed out once, Arrgh!  And then also because I like to edit in the section rather than in the article as a whole, I get confused with all the code sometimes, so it's easier for me to edit in the section or sub-section, but then that means a lot of saving.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 23:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My congrats. Buggie111 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As usual it was great to work with quality editors and reviewers.  That makes the FAC experience bearable.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 23:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree about the table. There may well be better ways to do it than my suggestion, which was more or less off the top of my head. Take care your new boys -- I think you can safely concentrate elsewhere for a bit. The article made FA, and it's not going to disappear on you any time soon. More likely nothing much will happen without someone to keep pushing. Donlammers (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

2009 Royal Mail industrial disputes
Hi. Thanks for your very positive comments on the article's GA nomination and for giving it the thumbs up. I'll keep working on it over the next few days to iron out the things you highlighted. From memory I think an all out strike referred to all postal workers going on strike rather than the rolling strikes that had been the case in previous stoppages, so I'll do some tweaks to that. Also I'll see what else I can find on the background. The last paragraph can be merged easily enough. I think someone added that after I'd nominated it. I checked the information out online and the vote is apparently going to happen, although I couldn't find a reliable source for it at the time. Hopefully when it happens it should be reported in the media. Once again thanks for the feedback. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome it was a very tight and coherent article to read. Easy to assess.  I very rarely pass articles without holding them first so you should feel extra good about yourself.  Congrats.  H1nkles citius altius fortius 19:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mount St. Peter Church
Thank you for your comments on Mount St Peter Church. Beautifully presented and unthreatening! Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad my comments were taken in the spirit they were intended. I think it is important to help and guide and support so as to foster long-term contributors.  People who have good intentions but don't understand all the protocols and etiquette can get run out on a rail and that is very unfortunate.  If I can be of any further help please don't hesitate to ask. H1nkles citius altius fortius 20:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The basics of our project are described on this page Shaping the Modern World and you can see the articles we've written here, where the students have listed the articles they've edited. If you're interested in reading any and leaving comments, most are up for peer review or even GA at this point. I do appreciate the any help you can offer them. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The link to the student's articles is a red link, I don't want to offer unsolicited advice but I'd like to help. If there are student's articles at WP:PR or WP:GAC I'll happily review them, but I don't know which ones are your students.  If you wish you can have your students post a request on my talk page and I'll review what I can, but if you'd rather they use established reviewing protocols that is compltetely understandable.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review: Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008
Thanks for reviewing the article. I've finished with all your comments (i think), is there something i've missed or any other problems with the article? --TIAYN (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look on Monday, I usually don't get a lot of time to edit over the weekend. Thanks for your work.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits and reread the article. I still do not feel it meets GA standards, primarily due to an under-developed lead.  I left comments on the articles review page, please take a look.  Thanks for your work to this point.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is finished (i think) and i removed the infactual information. Anymore work to be done? --TIAYN (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Paralympic Games
Just letting you know i've started the GA review - Basement12 (T.C) 08:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks a ton, I'll head over and check it out. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

alt text for images
I saw you comments on the Peer Review of The Whistler Sliding Centre needing alt test for all images listed. Why is that? Would not the comments listed at the images themselves be sufficient enough? Chris (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the question. One of the FA criteria requires alt text.  The captions may describe the picture but alt text is supposed to generically describe what the image looks like.  Personally I don't like alt text and I find it cumbersome to put it on all the images.  But it's one of the rules so I follow it but only when I'm trying to make an FA run.  Best of luck to ya!  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Reviews
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations referencing Talk:DeSmogBlog. I thought you might wish to comment. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice, I have replied at the talk page. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Olympic notability
Relating to the discussions around the 1992 GB article I think the discussions going on at Wikipedia talk:BIO mean that WP:NSPORT may end up being the place to formalise the idea of "by nation" articles. I've outlined a guideline that could be included at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics and I'd liked to hear your thoughts - Basement12 (T.C) 09:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some thoughts at the talk page entry. Thanks for the heads up.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RE Winter Paralymic Games
Congrats on getting this article into DYK. It's quite well written and well researched.

I want to draw your attention to Talk:Winter_Paralympic_Games, where I mention the possibility of moving all the content into Paralympic Games.

I will not be taking further part in this discussion, so it may not go anywhere if nobody else agrees.

If that turns out to be the case, I hope at the very least that you will add two new sections to Paralympic Games for the winter and summer games, employing the main template.

Good work and I'm sorry to rain on your parade. :)

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 14:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Spice Girls discography
heya, thank you for your review :) i have done some big changes to the lead and was wondering if you could take a look? also, is there anything else you think could be improved? :) Mister sparky (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog
I've completed my response to your review of the article. Cla68 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review of the article and your patience and forebearance with the content dispute that occurred during the review. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure and keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions Work Finished for GAN: Frost Bank Tower Talk:Frost Bank Tower
Hello H1nkles!


 * I'm done working with your suggestions and I'm ready for you to finalize the review. Of course, since the building isn't as famous as those such as the Aon Center, there were limited sources, so I couldn't complete some suggestions, but most of them were worked out. Feel free to finalize your review at any time available. If it fails, I'll work on it once more, and when I submit it, you could review it again.

Thanks,
 * --TheAustinMan (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Second Review for Frost Bank Tower
H1nkles,
 * I'm done working with the suggestions on your second review. Feel free to either do a third review or otherwise finalize the review. It would be great to finalize the review before April, but I am not rushing you and it is okay to finalize after the end of April.


 * Have a nice day :),
 * TheAustinMan (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Third Review for Frost Bank Tower
Worked with your review suggestions, the one that you said the article failed GA status. I'm happy to tell you that it's ready for review now. Leave me a message if you want to tell me something.

TheAustinMan (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(Most Likely) The Last Review for Frost Bank Tower Poke
Poke H1nkles!

Well, I worked with what is probably going to be the last review you've put up. All of your suggestions I have made. I left a note to your post on my talk page. I see that there's 2 days left in the GAN Backlog Elimination Drive, so, if there's more problems, pitch in during that 2 day window and I'll take care of the problem ASAP.

Proud to be making Frost Bank Tower a GA article-what an accomplishment for a 10-year old! TheAustinMan (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the poke, I already made the determination on the original review so I'm not feeling the big time crunch to have it done by the end of the GAN drive. No worries or rush on my end.  I'll take a look at it and get back to you.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Another Frost Bank Tower Poke
Well, I worked with your suggestions. I removed the forum references. I didn't want to entirely remove the Austin Chronicle parts because the building is famous on a local basis and I wanted a casual's response to the tower, I didn't remove it all, but I did shred 40% of it.

TheAustinMan (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think the reader polls are inappropriate sources for this particular article. I think they are useful for showing a local feeling towards the Tower.  So I hope you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  I'll take a look and let you know.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Traditional African Medicine
Hi, I see that you expressed an interest in this article. Just letting you know that I have placed the GAN nomination on hold. Review at Talk:Traditional African Medicine/GA1. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel awful! I somehow was completely oblivious to the fact that you reviewed my article! You had so many good comments, and I am working on integrating them into my article, but wish I would have realized all this before I nominated for Good Article and made changes that could have been better with your help. If you have time, could you take a quick look at it and see if it is any better and more ready for GA then it was? Thank you so much for reviewing it; I truly appreciate the time you put into it. Mitchel2 (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, I'll take a look at it today. Keep up the good work.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for peer review
Thank you for taking the time to peer review and edit Ghost Adventures. I appreciate it and will consider your advice. Not many users have significantly edited/expanded the page lately, although it seems to gain an average rate of about 1,000 readers worldwide per day (after I saw the recent page view stats linked on the revision history). Thus, I felt somewhat alone editing it, although the series and its cast/crew have plenty of viewers/fans.

I decided to include the info on the Amazon DVD release because television needs response section suggests details on merchandise. The episodes section, which I considered separating into its own article, is evidently incomplete, so I added expand-section to the top of it.

Do you happen to have much experience and familiarity with WikiProject Television? How would you assess the quality of the article? Would it still be C-class if the episode list was a separate article? If you wish to respond, please do so here, on this talk page. Thanks, again. serioushat 06:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply I don't edit much on the weekends. I would say the article is a C-class though I would still put it up at WP:GAC to see what the GA reviewer recommends.  I would not remove the episode list since other GAs on TV shows have some sort of episode list.  I would make sure you cover each episode consistently though.  It doesn't do to summarize one episode and not the others.  If you do decide to summarize all the episodes make it one sentence per episode.  Summary style is important.  Let me know if you have other questions.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

preparing a new section for an article
Hi, I have been preparing a new section for the article on Francis Hutcheson. Would you be willing to look it over and help me with the references? I posted it on my talk page. I did the references in standard academic style, but I don't know if that is correct for wikipedia. Thanks for your help! --Other Choices (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 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) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Wow thanks! I appreciate it, I've enjoyed contributing and it's certainly helping me in my own editing.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

my next project
Hi, this has been slow work; I've finished and posted my Hutcheson section. That whole article needs to be reworked eventually, but first... For my next little project, I want to develop a stub -- Edmund Plowden (colonial governor) -- into a passable article. As a source I have one scholarly biographical article, focused primarily on Plowden's one and only notable "achievement." I want to digest this into an encyclopedia entry. Could you suggest a pattern for a good brief biographical article? What should and shouldn't it contain? Thanks again! --Other Choices (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey there good to hear that you're making progress. I'll put an answer on the article's talk page and give you a poke on your talk page.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, this explains the edit there. Which was confusing, as Plowden isn't a living person. Somewhere I have several articles on this colorful person. But it will be at least a month before I can easily retrieve them and edit. I don't think it's our BLP guidelines that the editor needs but Manual of Style (biographies). Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooops you're right forgot he isn't living, a minor detail. :) Thanks.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Grant Park Music Festival/archive1
I have responded to your concerns at Peer review/Grant Park Music Festival/archive1. Feel free to come by and respond and possibly strike resolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I made some comments and struck what was fixed. Well done and good luck at FAC.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

need some advice on how to handle a dispute
Hi, I'm having trouble dealing with an editor on the Newport Tower (Rhode Island) page. He has accused me of vandalism (in his edit summary when he reverted my reversion of somebody else's surprise deletion of some long-standing material), edit warring, personal attacks, and making edits against the consensus on the page (in a message that he left on my talk page). Of course I disagree with all of that, but so far I haven't responded to him or tried again to restore the article. So far nobody else is behaving like he is, and nobody is openly supporting him. I'm not asking you to get involved, but I'm hoping that you can tell me, what are my options in a situation like this? Thanks! --Other Choices (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have some excellent questions and situations come up that are really interesting. Let me restate what I see as the issue that you are seeking my assistance with: You are in a dispute with an editor about the validity of NEARA, but you're not seeking my thoughts on the validity of NEARA but rather on how to work with someone who is opposing you. Is this correct?  So let's look at the accusations leveled against you by this editor:


 * 1) Vandalism
 * 2) Edit warring
 * 3) Personal attacks
 * 4) Making edits against consensus
 * First Vandalism: See WP:VAND for policy on vandalism. Here's the definition: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.  The editor may claim you are doing this, but read further: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.  I think this is a key aspect that the editor is missing.  So even if NEARA is a fringe group, you are not acting in bad faith but in an effort to improve the encyclopedia so it is not vandalism (which is by it's very nature done in bad faith with malicious intentions).
 * Second Edit warring: See WP:EW for policy on this. The key that most people look for is the 3 revert rule or 3RR.  In looking at the history of this situation, one editor made the initial edits to remove the information from the "fringe" group.  You undid this removal (one revert), Openfuture then stepped in and removed the information, which you undid (second revert).  Openfuture then undid what you undid and called in vandalism.  Once two editors start undoing each other's work that would be considered an edit war, but as the old saying goes, it takes two to tango.  So if he is going to accuse you of edit warring, he would be just as guilty.  I see two reverts, which is borderline, it's not three but you know, it's close.  The fact that you stopped, and sought furhter insight was the right thing to do.  Most editors would let their heart control their head and escalate the issue, but you stepped back and I think that was very commendable.  So IMO, there is possible edit warring but it would be on both sides not just your's.
 * Third Personal attacks: See WP:PA for policy on this. What is considered a personal attack?  Threats, comments about race, gender, creed, sexual orientation, or the like.  You can read more about it at the linked page on personal attacks.  In looking at the diff linked on your talk page here is the edit summary, "undid deletions that are based on one editor's personal interpetation of "wikipedia policy""  Personal attack?  I don't see it.  I don't think you'd find many reasonable editors who would claim this is a personal attack.  I also think it is useful to learn more about the other person by viewing their talk page.  You can see how they interact on other issues.  I'll leave it at that.
 * Fourth Making edits against consensus: See WP:CONS for thoughts on consensus. Reaching consensus is a great way to resolve issues such as this.  But to make edits against consensus you have to first have a consensus to go against.  I don't see any consensus in place prior to your edits.  Now as I look further in the article's talk page, I do see other editors who have weighed in on the credibility of NEARA.  I think these opinions carry weight and could be considered consensus.  But these opinions were rendered several hours after the edit in question not before so I can't see how you went against a consensus that wasn't there.  Now I may be missing something as I haven't read the entire talk page of the article.  So if there's been other discussion and consensus reached elsewhere I'll happily revisit these opinions.
 * To sum up, no I don't think those accusations are legitimate and I don't think you need to worry about one editor leveling those sorts of claims.

The NEARA Journal obviously fails this utterly. There is no fact-checking, and the journal is if anything notable for it's complete and utter inaccuracy, like publishing Suzanne Carlssons "translation" of the spirit Pond runestones. Perhaps NEARA used to be reliable, but they definitely are not now, and your efforts to argue for it is nothing more than wishful thinking, sorry. It's pretty clear on the policy page on scholarly resurces. A RS is a secondary source that is peer-reviewed. Ph.D. dissertations are reliable (because they are vetted by peers) and a source is also reliable if get cited in several other reliable sources. NEARA's Journal is not peer-reviewed, and none of the articles on NEARA's page linked above has been cited anywhere, showing that it is not generally to be seen as reliable. They generally publish articles by happy amateurs fiddling in areas where they have little or no expertise. Whether the claims are true or not, the tone and the terms are unnecessary and usually end up making arguments worse as it puts the other person (you) immediately on the defensive. Refrain from this wherever possible. They are conterproductive to resolving the dispute.
 * So how do you handle the disagreement?
 * 1) Address the issues. Don't get into debates about interpretations of policy or whether Newport tower is pre-colonial.  Look at the issues and answer the editor's questions: Is it a reliable source according to WP:RS?  Interpretation of the policy is important, I think Openfuture's interpretation isn't necessarily off base, it needs to be peer reviewed, cited in other credible sources, it relies on secondary sources, is it in the mainstream of academic discourse.  Can you address these concerns?  I'm not going to weigh in myself on whether it's reliable or not.  Also there is a question as to whether it is a fringe organization: See WP:FRINGE for thoughts on fringe theories.  Information that goes against the mainstream isn't necessarily fringe (nor are the organizations who promote these ideas).  Remember that the idea that the earth was flat used to be mainstream.  There is no clear line where a theory (or group) crosses into the fringe, so it really is up to consensus and discussion to determine this issue.  One good way to refute the fringe accusation is to look at the contributors to NEARA.  Where were they educated?  Do they contribute outside of NEARA?  How many are there?  You're looking to add weight to your argument.
 * 2) Seek outside input: I like your idea of going to a neutral forum for input.  I would disput Openfuture's claim of neutrality.  A good place to start is WP:DRR, which will help provide an avenue to resolve to dispute.  Another is Arbitration, this is a bigger deal though and usually is lead by a facilitator who tries to get you to compromise rather than giving a judgement.  You don't need the other editor's consent to go to dispute resolution.
 * 3) Refrain from inflammatory language.  What frustrates me is when I read editors using really over the top wording to convey their point, it isn't necessary and usually throws gas on the fire.  Here's an example of what I mean (italics are mine and meant to show inflammatory language):

I think you are on the right track, stepping back and letting cooler heads prevail is always a good idea. I see that you have been engaged on several discussions in the article's talk page. My suspicion is that the feelings in these discussions are blending, which makes dispute resolution that much more difficult. Try to be objective, and try to work through the dispute as best as possible. Remember though that you aren't always going to get your way all the time (a lot of editors would be served to remember this), pick the hills you want to die on carefully. I wish you the best and please keep me posted on how things go. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your reality check on this situation. I definitely agree with your thought that the various discussions on the Newport Tower page are blending.  On the other hand, it was my recent contribution to strengthening the article's main argument (after initially challenging the article's weakness in this regard) that seems to have precipitated another editor's assault on the list of alternative hypotheses.  For me, the whole issue is serving as a much-needed tutorial on how wikipedia actually works.  I'm planning on being around for a while, so I might as well learn the language.  I suspect that, with this dispute, I might have run into a deeply-entrenched shared bias that is sometimes (but not always) at odds with wikipedia's core purpose; so I might not get my way, but it's worth a try.  Before initiating any formal dispute resolution process, I'm going to try one last time to explain myself (together with piece-by-piece restoration of the deleted material) and welcome discussion from those who disagree.  Thanks again! --Other Choices (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are certainly a credit to the project and I wish more editors were as level headed as you. Yes the actual workings of Wikipedia can be a bit messy.  We are dealing with a lot of different types of people.  I try to remember that we're all working towards the same goal and most of the editors you run across are working with the best motives.  Keep going and don't let these sorts of disputes sour your overall impression of the project.  We've lost too many good editors and we need all the good and well-intentioned help we can get.  Keep up the good work!  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Halo" Review
First at all, I want to thank you for take your time in review the article and clean it. Second, I just want to say that I've adressed your comments, exceptin' one:

"What happened to the Alternate video? Why was it shot, what was it used for? How did it go public? These questions should be addressed."

Those questions could not be answered because there is no information about it (on the web). The only information I could find were about Michael Ealy, Philip Andelman, and that this is the second video that Knowles leak in the internet (after "Why Don't You Love Me (Beyoncé Knowles song)") without a reason. So I'm sorry because I cannot resolve this problem. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 23:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First you're welcome it's a pleasure to help where I can. Second if there isn't information about its purpose then no problem, leave it as is.  Keep up the good work!  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of List of museums in Somerset
Thank you for your thorough & helpful review of List of museums in Somerset. I have dealt with some issues and will resolve others over the next few days - a trip to the library for some of the references. I will leave it up for a couple of days in case anyone else is kind enough to comment & then close it, as I hope to nominate it at FL within the next couple of weeks. I did tackle Peer review/Little Thetford/archive1 when I nominated mine & I'm currently working on Talk:Sweet Track/GA1 but will try to do some more asap.&mdash; Rod talk 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey I'm glad that the review was helpful. I'm also thankful that you're willing to tackle a couple of reviews as well.  If we can all chip in a little bit it makes the whole system work a lot smoother.  Keep up the good work and if you're following the World Cup then best of luck to England on Friday, though as a Yank I'll be rooting for Algeria (no offense).  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

peer review @ Namadhari Naik
hi H1nkles Thanks for your review. I am working on your suggestions and will get back to you soon..

Regards Tej smiles (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Answers
Firstly, the article is a collection of all the available info on the community. out of it i've tried to give it some direction to the best of my abilities. As i didnt want to claim anythng out of the reach of the evidences available, have left most of the information open to interpretation. most of this should soon change with the expected arrival of the 1rst comprehensive book on the subject. but am not sure of how much help it'll be as it'll be in Kannada. even then certain questions might remain unanswered. hence the effort to include all possible points in this article which should form a base for future researchers on the subject. About the use of Kannada words all along (they are not Hindi as you hv supposed), it is crucial for the following reasons. 1.This is the first time that these places and terms are finding references in an English media other than the Local Vernacular that is Kannada. 2. most of the names and places mentioned here doesnt click with the English speaking, net-savvy younger generation as they are completely unaware of the same. Most of these places and terms are knowledgeable to the elders in the community who dont surf or are computer literates. the idea is to create a recall value with proper pronunciation (not possible with English alone) and aid in further info collection. it can be removed once a full fledged article in Kannada wiki is available.

Lakh= 1/10th of a million. 10 lakhs = 1million and 10 million = 1 crore.

Toddy Tapping is a widespread economic activity/profession all over Indian sub continent where in the Sap is extracted and collected from the Palmyra species of trees.

About your take that the editor shouldnt opine, i completely agree and shall correct it in the Present social status section.most of these mistakes are due to the fact that when i started this page i went thru other community pages for idea and even brought in the errors involved there..

References after 21 are all books (except 24). I do understand page no.s should be provided. It'll be shortly, that was an error on my part. but not all books can be provided with the ISBN code as they simply dont hv it. ISBN is a new concept with the publishers in India, esp the State of Karnataka where Kannada books are published in any and every publishing house. The books published 10-20yrs back hv no chance of having ISBN codes...it can added if new additions are available of the same. abt ref 11,I agree Wiki cant use its own sources and hence shall remove it

What literature are you referring to? With Literature here i meant the many sources which mention the community. Most of them in Kannada, with some in English and Marathi. i have even cited some of them.

About the various Grammatical mistakes, i request you to kindly help me out. i'll try my best to correct it. I've been almost 4yrs old on Wiki but still yet to get well versed in all these. N i dont see it happening any soon:)

About Martial status, its a fact here today in India that almost every community (apart from the Priestly Brahmin caste) is claiming a Martial status. it seems by doin so they want to elevate their status. My belief is that there no such race/Community as Martial. Each and every population at a point of time in History had to take up arms for the sake of their livelihood. this was the simple truth that prevailed not only in India but also in Europe as seen in the Peasant armies. I just wanted to point out the different occupations taken up and the predominantly martial occupation resorted to by the Halepaiks(their name itslef indicates it, ie Paiks=Soldiers). But also i didnt wan2 claim the Kshatriya status as all communities today are in a race to claim(its one of the higher divisions in the ancient fourfold division of classes). Its really senseless what people do to just experience a sense of glory. Finally, i have to confide one thing.writing this article has exhausted me of all my English vocabulary. hence u see so many mistakes. and its not an easy job also esp when you are the only one doing it all. The article would have really benefitted with other like minded editors apart from the Vandals and POV pushers.

i once again thank you for sparing your time to review the article and list your views. Hope i've answered most of your queries. Plz feel free to clear your doubts if any. and Also plz feel free to edit out the grammatical mistakes and help me make the article a better one. Cheers!!

Tej smiles (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I'm taking a bit of a break due to real life concerns that have totally sapped me of my time and energy to edit here. I'd love to help push this article forward, and perhaps in time I'll be able to return and do just that.  In the meantime I can't promise I'll be able to give much attention to the article but I wish you nothing but the best.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Olympian project of yours
Hi H1nkles, I was just browsing through the Featured Topic project pages when I spotted your undertaking. Citius altius fortius, is it called? Well, I just want to say that truly is an olympian task of sorts, and for you to attempt to fulfill that, that's really admirable. It's quite a number of articles involved here, but I sincerely hope you will elevate all of them to a new high, figuratively speaking. And of course, turn it into a featured topic! I wish you all the best. Cheers, AngChenrui (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Who knows, I might offer help with the Youth Olympic aspects of it. (You wouldn't mind, would you?) The 1st Youth Olympic Games will be held in my country, and I'm still very much a youth - so if you want some assistance with the YOG side of your project, you can always ring me up at my talk page. Best, AngChenrui (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts and any help is absolutely welcome. I'm taking a bit of a rest, lots of real world concerns right now.  But please have at it.  Your help and your encouragement is very appreciated.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia
Thank you very much for your review. It's a long article, so I believe you volunteered quite a bit of time to do that. Regarding citations, do you know if there is a bot that can automatically convert the standard ref format to a preferred template? There are over 100 references, so that's not something I can do by hand. thanks again! I really appreciate the work you contributed. Noloop (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question, unfortunately I'm not familiar with a bot that would do that sort of service. I really hope there is one and if you find one let me know. :)  One idea for you to consider is using the reward board.  People who have busy work stuff like this can post a reward, say a barnstar for converting 20 citations or they'll offer services like a GA review for converting 20 citations.  The numbers and the rewards are all up to you.  Formatting citations is a fairly easy task (just a lot of tedious work) so you'll probably get some takers.  It's something to consider.  Regarding the article I found it a fascinating read and very balanced and informative.  It was my pleasure to review it.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1952 Winter Olympics
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

1952 figure skating DYK nom
Hi. Have responded to your query, but am about to head to bed, so apologies in advance if I don't further get back to you immediately. Strange Passerby (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your concerns and thank you for your patience, I should have known better than to pull the copy/paste stunt. That's my error.  I also discussed the Notes/References question.  Thanks again and have a good night.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Razer (robot)
Thank you so much for your superb and detailed response to my request for a peer review. I genuinely appreciate the time and effort that went into it, and also that you have made it so clear how to improve the article. I will work towards achieving the above targets and let you know if I have any questions. Thanks once again, Countdown Crispy  ☎ ✎ 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Anything ekes I can help with just shoot me a note. It was a very interesting read. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC
I have just abstained and crossed out my support. I'm sure you know that Tony1 was the one responsible for the drastic improvement of prose reviews at FAC and if he says the prose isn't there yet, I'm in no place to sit there and disagree with him, yet. I'd definitely be willing to re-add my support when I've read over the prose a few times and think it's ready. Sorry.  ceran  thor 12:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand and no hard feelings. I knew when I saw his oppose that the nom was doomed. My concern though is that one editor's opinion can kill a nomination. That said I am up to the challenge and will do my best to find someone who can bring the prose to tony's standards. Thank you for your note I very much respect that you took the time to explain your position. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Figure skating at the 1952 Winter Olympics - Men's singles
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/1972 Summer Olympics medal table/archive1
Hi H1nkles, are you still following the above FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey I'm not going to be able to do much on it in the short term. So it would be fine to close the review and archive it.  It obviously has a bit more to do before it can reach FLC.  Thanks.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer-review
Could you please review the article William James Wanless. -- . Shlok  talk. 11:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In all honesty I'm pulling way back from Wikipedia right now. I'll see what I can do but my efforts are being pulled into real life and will likely remain in that realm for a long time to come.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Love Hurts Tour
An article that you have been involved in editing, Love Hurts Tour has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)