User talk:Hamiltonstone/Archive 4

Cloud Gate FAC4
I have responded to your concerns and hope that you might now feel comfortable supporting the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I have switched to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Review request
Would you be interested in reviewing Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick? I plan to FAC it relatively soon, don't see the point of doing the GA lottery, but it would be good to have it looked over by another outsider for comment and address. If you don't have the time that's no bother. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I should be able to do that, so if you want to put it in the lottery, I'll pop by there and draw our your number! hamiltonstone (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Alright ... have done it. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Great power GA review
Hey, sorry about taking so long to reply back. Like the message on my talk and user say, I will have a hard time getting on the internet during the summer this year. However, I'm back for a couple of days. I don't know what happened to Phoenix though. Give me till the end of the week for me to make the changes you suggested on the GA review. By the end of the week, you can decide if it passes or fails. Thanks for reminding me about this. Deavenger (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm happy with that. Will check again in a week or so. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just started working on the article again (busy week for me in real life), but I'm asking someone who helped on the same project before help me now. Can you extend it to July 12 or 13th before you decide if it passes or not? Deavenger (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Walter A. Brown Trophy/GA1
I have replied to your comment, please take a look. Thanks— Chris!  c t 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I withdrew this nom. Could you close it for me? I've appreciate it.— Chris!  c t 01:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the Mumbai GA review
Hello Hamiltonstone. Thank you for the excellent and tough review :-), and the concluding edits. I have added the first para of the Culture section, the 'big picture' introduction. This article was promoted to FA status way back in 2005. The editors thought since this is a FA, it needs no further improvements. Even elevating it to GA status was a very difficult task. This is not the case of only Mumbai, but all other articles promoted in 2005-6. In its current state, I think The article definitely is a GA. Thank you again, Kensplanet TC 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Southern Group
Re the logo, you need to complete a Fair Use Rationale - see e.g. the logo at General Electric.

Re the review, my impression is that the GA nom may be premature as the outcome of adminstration is not yet known. Although I don't know Aussie business law, I expect the outcome(s) be various combinations of: return to normal operation after agreement with creditors; whole or partial takeover as going concern (looks unlikely as the other firm in the same business has folded); sale of assets to meet debts as far as possible. How long does it take to resolve such cases? --Philcha (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I in fact failed a GA nom for this kind of reason a couple of months ago (California Proposition 8 (2008). However, the WP guidance on this refers to "a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint". This insolvency will take months to reach the stage just of determining whether to wind the business up or not, with others suggesting the whole mess could take years to fully resolve. The only definite dates that exist are for the reporting of the parliamentary committee inquiries, however they don't have any direct bearing on events - they effectively only have the status of expressions of opinion of a group of members of parliament. For this reason, I decided to proceed. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I remember somethign at WT:GAN about California Proposition 8 (2008), can't remember who raised it.
 * I'll start the GA review some time to-day, after I've dealt with some "real life". --Philcha (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. And it was me at WT:GAN, on this very issue: here. Thanks for helping out. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought it was you :-) --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can present all the info by Mon I'll be seriously impressed. I'd be happy to wait until Fri 17 July if needed. Getting a GA together on this will help editors working on other recently failed companies, which is a rather hot topic at present. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted comments on all sections. --Philcha (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Drop me a message when you and Gillyweed have done. --Philcha (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that, since neither of us is an accountant, we could do with some expert input. An Aussie account would be ideal, if you know of one. Otherwise I think I know where to find a UK accountant. --Philcha (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it still isn't working for me, mainly because of structure issues. It might be worth withdrawing the nomination so you can work on it without someone breathing down your neck. --Philcha (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked the advice of an experienced GA reviewer, as I know I can sometimes be rather demanding. He said the article looked GA standard apart from the need to explain how GS's type of MIS works. --Philcha (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Faith
Hi,

Swaminarayan seems to b coming out well - luks much better. Looking ahead, thanks for ur views on Swaminarayan Faith - that article clearly needs a lot more work b4 a GA nom. Once we are done with the Swaminarayan GA review, could I please req u to Peer Review the Swaminarayan Sampraday article. Clearly - the major stumbling blocks are 3-4 Citation needed tags - which I am working on and copy editing is req. Otherwise, a detailed peer review would help us take note of other major issues. Thanks, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - will take note. I would still req u to keep in mind a PR fr the Sampraday article - at your leisure - there is no hurry. Having some background aftr the GA review, I feel u wld b the perfect outsider fr it. Cheers, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Choral symphony at FAC
Just wanted to let you know that I nominated this article for FAC. Thanks very much for all the time you put into the article, which was a lot; I greatly appreciate it. Jonyungk (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Swaminarayan
Please take a look, we have answered most of your queries and acted on your comments. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help and patience! Was gr8 working with ya - and hope to continue to do so in the future!! Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 10:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. It was great working with you.  And WP:Swaminarayan will work with you in the future World (talk • contributions) 19:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you deserve this for your effort

Re: Maiden Castle, Cheshire
Thanks for taking time to review the above article, I've replied to your comments on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Query re some of your GA noms
I have fixed the images. Apparently, a user applied script-assisted formatting that changed the dashes in the images. Dough4872 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wedding industry GAR
Hi. Regarding your review of Wedding industry, if you check the quick-fail criteria, you'll see that the article doesn't really meet the bare requirements for a review and should be failed. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It's refreshing to find someone who actually cares about improving the encyclopedia and helping editors do it -- all at the same time.  I salute you. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I know they will all fail the GA, but the students will learn a lot from those reviews. Indeed, teaching them about those issues is exactly my intention, although to be honest, in a month-and-a-half summer class there is not enough time to do anything well :( In the fall I will be teaching a regular class, and I hope that one will have a real chance of getting some GAs. Here, a realistic aim is somewhere around C/B, but unfortunately, there are no working reviews for those. Once again, thank you for your interest. PS. I will use your excellent review in my class tomorrow. The assignment page is here, I've added appropriate template to the article talk page. PPS. At this point, two more articles have been nominated: History of the family and Reborn doll. PPPS: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Samlesbury witches GA review
Thanks for undertaking this review. I've addressed most of your concerns, I think, but I'm not certain that I'm seeing fully eye-to-eye with you over the Modern interpretation section. I've tried to explain in the review what I believe to be the purpose of this section, the interpretation that a modern historian would put on the events of 1612, not specifically Potts' account or the trial itself, but putting the events into a contemporary context with the benefit of hindsight. With that in mind I think the title is OK, and in fact in line with the structure of Pendle witch trials.

Where I do think you make a valid point is that it may be useful to expand a little on the Protestant vs Catholic views of witchcraft, as that's at the root of Potts' airy dismissal of Sowerbutt's evidence, which I'll try to do later. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm done. Let me know what you think. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough review, it's much appreciated. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Caledonia
It would be a slightly different thing in any case. Caledonia, although used to mean Scotland, never meant Scotland and in "academic" usage still doesn't, so moving that article would be changing the topic. It'd be like calling Donnchadh Donn Corci; well, not really, as people don't overlap ... but the names at least have the same first element. :) Incidentally, the territorial issue exists in this article to some extent. You may notice convoluted phrases that avoid using the term "Scotland" as if it were contemporary ... "Scotland" in the 13th century still meant a land that you entered when you crossed the Forth (though there was developing minor usage of the term to mean all the land ruled by the Scots). ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In relation to your post on the FAC, I'll respond here so as not to encourage more digression. The idea that Donnchadh is a "Gaelicization" is preposterous. To use your example, it's like saying Marcus Antonius is a Latinization of "Mark Antony". Describing these things thusly, as Xandar did, reminds me a little too much of the way modern Russians talk about their Finnic and Turkic countrymen, as gentes sine cultura (peoples without culture), in the manner of Samuel Johnson, whereas in fact Gaelic was the most written down vernacular in Europe in the period, and the name and spelling of Donnchadh is attested from Late Antiquity onwards (e.g.). By contrast the name Duncan didn't exist in this period. It's the kind of assertion that just makes you ... erm ... sigh. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that was what I thought, thanks.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, the only editors who do significant work on the Scottish history articles for this region and period are myself and User:Angusmclellan. There are no specific guidelines for any of these articles, and wil likely never be any and none are needed ... both of us agreeing on the point. And neither of us do anything more than follow good histriographical practice, such as that outlined in the Scottish Historical Review MoS guideline (section ii). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only two editors... but at FAC, plenty of experts (i'm putting my hand up there, not jumping on Xandar, with whom I worked successfully to deal with another difficult FAC and for whose contribs there I was grateful). I think your point that you are, as well as being consistent with WP MoS, also following the SHR MoS, may be one worth making at the FAC if the issue continues. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think our definition of "expert" might differ. Read some of what he's said out loud in a German accent, change "Gael" to "Pole", and you might get an idea of how crazy he sounds to me and an siarach. When you say stuff like "quaint neo-celtic spelling" and blow off historical nonsense like there's no tomorrow, you flag yourself, and anything serious or otherwise weighty you might say just gets missed or sounds tendentious. I think people begin to take themselves more seriously than they should when they get used to people quivering over their every word so they'll change their oppose to a support and give them a fancy star. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well. "expert" was meant to be ironic... :-) See you back at the reviews. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cleanup"
Regarding this edit: Thanks for helping out but didn't you notice my request to add one more hook? We need to have eight hooks per update these days, per this discussion. Otherwise how are we going to deal with backlog later. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, I thought I'd just missed something when cleaning up. I'll fix what I'm doing in the prep areas now, but am i able to add directly to a queue area? Hadn't seen the discussion re 8 hooks. Fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure you can, if you are an admin. (I am too tired to check your status) I've added two more hooks already to one of your updates in the queue area. I see you are concerned with Main Page balance - actually it can easily be manipulated by adding or removing a hook or two on ITN, so please do not worry. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I suspected - no i'm not an admin. Thus some tired sould like yourself has to clean up after my errors :-( Will stick to 8 - and check the talk now and again. thanks for all your hard work here. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, sure I will take care of it. By the way, sould = soul? --BorgQueen (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes, OK, it seems we're all tired. I'm off to bed :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Monique Brumby
Thanks for recent help/advice on Monique Brumby at DYK.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Article in the press
Hey - hope ur doin fine. I have come across a peculiar situation, wherein a press article on the Times of India website (infact a Press Trust of India release) dated today on Rajmata Gayatri Devi is very similar to the Wikipedia article 24 July 2009 version. Infact, there is a grammatical error in the article, a closing bracket after "Cooch Behar", replicated in the newspaper article. The newspaper article does not seem to acknowledge that info has been lifted from wiki. The wiki article itself is full of glorying material which has been replicated. Is this allowed under wiki rules?!? Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 14:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Adoption parenting
If you can post a comment to creator's page, that's great. That said, tag it all you want, AfD it if it is beyond hope (I will look at it in detail tomorrow); grading deadline is tomorrow and there is always a need for some disillusionment for those few students who think that they can get a good grade by not doing anything for a month and then writing something for an extra credit assignment in the last few days (hours...). Still, there are 24h left for improvement, and I am sure we both have seen that much can be done in lesser amount of time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

LTTE
Not kidding. used to edit under his real name and on his old userpage he said that he wrote for TamilNet and google shows that his work is also on Tamil Nation. He deleted though after people came him stick about writing for the Tamil Tigers. Also, there are about 3-4 other Tamil guys who only write about SL Civil Stuff, all from the same city, and I would bet anything that Taprobanus has been encouraging the folks at the local Tamil Association/Club to join in and push POV. Yes, Tamil Net was voted in as a RS, due to the large number of Tamils.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I could take your word for that, but then i wouldn't be AGF. But I don't think anything is gained by suggesting that allegations of state-sponsored terrorist acts in cases like this should not be mentioned on WP - and to the extent that it is a debate about allegations, I would have thought sources associated with those making the allegations are OK sources, for the allegations. Trying to argue the toss about such things at an AfD is a recipe for a 'keep'. If you and others want AfDs like this to succeed, I'd have thought the focus should be on the POV and forking, not the RS - but that's just my tactical opinion, and I admit you've more experience at WP than I. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I if did not have a real life, I would take all these allegations this guy is making and made in the past and go for arbitration but fortunately, I have a life, family and a business to take care of and for the record, google search would indicate that I have written for strongly anti-Tamil tiger newspapers as well. Anyone with an opinion or a journalist is a fair target by those who have power in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The intent of these allegations indicate that it is a witch hunt towards silening opinion that is contrary to their own.Taprobanus (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it weird that yellowmonkey suggests the "3-4 Tamils guys only writing about the SL civil war" are POV pushing (and must apparently be connected to traprobanus) without any mention of the many sinhalese writers who apparently do the same thing. Shouldn't they all be connected to each other too? and to credulously suggest that Tamil's are being recruited by traprobanus for "POV pushing" is boardline paranoid if not downright frivilous. I understand yellowmonkey has contributed a great deal of his personal time to wikipedia as evident by his 24/7 edits, but very few (if not none) of the tamil editors I've come across take wikipedia as seriously to sacrifice their own time to do the things you said. As a tamil editor, I just try to make sure the articles aren't one sided. And for the record tamil net was voted a QS, not a RS, just like defence.lk .--Icemansatriani (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your contributins. As I said in my reply to Yellowmonkey, to accept his claims about Taprobanus would not assume good faith on my part, and I'm not accepting his claims. Taprobanus, your real life identity is not being shared here, either by you or others, which is as it should be. Of course, that means I have no idea whether either Yellowmonkey's claims about your writings, or your claims, have any weight, but just to be clear: I'm not asking. I am sorry how aspects of these discussions have turned out, and I can see there are people on both sides of this debate who have been involved for a while and are impatient with what gets said. Like taprobanus, i have a family and a job etc and don't want to spend all my time here. That s why my focus at the AfD was on whether the article should be deleted or merged as per WP's policy on deletions. Thtat remains my focus. I remain of the view that the article is inherently POV as it stands; that the material belongs in other articles such as Sri Lankan civil war, and I still believe no compelling arguments (rather than 'votes') have been made to the contrary. I will do my best to not encourage some of the heated views that were expressed at the AfD (while i favour deletion, i hope you will see that i have discouraged some of the pro-deletion arguments there and here); in return i ask if you will consider why it is you want this article to exist, rather than ensuring the content is in other, suitable, articles. As is the case for articles related to the middle east, the current approach looks very much like POV-pushing. To be clear, I will say the same of articles from the other 'side' of the SL debate, and if you point me to them, I am willing to take the same position in any AfD discussions on them (indeed, willing to initiate those AfDs if necessary). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FARs
I see that you have edited a lot of Australian topics and written Australian GAs and now participate at FAR. Are you interested in helping to fix up some Australian FAs. There are a lot there that will wind up at FAR soon, eg see the WP:URFA and the 2005 section, especially Australia and Canberra. There hasn't been an Australian demotion for 2 years but that might change with so many articles falling behind :(  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that pre-emptive action would be more comfortabl  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Livy
Livy is (substantially) our only source for Attalus, as far as I can see. He can be supplemented by a few sentences in Polybius (Attalus' reign is outside his period of interest), and a few (generally much worse) sources, like Justin and Diodorus and Dio Cassius; inscriptional evidence, as usual, is helpful, but will not replace a narrative source. But there is no reason to believe his claims are false, as far as I know (and this is the only real reason to consult a secondary source, to see if there is part of Livy's story that is open to doubt). We are not in the position of a modern historian, who can consult many histories and has archives to weigh against them all.

This is not uncommon; most Hellenistic rulers are no better off, and some are much worse.

But explaining this badly, as Theramenes does, is no better than being quiet, and may be worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John Young (businessman)
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Hasan Nuhanovic
I've reworded the text of the Hasan Nuhanović article. "Promise" is in fact a neutral term in the context since the parties concerned agreed to be bound by the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 819 and various other UN and NATO Resolutions. Opbeith (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA submission Socorro springsnail
Hi Hamiltonstone,

Thanks for taking the time to write me/us some notes about the recent submission of the snail article. I should explain that at WikiProject Gastropods, this article and the love dart article are our very first attempts to get any articles up to Good Article status. Because of this we are not used to the process, and not sure what it involves. Please excuse User:Snek01 his rather trenchant tone: he is a scientist from the Czech Republic who has done an enormous amount of very good work on the gastropod project, however he is not always socially subtle or diplomatic, as is true of many scientists and mathematicians. It is certainly true that within most of our species articles in the gastropod project, we do tend to use a lot of headings, even though there may sometimes be only a small amount of information under some of them. This is because when you are describing thousands of species of snails and slugs, many of which are little know to science, it seems to work better this way, in the sense that it is clearer for someone who comes to the article wanting to see and use the information. (I do understand that the MoS generally suggests continuous prose if the sections are small.) Anyway, I wanted to say thanks again for your suggestions and I have already tweaked the article a little bit based on your ideas. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello! I am sorry if I was trenchant. I am not good at English and I use "bad" instead of "it could be better like this" and I use "excellent" instead of "seems to be quite good". Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there, nice to hear from you both. This will all get sorted out I'm sure. Always good to have a scientist being straight to the point! Maybe I was trenchant too, in which case I, too, apologise. You might take a look at some other Good Articles that are about biological organisms. i suggest you follow a pattern from some of them rather than creating one from scratch for the gastropods in particular. It is true that the organism articles do not all follow the same pattern, however you will see they mostly use more general headings than you are proposing. Some examples to check could include Epaulette shark or Chorioactis geaster. There is a full list of organism GAs at Good_articles. An example of an organism listed at GA which probably shouldn't be listed and may lose its listing at a GA review is Japanese Spitz. For your springsnail, I would suggest you amalgamate the first paragraph of "original description" with "taxonomy". Then amalgamate the type description with "shell description" and "anatomy" into a single "description" section. i would amalgamate "feeding habits" and "life cycle", and perhaps add a sentence about the lack of information and the reasons for it, and call that "biology". Possibly amalgamate "distribution" and "habitat". This is not because they are too short - they are long enough to each be a section - but because the subject matter already overlaps. The "threats" and "conservation" sections are probably OK as they are for now.
 * I hope this helps and I will try and keep an eye out on how things are going. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very kind reply. I attempted to implement your suggestions just now, or something very similar. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it turns out that what I did was reverted by Snek01, but I tried at least. Invertzoo (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that revert, which I think is a mistake. I was going to pop in and try and build on your work, but I don't want to come in to an edit war. It would be good if the two of you and some other science article editors could have a chat about the issue at the article's talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have to inform you about this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods. Take some time for days for your response if you want to write down anything other than "OK". Anyway, we want to get some opinions of other editors, as you have written above. --Snek01 (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)



Hamiltonstone, Hekerui has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thank you for the fixes and improvements of the Brij Narayan/Deep Forest album articles. Hekerui (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused
Just confused about this, but no real problems - " can't publish if it wasn't complete" but it reads that it was published after completed: "Once "Burnt Norton" was completed, it was published". Or was that referring to something else that I missed? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your text was accurate; my point was merely that it is redundant. The article is telling us that the poem was published in the 1936 collection. I simplified the text on the grounds that if the poem was published, then I think we can take it as read that it was completed. For me, this arose out of a desire to copyedit the passage more generally, and there's other copyediting i'd like to do. I've canvassed some of those issues on the GAR page, and I'd like to work with you on it this week, but see the caveats i've placed on that talk page. best wishes. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I just thought you said I misstated something and I was a little confused about what I got wrong. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I responded here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I made more fixes to the text. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See if that rewrite clarifies everything. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Williams FAR
Hi Hamilton, I fixed a few of the points you raised, but there are others I don't understand. Would you mind clarifying? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Williams
Thank you, and don't be embarrassed. It's easily done with the shortened ref form in footnotes. I actually prefer posting the full citation in footnotes for that very reason, but others have told me off for repeating long citations, so I switched to the shortened form. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Medieval art
Thanks! Glad you liked it Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick
Thanks for your invite. I'm afraid my time spent on WP is very limited these days due to many reasons. I missed Deacon's FAC completely but wasn't surprised to see those who refuse to engage on the article's strengths and qualities and get bogged down in nomenclature; just beggers belief. I'm away for the best part of three weeks from tomorrow, but I hope to have internet access for some of the time so If I do, I will check out your contributions log and participate when and where I can. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Foxy Lady and the other albums of Cher
Hi! I started to work in the Foxy Lady article. I've correct the two issues and Like her previous album were released only two singles isn't necessary. So for the cit., I know that "The article's main deficiency is in its referencing.". The Cher.com official site is closed, and the only sites available for infos are Cherscholar.com, JustplainCher and TV.com (only for some albums.) For justplaincher, is a fanmade site with some reviews. The Cherscholar site sometimes used Cher cit, see here and here. As for the books cit., I live in Sardegna and here is very difficult to find english books or others, but the last month I've order a book, Cher by J. Randy Taraborelli and here there are more more ref. I also know that my English sucks, but I am the only user that edit the articles about Cher, I can't find other users and I don't understand why... So I'll wait your answer, Bye! Kekkomereq4 (talk • contrib) 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Great power
You placed this article on hold at WP:GAN on May 29, 2009. The last activity on the review was in mid-July. Please update the article's review status as either pass or fail. Thank you! Dr. Cash (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Power
Hey Hamilton. I think you can go ahead and fail it (if it indeed is a fail) as I won't be able to do anymore editing, and I'm retiring from editing as of today. I'm sorry we wasted so much of your time with this GA review. Nice meeting and knowing you. Deavenger (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hamiltonstone. I couldn't find a link to the recent GA review of "Great power". Could you point it out, please? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Great power/GA2
 * Thanks. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well thank you! That was the most difficult review I have had to do, and I wasn't sure I had succeeded, so I am glad someone thought the job was OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dying Swan
Thank you for taking on the review! I enjoyed researching and writing the article. I've revised it in accordance with your recommendations and hope the article meets with your approval. Best! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the promotion to GA! Indeed, I hope your wife shares her insights and knowledge with you, and you pass it on to me! There are few articles that will not stand some improvement. I will continue to search for more material on this dance and include it as I find it! Best, Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To Autumn
I responded on the FAC - I reworked the two paragraphs in question. If you think the Bewell information should be trimmed further, I won't disagree. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How does it look? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ottava, I've been busy with this for DYK - a rare moment of actually creating some content. Real life is getting in the way too. In brief, I think it's better but not great. The fix of the lead is fine, but as for Bewell etc: I'd want to re-write it, something like "Postcolonial criticism has interpreted the themes of Keats's ode in the context of British imperialism and empire. Bewell blah blah..." As for Leigh Hunt, it still needs either significant explanation or to be given the flick. Sorry. Will try and stay in the loop, and get to Little Gidding (poem)'s GAN, as well as trying to stay across the FARC for Diamond. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I chopped it down further to just - "In regards to other political aspects, post-colonial critic Alan Bewell interpreted the themes of Keats's ode in the context of British imperialism. He claimed "To Autumn" promoted the moderate climate of Britain over tropical climates." Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I can live with that. I was pretty sure that chopping it back was not the answer - that if anything it needed to go the other way, but your solution isn't bad at all. Will pop back in to the FAC. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the end, I decided that to explain the details of Bewell would be giving him too much on the topic - a lot of scholars were reduced to only a few lines on the matter. The information is probably better on a page devoted to Keats's political feelings. But thank you for your support and reviewing dedication. If you ever have any pages that need reviewing, you can drop me a line. I try to pick up whenever there is any slack and I also jump on requests. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And don't feel too rushed about "Little Gidding". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On Giraud, I don't really know about mentioning MacCarthy like that - if you look at a page like Samuel Johnson, much of the biography section is summary by biographers of different views or points. I would only limit a point if it is only one person saying it, which she is not the only one saying it. Plus, the complicated nature of the one quote at the bottom should stay quoted, as it would be impossible to paraphrase because of the complex grammar used. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, thanks for the review. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I reread the quote and I don't think it is grammatically incorrect. I will try to show you:
 * "If, the poems says, our hero's affections were fastened upon Nicolo Giraud, the affair, after all, took place in a Turkish world; he was but following the custom of the country. Once he had seen a beautiful Ganymede of fifteen attending the Turkish Governor, a Grecian youth, publicly known as the Governor's 'catamite.' Was it criminal to do what the Governor was doing?"


 * The first sentence is: The poem says "if our hero's affections were fastened upon Nicolo Giraud" then that is acceptable because "the affair, after all, took place in a Turkish world". This, is therefore excused because "he was but following the custom of the country. Once he had seen...."
 * I added in words to fill in the blanks, but the words are implied by the grammatical context. I don't think it would be possible to paraphrase this and get the nuance right, because the use of words such as "catamite" are technical terms that are heavily disputed and must be quoted as to not incur the edit warring that plagued the page and all of the other "pederasty" related pages. The section was part of the compromise and the quotes were used in order to have neutrality. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See if this clarifies the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tosh in 48
Fixed. That was fiarly straightforward  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Second one too  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your cleanup on the article HMRG Deep! I wasn't able to log on to fix it. Happy editing, Hardtofindaname 07:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
At risk of starting a mutual back-slapping society, it's you who deserves a barnstar for plodding through the review task. I really appreciate it (and am obviously thrilled with the outcome :D). Gonzonoir (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fungus at FAC
Hi Hamiltonstone,

Thanks for the message, but I'd rather not. I'm not terribly familiar with the FA process, and as I've contributed a little to the article and would be delighted to see it make FA, I'm not sure that I'd be impartial. I'm certainly happy with how my comments have been addressed by the noms, so let me know if you think I need to make that clearer. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At FAC, one of three Wikipedia people (SandyGeorgia, Karanacs and Raul654 reviews the FAC discussions every week or so and determines whether an article should be promoted to FA status. That decision is based on their reading of consensus at the FA discussion. The policy includes the comment "It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support." Therefore, if there are comments or requests for changes at an FAC page, and it is not clear whether an editor believes their concerns have been resolved, that may count against an article getting promoted. You don't have to put up support in bold type, but it can be a good courtesy to the nominators and the process if you at least drop in and put a message below your original concerns, indicating whether you believe they have been addressed. That said, i think I misread the order of the posts on the page, and see that you did indeed respond to the individual actions by Malljaja. So you have in fact basically done what I had in mind, I just hadn't worked it out in my first read through! If you did want to make it slightly clearer, you could put a line below your signature from 15:29 on 27 July, saying "All the concerns i raised have been addressed". Thanks so much for helping out at FAC. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, that makes sense, thanks for explaining that for me. I've dropped a note down the bottom of the page, since I'd made comments on several occasions.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: California Proposition 8 (2008)
You did a great job on making the article shorter, and my vote was just a flexible one wanting the article shorter. Yes I have been following the article and it has gotton huge, I am not sure yet how good article reviews work yet but I have seen articles get the good article status with subsections. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2009 (AT)
 * You are absolutely right - I am sorry if the way i wrote my posts implied that subsections / spinoff articles were a problem at GA. Rather, i just wanted to try and improve the existing article consistent with GA. To a large extent the subsection issue can be independent of the GA quality issue - I just sought to use the current discussion as a vehicle to address both. I hope you will check out WP:GAN and become a contributor there in time. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have gone through your edit summaries and have already seen what you've done. I can't say I completely agree with what you did, but for the most part, your efforts are much appreciated and very productive. I still believe that reasonable splits occur (though perhaps not the campaign section), however, and perhaps with some of the information you omitted. --haha169 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

He does it with mirrors
You are far too kind on the DYK nominations page. To quote The Beatles, it don't come easy. I've got sandbox pages with a zillion revisions to them which form a sort of "writer's history". I always fear my articles are too detailed and too long for a good Wiki article. But I err on the side of inclusion, and will let others winnow the articles down. Anyway, thanks for the very nice compliment. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Le Van Duyet
Fixed  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK Orosay
Hi - you left me a message suggesting I go back to the nomination, but I see that with a minor wording tweak it is now in the queue. I presume its been resolved, but let me know if not. Ben  Mac  Dui  09:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

James Nesbitt
Thank you very much for your help and support in getting this article to featured status! Bradley0110 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: USS Missouri grounding incident
Actually, I am far from done with the construction. That is why I did not remove the template in the first place. I assume the edit was made in good faith, and the article doesn't really need it I suppose, but there will be some major expansion and additions int he next week or two until I am sure the article can clear an FAC without me. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - yes I thought it was possible you were going to keep going, but it had been inactive for 44 hours, and I didn't want it to appear at DYK mainpage with the template at the top. So when I promoted the article to the prep area, i made sure the template was taken off. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * D'oh - I totally forgot I had this over at DYK. Yeah, its probably I good idea to lose the construction template then; we wouldn't want people to think this was an off limits article for editing. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition, but thank you most of all for an interesting little article. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you didn't figure it out already, that "interesting little article" is going to be added to a Featured Topic when Tom gets done with it: Featured topics/Iowa class battleships, WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Iowa class battleship. -MBK004 04:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK: Beverley Randolph Mason
Hello Hamiltonstone! I'd recently updated my article for Beverley Randolph Mason and suggested its inclusion in an upcoming DYK. I haven't yet received feedback, but I would like to seek your guidance as to how I could improve the article and its DYK. Thank you for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. --Caponer (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for CITV
Thanks for reviewing my DYK entry for List of programmes broadcast by CITV. In answer to your question, the expansion indeed only concerns the lead text. 03 md  11:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Wow. Thanks a lot for that barnstar. My first :). Tim Song (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here, although it's my second. :) SMP0328. (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)