User talk:Hamiltonstone/Archive 6

York Park
I don't agree here with Brian either. I certainly don't agree that it's "clumsy". Thanks for your comments :)  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 22:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom?
Hey, I've given Donnie a second nom. I invite you to sign as a co-nom given the work you've done. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Bill
Hi! HJ and I were discussing The Bill tonight. I think the general consensus is that we're going to try and narrow down the live episodes to 2 or 3 sentences per episode. Do you have any other suggestions for the episodes section as neither of us are really too sure how to proceed next with this. --5 albert square (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have now included an intro sentence, which was needed: the section still lacks information about episode running times.
 * Something I had not previously noticed is that there are quite a few uncited facts in the section on the novels. Does someone want to have a look at this (including whether that is the best section for them)? Must dash. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for that, I've now included a bit about the running times (2 or 3 sentences I think it was) in the intro. I've asked HJ to run his copyediting eye over it.  As for the citations, I had noticed a few previously.  I will look into these tomorrow, if I can't find anything to cite them with I will just delete them if this is possible.  Hope you enjoyed your wikibreak!  --5 albert square (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Hamiltonstone, I've had a look at The Bill's article and I can't see any citation templates remaining? --5 albert square (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again, could you maybe pop by The Bill when you get a second please and let us know what else we need to do to get the article up to GA status? --5 albert square (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, i've been back. I've made a long-ish list of detailed queries at the GA talk page, but i hope they aren't too significant in terms of volume of work. I think we're nearly there for GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that;'s good to hear! I'm sure you'll be sick of The Bill by the time we're done! I've added a small paragraph to the episodes section and I'm going to rework the stuff about the live episodes- as I discussed with 5asq, I don't think we need that level of detail on 2 episodes out of several thousand and most of the information as it is is plot summary. Anyway, I just stopped by to sayu thanks for the copyediting, you caught a few points that I'd missed previously. Best, HJMitchell    You rang?   03:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone's nominated Category:Actors appearing in The Bill for deletion. If you have an opinion, it would be welcome at the discussion that you can find via the link! Cheers, --5 albert square (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, would a discussion board work for a reference. The Bill used to go out on RTÉ One for half an hour at 5:30 Monday to Friday, all hour longs edited into half hours?????? IrishTV (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion boards / blogs aren't normally accepted as reliable sources, because anyone can post info to them, and there's no way of assessing if it's accurate or not (no peer review etc). An official page from the broadcaster would be OK, or a story from a TV magazine or newspaper, reporting the change in format. Do you know if anything like that might be available? hamiltonstone (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There were no real complaints about the show being in 2 parts, AFAIK RTÉ One started showing the half hour episodes at 5:30 Monday - Friday in the early 2000s and as they had had success with the show as a 5 day daytime soap (if you like) they decided to show it in half hour episode for a number of years rather then the change in format to hour longs. This was due to popularity. They took it off the 5:30 slot in around 2003 for a daytime chat show called Seoige & O'Shea but then they reinstated the Bill and push Seoige & O'Shea back, but this year they cancelled Seoige... and replaced it with an extended The Afternoon Show thus also replacing The Bill. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055675004&referrerid=59211 <<< discussion on Boards.ie. Having searched the web I can see no other references. http://tvlistings.thetvroomplus.com/listing-2290.html you can see the TV listings for 2005 IrishTV (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Hamiltonstone, is there anything outstanding to be done to The Bill for it's GA status? I've had a quick look on the talk page tonight and can't see anything --5 albert square (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)



Thank you for your help with The Bill! --5 albert square (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the half barnstar! --5 albert square (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notifications
Dear Hamiltonstone, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform Peter C Jones that you opened an WP:ANI thread about him. Don't worry! I've take care of it. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 04:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, and i had read that instruction just minutes earlier. How embarrassing. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Grecian Urn
I have just reworked the lead - balancing info, making it more precise and removing redundancies. Hopefully that fixes some of the errors in the new version. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I might add some more critics. I listed some quotes on the talk page. The question is - some people wanted a more thematic critical discussion. I put a little together, but I prefer to look more at the history. I threw the new ones on the talk page so that people can opine before I start adding some others. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of it has been rewritten. Can you revisit Featured article candidates/Ode on a Grecian Urn/archive1? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you revisit again? I have made a few changes since your last statements. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I applied more fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi Hamiltonstone. Sorry to trouble you again! At The Bill review page, you asked if there was a ref for the number of episodes. Having googled every combination I can think of, the best I've come up with is, alas, IMDb, which has a list of episodes. Would this, do you think, be acceptable? Also, how precise do you think it's necessary to be with the figure (IMDb says it's 2371 but this changes every week) since it's still being broadcast. Thanks a lot, HJMitchell    You rang?   21:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest the text be amended to read, "According to IMDb, as of X date there had been Y episodes broadcast." and use the IMDb ref. At some other point check if any of the books or articles on The Bill have any other historical figures (eg. X episodes by the end of 200Y) and add that as an additional fact and ref. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks! I've a feeling Tibballs might have a figure, but it's a bit old (published 2003) and there's a possibility some of the news articles give a figure since some of them discuss landmark episodes. I'll stick the imdb figure in then see what else i can dig up. Thanks a lot, HJMitchell    You rang?   00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this...?
Most homes that fell in the stricken area were traditional, comprised of local resources such as mud, adobe, and brick. The walls of the buildings, typically between 40 and 50 centimeters wide, were unresistant to the earthquake, and, for the most part, collapsed. An oddity occurred, however, where several of these homes fared better than structurally engineered ones. Further study has yielded that various factors might have contributed to this event, possibly the height to width ratio, the fact that there were little to no windows in the homes, and the quality of the materials used.

Starting out on this...  ceran  thor 16:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay - the poits are OK, but the English isn't, and i've had a go at copyediting it in the article. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Em-dashes on Wilson Tuckey
Hi. Your recent edit to the Wilson Tuckey article replaced all the en-dashes between dates with em-dashes. I'm a reasonably inexperienced editor, so I may be missing something here, but my reading of WP:ENDASH suggests that en-dashes should be used between dates, not em-dashes. I've put en-dashes back between the dates, but if I've missed something, feel free to change it back and let me know. Otherwise, perhaps there is a bug in the script you used. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lear's Fool (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You would have been right - but actually, I (or the script I ran, anyway) did put in en-dashes. They replaced hyphens in all cases (except at the end, where they replaced the longer script version of en-dashes). Em dashes are even longer again. So actually, the script was sound. Thanks for making me check, though. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.Lear&#39;s Fool (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

in re: Campus Pride
Hi, thanks for helping with this article. Are you still adding to it becasue we accidentially just tried to update and save at the same tims resulting in my changes being "blown-away". If you are, perhaps I could go and upload it's logo while you are editing? CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and again also thanks for the assist. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Five
I've just listed this article in peer review and would greatly appreciate your input. It's already GA but am hoping to eventually get it to FAC. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Steve Dodd
I've read this article through a couple of times since seeing it listed on peer review. It is excellent&mdash;very well-written and informative. My only challenge in writing about it on PR is that I'm finding very little to criticize. Please take that as a compliment. I want to read the article through a couple of more times before giving detailed feedback, but I wanted to let you know that you've really done a great job. Jonyungk (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to say thanks!

 * Yeah thanks! --5 albert square (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MWOAP (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Andalusia
Hi, I saw that you promoted Andalusia to prep. 1. While I agree that Jmabel has done some impressive work there, it was discussed at WT:DYK and I don't think there was consensus for promoting it. In addition, the article currently has a maintenance tag and should have another for neutrality, as I noted. It can't sit at the end of the page forever, but I would prefer for it not to be featured on the Main Page in this state - regrettably. Ucucha 02:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I will respond at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I saw the many improvements you made to the page today (great work!) and though I don't think I'd promote it myself, I have no strong objection against it either. You might still want to ask at WT:DYK though, to see what others think. Ucucha 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. You're doing a great job around the place BTW. I have explained my actions at WT:DYK. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the award, much appreciated. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Is this the one you're referring to? -  Colds7ream (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!
Thank you for all your help with 1997 Qayen earthquake. Whether it passes FAC or not, I know I am improving coverage of Iranian earthquakes on this project.  ceran  thor 00:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure. Thanks for doing the leg-work on sources. It may yet make it through the FAC. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Five at FAC
I've just nominated this article for FAC. If you have time, I would really appreciate your input. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8
Gee, I agree with you about the categorization, and you respond by trying to remove my substantive edit? :) Seriously, I appreciate your willingness to discuss instead of immediately reverting, and I look forward to a civil exchange of views on the talk page. JamesMLane t c 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that; whatever happened to reciprocity? :-) Are you able to find any reliable sources that reproduce, detail, or follow up the claim made by that group? cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The report just came out. I'll try to keep an eye out for material of the type you suggest, but I doubt that any will be available anytime soon.  Even after a while, though, the mainstream media have generally displayed little appetite for pursuing issues of voting fraud.  My guess is that the Board of Elections (which would be the obvious source for a contrary viewpoint) will refrain from responding, judging correctly that providing a substantive response would only bring wider attention to the original report. JamesMLane t c 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Bus Boycott, 1963
Thank you for your kind words, do you know, I think I will hunt down some pictures and have a crack at FA. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour...
And fix whatever might be missing on Walter of Coutances? I don't think it got listed on the Good Articles page... and then, if I might beg of you, a "fuller" review of anything that doesn't look right? He's important enough to go to FAC, and I'd prefer to have rigorous reviews along the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Julian Michael Clarke
Thank you for your corrections to the Murder of Keith William Allan entry. The likelihood of a standalone entry for Cavkic and Athanasi is presently remote, but the possibility exists that Clarke could in the future if new revelations about him occur. I can't see a standalone article at the moment though. There's no point in a red entry at this stage, as you correctly pointed out. Best wishes Carola56 (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

International Space Station
Thanks for trailing behind and fixing my mistakes. This is why a knowledge of the subject is necessary for a good copyedit. Think it's best for me to bail out now. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Using "and" in the most recent case is simply lazy editing on my part. I was focused on getting rid of the unspecified pronouns, which really do impede flow. I like the "in which", you've added. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All good. Keep it up, even if others tweak things here and there you're making a good article better. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed your comment on the article talkpage, so I didn't need to comment here. Anyway, I've added a comment there. I think I'm basically done, since the gerunds have been weeded out and the I weeded out the worst of the "this"s. It's a beautiful article and I wish you all the best of luck with the FAC! Also, thanks for encouraging me, because now I know so much more about the ISS than I ever would have without this experience -- one of the reasons, of course, so many of us get hooked in this place! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Should have put this here yesterday, but I forgot. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Colds7ream (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed
Per this request I have granted you the autoreviewer flag. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 06:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Adminship?
I was&mdash;to use the cliche&mdash;surprised that you are not an admin, and think you'll make a great one. I found in your talk archives (User talk:Hamiltonstone/Archive 5) that you said you weren't yet interested a few months ago. You brought up the fact that you don't work a lot in admin areas, but admin tools can in fact be useful in many ways even when you're not a vandal fighter: you can carry out uncontroversial moves over redirects when needed, perhaps block some vandals you encounter, delete pages for maintenance when needed, and edit the DYK queues and templates, among other things that come up from time to time. Recently, the community has overwhelmingly supported candidates who similarly focus on content creation and review, including (me and right now WP:Requests for adminship/Rlendog). Please let me know what you think, and I'd be happy to nominate you if you agree to that. Best, Ucucha 10:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ucucha. I still don't have confidence in aspects of tool use, and am likely to be less active on WP in the next 12 months than the last 12. So I think i'm going to pass once again. If I reconsider, i'll be in touch. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pity, but you know best what is good for you. The offer remains open if you wish to reconsider. Regards, Ucucha 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bristol PR
Hi, thanks for your comment. I have now closed the discussion and will work on what Rod has suggested before bringing it back to PR. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks
Just wanted to drop you a quick line to say thanks for keeping a level head with the Colitis-X article and DYK drama when I was not feeling particularly level-headed. VERY long history with myself and the other editor, and, partly due to said past history, this was the first substantive new article I had created in almost a year. When she appeared, I just about lost it, and I appreciate that others did not. Lar also needs an atta-boy, as I needed someone who understood what's been going on to step in. So thanks. Montanabw (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

History of the ACT
Hi there. Since you are part of the Canberra WP, and are interested in Aboriginal topics, can you have a look at the article or at least the indigenous info in there. I am having trouble tracking down refs for the exisitng info. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh. Will see what i can do, but not optimistic. No hurry i hope - not at FAR yet? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is....But I'm the only FAR coordinator who isn't hibernating so the others probably won't be hurrying it up, and I won't be closing, as I'm working on it. Still if work dribbles in it can sometimes last for 3-4 months  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Comments Reply
Thanks for your comments. The article you removed has not been otherwise published, though during writing it did receive feedback from several constructive artists, including Peter Lowe and Jeffrey Steele. Incidently Jeffrey should have a wikipedia page (maybe a project I can take on?). Having read the articles you directed me to, however, I agree that the topic is not close enough to the material. I do have a question however. As you say blogs are discouraged as a reference. However, they are increasingly becoming a way for academics to publish some of their work. I am not sure how they then differ from a webpage on the topic. It is an unfortunate fact that much of the academic literature is still behind a paywall (the two obvious journals for an article on the links between Constructivist art and Maths certainly are). As you did not take down all the links you obviously appreciate this, but I am curious as to where you feel the line lies and why there is a bias against blogs over webpages alone.

best wishes and thanks Gelada Baboon (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gelada. Actually, it would be better to say that self-published material in all forms is generally not considered reliable - it is just that blogs are currently the most popular form of self-publication and the form that you added, so that was what i mentioned. Absolutely crucial to wikipedia are verifiability and reliability. So self-published sources are seldom acceptable: whether it is a web page, a blog, or a hardcopy book. You comment about things being behind a paywall. Wikipedia doesn't rely on the sources being freely avalable - but it does rely on them being reliable. It is better to cite a subscription-only journal article than a freely-available blog. If someone wants to verify the facts, they can always get a subscription (or might already have one), or can look up the journal in a library. If you are working in the field and can cite subscription-based sources that are peer-reviewed, please do so. Do not, however, include these as external links: use them as citations in support of facts in the article text. For help in inserting citations, see WP:CITE and Citation templates. There is an add-on button you can add to your edit window that makes adding cites a bit easier, but i've misplaced instructions on how to add it, sorry. A quick guide to templates is here.


 * For an example where I used a self-published source, and provided a justification for it, see the note on sources here, regarding a book about Australian aviation history. This is the sort of thing you need to do if you want to use a source that would normally not be regarded as reliable. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

dyk hook question
I have a hesitation about your dyk hook mentioned here. Perhaps you could address it. Thanks, — mattisse (Talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo controversy over Steve Dodd
I've been following the ruckus on FAC over the photo of Steve Dodd in uniform and wanted to say that I appreciate the grace with which you have handled the situation, along with your solution in the article. I've been recently reminded myself of how frustrating it can be to include images in an article and the hoops through which you have to jump to keep them in by the time you reach FAC. Thanks for showing me and probably a lot of other people how to get through it. Jonyungk (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)