User talk:Hamiltonstone/Archive 9

GA
Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for helping out in the last part there with the Progress Party article so it could finally pass as GA. Your patience as a reviewer was also very much appreciated. Regards, -TheG (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Spacerecord
Hi. Thanks for your message re the Phobos article. Much appreciated. I deleted the references to obscure sources and added complete links to the better references. Best regards, Spacerecord. talk 29 September 2010

yeah...
What can I say? There goes another innocent if unworldly college professor who idled onto Wikipedia thinking he could change it for the better, only to have his worst prejudices confirmed yet again. Strike one for me.  Serendi pod ous  00:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Roy Kilner
Thanks for the comments at the FAC. I addressed your points (the cricketer of the year was linked earlier, but it was called "bowler of the year" that year; I clarified it), but it was promoted before I could comment and I wasn't sure I should edit the page! However, just wanted to let you know. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy SF FAC response
Hi -- I've responded to the remaining issue you raised at the Galaxy FAC, and since you asked for a ping, here I am. Let me know what you think. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mandodari/GA1
Hi. A copyeditor has gone through the article. I had some other doubts about your comments too, had left a talkback to the GA link on 24th. Sorry, forgot to remind you again. Please take a look at the article and my comments on the GAN page. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please check again. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoted from the reference on the GAN page. Please suggest a reword. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 10:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Simplified the details. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the GA pass. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free media in FACs
Hi hamiltonstone, I saw you started a discussion on musician FAs and I just wanted to tell you that the article on a certain fiddle player you kindly reviewed at GA does indeed have audio, in form of a free video performance that is unusual in that all relevant copyright claims have expired already in Iran. If that's not an option I would agree with you that it would be a good idea to include at least one sound example in a musician FAC to give people a taste, provided there is a good fair use rationale, but I wouldn't put it into policy because it concerns non-free work. Best Hekerui (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Mesozoic mammal
Hi, would you mind having a look at Lavanify, another Mesozoic Malagasy mammal that I am planning to send to FAC? I don't think it's as bad as Ambondro, simply because the teeth are simpler, but an outside opinion would be appreciated (if you have time). Ucucha 15:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Copano Bay
Thanks for the GA review. I addressed most of the concerns, but many of the books cited at the Handbook of Texas Online (especially the works of Hobart Huson) are broad and very difficult to find. It is easier for a reader to see a more concise collection of the data in the Handbook rather than cite a book they will not likely find. I did find some info from one of the books you listed on the page and added it. I don't know what else could be added to the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

MK observatory section
Could you hang on a tick with the prose check please? I have to do some content modification in there yet. Iridia (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - actually I was done there - i'm doing "recreation" now. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea Spaniards Ascent
It was the first running ascent from the beach to the top of Mauna Kea (known), and also the first running-climbing difference done in one day in the world.

www.runuphawaii.com M10se (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, this would probably belong in the recreation section, rather than "ascents" (which are historical rather than contemporary). However, it cannot be included unless there is independent third party reporting of the event and its significance. The site you linked is not independent of the climbers. Is there a reliable source news story on this? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Your input is sincerely requested
Thanks for the comments on the Shakespeare Authorship articles. There is a little more to it, and I was wondering (and truly hoping) you might visit this rfc [] and provide some comments. I moved your initial comments over already (I hope that was ok!), but you were not aware of the other version. As an uninvolved editor, you are in the unique position to perform a neutral comparison of the two versions being discussed. It would be truly helpful to all of the involved parties (speaking as one of them!).Smatprt (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I doubt it worth the trouble
There are four versions (perhaps even more: Smatprt keeps forking, and I can't keep track. The edit histories are disappearing all over the place) The only comparison to be made is our respective work records and the results. In a thumbnail sketch.


 * (1)The old page, which became unworkable. And we were ordered to rework a sandbox page = v.2


 * (2) A slight retouching of 1 (Smatprt did 60 edits, mainly tweaks, in three months after he invited Tom and myself to work elsewhere by forking off a copy of this (see no.4)
 * This is a mischaracterization of what I created and why. Please see below for a list that outlines my basic reasoning and approach. Smatprt (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (3) Smatprt then created a megagalactic hodgepodge of several pages, mark 3, and made 25 edits, just a paste and copy compilation.
 * This is another mischaracterization. Please see explanation about this version in the last point of my list below.Smatprt (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (4) Tom and myself did this, essentially draft 2, over 1,200 edits over four months)

Just glance at the formatting alone. Our page has its problems. But it involved intense commitment to fixing a chronic sore in Wikipedia that has been the despair of editors for over 4 years. If Smatprt wants another year or two of discussion on all of these versions, that's his right. I'm here to drive difficult pages through to some final form comforming to elementary GA levels at the minimum. I'm tired of talkspace longueurs. Thanks again for your input. RegardsNishidani (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I see this is one of those issues. You make a reference to "being ordered". Is there any talk page documentation anywhere that shows that the current version was the result of any agreement / plan documented in a previous dispute discussion/ mediation / anything like that? If there is, then I could post a link to that on the current RfC page as a way of saying "Actually, this topic has been around this loop already, let's just keep going with the current draft." hamiltonstone (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not exactly... the assignment by ScienceApologist was for us to prepare our draft versions and then put them up for community comment/comparison/etc. This NEVER happened. The current version was just put up without any comments, without consensus, and without the two versions getting a fair hearing by the wiki community. Nishidani is fond of disparaging the version I worked on. Yes, he and Tom made hundreds of edits, one little bit at a time (inlcuding several hundred to the various lists that should never have been introduced in the first place), whereas I made fewer edits, but with greater interior changes to each one. Tom and Nishidani decided to rewrite the article from top to bottom according to their own viewpoint, which was not the "order" they were given. On the other hand, I reduced a lengthy article by half (one of the reoccurring complaints was length), and focussed on neutrality (POV and weight issues). Specifically:


 * I began with this version of the old Shakespeare authorship article: [], which was the product of several hundred editors working over the last few years.
 * The previous article was rated B Class, but suffered from length issues, as well as some problems with POV and weight.
 * After addressing the most obvious issues, I requested impartial reviews from numerous noticeboards and did my best to incorporate the various comments I received.
 * I trimmed the article by half to bring the article in line with the guideline on length created or kept in place the appropriate forks.
 * I removed the overly Oxfordian focus of the article, and concentrated on the overall subject, instead of arguments for or against any particular alternative theory.
 * I focussed on a handful of the basic arguments, beginning with a brief section on various alternate arguments, followed by the mainstream rebuttal, in each section, as per wp guidelines.
 * I avoided lists and did my best to keep the basic information that the numerous article editors have contributed over the years, so as not to create "my" version, but rather to provide a verison that reflected the contributions of these past editors.
 * As an experiment, I also created a mega-beast of a version [] that merged all the various authorship articles ("offending articles" as ScienceApologist called them), which was part of the original assignment following this merge discussion:[]. This was not an attempt at creating a new article, but to see just how long and unwieldly such an article would be. It proved massive and ridiculous, as I am sure all would agree. I simply wanted to see what it would look like and where the obvious content forking should be.
 * The version attached to this talk page (Draft 1) includes all the appropriate content forking, solving the length issues. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain my side of this mess. In spite of the fact that Nishidani would rather no one look at the other version, I would still appreciate it if you would consider giving it a look at[] Smatprt (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hamilstone, you might want to query ScienceApologist about this quagmire to get the straight story. I left you a comment on my talk page.

My version:

(1) We were assigned to work out a page together out of the main page space because of all the disruption.

(2) I began with a blank slate.

(3) Within a few edits, Smatprt took it upon himself to import the old article in its entirety, along with its problems.

(4) As you can see from the entire edit history, ScienceApologist had to step in a few times and a few other editors were contributing also, but we had much the same type of problems as we had with the original article.

(5) After a short period of time. Smatprt took it upon himself to create another sandbox. Nishidani and I were interested in rewriting an entirely new article but Smatprt was content to truncate and rearrange the old one (see [], and that's how two separate drafts came into being. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not buying in, and really don't want any more detail on this. I have indicated on the RfC page that I think that the RfC is not worth pursuing given the extensive history, and I am leaning toward supporting a topic ban for at least some of the relevant editors, which would then force them to make proposals via a talk page. But that is for later. For now, I will leave any comments about improvement at the main article talk page. These incidentally now include a possible suggestion for using "Draft 1"'s approach to alternative candidates. Meanwhile I'm off to doubtless make myself unpopular here: Talk:Baconian theory/GA2. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! I told you you'd want to shoot yourself! And the Baconian page is a model of NPOV compared to Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. I'll answer your other suggestions on the SAQ talk. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We've all three been topic banned until the Smatprt issue is resolved, so I won't be able to work on the article until that's done. As an uninvolved party, your observations would be much appreciated there. Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm not seeing where the ban has been enacted. Got a diff or a page where I can find it? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Forget it - I see it, and I've left a note for LessHeard. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎
Just letting you know that you are being mentioned there. I didn't recommend a block for you because you weren't warned, I did recommend a block for the other editor as he did violate 3rr as well and he was the one who placed it in the 3rr page. Secret account 18:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS and denialism
''My latest draft of the HIV/AIDS and denialism is given below. Please modify the parts you object to. Please do not delete citations. This behaviour is very disruptive and invites non-cooperative behaviour. Use the citation needed tag to mark portions of text which you feel require additional support.'' KBlott (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A small but vocal group of individuals continue to dispute the connection between HIV and AIDS, the existence of HIV itself, or the validity of HIV testing and treatment methods. These claims, known as AIDS denialism, have been examined and rejected by the scientific community. However, they have had a significant political impact, particularly in South Africa, where the government's official embrace of AIDS denialism was responsible for its ineffective response to that country's AIDS epidemic, and has been blamed for hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths and HIV infections.

Therapy for HIV infection is now offered to all infected individuals who are prepared to use the medications responsibly. However, there is a small but vocal group of individuals who deny the scientific validity of early treatment. Notable among these denialists is Anthony Fauci. This debate has no empirical basis. Legitimate scientific questions regarding the timing of antiretroviral therapy were addressed by 1990. They were quickly resolved. However, considerable political opposition to the widespread use of antiretroviral drugs persisted.

There was never any serious opposition to the widespread use of antiretrovirals by virologists. However, all scientists require funding in order to conduct their research. This can potentially place scientists in a conflict of interest. Anthony Fauci is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. NIAID conducts a considerable amount of HIV/AIDS research. Virologists who work for Fauci must be cautious about what they say publically, for fear of loosing funding.

Please do not bring this to my talk page: post this at Talk:HIV. You need to secure a consensus of editors - I'm just one of them - and to ensure compliance with various WP policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP. I am disappointed with how you treated me and my attempts to work to ensure the material was sound, and that you failed to respond to important issues at the talk page. I'm happy to go over issues again at article talk - but not here. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the only bad faith editor on the HIV page. KBlott (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Larissa Waters
Sorry about that, I musn't have been paying attention. The details you re-added I meant to re-add. My main issue was the listing of children which I notice most of the oz politics community on wikipedia tends to avoid, which I agree with. Timeshift (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, all looks good then! Thx. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note re SAQ
I recall you said a narrative form for the history section would be better than a list. The list remains on the draft2 page, but I found the old version where 2 sections surveyed aspects of the history under two distinct thematic headings (a) the search for physical evidence by excavations (b) the trials over the authorship dispute. I've just posted them, without weeding out the overlaps their reintroduction creates (since they were harvested to produce the list you commented on), just to give you and others and indication of the earlier way we had organized much of the historical data in the lists. Would appreciate it if you could just glance quickly over the two short sections (a)Unearthing Shakespeare (b)The Trials of Shakespeare on the SAQ sandbox draft2, and give us a quick opinion whether or not this is the way to go? Sorry for the bother. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just note you said quite clearly you wouldn't comment on that page, so the above was an unwelcome intrusion. It's just that, under the provisory voluntary topic ban until the RfCs are completed, I can't edit the mainpage, but only the sandbox page, and only when the RfCs are done can we then begin to try and pull the mainpage (the draft2 section in an earlier version) up to snuff by introducing stuff from the draft2 page. Sorry for the bother and confusion.Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I have addressed many of your comments leaving one question posed to the reference desk plus a small number of remaining queries where your further input would be welcome Senra (Talk) 12:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for awarding GA status to St James' Church, Stretham. Incidentally, I think I fixed the last remaining issue; well did in response to Stained glass window (UK) Panoramafreiheit? (and my related query was going so well too!) --Senra (Talk) 22:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Greyfriars, Bristol
Thank you very much for the review and the tip about webcite. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you meant?
Tom Reedy (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know Tom. What was the question? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * About getting rid of the weird formatting. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re, welcome
Hello thanks for your message. (Simpson 742 (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Simpson 742)

Firepower
Much obliged by your kind comment. Maybe it's time to emphasise that there are still no charges of fraud, corruption, official misconduct, etc, etc. See Ryle's comment here! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 26, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 26, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch Ta lk C. 07:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

 

Minnie Pwerle (between 1910 and 1922 – 2006) was an Australian Aboriginal artist. She came from Utopia, Northern Territory, a cattle station in an area of Central Australia 300 km northeast of Alice Springs known as the Sandover. The mother of one child with pastoral station owner Jack Weir, and six children with husband "Motorcar" Jim Ngala, Minnie did not begin to paint until about 1999. Minnie's work soon became popular and sought after. In the seven years between after she took up painting on canvas until she died in 2006, Minnie's works were exhibited around Australia and collected by major galleries, including the Art Gallery of New South Wales, the National Gallery of Victoria and the Queensland Art Gallery. With popularity came pressure from those keen to acquire her work. She was allegedly "kidnapped" by people who wanted her to paint for them, and there have been media reports of her work being forged. Minnie's work is often compared with that of her sister-in-law Emily Kame Kngwarreye, who also came from the Sandover and took up acrylic painting late in life. Minnie's daughter, Barbara Weir, is a respected artist in her own right. (more...)

Hello
I wanted to let you know that I think your writing is really good and well balanced. I thought you might be interested in a discussion about an article that is going on at Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System and Talk:Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. ---MLKLewis (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Warlugulong
The DYK project (nominate) 06:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie Lee Gardner review
Seriously, thank you for chipping in during the FA review process. KimChee (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 

KimChee (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your GA nomination of Warlugulong
The article Warlugulong you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Warlugulong for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 3, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 3, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch Ta lk C. 06:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 

Ben Gascoigne (1915–2010) was an Australian optical astronomer and expert in photometry who played a leading role in the design and commissioning of Australia's largest optical telescope, one of the world's most important astronomical facilities. Gascoigne moved to Australia during World War II to work at the Commonwealth Solar Observatory at Mount Stromlo in Canberra. He became skillful in the design and manufacture of optical devices such as telescope elements. Following the war, he and astronomer Gerald Kron used newly modernised telescopes at Mount Stromlo to determine that the distance between our galaxy and the Magellanic Cloud dwarf galaxies had been underestimated by a factor of two. Because this measurement was used to calibrate other distances in astronomy, the result effectively doubled the estimated size of the universe. They also found that star formation in the Magellanic Clouds had occurred more recently than in the Milky Way; this overturned the prevailing view that both had evolved in parallel. When the British and Australian governments agreed to jointly build the Anglo-Australian Telescope at Siding Spring, Gascoigne was involved from its initial conception and throughout its lengthy commissioning, taking its first photograph. Gascoigne was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for his contributions to astronomy and to the Anglo-Australian Telescope. (more...)

Military edits in astronomy articles
Hello, Hamiltonstone. I noticed your recent edit to Saturn and it reminded me of a large number of edits recently made to other astronomical articles by red-linked editor Ilvon, such as, for example, to Polaris, the value of which I doubt. I wonder if you have any thoughts on these. Best wishes, Rothorpe (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. What a mess. I've reverted about a dozen, but have now added two warnings to the user page. Pondering what to do next - it looks like the user has made hundreds of potentially problematic edits. It may be something for ANI unless the user is going to self revert. Doesn't look like they're big on communication though.... have to tihnk some more. Thanks for the heads up. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have posted at WP:ANI. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

BG main page tomorrow
Just making a few modifications here based on comments received from an outside check I requested. There isn't anything major that I'll be tweaking. Iridia (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm glad it had good feedback from them. I'll have a look around and get a source; should be something on the AAT website if not in the printed material. You might want to archive the article talk, at least during the TFA. Plus it's starting to attract the usual 'was he "from" NZ-vs-Aus' editing that crops up on trans-Tasman people - I suppose NZ-born is as appropriate as any description, but I don't know where he himself considered to be "from". Iridia (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ponce Cathedral
Wow! All of your points are 100% with merits. Thanks for taking the time! I will make the necessary updates, etc. Take care, Mercy11 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Visual arts of Australia
Done :) HappyWaldo (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what your thoughts would be on splitting the page into smaller sub-sections, perhaps by decade, artistic medium or movement, or in some rare cases even artist. The 20th century section alone is insanely long and cluttered. HappyWaldo (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The page is a mess, though the subject matter is huge, hence the problem. Yes, the page needs to be split up into subsections - i was thinking that (again) yesterday. Let's transfer this discussion to the article talk page... hamiltonstone (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Pilbara iron ore map
I've replied to your request on commons but you probably, like myself, don't drop by all that often. What size do you think is appropriate for the writing on the map to make it readable? I've created the map in Paint and the writing size there was 14. For comparison, the Indian Ocean label on it is size 20. Calistemon (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can read the "Indian Ocean" label without enlarging further, but nothing of the smaller ones - i reckon 18 might be as small as I'd go. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've increased the size to 18, have a look. To make it any larger however could mean crowding the writing in some places. Calistemon (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's better. Any chance of a darker colour for the text of the town names? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice map, I've had a little play with the map see File:Iron ore Pilbara-2.jpg its a rough copy I'll delete it if you want. What I did was change the land mass from white to a colour and adjust the town names from yellow to a brownish/purple to make them more readable. Suggest that if do make the changes upload over the original file to save making changes to all the articles its used in and then just let me know i'll delete my version so as to retain full credit/copyright etc to yuo since its your work. Gnangarra 02:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Can you possibly make the ocean a light blue? Unfortunatley, those kind of alterations are beyond my abilities. Calistemon (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits to TSE
Hi Hamiltonstone, I just saw your recent edits here and thought you might want to review the article since you seem to have experience in that domain. I can be your partner in this endeavour if you like in improving the article to GA. I vouch for the accuracy of the article already as I have reviewed the sections line-by-line. The remaing issue is WP:MoS and the like such as repairing external links. I don't think it should be too hard, but you can decide for yourself of course. Thanks. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Amulet MS 5236
Because they are both international experts and the two references are published, on the linked website of the University of Regensburg. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The website linked itself says the study is unpublished. And the two links still go to the one publication, so there is no effective reference to the other one, nor enough information to understand its status. I still think there is an issue here, though i accept your point that the two people involved appear to be experts in the field. hamiltonstone (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia 10 - Canberra event
This is your invitation to the 10th anniversary event for Wikipedia, on Saturday 15 January 2011; please see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra for details, and RSVP if at all possible. (You are listed on WikiProject_Canberra.) Will I see you there? Cheers, - Peter Ellis - Talk 06:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

QBE Insurance
Dear Hamiltonstone

In response to your recent edits to the above topic. I am an employee of QBE and I am afraid that a number of your recent edits are in fact incorrect. Would you like exchange info so this can be more accurate?

Many Thanks

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick2413 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick - have replied at your talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Response
I don't appreciate that you are examining my edit history under a microscope. I cannot tell you why I made a small edit in September 2010 because I don't remember. As far as my GA reviews, I have been involved with quite a few. Diego's Hair Salon was my first and Silk Tork helped me work through this process, particularly because it was a little complicated. I am not sure what your involvement is with the Cantor GA review, but if you have any comments, keep it related to the article. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Josie Petrick Kemarre GA
I've listed the article - well done! I'm sure I've said this before, but I think it's great the amount of work you've put into these articles on a somewhat obscure, but very interesting topic.-- Beloved Freak  16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your review suggestions. I have enjoyed doing these entries, but i think i'm going to take a break for a while... probably... hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Thanks - that was quick! hamiltonstone (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary Source -- State Citizenship article
You wrote:


 * "The situation is almost the opposite at Wikipedia. We rely on secondary sources and actively avoid primary sources in most circumstances: see WP:PRIMARY. There is no question that the case is the primary source: rather, it should not be relied upon for an encyclopedic explanation of what the case's effects are. There is no problem in using the case as a source for quoting the actual judgement: it should not be used as a source for any explanation of the judgement. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)"

Would you take a look at the State citizenship article and see what the flaws are in regards to what you cite above regarding sources? I'm aware of WP:OR. That I'm trying to avoid, and I don't want to advance a position, but the courts have specifically mentioned "state citizenship." I'm bringing this up because in light of Jones v. Temmer, and other cases cited at the State citizenship article, I believe a number of assertions at the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution article are not strictly accurate, in light of what the courts have said. There's documented controversy around that Amendment. Some is available on JSTOR. I made mention of it in the XIV Amendment article, but someone exorcised all my changes as a result of the magnitude of them, they said.

I didn't create the State citizenship article. I was just trying to bring clarity to what was already there and amplify a few more points brought up, which I read in the discussion. -- Exxess (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I try to confine my involvement to process / policy issues at 14th amendment. Trying to do less here, not more, so can't help you with that one. Apologies. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Orthography in Makinti Napanangka article
I note you've used the Arrernte spelling 'Kwementyaye' rather than the Pintupi version 'Kumantjayi', is there any reason for this? Sad to see she's passed away, she was a delightful person, cheeky and charming. Dougg (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is sad. Language isn't my field: I simply used the spelling from the ABC Alice Springs news report - WP:RS and all that. Keep an eye out and let me know if you see any reports using the Pintupi spelling, then we can switch. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I'm keen to see the correct orthography (ie that from Napanangka's own language) used. Would you accept dictionaries of Pintupi, or other reports from Kintore, as WP:RS evidence? Dougg (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fred Williams
Interesting about the archiveurl. I can't see it from my desktop over a standard connection via a service provider here in Thailand (and I've not had that problem before with archive.org). If I try to access the url using a private, corporate account via thin client from a server in Amsterdam it's blocked as being harmful by the company's filters. Not sure what is going on. I'll try to figure it out.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 17, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 17, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch Talk and C.  00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 

Wintjiya Napaltjarri (born c. 1923) is a Pintupi-speaking Indigenous artist from Australia's Western Desert region. She is the sister of artist Tjunkiya Napaltjarri; both were married to Toba Tjakamarra, with whom Wintjiya had five children. Wintjiya's involvement in contemporary Indigenous Australian art began in 1994 at Haasts Bluff, when she participated in a group painting project and in the creation of batik fabrics. She has also been a printmaker, using drypoint etching. Her paintings typically use an iconography that represents the eggs of the flying ant (waturnuma) and hair-string skirts (nyimparra). Her palette generally involves strong red or black against a white background. A finalist in the 2007 and 2008 National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Art Awards, Wintjiya's work is held in several of Australia's public collections including the Art Gallery of New South Wales, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, the National Gallery of Australia and the National Gallery of Victoria. (more...)

Josie Patrick Kemarre
Hi, just letting you know, seeing as the GA reassessment is getting a bit complex, that you now have a tick next to all criteria except for embedded lists. If you can fix the list, either by converting it to prose, by improving the list lead to explain the contents, or by adding additional text to each entry to provide context, I'll give you the last tick and get out of your hair. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Makinti Napanangka
Hi. I am sorry if I screwed up. As the diff shows my last edits were: Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Solo exhibitions and awards" -- put in chronological order. I am sorry if I missed up by doing that. I didn't observe any distinctions or even empty spaces to indicate different groupings. My bad I guess.
 * I switched one reference to her by first name only to the pronoun "She". I didn't think it was a big deal.
 * Year of birth: Obviously unknown, but she is described as being in her 80s or late 80s, so when you indicate she was born in 1922 or 1930, this isn't the same as between 1922 and 1930. On this one I must insist as it makes a lot of difference.
 * Actually your integration of those lists was one of the good edits and i have preserved that. I don't mind "she" in the middle of paras, but I don't think a paragraph should begin that way. See the article talk page for an explanation of the problem with your last suggestion. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried to fix the conundrum re year of birth. See if you like it as it is now. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Josie/the embedded list
Hi there, I was wondering if you could comment at the reassessment, specifically in response to my most recent edit there. It looks like there is one final point to address (the list) and I had a concern about it that you may be able to help with.-- Beloved Freak  23:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re this. I wasn't sure whether to reply there or here but since the reassessment is over, and the issue was not really (as far as I'm concerned) to do with GA criteria, I'm replying here. Firstly, I'm sorry that I brought it up there. Given that, in my opinion, it has nothing to do with whether the article is a GA or not, I should have mentioned it here or on the article talkpage. Secondly, you're right and again, I'm sorry. I've been mostly looking at the responses from you & DustFormsWords on the reassessment late at night. Not an excuse, but I think I was getting a bit bogged down in the circles we seemed to be talking in and as I had another look at the article, I suddenly had a (tired) thought of "why those four? Should we be picking just four to mention?" So, I asked. If I'd spent more time thinking, I'm sure I would have seen it a bit more clearly. In any case, your response explained it well.
 * I'm sorry if my original review was lacking and has brought all this on, and I wish you well with your further work on the topic.-- Beloved Freak  11:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was me who was the less thoughtful - I didn't mean it to sound like i was losing patience with you (which I realise is how it was construed) but, rather, with the process in general. I thought your reviewing was fine. Notwithstanding my / our disagreement with DustFormsWords on some points - specifically the inclusion of images and the MOScompliance of the list - I thought Dust's input was helpful too, extremely well thought-out, and has improved the article. It has also prompted me to contribute to a broader discussion of embedded lists here. So i think everything has been improved in the end. I'm always grateful for your input. Someday soon I hope to have a bio of Kaapa Tjampitjinpa ready - i'm slowly assembling it in a sandbox - and all input to that will be great. Not sure when it'll be though. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While we're discussing anyway, thank you to both of you for your continued politeness, reasonableness, and openness to debate during what must have been a very frustrating process. I came in thinking something had gone badly wrong with the GA process, but while reassessing I've gained an appreciation for the work that both of you have done and learned a little more about the GA process myself.  Much appreciated.  (Plus I got to learn about Josie Petrick in the process.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Look forward to seeing it.-- Beloved Freak  18:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Ever vigilant
Oh well thank you for the star =D, since few people watch them I am here for them, thanks again. Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 03:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support of the Maya stelae FA nom. Much appreciated, best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

thumbs up or down, the gladiator waits in the arena
Thanks for the wrap help on "picta". Would you mind reading and registering a go/no-go? (I assume since I phrase it this way, can't be accused of canvassing. Want to get that box checked, star marked on forehead.  Feel good about our work.  Take a look.)  P.s.  I had some bulleted bolded lists for the subspecies but they got clipped by reviewer dislike. Still keeping the bolds helped me some for org appearance.TCO (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)