User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2010

nested parameter
Hi. Concerning this edit of yours I would like to inform you that the nested is not anymore supported by any template. Templates are automatically nested when inside WPBS. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wood 2006
Howdy! (Happy New Year!) It's entirely possible (even likely) that I'm missing something, but ...

In this edit you added a series of references to "Wood 2006". However, I can't find a definition of the publication you're referring to.

"Help!" Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

James Whiteside McCay
Politics or Warfare? Which is he most known for? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that today he is best known for warfare. Even as a politician he is mostly remembered for his stint as Minister for Defence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer to Request for Reference to Floyd L. Parks Article
Your request for a reference to the change regarding Floyd Park's First Allied Airborne Army appointment under Brereton and his subsequent succession as commander of the US First Airborne Army is found in reference 3, in the Eisenhower library synopsis of Parks' papers which lists the following timeline: 1944-45 Chief of Staff, First Allied Airborne Army [under L. Brereton] 1945, May-Oct. Commander, First Airborne Army

The First Allied Airborne Army was disbanded on 20 May 1945 per the Wikipedia article by the same name. The remaining American units were renamed the First Airborne Army and took over command of the American Zone of Occupation in Berlin according to this article.

These facts are also consistent with a less authorative entry in the military.com discussion forum http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/828197221/m/4030026832001 This entry states: "First Allied Airborne Army's former commander, Lt. Gen. Lewis H. Brereton, briefly retained command of its U.S. component, First Airborne Army, until he was relieved and reassigned later in May 1945. Gen. Brereton was succeeded by his Chief of Staff, Maj. Gen. Floyd L. Parks, who served as Commander, First Airborne Army from May until October, 1945, and concurrently as Commander, U.S.Sector and Military Governor, Berlin, from July until October, 1945. First Airborne Army was inactivated and disbanded in December 1945."

I hope this helps. Thanks for your interest and contributions. Hamleteer (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment and the pic!


Hello Hawkeye7, Gaia Octavia Agrippa 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! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk |Sign 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Africa (Petrarch)
I have been working hard to improve this article. I hope to get it to the quality of a Good Article. I think you rated this article back as Revision as of 20:19, 5 January 2009. Could you take a look at it again as I have made major improvements to it lately. If you see additional improvements I can make, please give me some input. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also added some battle information in each of the books of the epic poem between Scipio and Hannibal and the Carthaginians. Do you see other ideas I could do to get it potentially to a Good Article? Does it warrent a review of Class in the Military history Wikiproject? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 00:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All I did was classify the article as B class, which it is. I'm no expert on Medieval poetry I'm afraid. If you feel that it is ready, you should nominate it as a Good Article. Some comments:
 * "Scholar Aldo S. Bernardo says in his book Petrarch, Scipio, and the Africa of earlier scholars criticizisms" There should be an apostrophe after "scholars" and "criticizisms" is I think a misspelling. More importantly though, who were these scholars and what were their criticisms?
 * Is "Charthaginians" a misspelling?
 * "night in shining armor" should "knight".
 * "inportance' should be "importance"?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, most helpful.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Turns out the scholars Bernardo (1962 book) is referring to is the 1954 books of Tillyard and Toffanin. Its now fully explained in Africa_(Petrarch). Thanks for hint.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In your B-Class rating in the Military history WikiProject rating of Talk:Africa (Petrarch) it shows "Referencing and citation: criterion not met" and " Structure: criterion not met". Any suggestions on how I might be able to improve this? BTW, submitted for Good Article.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See conversation of Help desk. --Doug Coldwell talk 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Normally you list an article for reassessment at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests and I go and re-assess it. Re-assessed as B class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. Didn't understand procedure. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell talk 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations for the Admiralty Islands campaign passing its FAC - it's a great bit of work, and does justice to this interesting campaign. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur
I noticed you are working on this article. I have done my family genealogy and have come to the conclusion that I was named after the hero of the time - Douglas MacArthur. The reason I believe this is that there are no Douglass in the family, so the name came from somewhere else and I believe it to be the hero of the time. My birthday is January 4, 1945. This is the time when Douglas MacArthur was at the height of his career and there was a lot of news of his activities. My great grandfather John Caldwell was born with the given name "George Washington" because, as the article I wrote points out, he was born on the anniversary of our national independence - July 4th. The custom of naming family members after heros apparently has been happening for some time. John Caldwell (a.k.a. "George Washington") would be my father's grandfather, so for him to name me after the hero of the time (Douglas MacArthur) seems logical to me. Sorry to have bored you with my family genealogy.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Alboin
Thanks for the assessment Hawkeye. I must admit I was a bit of a shock to learn that the grammar was so bad it couldn't reach B standards, and a bit frustrating to, as it is the only aspect of the article where my chances to better the article on my own are limited. You've suggested finding a copyeditor: I was hoping that maybe you could offer some suggestion where to find one. Unfortunately, passing it through a peer review was not very helpful. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee thanks. I've had a go at grammar checking it myself. Go back over it again to make sure that I have not messed something up. Mostly it involves moving objects closer to the verb, and some stylistic changes. Verb/object problems are endemic in English, becuse the language lacks a rigorous case structure. For example: The Lombards faced difficulties at Opitergium (Oderzo), which Alboin decided to avoid leaves the reader uncertain as to whether Alboin decided to avoid the town or the difficulties. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Hawkeye, that was really nice. I'll follow your advice now and try to read carefully through the text to make it more readable and less confusing. Again, let me thank you for your work. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Walker
Your absolutely right, I am in the process of building up the MOh related articles and this is currently one of the better ones. I am probably going to follow it through to FA if you don't object. I have one FA pending already fro Smedley Butler but once thats done this one may be next depending on how long it takes to make it through A class review. If you are interested I have essentially gone through and catalogued all the MOH related articles here. --Kumioko (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seen your list of MOH related articles. I thought you were aiming to create the missing pages and bring everything to a B rather than pushing the articles that had already been written along. If it passes A-class and Smedley Butler is still in the queue I will nominate it. I had thought that it was too short for a FA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my fault if I wasn't clear. I started with the lists cause that seemed like the logical place to start. There were still a lot of articles that needed to be created and a lot of the articles needed work. I started filling in the lists and building them up and at the same time I built up the articles using a combination of manual entry and AWB. Your right about your statement that I am building up articles to B class but I am trying to work on a rolling concept, as I get one to B I get another to GA and so on so from this point out I will be trying to keep them rolling through. Obviously, it would be impossible for me to do them all myself and I don't try. Some articles are easier to develope than others and some are more popular than others. The Douglas Macarthur article is a good example. I had intended to work on it but by the time I got the refs you and a couple other editors had already begun a massive overhaul of the article, so I moved to other articles. No harm no foul. In the end WP wins. As it is know, almost all of the currently existing lists are FLC's (the next will be hispanic recipients and the spanam war). I hope this clarifies and again thanks for all the effort you are putting into Dougs article its looking great. Also, you might be right about it being a little short for FA, but there are others that are short also so I personally don't think thats a show stopper. Just my opinon. --Kumioko (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you changed all the dates on this article to dd mmm yyyy format based on standard military format and I think that is incorrect. I have learned in previous reviews and comments from others that is true for British subjects but the mmm dd, yyyy is the standard date schema for American date formatting and typically the American military uses the format of yyyy-mm-dd, which can be confusing to some. I'm not going to change it because personally, I don't care which date format is used as long as its consistent and meaningful to the readers so its fine with me but I wanted to let you know in case it comes up.--Kumioko (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is consistent now. At the Hood at least, we always wrote dates dd mmm yyyy. It seems to have been that way for a long time, as it was that way during World War II. The US Army called mm dd, yyyy "Polish form" which confused me because they don't use it in Poland. However, I trip over every time I have to read "March of 30th" instead of "30th of March." My understanding is that military form is mandated for MILHIST articles. See WP:NATOSTYLE Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems here, I just wanted to mention it. Like I said I have no preference. Here is a |link to the MOS reference that was thrown at me a few times before stating either is appropriate but that usually Month day, year is used, in case it comes up. I'm not trying to advocate for you to change it, as far as I am concerned the data is sound the prose is solid, the story is being told in an appropriate and concise manner and if someone wants to get bent out of shape over the formatting of dates then let them...be happy. My interests has always been more about telling the story and ensuring that the articles are credible than on the WP desired formatting. Cheers and good work again on the articles you have been working on. --Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought your objective might have been to create a Featured Topic around the MOH, and you wanted it consistent for that. There's rather a lot of MOH winners though! I thought my project of writing up the commanders in SWPA was large. All the best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You figured me out and your right. I am starting with the lists. Once I am done with those I will submit them as a topic. Still got a while till that happens though, still about 1000 needing articles. --Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed you reverted my edit, which is fine since I understand your reasoning but I agree with the review that we need to clarify why he was "reduced" to illustrate if it was punitive or not since typically the reader would assume its because he did something wrong. --Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Walter Farenholt
Thank you for alerting me about the Spanish-American War section of Oscar Walter Farenholt. It made NO sense at all, haha. (I don't know what I was thinking) I believe I fixed the problem. Thanks Again and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver  The Olive Branch 22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur
Good job on the work you did on this article. It looks tons better. I woudl dare say that it meets B class currently and I hope you intend to submit it for GA review in the near future. I think with the work you have done this article is getting close to being in FA territory. --Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the idea. It falls short of a B only because of the Korean War section, which I have not overhauled yet. Once it is done, I shall submit it for a B rating. Once that is done, I will nominate it for a GA review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats awesome. --Kumioko (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ming
G'day mate. I don't why particularly, but feel some vague urge to get Morshead's article to at least GA/A standard, perhaps FA. Did you have any plans for it? I mean I've still got plenty of RAAF articles on the backburner so you might well get to improving it further before I do in any case, but if it's in your immediate sights I won't bother putting it on my list (I said that about Cyril Clowes as well and someone else got to it before me anyway...) ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
 * Ming is not in my immediate sights. I'd rather see it taken to A/FA. I know you can do it, so go for it! Cyril Clowes still needs even more work. It is only a C. And as it stands, it reads as though Blamey relieved him for cause rather than being evacuated after two bad attacks of Malaria. But someone is working on it apparently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, ta. Actually, re-reading Morshead now, it has a pretty reasonable level of detail compared to a lot of other GA/A-Class articles I've reviewed. I can see the lead needs fleshing out and the legacy section is probably missing a few things but, assuming the basic thrust of the article is sound, is there anywhere in particular you think it needs work? Further to that, are there any significant refs you know of that aren't already used/listed?  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the article is missing some refs. It would also be nice to expand the Tobruk and El Alamein sections. Ideally, the article should explain why Ming was a great general. The Great War section could also stand expansion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Shock
I am quite shocked that there hasn't been so much as a drive by comment on the Kenneth Walker article yet. Its a little disappointing that it takes so long for the first review. --Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The class the stars fell on
You're missing D. Davidson. My Dec. 23, 2007 edit has a list of major and brigadier generals (commented out because there's one too many of the latter). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * you mean Donald Angus Davison? I have his record here.. he was promoted to BG on 16 April 1942 but I can't see any promotion to MG. So I filed him with the BGs. Now I'm one MG short and two BGs over... Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike Beukema. I'm now only one over... If Davison was a MG then it would be right... Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I have the numbers right at least... Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical context in MacArthur's page
I noticed that the "MacArthur was enormously popular with the American public, even after his defeat in the Philippines, and across the United States streets, public works, children and even a dance step were named after him." sentence at the Douglas MacArthur page, could be better put as "MacArthur was enormously popular with the American public, even after his defeat in the Philippines. Across the United States streets, public works, and children were named after him. Even a dance step was named after him." given that "were" is incompatible with the dance moves context in the sentence. Also you could phrase it more precisely with a period after "MacArthur was enormously popular with the American public, even after his defeat in the Philippines" starting a seperate sentence to bring to light everything named after him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viciousk (talk • contribs) 11:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Truman FAR
I was wondering if you could work on two specific parts of this, the presidential rankings and desegregation parts. I think you'd do a better job than I on those. Right now I'm concentrating on the parts that are missing refs.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. It appears you worked the historical ranking part but put your "done' comment under the desegregation part. I think the desegregation is the only FAR item left. Would you care to take a stab at it or shall I?  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Working on it. The "Legacy" section is still missing references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did the three "citation needed" you put in. Anything else left?  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not much. I have added some more citation required tags for you, and added a ref myself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did the new set. Well over half the text in this is refs ;-)  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not unusual for such an article. Looks like you have salvaged the article. My experience was that it takes nearly as long to go through an article adding references as to write it in the first place. Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and thanks to you too. Yea, I know about refs, FAs, FLs, etc. See my about page. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The battle of Taejon
We could use you over in Taejon. :-) &bull; Ling.Nut 08:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, never mind. I'm switching to Full Oppose. Thanks...&bull; Ling.Nut 09:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Chauvel
Good! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Moved comments". Moved them where? Why? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Into the Featured Article Candidate page. I have transcluded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm a bit confused. Why is the "discussion" in Featured article candidates/Harry Chauvel/archive1 rather than Featured article candidates/Harry Chauvel? Obviously, I don't understand the system. Rather than bore everyone else to tears, perhaps put a link to the reason on my talk page? Cheers Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the system. All FAC discussions are that way nowadays. The page was generated automatically by the FAC process. Somewhere along the line TPTB decided to automatically create the discussion pages with an archive number. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. (Or at least, I think see.) Again, thank you for sharing your knowledge. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (And while we're on that page), I assume the issues raised in Jan 2008 have been addressed? Perhaps a comment saying this could be added? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done well! Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article states: "In 1919, Chauvel was appointed Inspector General, the Army's most senior post." Wasn't "Chief of the General Staff" the most senior post? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Errrrrr. ??? Or, at least, some sort of elaboration, please. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of "no" requires elaboration? The Inspector General was the Army's most senior officer. I have added a bit about the post, as it doesn't have an article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of "no" requires elaboration? - All parts of it. It may well be a fact, but it conveys no information.
 * The Inspector General was the Army's most senior officer. - So you have already said. But it conveys no information.
 * I have added a bit about the post - Great! Now that does convey information. That is indeed the sort of eloboration I was hoping for. Many thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

IG vs COGS?
On further thought, I guess I don't understand why the IG post was senior to COGS. If COGS wasn't the senior role, then what was the role that COGS played? Can you help me, or at least point me at some relevant references? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In peacetime, the IG reported on the state of the Army while the CGS ran the show. The idea was that in wartime, the IG would become CinC and the CGS his chief of staff. See Wood for details. In 1914, the IG, Brigadier General William Bridges, became GOC AIF and commanded the expeditionary force, while the CGS, Colonel Gordon Legge organised the AMF at home. The post of IG was discontinued in 1940 but in 1942 Blamey became CinC and the CGS, Lieutenant General Vernon Sturdee became his chief of staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there you go! (You learn something new every day.) Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comms
You don't appear to have email enabled. Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding something or doing something incorrectly? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1
For some odd reason this was moved to FARC. Pls go check it out. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hugh John Casey
The article Hugh John Casey you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hugh John Casey for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Truman FAR
Hi Hawkeye - Do you have an interest in working further on the Truman article, currently at FAR? Several editors have commented since the article was moved to FARC, and further work is needed on the article (as I'm sure you're aware, since you've commented in the FARC section). Rlevse has expressed disinterest in further work on the article and NativeForeigner has stopped work despite a ping. It would be great if this article could be salvaged, but with several delist votes and some fairly large problems identified it is in danger of being delisted soon unless work picks up again. Thanks in advance for any effort you are willing to put in, Dana boomer (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gen Macarthur
I wonder if I can use this pass to justify not pruning Keith Miller for FAC. Although I doubt anyone would review it :(  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  07:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, Hawkeye7. You will no doubt notice the 4937 byte haircut that I just performed on the Between_the_wars section of Douglas_MacArthur. I can almost see you wincing right now, for I know how painful this must be for you. I understand completely, and will not be offended if you feel you need to add some of the text back into the section. I really hope you see my editorial intentions as honorable and thoughtful, even though on the surface this might appear like a butcher job. DiverDave (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is fine. Such cuts are difficult. Thanks very much for your assistance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Hawkeye7. When you get a chance, please take a look at one of my recent revisions to the Operation Cartwheel section of the Douglas MacArthur article (timestamped 19:06, 8 May 2010). ‎I have attempted to outline the complex operational command structure of naval assets within the SWPA, and the problems this created. I realize this has made the article longer, but I am pretty sure we can make compensatory cuts elsewhere. If need be, this information could be put into your eventual article on VII Amphibious Force. Mainly I just wanted to make up for the sloppy edit I made a couple of days ago. Regards, DiverDave (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Already done. I made two small changes. MacArthur did not have the authority to fire his type commanders. If he had, Carpender would have been gone long before November 1943. In fact, MacArthur was not even informed about King's decision to replace Carpender with Kinkaid. He found out from the Brisbane newspapers. This put MacArthur in a difficult position when Curtin drew his attention to the international agreement about Allied commanders. As commander Allied Naval Forces, Carpender was answerable to MacArthur; but as Commander Seventh Fleet he was answerable to King - not Nimitz, as appears in some books. King, not MacArthur or Nimitz, filled in his fitness reports. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a bit different with USAAF officers, but MacArthur asked Marshall for Brett's relief; Arnold then gave him the choice of Doolittle or Kenney, and he chose Kenney on Sutherland's advice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"In early November, MacArthur's plan for a westward advance along the coast of New Guinea to the Philippines was incorporated into plans for the war against Japan approved at the Cairo Conference. Three months later, after airmen reported no signs of enemy activity in the Admiralty Islands. Although his intelligence staff did not agree that the islands had been evacuated, MacArthur seized the opportunity to implement his plan. He ordered an amphibious landing on Los Negros Island, marking the beginning of the Admiralty Islands campaign. On 29 February 1944, MacArthur accompanied the assault force in USS Phoenix (CL-46), the flagship of Vice Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid), who had recently replaced Carpender as commander of the Seventh Fleet. MacArthur, who came ashore at the beachhead on Negros Island with Kinkaid only seven hours after the first wave of landing craft, was awarded the Bronze Star for his actions in this campaign. After six weeks of fierce fighting, the 1st Cavalry Division captured the islands; the campaign officially ended on 18 May 1944."
 * I agree that MacArthur coming ashore with his troops is important, and we should find a way to introduce Kinkaid, but this section is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it is too lengthy and really should be trimmed. Second, it misleads the reader into thinking the Admiralty Islands were captured after only one night of fighting, characterized by a "reconnaissance in force" -- which is simply not the case. Finally, it omits the mention of the most important fighting unit of this campaign, the 1st Cavalry Division. How about this rewrite of the paragraph:

Regards, DiverDave (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. The struck out parts represent a bit of trimming on my part. Italics are a suggested addition. Same word count. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy Hawkeye7's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thomas C. Kinkaid
Hello! Your submission of Thomas C. Kinkaid at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

PR for MacArthur
Would you object to submitting the article for a peer review? It might help to gather some input from others on what the article needs. I'm suggesting a general peer review; not a milhist one. Over the past few weeks I've mostly determined that there is no possible way that one article within size limits on Mac A would ever be capable of portraying the total picture of this guy. --Brad (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am will submit it for a peer review, but I wanted to first clear up the issues remaining from the FAC before this is done. It may be that the article is too controversial to ever become a featured article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no expedient solution to the problem but the main problem is trying to keep everybody happy. I'm again stressing that break out articles should be created but I'll have another round of that on the article talk page. Probably we need to look at articles on other controversial persons and use them as a model. Most all of them have break out articles. --Brad (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article currently has a banner that says that it is factually incorrect. I don't think that subarticles will help. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that is a concern as well but break out articles will reduce the size of the Mac A article and therefore allow more room for further explanation of the issues that people are complaining about. The article is about Mac A after all and not necessarily about the movements/victories/defeats etc of the personnel under his command. --Brad (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But what are the issues that people are complaining about? The subarticle on dismissal did not impress them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a whole talk page full of issues that should be addressed in the article. More about Mac A as a person, his personality. His devotion to Jean and Arthur IV.. devotion to the West Point football team etc. Perret was going on about Presidential ambitions other than 1952.. allegedly he was thinking about running in 1940 for example. There is a lot of information like that missing from the article. Subarticles would make room for this. --Brad (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea was to allow the reader to evaluate MacArthur as a general. I note that today's featured article on the Duke of Marlborough is 66 KB and 11,000 words compared with Doug's 76 KB and 12,500 words. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but that article also contains more information on his personal life and an entire section on how history has looked upon his actions. Mac A is missing that. In order to add it without making the article too long, we need break out articles. This is the only option I see to make room for missing information. --Brad (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas C. Kinkaid
Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:6* rank
The discussion there doesn't seem to be progressing. Could you look in your back pocket an see if you have a magic wand to wave over the discussion? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Learning under Fire: The 112th Cavalry Regiment in World War II
Hi, Do you know of any Australian libraries with a copy of this book? The thesis looks very good, and I imagine that the book is a further refinement. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC

Regrettably not; I have my own copy though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for that. I'll use the PhD and may ask you to review the article to check that I've included all the worthwhile content from the book before I nominate it for A class. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations
Hi Hawyeye on the Good article nominations you have listed British Commandos as under review. I am unable to locate the page ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not yet created it. I will create it tomorrow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Great thought I had missed it.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * THANKS for the GA review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp Canberra Aug 11, 2010
I saw you're listed in the ACT Wikipedian page and thought, by chance, you might like to come to this: RecentChangesCamp, Canberra is being held at the University of Canberra, Building 7, Room 7XC37 on 11 August 2010. ABOUT | REGISTRATION | SCHEDULE

Hope we'll see you and friends there, but please register so we can prepare lunch. Leighblackall (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Air Force Portal Administrator
I am looking for an editor or editors to take over administration of the US Air Force Portal. If you think you might be interested please see the Portal Administration section on the talk page to see what is involved and comment there if you’re interested or have any questions.Ndunruh (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Barbey
Just to let you know I've started the review for your article at Talk:Daniel E. Barbey/GA1‎--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Macarthur
Bringing him back?  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  02:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He shall return! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Billy Sing
Hello Hawkeye7, thank you for your time on the GA review of Billy Sing. I am, however, puzzled by the outcome, and have made comments on the review page. If you have lost interest in the article or do not wish to discuss things further with me, I will respect that. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was coming under pressure to pass or fail it, as it seemed that no further work was being done. I thought that it was you who had lost interest. The fault, though, is entirely mine. I failed to communicate precisely why I felt so ambivalent about the article. The problem was the matter of references. The newspaper and internet references are fine but the books by Hamilton and Laws & Stewart were cited without page references making it difficult to verify the facts in the article. What I wanted was a bibliography section listing the books, and the books and journal articles - references 1, 14, 15 and 31 - moved into it. Then break up the footnotes to them by page, as is already the case with footnotes 24, 32, 36 and 37. If you do this, and re-list the article, then I will pass it straight away. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to assume good faith on your part throughout the review process, but it has become increasingly difficult to do so. Your first review comment on 18 July was: "I would much prefer if the references to the books had the pages in the reference rather than the text eg Hamilton (2008), p. 8 rather than in the text" (my emphasis); I understood this to mean that you preferred the book references for which page numbers had been supplied (specifically, all of the direct quotations) to have the page numbers in the reference list rather than in the main text—so that is what I changed. On 24 July and 25 July, I posted notes in response to your review comments. I believe it was abundantly clear from my notes that I was seeking to improve the article and was open to further feedback (in fact, would welcome further feedback). You appeared to have limited time for Wikipedia through late July and early August (according to your contribution history), so I assumed that you were going to respond in due course, when you had the time. After a brief note from Wizardman on 18 August, your response to him seemed to indicate that you had not even read my notes from 24 July and 25 July—otherwise some form of acknowledgement to me would surely have been warranted, even if just for courtesy's sake. On 22 August, you failed the article, changing the 'MoS compliance' and 'major aspects of coverage' criteria from 'pass' to 'fail' with no elaboration. Given that the article was now closer in style to what you had wanted, and that new information had been added to the article to expand its coverage, it seems to me that the article had actually improved on those criteria (on which you had originally 'passed' it), rather than become worse. If your concern was with the referencing, then I would have expected that the 'references to sources' criterion should have been the relevant criterion for criticism (but it was still 'passed'). Given your comments above (and I appreciate your statement regarding communication about your ambivalence), I propose the following:
 * You please withdraw your 'fail' assessment (and put the review back 'on hold'), on the basis that there was miscommunication or misunderstanding during the review. I am not prepared to relist the article for a new review in the manner you suggest, given what has occurred. I have done everything that I understood to be requested of me, and made every attempt to remain open in communications throughout the review (e.g., noting explicitly where I had not done something, and giving reasons why). I imagine that, were our positions reversed, you might feel the same way.
 * You please provide page references and guide notes (e.g., "look at the squiggle at the far right of line 3 on p. 14 of 97; that says 'gunshot'") for the three points of information you noted from the personnel file that I was unable to verify, as listed in my notes from 25 July. I am genuinely interested to learn how to locate that information (whether it be finding the correct page, interpreting the abbreviations, or deciphering the handwriting).
 * I will go through the article and provide page numbers for all of the book references, as you have requested. I would have been more than happy to do this earlier, if I had understood that this was what you were looking for. Please note that I have limited time for Wikipedia currently, so I cannot say exactly when I would be able to finish doing this (bearing in mind that I will have to look up a lot of the information again). Whether you pass or fail the article after this is, of course, entirely up to you.
 * I believe that these three actions will make it clear to both of us that the other is, indeed, acting in good faith to help improve Wikipedia, and will allow us to maintain a good working relationship here. If anything I have written above is not clear or seems to come across as personal in any way, please feel welcome to let me know. Thanks for your consideration of my proposal. Janggeom (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The assessment is reversed, as per your request.
 * I believe your are correct on the influenza, which was August. The myalgia was November. On pp. 18 and 24 SW is a shrapnel wound, GSW is a gunshot wound. See also p. 46. I support your decision not to call it Anzac leave. It was granted to men who had enlisted in 1914. Normally, if you went on leave, you went to the UK, not Australia. However, while the file clearly says that he went on furlough it also includes medical reports which imply a return for discharge.
 * Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your gesture and your feedback; I appreciate both. I am aiming to improve the article as best and as quickly as I can, and will post any further notes on the review page. Janggeom (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Hawkeye7. I have added as many page numbers as I could and edited the text where I have not been able to obtain page numbers. I've posted a more detailed note on the review page. Thanks for your time and help on this review. Janggeom (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for promoting the article; I have appreciated your time on the review, and it has been an excellent learning experience for me. Janggeom (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pogue
Could you confirm I have the correct citation for "Pogue, 1954" on the Walter Bedell Smith page? Thanks --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right. Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator?
The military history wikiproject will soon open the September 2010 coordinator elections to determine who among us will serve on the X Tranche, the coordinator tranche beginning 28 September of this month. The current coordinators have offered up the names of a limited number of editors who we believe would make good coordinators, and your name was included in the list. Therefore, I am leaving this message on behalf of the current milhist coordinators to encourage you to run for the position of coordinator. If you have any questions or comments about the position you are welcome to ask any members of the current coordinator tranche, we would be happy to answer your questions. Note that while this message is being left to encourage you to run for the position you are under no obligation to do so, and if you decide not to run this decision will not be held against you now or at any point in the future.

On belhalf of the Military history Coordinator IX Tranche, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a poke, I really hope you'll run... you have 22 hours to enter your name here (sorry for the short notice!). Kind regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

St Nazaire raid
St Nazaire raid thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Operation Aquatint also thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK article not sufficiently expanded
Hello! Your submission of Frederick E. Morgan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  00:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice job
I am very impressed with the expansion of James Robb (RAF officer). Not only is it cleanly written, but it seems well referenced. I am awarding you the Yank's "Thumbs Up Award", which entitles you to also give anyone performing a praiseworthy task a wag of the skyward opposable digit.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Frederick Morgan
Just to let you know, I've started a review on this (and will hopefully do Smith after) - two comments are up. I'll complete the review tomorrow with some detailed notes on individual points; I'd meant to get it all done just now, but I think I'm too tired to do a competent review of the prose!

It's a pretty good article, though - I don't forsee any real problems. Shimgray | talk | 23:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, good article. If you want to get it to FA, might I suggest picking up a copy of Adrian Lewis' Omaha Beach: A Flawed Victory? Although the book obviously covers Omaha Beach in detail, the first few chapters have a lot of good stuff on Morgan and how he planned a lot of Overlord in the early phases. Skinny87 (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a chance to pore over it now, and on the whole it's fine - the one outstanding issue is the coverage of his post-war career, which seems a bit short. I've put it on hold for the time being, to give you a chance to follow it up - let me know if you'd like any more comments. Thanks! Shimgray | talk | 00:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's all aspects covered now, and I've passed it. Thanks! Shimgray | talk | 16:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Frederick E. Morgan
Hi. Congratulations on all your work on Frederick E. Morgan. Given your interest in this topic area I hope you won't mind my respectfully reminding you that Clement Attlee is spelt thus, with two Ts in his surname. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. DBaK (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Gillespie
{Snort.} I shake my head in disappointment. Don't these people have minders? Ho hum. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kenneth Strong
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kenneth Nichols
Hello! Your submission of Kenneth Nichols at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Hawkeye7, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox4. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Hawkeye7, I just wanted to says thanks for the especially thorough GA review you did on the 61st Battalion article. You've made it considerably better. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Nichols
I just wanted to commend you for your fine job of expanding Kenneth Nichols. One aspect that I've fleshed out a bit is the paragraph on his widely publicized role in initiating the Oppenheimer security hearing. I've added some text from Philip Stern's definitive account of the hearing, quoting from his extremely harsh memorandum to the AEC. Also I pointed out that he actually did very much question Oppenheimer's loyalty. The previous text said otherwise. Figureofnine (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with what you wrote, editing it only to set the reference style to match the rest of the article, but disagree on this point. Nichols still believed that Oppenheimer was loyal and was not a Soviet agent. He also attempted to correct the record on allegation that Oppenheimer had opposed the H-bomb, a technical issue which Nichols understood better than most. However, he believed that Oppenheimer was untrustworthy because of his Communist connections and his dishonesty about them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that's quite correct. The bit about the H-bomb was a rebuttal to Oppenheimer's attorneys' claim that he was being persecuted for opposing the H-bomb. KDN denied that, and said that the problem was JRO's associations with Communists and lack of trustworthiness. On loyalty, his June 12, 1954 letter to the AEC (p. 1042, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer) says "The record contains no direct evidence that Dr. Oppenheimer gave secrets to a foreign nation or that he is disloyal to the United States. However, the record does contain subsantial evidence of Dr. Oppenheimer's association with Communists, Communist functionaries, and Communists who did engage in espionage.... not a mere 'parlor pink' or student of communism... but was deeply and consciously involved with hardened and militant Communists..." etc. Nichols did not find him to be loyal, only that there was no "direct" evidence of disloyalty, but plenty of indirect evidence. Note the crucial "however." I don't think we can say that Nichols felt that he was loyal, based on the historical record. Figureofnine (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kenneth Nichols
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 25 October 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)

Sword B-class status
Hello, I Believe Sword deserves a reassessment to B class and would appreciate your input. thx,--87.70.124.157 (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Magdhaba
Hi, Hawkeye, the Battle of Magdhaba article is currently undergoing peer review (here). Given all the help you gave me with the Military history of Australia during World War I article, would you mind taking a look at Magdhaba and giving Rskp some suggestions on the article? No pressure, of course, but I suspect that your knowledge of the events in this area is much greater than mine. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

CSTC HMCS Acadia
Do all the the CSTCs class as Canadian Forces Maritime Element shore establishments? Several CTSCs were recently deleted through prod. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries
I added some of your FAs to the various anniversary pages for display on the front page. I was surprised none of them were on there. A large proportion of the incumbent entries are unsourced start class articles, so feel free to just self-serve and bump them off, in my opinion :)  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  07:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Chauvel - Romani
It seems the link from the Chauvel article to the Battle of Romani article has been lost. Could you please reinstate it? But it should not be at the start of the second paragraph because deployments at Romani had already started to be discussed in the previous paragraph at "Arrangements were far from ideal." It is at this point mention of Romani should be made because it was part of "No. 3 Section," otherwise readers will not know what battle it was that Lawrence was too far away to control. I hope you can see your way to make the change.--Rskp (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reinstating the link, but I am sorry you have not chosen to consider the above comments regarding the first paragraph of the Sinai section because it remains obscure. The relief of 1st Division was as you say, in March. But in late April the Anzac Mounted Division (only 2 out of 4 brigades) moved to Romani which was part of the northern No. 3 Section of the Suez Canal Defences. References for this will probably be in my earlier undone edit. If not, let me know and I will dig them out. I hope you can see your way to reviewing this first paragraph. --Rskp (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy on Classification by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality
Hi, I have a problem with the article White Argentine. In the article I mentioned many people who are Argentine by birth and by option (they immigrated when they were children and stayed in Argetnina until their death, or they are now living there). All those people mentioned in the article are perfectly Caucasian by phenotype, and all have European/Middle Eastern ancestry. To see the names, check this older version of the article, for they are now removed. This is because some users appeared criticizing the article and alleging that mentioning all those persons without a source that explicitly define them as "White Argentine/Argentinian" was a breach to Wikipedia's BLP policy. Is that true? Because I read the article of WP policy on categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and the topic "Race" is still under dispute. Besides, one of the users that criticizes the article is also involved in the proposal/discussion/RfC of the policy itself. If the matter isn't still resolved, can they apply a rule that it is not fully valid yet? If I provide sources that every living Argentine mentioned in the article is of predominantly European ancestry, isn't that enough to define him/her as White? Please, help me clarify this doubt.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppenheimer
Was offline for a while and just saw your post. I'd be happy to give it a GA review. However I've never done that before, so it would be great if you could give me a link to how that's one, assuming the GA review is still needed. Figureofnine (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Aw shucks, I'm afraid I'd not going to be able to do the GA review, as I see from the criteria that it's not supposed to be done by people who have made significant contributions to the article, which I did last spring. Oh well. But thanks for asking. Figureofnine (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw Talk:Kenneth_Walker
Sorry, my support in your A-class review was late, but I did read the article ... not that there was much to catch. I'm asking if you saw my notes because the broken links are still broken ... no rush, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply from Guoguo12
Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk-- 21:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)