User talk:IxK85

Originally posted at WP:COIN
Hi there. I am a curator at the Imperial War Museum. Anyone who looks at that article's revision history will see that I have made extensive additions to it. Mindful that I might be accused of a WP:COI, I have endeavoured to abide by WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and to stick to facts sourced from WP:RS.

Given Wikipedia's definition of CoI, Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia I do not believe I have done anything wrong, as my motivation was to produce a more encyclopedic article. For comparison version prior to my first edit and current version. Thank you for reading. IxK85 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits look great to me, consider nominating the article for review, it probably deserves Good Article status. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest declaring your COI on your user page by saying that you are a curator at the museum. You don't have to disclose your real-life identity (in fact I suggest that you don't) but by being up-front about your connection to the museum you'll be more likely to find that others assume good faith in your edits. I'll second what Irbisgreif has said, the article looks great and I'd say that your edits speak for themselves; there shouldn't be any need for you to avoid editing the article despite your connection to it. I think this is why WP:COI is a guideline rather than a policy, there are good editors like you who can contribute positively to an article despite the COI. Both WP:WikiProject London and WP:WikiProject Museums have assessed the article in the past, and you might want to drop a note at the talk page of each Wikiproject to ask them to reassess the article (it's certainly past "Start Class" at this point). --  At am a chat 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum - review?
Hi there. In the interests of transparency, I am a curator at the IWM. Anyone who's been following this article will know I've made a lot of changes to it. I have endeavoured to abide by WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and to stick to facts sourced from WP:RS. I have declared my interest also at WP:COIN. If any fellow editor finds my edits objectionable please discuss on the article's talk page.

Having declared my interest, I would like to ask members of this project to review and reassess the article. Is it ready for Good Article nomination? Thanks for reading. IxK85 (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW:  I took a look at this when you posted and it looked like a well done article.  I did not see anything overly promotional (and I've seen a *lot* of museum articles in the past two months).  I fixed some cats, but overall, I like the work you've done.   dm (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations for getting to GA dm (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum
Hi IxK85. I'll be doing the GA review of the Imperial War Museum article. I've only glanced over so far, but I see some good things there. Points for comment that stood out for me are that there are too many images so the page looks cluttered - be selective in both which images to use, and in how to present them (see WP:Images and MOS:IMAGES for suggestions - and also look at Image_use_policy to check compliance for the image gallery at the end); and that the lead section needs attention - a summary of the history would be useful, and some organisation so there is a bit more clarity about what and where the Imperial War Museum is. See WP:Lead. I'll copy these comments over onto the review page. You can speak to me there, or on my talkpage. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I've left some more comments on the review page. I've given you some work to do. I'll pop back later to see how you are getting on. Any questions, please let me know. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 11:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Imperial War Museum
The article Imperial War Museum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Imperial War Museum for eventual comments about the article. Well done!  SilkTork  *YES! 00:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Award
I have been impressed with what you have done with the article. You deserve some kind of recognition. Nice one!  SilkTork  *YES! 01:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum Duxford
Hello SilkTork. I'm sure you've plenty to keep you busy, but if you're interested then I've just nominated Imperial War Museum Duxford for Good Article review. Best regards, --IxK85 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooooh. You knew I'd jump at that, didn't you? I loved your last article and really enjoyed working on it with you. And I could do with some light relief after some of the stuff that I've been involved in just recently! Great. I've bagged it, and I'll take a look at it over the next few days. Forgive me if I'm a bit slow, but I have a couple of other things I'm still dealing with at the moment. Ping me if I haven't done the initial sweep of the article by Monday. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 17:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Belfast
Hello again, trust you're well. Was wondering if you'd be interested in GA reviewing HMS Belfast. Have not yet nominated it. Regards, --IxK85 (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to review anything you've written. Let me know when you nominate it and I'll start the review.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Passed. Well done. You're getting better at this!  SilkTork  *YES! 10:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

British Museum Wikipedian in Residence
Dear lxK84, Given your professional position, you might be interested in this announcement: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Museums if you hadn't heard already. Perhaps we could collaborate on something? Witty Lama 15:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there IxK85, 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:IxK85/Sandbox. 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) 00:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Churchill War Rooms
I was thinking of nominating the article to GA but I got stuck on some references. You seemed to take an interest in the article so I was wondering if you could give a hand with the tags I left in the article. Nergaal (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for the interest in the article. Some of the citation tags can be fixed by added additional references to sources already cited, but the second paragraph, 'Wartime use' requires rewriting entirely. If you're not watching that article, I'll let you know when it might be ready for nomination. Thanks again. [Will copy this to your talk page as well, just in case.]--IxK85 (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Nice job! Yes, I do think it looks like it is ready for GAN. Once that will go through, I am thinking to put Imperial War Museum up at the good topic nominations. Nergaal (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured topic candidates/Imperial War Museum/archive1. Nergaal (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

HMS Belfast is now A-Class
Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've closed the Milhist review for HMS Belfast as successful. Congratulations and thank you for your work - you've produced a fine article and done especially well to get through our notoriously stringent A-Class review process on your first attempt. Impressive all round :) All the best, EyeSerene talk 17:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

IWM Images
Hi there IxK85, I realise now that you are a curator with the IWM. Further to the comment I made on the Milhist talk page, could you possibly advise me on IWM image copyrights? I ask purely because I really have no idea how it works (for other archives as well as the IWM) and have always been quite curious.

This image for instance, was uploaded from the original IWM website. As wikicommons represents free content, is anyone now free to download the image from wikicommons and use it in anyway they like? If so, how do the IWM copyrights and re-use permissions affect it? Similarly, if an image was copied from a source other than the IWM, but is an image that IWM also holds, what is the status of that image and how should it be detailed on wikicommons? Finally, how do bundersarchiv images stand, as they can be obtained from two different sources?

Quite a lot of questions I know, but I'd love to find out and finally understand it. If you can help I'd be very grateful. Cheers, Ranger Steve   Talk  08:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:IxK85/Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Smcg8374 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Army commanders
"(removing army commanders - not sure they're relevant to a battle fought at division level and below)" perhaps but armies are hierarchical and a division conforms to the plans of the Corps, army and CinC so I'd leave them in.Keith-264 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * True, armies are hierarchical, but I don't think naming the overall commanders of the Battle of the Somme is helpful to a reader's understanding of the fights for the Schwaben redoubt - Haig, for instance, didn't plan the assaults on the redoubt on 1 July or in September-October. I think the article intro and infobox both make clear that the Schwaben redoubt is a part of a much larger battle, which readers can look up if they want to know who was in overall command.--IxK85 (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Eskimo (F75), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John West (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Great War (documentary), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sebastian Shaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted Imperial War Museum Duxford Edit
Hi, the first part of this change was made on the basis that the clause 'Since being opened' was spurious as any changes were bound to have taken place since the museum opened, but on reflection I accept that changes could have been made pre-opening.

However the grammar in the second part as reverted is wrong (Since being opened, the museum had had its glass front removed, and then reinstalled) - the tense 'had had' is wrong as there is no accompanying 'when' event, so if you have no objections I will reinstate this part of the edit.

Best Wishes

Clivemacd (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)