Jump to content

User talk:Andrew Gray/Archives/9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Dead headers

Hi,
Doesn't deleting an empty Reflist section simply encourage people to not provide the sourcing that they should be providing?
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

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) 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a poke, I really hope you'll run. I suggested you as a possible candidate because of your reasoned posts on WT:MILHIST, and to be frank, I want that on the coordinator's talk page as well. You have 22 hours to enter your name here (sorry for the short notice). Kind regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 827th Tank Destroyer Battalion

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

New DNB WikiProject

For information: I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, since the time has certainly come when there should be a place for collective discussion of the DNB adaptation effort. Please come and participate. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 825th Tank Destroyer Battalion

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

ORP Gryf (1944)

I've answered your questions on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Reginald Pinney

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Congrats!

Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2010-September 2011

Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

DYK for George Findlater

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Award of the Civility Barnstar

File:Civility Original Barnstar.png Civility Award
Awarded to Shimgray for keeping your cool in a recent page move discussion. You continued to debate the issues, and not the editor, despite sustained ad hominem attacks on all who did not fully agree with a particularly toxic editor's views. Very well done indeed! AusTerrapin (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Tom Blomqvist

OK, that's fair enough I guess. Usually if a driver has dual nationality he would say so on his own site! I've added a relevant category, stated his father was Swedish and mentioned he raced under a Swedish license earlier in the year. I don't have a ref yet for that final statement, but it is stated at 2010 Formula Renault UK season, where he has both flags shown. - mspete93 18:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

George Eyre

I went through the review, and have hopefully addressed your concerns. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


Happy Shimgray's Day!

User:Shimgray has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Shimgray's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Shimgray!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

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.

For a user ribbon you can use, see

Awesome Wikipedian
Awesome Wikipedian

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Shimday! Olaf Davis (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

DYK for John Keir

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

DYK for Charles Ross (British Army officer)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Whalefall

Wow. I guess I learned something today :P ResMar 17:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I just assumed they floated up to the surface and were quickly picked apart by scavengers. Fun stuff. Then again... ResMar 17:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Marden

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

DYK for Robert Fanshawe

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Frederick McCracken

I searched the internet for about 15-20 minutes today looking for any further information on Frederick McCracken, unfortunately it turned up mostly in vain. The three links I was able to find were:

  • [1], a newspaper article in 1933, perhaps it could be mentioned that 'he enjoyed Watercolor painting in his retirement'. (somewhat trivia but thats all I could find!)
  • [2], a summary of his commands, this could be used to verify factual details.
  • [3] which you might be able to use to verify or add additional awards. (It's not a reliable source however)

But given the lack of any significant information post 1922, I'm fairly convinced that the article "reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." So I think that qualifies it for B class.

Regards, Aeonx (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! The KCL index page is fairly similar to the Who's Who entry with a bit more specific detail on the commands - I suspect this is what they're mostly created from - but it does have one detail not in the article, which I've put in.
I'm a little ambivalent about the travel/painting thing - on the one hand, it's there and it's sourced, but if we include it it'd be all there is on his later life, and as a result it would be hard not to give the impression that he just retired to a bucolic life of rural artistry, and that probably wasn't the case... Shimgray | talk | 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was just going from the MOS of link the first instance only. I didn't think the two sections down for the next occurrence was large enough to justify another link. However since you think it improves the article for the reader I'm happy to go with your version. Mark83 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charles Howard (equerry)

The article Charles Howard (equerry) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Fails per biography guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Fanshawe (British Army officer)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hew Dalrymple Fanshawe

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting

Dear Wikipedian,


This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here


More to come about:

  • Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
  • 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
  • Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.


Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon
User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks
Joseph Seddon
User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Rimington

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Proposed deletion Mary Rose thing

Sorry dude, I unprod'd the 18th December action because it's apparently notable and there are sources on it (it's also mentioned in the article on its captain). Normally when I unprod something I add references, but I'm having computer issues and can't right now. I've noted down the references I found and I'll be back to improve it. Roscelese (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a comment in a Move Page request

Hello there! There is an article called "Argentina-Brazil War", it's about an international conflict that occurred between 1825 and 1828 between the Empire of Brazil and the United Provinces of South America over the possession of the Brazilian province of Cisplatina (which had a mixed Portuguese and Spanish population). The problem is that is was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". An editor probably created this name for it.

Thus, I proposed the name to be changed for "Cisplatine War" because it is "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME). A few examples: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], etc...

Your comment in Talk:Argentina–Brazil War#Requested move would be very welcome! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Findlater - do we really need the VC boilerplate?

I agree with you it's clumsy and frankly irrelevant but last time I tried to remove it from an article I got shouted down - see this diff. NtheP (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I can sort of see the reasoning for leaving it in in the "VC-only" articles we have so many of - the ones that are basically auto-generated text - but when they've been reworked into something more it seems a bit strange. It's also undue weight, in a way; why is the VC so much more important than any aspect of their career that we need to put all this information about it in the lede? Look at Lord Gort, for example; boilerplate on the VC, but "field marshal" is mentioned without any glossing (even though both are probably equally technical concepts) and - perhaps most oddly - it doesn't mention his spell as CIGS until you get into the body of the article! (As an aside, look at this level of silliness, from an old migrated version...)
Consistency is all well and good, but we shouldn't let ourselves feel bound to keep the clumsy wording of an arbitrary bit of text selected for a bot run seven years ago! Shimgray | talk | 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Tell me about it - trouble is you do anything and the old argument of have to distinguish VC from GC in terms of both being highest award but one for conduct in face of enemy etc etc raises it's ugly head again. To me that should be explained away in the relvant articles on the decorations not in each article where one or the other was awarded. NtheP (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

DYK nomination of Beauchamp Doran

Hello! Your submission of Beauchamp Doran 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! Yoninah (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

DYK for Beauchamp Doran

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Scots and Battle of Mughar Ridge

Its a little confusing to find that you have deleted "Royal Scots" when there is an article titled "Royal Scots" to which you have contributed. Can you please reinstate Royal Scots so that I can make sure its linked? --Rskp (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Have just reviewed your edits which have added a great deal to the description of the Brown Hill fighting. Thanks also for editing the isbn numbers - I thought they were a bit long! Does it matter which one is used? (just so I know for the future) --Rskp (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

+1. I think you'd make a great mentor, if you're interested.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

SEPECAT Jaguar

Thank you for the notification on my talk page. I wish to express my thanks at taking on the role of reviewing and coordinating the work on the Jaguar. This had been one of the most extensive overhauls that WP:Aircraft have conducted while on my meadering project, overhauling one aircraft article after another. I'm glad it has made the grade, and come out a far better article in a simple three weeks of intensive work(If you want to see the difference from what the article was like on December 31st 2010, go into the History subpage. A lot of people's hard work went into this, and I'm glad the result 'flies', even if the Jagaur itself no longer does here in the UK... Once again, thank you for reviewing the article; the pointers and directions of another set of eyes are very valuable when you've stared at something for too long and can't see the wood for the trees! Kyteto (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

DYK for Gerald Cuthbert

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

DYK for Charles Blackader

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:KrumJMK

" Apologies for all this fuss! There seems to have been an overzealous misunderstanding... " - Nicely handled!
I much prefer to have it characterised as "overzealous" rather than "bitter & twisted", "jaded", "cynical" or a number of other options which you would have been quite justified in using.
Many thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your user page

"But our coverage of 19th century Members of Parliament is implausibly good. It's strange."

If we replace "implausibily" with "unrepresentatively", I agree. However, I don't think it's strange. My theory is that it's because they are all dead and also because the "stuff" is now out of copyright. What do you think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Charles Blackader

I've taken on the GA review and left some initial comments for you to work through at your convenience. I'll get back to it later on or over the weekend. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - responded. Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Likewise. I haven't found anything new, so there are just two points left to be addressed, then I'll pass it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

DYK for Harry Marks

Orlady (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

donald trump

can you take a look at the trump university article too since you removed the deltion tag on his presidential campaign, i don't know why i'm accused of vandalism on there and would like some help Whatali (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah but the things i put in the < ref > tags were already in the external links and i was trying to clean the article up. i'm not sure what happened with the lawsuit either... these people with all the tags on my talk page are why wikipedia has such a bad reputation. i'm trying to help out and they just revert, revert, revert with no explanation and won't talk to me. i think ill leave after all, this isn't worth the stress. Whatali (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Action at Néry

Hey. Stumbled upon this article while doing some random browsing and came away rather impressed with it. Have you given thought to nominating at GA? I can't see it being too problematic there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Tartans and Maxwell

The rationale for your lightning-quick reversion of my correction (as I see it) to the description of the ribbon as "a Tartan" is not entirely clear, nor is which "we" you are referring to. If you are truly an authority on things Celtic, I cede to you, as I certainly am not, but it seems odd that Maxwell, a Scot, would refer to it as a "coloured ribbon" if it were actually a tartan. The description of it as a tartan appears to be a mid-20th century development. The WP article on tartans, which is all I know of the subject (and more), indicates that far from being "a pretty vague concept" tartans are more in the category of military insignia and heraldic devices. It is also striking that in that article the only "tartan" illustrated which does not consist of a pattern of lines crossing an identical pattern at a right angle is this very image of the "tartan" ribbon. No slight against tartans was intended by my edit, I am simply interested in accuracy. In fact, I was first alerted to the likely error by a Scot who objected to the now-common description, stating that it "doesn't correspond to any known tartan", and since it is difficult if not impossible to prove such a negative the burden of proof would seem to fall on anyone who claims that it is. Surely, not every multicolo(u)red ribbon qualifies as a tartan. AVarchaeologist (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Your points have merit, and you are plainly better-informed on the subject of tartans than I am. Although not entirely persuaded, I will not press any campaign to reform the now-ubiquitous description of it as a "tartan ribbon", at least not by main force as in this instance. I believe I have employed the phrase "usually described as a tartan ribbon" in another article to signal some degree of doubt -- is that acceptably ambiguous? As to the substance of the matter, close study seems to indicate that what appear to be transverse colored stripes are actually glossy highlights running crosswise, well-defined because the rather wrinkly ribbon was photographed in direct sunlight, and appearing to be colored because the light struck it a bit differently during each exposure (the red and green-filtered exposures each lasted for several minutes). The resulting three black-and-white component images also came out with differing levels of brightness and contrast, which is not apparent from modern color-corrected composites such as this. If that were not enough, overall image adjustments made to obtain a better general color balance can have the side-effect of exaggerating spurious color effects in small areas. So, things may not be as they at first appear in this famous photograph. If this "bow made of ribbon, striped with various colours", as the (English) photographer Sutton described it, actually has only parallel stripes, could it still be considered a tartan? AVarchaeologist (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for the link fix. I cut-and-pasted from an older copy of that one and the address has evidently changed. Both need to be cleaned up to be less visually obnoxious and so that the references persist even if the links rot. I will eventually get around to it, but you are welcome to beat me to that task if you wish. It seemed urgent to get the citations in A.S.A.P., in however raw a form, after making such substantial changes. AVarchaeologist (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The use of the third person is certainly odd, but as published in the Royal Institution's Proceedings the following year, "[J.C.M.]" is subscribed at the end, indicating that Maxwell was the author of the abstract. Referring to "the speaker" in this way, even if the speaker was oneself, was apparently customary form in their abstracts. It is still in this form in The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell (1890, reprinted 1965). The publication of this "authenticated abstract" cited and linked (in transcript) in the WP article is its earlier appearance in The British Journal of Photography for August 1, 1861, just two and a half months after the demonstration, so it cannot have been written long enough after the event for the fog of memory to have worked much mischief.
Sutton's statement that "A bow made of ribbon, striped with various colours, was pinned upon a background of black velvet..." is certainly his own. It is a direct quote in The British Journal of Photography for August 9, 1861, which is copying from what Sutton wrote about the matter in his own periodical Photographic Notes, the 1861 volume of which is not available online and is nearly impossible to lay hands on, at least on this side of the Pond. However, Sutton does also state that his yellow-filtered exposure was included in the projection, which is contrary to the account in the abstract and at odds with Maxwell's purpose of demonstrating that the additive primaries are red, green and blue, so I make no claim that Sutton's account is one hundred percent reliable. Still, Sutton actually saw and handled the object at the focus of this controversy, unlike all the later commentators who had only a peculiar set of photographs to look at. Indeed, whether Maxwell ever laid eyes on the ribbon is by no means established. He may not have been present while Sutton was doing the photography -- Sutton's apparently self-motivated yellow-glass-filtered fourth exposure rather suggests that he was not.
The earliest description of the ribbon as a tartan that I know of is in an article by D. A. Spencer in the 1940 Penrose Annual (pages 99-100). My copy of that short article, which accompanied what was almost certainly the first printed colour composite of the image, is not quite complete, but I can find nothing in it to suggest that his description of the image was based on anything but his own impression. The Penrose Annual was a graphic arts review, not a scholarly journal featuring citations, so it is strictly a dead end in terms of a chain of references. Yet that article is the only reference included in R. M. Evans' 1961 article (at least, his article in The Journal of Photographic Science, 9:243-246 (1961) -- his 1961 Scientific American article is not at hand) which could be construed as Evans' "authority" for describing the ribbon as a tartan. Subsequent accounts almost inevitably derive from Evans' 1961 articles, usually at second or third hand or beyond. None of these, or even all of them together, seem like an authority that requires outweighing by some undefined burden of proof. There is a formation on Mars that looks to many people like an artificially created stylized representation of a humanoid face. There are articles and even books (which, of course, do not cite any generally accepted expert on extraterrestrial geology) stating that it is. How does one go about proving a negative in such a case, and why should one be required to?
I would very much like to have the benefit of your considered opinion about two possibilities: (1) The ribbon has sparse transverse stripes, some of which which may or may not be coloured, which are quite different in pattern from the bold longitudinal stripes. Properly described as a tartan? (2) The transverse stripes are all illusory, but, for the sake of argument, the longitudinal stripes are actually a "known" pattern or "sett". Still technically a tartan even though unidirectional? I am rashly assuming that if there are neither transverse stripes nor a "known" pattern there can be no tartan by even the broadest definition of the word. AVarchaeologist (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Leadbeater

Please contact me about Eddie Leadbeater Hollyemitchell (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Hi Andrew. Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Bradley Manning. Thank you. To be clear, I don't think vandalism was involved by 98.252.221.91, which your edit summary implied (probably mistakenly). That editor removed some obvious vandalism and made some poor edits, but good faith was certainly behind those edits. Only 69.86.217.120 removed the referenced material. Even then, IMHO, AGF should be applied. --S. Rich (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

DYK for 818th Tank Destroyer Battalion

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Who's Who

Hi Andrew, do you have access to Who's Who, either a recent edition of the book or the online subscription? I recall you had Who Was Who when I reviewed Charles Blackader a while back. If you do, could you possibly look up this bloke for me? I'm just looking for a few tidbits to improve the article a little. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Military history project ACRs for closure

Hi, sorry to bother you. We are currently having trouble finding an uninvolved co-ordinator to close a few ACRs. If you get a free moment, could you please take a look at the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#ACRs for closure and close one if you are uninvolved? Cheers! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Thank you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For the careful and thoughtful handling of a complicated and sensitive OTRS ticket. Jalexander--WMF 06:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Barnstar

 The British Library barnstar

Thank you for joining and contributing the British Library editathon, you definitely earned this barnstar!

Further teamwork on the articles created and any issues will be running at WP:GLAM/BL (so keep it on your watchlist) there are some photos from the event at Commons:Category:Editathon,_British_Library and your comments are welcome at feedback. Future events are listed at the UK Chapter wiki at wmuk:Events so you may want to keep the link in your bookmarks to see if there is anything else coming up you might enjoy. Perhaps you would like to come along to one of our regional social wiki-meets where keen Wikipedians debate all things wiki-related? We are growing the GLAM network which helps e-volunteers of all types engage with their most loved cultural institutions and you can always drop me a note or email if you would like to know more about how you could help with our work. Cheers Fæ (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Roger Dodsworth (story)

About Roger Dodsworth (story), since it had been several days since the last edit, I tidied the article and removed the 'under construction' tag. Obviously feel free to put that back if you resume work on that, but I hate leaving things hanging like that. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

British Library follow-up

Thank you for participating in the English and Drama Editathon at the British Library on June 4. I hope you enjoyed the day and got something useful out of it.

If you are new to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, I hope you had any questions or problems answered and maybe found being a contributor as addictive as many of the regulars do. If you've got any questions or need help, please feel free to ask any of us on our talk page or by e-mail (Fæ, Tom Morris, Sadads, James F., RHaworth, The Land, AdamBMorgan), ask on the British Library collaboration page or through the Wikipedia Help Desk.

If you are interested in working on Wikipedia, you might want to consider joining one of the WikiProjects. These are places where team work between editors interested in a particular topic can be coordinated. Some suggestions for WikiProjects that may be of interest to you as a participant in the event on Saturday include Literature, Poetry or Science Fiction. A full list of literature and language related WikiProjects can be found here, and a list of all WikiProjects is here. The WikiProjects often have things that need doing, and if you need help you can often ask in their talk page.

But there are other places you can get involved. If you are interested on working on images, such as improving image descriptions, categorisation or uploading new media, consider getting involved in Wikimedia Commons. Wikisource also needs people willing to help make available original source material, and Wikiquote is trying to compile a directory of quotes which you may be able to contribute to.

If you want to continue some of the work we got started on Saturday, here are a few potential things to help with:

  • Following on from work on Ella D'Arcy on Saturday, work has started to make all of The Yellow Book available on Wikisource. If you go to the page on Wikisource and pick a volume then click on 'scan index' you can start helping to proofread pages from the journal - simply click on the page you want to work on, and go through to check that the text on the left reflects the text on the right. If you need any help with getting started, please ask User:Tom Morris.
  • If you created any new articles at the event, you might want to submit them to Did you know?.
  • If you are able to translate into other languages, why not pick one of the articles we worked on, translate it and post it on another language version of Wikipedia: there are now versions in hundreds of languages. On Wikimedia Commons, it is also possible to provide multilingual descriptions of images and categories: this enables editors on the other language versions to better find images and media files they can use in their project.
  • If you need images from the British Library to illustrate articles, please add them to the image requests page. If you would like a British LIbrary curator to help collaborate on an article, please add it to the collaborations page.
  • You might also be interested in attending GLAMcamp London.
  • To explore more articles related to the British Library, visit Portal:British Library.

Whatever you do, please tell us about the positive and negative experiences you have. On behalf of the organisers of the event, thanks again.

—Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Thanks

I know it is nine months late, but wanted to thank you for your suggestion at Talk:The King's Pilgrimage. I've replied there and made some additions to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Robert Arbuthnot

I have copied the comments to his talk page. Was he there or was he not? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspect you are right. I suppose AJ Arbuthnot who wrote the DNB entry is Ada Jane Arbuthnot, wife of P S-M Arbuthnot and author of Memories of the Arbuthnots. I wonder if we can find out where he was. Was he still off games because of illness? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

WP:Military History and WP:Espionage Merge?

On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Stabbing Act 1603

Hello. I noticed that you are the creator of the above article. I have a problem because I don't have the source that you used in front of me. Does the book "Select statutes and other constitutional documents illustrative of the reigns of Elizabeth and James I" by Prothero actually refer to this Act as the "Stabbing Act 1603"? (I ask because I suspect that the name of the Act given in the article might be a back-formation of the description of the Act given in the Chronological Table of the Statutes). If it doesn't, I am going to move the article to Statute of Stabbing as I have found some evidence that that is what it is called. James500 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Milhist coordinator elections

Hi Shimgray. Just a reminder that the nomination period for this year's coordinator elections expires at midnight tomorrow (UTC). When you get the chance, would you mind indicating your intentions in the table here? If you're intending to stand for re-election you'll also need to complete your nomination statement fairly soon :) Best, EyeSerenetalk 13:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sorry to see you're not running this time, but thank you very much for your contributions during the last tranche - they were much appreciated. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 14:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fairfax Harrison/archive1

Is there something more I can do to alleviate any concerns you might have? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Shimgray! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

JSTOR access

How did you gain access to those JSTOR sources you cited in the discussion about the Four Courts fire? I am not allowed to read them. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Thomas Cubitt (British Army officer)

Congratulations on doing an excellent job on Thomas Cubitt (British Army officer). Dormskirk (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Philip Robertson (British Army officer)

Shumgray,

Article: Philip Robertson (British Army officer).

Are you still working on the above article? It's the final one in the unassessed section for our WikiProject Military History. I have left it unassessed because I felt you would be able to add more content to it when you felt you had time. Keep up the good work. Adamdaley (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Thought I'd ask before I did anything to the article or assessed it. Keep up the good work and take your time with it. Adamdaley (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Merry Christmas!

Happy new year!
we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge Wikipedia society

I've created a page at Wikipedia:Cambridge University Wikipedia Society, please sign up to that and help coordinate future efforts! Sorry for the sloppiness over the past few months about this. Deryck C. 18:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Hi. When you recently edited National Highway 22 (India), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab (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) 11:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

A New Year for the DNB, and launch of "volume of the month"

See WT:WP DNB#Volume of the Month for a collaboration that I'm in the course of setting up. Everyone who signed up to the WikiProject for the Dictionary of National Biography is being notified, while there is still time to alter the way of working if need be. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

OTRS

For some reflections on the OTRS Workshop, please see Equilibrium is soon established by a stream of volunteers.Leutha (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Gray/Archives/9&oldid=1143360389"