User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2015

Archive Archives:

2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Hawkeye7/Archive 2015! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

		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 for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Invite

You may be interested to come to the Wikipedia celebration on 15 January in Canberra. see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Military historian of the Year 2010

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2010 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

GA J. Robert Oppenheimer

I regret the delay that you have experienced in getting a review in response to your GA nomination. I have taken over the review and placed the article on hold. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I need to know if you are planning to pursue the GA review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. I apologize; I had not noticed that it had been reviewed. I will get working on the suggested corrections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your excellent changes. We still have a few concerns but are very close to finishing. Racepacket (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't want to step out of my role as a fair arbiter of just the GA criteria, but have you considered my suggestion of moving the four grad students to the Security panel section and attributing it to the accusers instead of speaking in the voice of Wikipedia? Whatever you think is best, I will not hold up the article on this point. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Horace Robertson

Hello! Your submission of Horace Robertson 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! GregorB (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Singapore Strategy GA Review

Hi mate, just letting you know in case you hadn't noticed that I completed the review, awaiting your response to a few fairly minor points when you get a chance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Bismarck Sea

Hi, Hawkeye, I've made an attempt to copy edit the Battle of the Bismarck Sea article to address Wikicopter's concerns on the GA review page. I'm not sure how to expand the lead, though, sorry. Are you able to address this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I was going to provide a longer lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Cheers, it looks good. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Horace Robertson

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Battle of Sio

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Battle of Sio.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 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) 01:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Sio

You reverted the Fix bunching template back in. Does it actually bunch for you or anyone else? Please have a look at Template_talk:Fix_bunching#Change the documentation. Looks bad with the the template here. So unless there is an actual problem I'd say leave it out. Cheers 217.235.23.141 (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• It always looked okay on my screen, but another editor had problems and put the fixbunching in. Therefore, I am not taking it out. It is supposed to make things looked better, so if there is a problem with it, we need to get the fixbunching templates fixed instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Going forward

I was hoping for some input from others in MILHIST; I generally prefer for others to make the "big" calls, I try to stay focused on getting a relatively technical and boring job done. But it looks like we're not going to get it, so I'll make a suggestion. Going forward, I have no trouble with leaving your A-class articles alone ... I already generally leave the non-AmEng articles alone, because I'm really in no position to make judgments on English other than American English (and arguably Canadian English; Chicago has been influential in Canada for 100 years, and Canadians tend to follow the American model that favors conformity). Concerning Manhattan Project, I've got concerns, and since I've put a lot of work into it, I'd rather the problems be fixed before it gets promoted, and AustralianRupert indicated that we were out of time. FAC is another story; maintaining goodwill at FAC by giving them a standard they can rely on will help all our FAC writers, so I tend to get involved in all the articles there, AmEng or not. I'd appreciate it if you (and everyone) would give me a shout before taking articles to FAC if I haven't already reviewed them for A-class ... generally, my reaction will be to do any work myself that needs doing, although if it looks like a tough slog, I'll say so. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I accept that you have your concerns and am willing to work through them. The A-class reviewers should be focusing on factual issues related to military history (and in this case, nuclear physics). FAC is another story. Changes based on style have to be based upon the MOS. Changes based upon grammar are always welcome. My next step with the article will probably be a pruning process to reduce it in size a bit without reducing the factual content. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Leslie_Groves/archive1

Please remove the text you have interspersed into my review of this article Fasach Nua (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a common way of responding to comments in FAC's and Hawkeye has signed his comments... Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi mate, before I get on to my main point, I'm sorry I didn't get in and review Manhatten Project when I had the chance but if/when you renom I'll try and make a better effort to do so -- I continue to be impressed with your willingness to take on big and controversial subjects. Now the question... I'm working on the article I threatened recently re. former Duntroon cadets who joined the RAAF in 1923-30 but I'd be interested in your opinion on an appropiate title. I'm not calling it "List of Duntroon graduates in the RAAF" because one of the whole points of creating such a list rather than relying on the current "Duntroon graduates" category is that some of the key people went into the RAAF without graduating. "List of Duntroon alumni in the RAAF" would cover everyone but are we in the habit of using "alumni" in the Australian military? Do you think "List of former Duntroon cadets in the RAAF" is more appropriate or a bit of a mouthful? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've never heard "alumni" used in the Australian Army, only "graduates". I would go with "List of former Duntroon cadets in the RAAF". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate -- actually looking at Moore's book on the college and its list of cadets, it sounds like some still go into the Air Force as "Ground Defenders", so I may even want to put "pilots" in the title as in "Duntroon-educated pilots in the RAAF" or some such, or put a year range in -- but I'll definitely leave out "alumni"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Manhattan Project article.

This user helped promote Manhattan Project to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

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) 15:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Leslie Groves

Two quick things about this article. First, it seems a bit short. Do you have access to The General and the Bomb? It seems like there's some good stuff to add. If you don't have access, I can easily get a copy to look through. Second, I'm of the entirely personal opinion that "was in charge of" is rather clunky and imprecise. I think it would be more forceful and concise if you could substitute an action verb, such as directed, led, supervised, oversaw (which obviously doesn't work given that you use it for the Pentagon), etc. Sir Nils (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I do, but Norris is generally better. What points/issues do you think it should also cover? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just checking

You didn't intend to remove John, King, right? [1] WSC reinstated it with an edit summary that it was probably just a mistake, so I'm just checking in case I missed something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, it was a mistake. Early in the morning here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks, just wanted to be sure. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Gareth Kirkham

Hi id like to view an article that was deleted in 2009. The article in question is Gareth Kirkham. can you help?82.3.203.127 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• It was just a stub. All it said was; "Gareth Kirkham is a rugby union player who currently is under contract for the London Wasps." Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dwarves and dwarfs

Apologies for the misunderstanding at FAC about that spelling. I've struck that part and said I will raise it elsewhere as it relates to more than just this article. One thing, though, when you reverted my change you may have gone back a little bit too far. Could you double-check the diff here and see whether the other edits I made (it was some minor copyediting I did) should be reinstated? Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

FAR notifications

Hi Hawkeye - Last fall, a new requirement was put into place at FAR that necessitates a notification on the article's talk page prior to FAR. This requirement was neglected on your recent nomination of Association football at FAR. Due to this, I have placed the review on hold and made the notification on the talk page. If at least a week goes by with no work being done on the article, the article can be relisted at FAR - you are free to do it yourself or let me know and I will do it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, I am willing to tackle any issues you have with the article. I think it is somewhat unfair to say that it has "few references" it has over 50. I am also not seeing any outstanding issues from the last review, they were all tackled and hence why it was closed as kept. Can you note any specific areas which you think need referencing? Thanks. Woody (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Woody. Unreferenced sections include:

• The first and fourth paragraphs of "History"
• The first, third and fourth paragraphs of "Duration and tie-breaking methods"
• Last paragraph in "Misconduct"
• The whole "Governing bodies" section
• The middle paragraph in "International competitions"
• The first and second paragraphs of "Domestic competitions"

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those Hawkeye7. I've had a run through just now and added references in where I thought they were missing based on what you noted above. Could you please have another look and see if there are any more areas you think are under-referenced. Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've copied this discussion over to the talkpage, probably best to carry on the discussion over there so anyone else can get involved. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Interim Committee

I removed section head "Post-war legislation" as not descriptive of the content of the paragraph, which is about the actual dropping of the atomic bombs. If you're planning to extend the article to include the committee's work on post-war control, that's another matter, so good luck with it. Cheers, Cuppysfriend (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppenheimer

Just wanted to express my admiration for the great job you've been doing bring the Oppie story up to FA standards, almost singlehandedly. Sorry I wimped out on the GA review. Figureofnine (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• No worries. Best of luck with the article on Opje's hearing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball

I've waded in with my 2 pence as well. No idea what he is doing. no wonder why people loose their temper with some of the reviewers. Personally I don't see why that user is so poor at English since he is apparently Indian. Most people in India have a good grasp of English right? KnowIG (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Interim Committee

I have placed this review on hold for you to address some areas. I am looking forward to seeing you again. Racepacket (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

J Robert Oppenheimer FAC

Have all your concerns been resolved? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of minor changes and then I can support. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and resolved my remaining concerns. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I can help regarding SV's apparent oppose, if you like, but what she wants is going to take some dialog(ue) and some effort. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'd like to expand on that. I'm never annoyed by email (from people like you, anyway), but since most Wikipedians prefer on-wiki dialog, I'll speak my mind here ... for as long as I'm saying something useful, which is up to you.

I've been skimming FA bios lately to get a sense of what's expected, and I've read the last parts of all 7 of your FA bios. None of them had the detail that Oppenheimer does, and I don't think the extra detail is helpful. Normally, I try to limit my so-called copyediting (it lacks a lot when compared to professional copyediting, although that's partly on purpose) to things that are as mechanical and inoffensive as possible, because I'm covering a lot of ground at peer review, A-class review and FAC, and I just don't have time for more drama than is necessary to get the job done. But I do try to pay attention to the preferences of the most active contributors, including you. So if there's something going on here I don't understand, let me know. At FAC in particular, I think it's a very good idea to be conservative, to pare back things that might cause confusion, if you can do it without damaging the material (in your view).

Okay, stuff I'd leave out:

• These were not curative and the tumor spread to his palate, affecting his swallowing, hearing and breathing. [Our FA bios don't in general give the gory details of what exactly went wrong as they were dying of cancer.]
  • Okay, I have removed after "spread". The problem was a wiki-category about the cause of death, which is very specific, and had me run through a literature search to determine the precise form of cancer that he had. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see your dilemma. Still, I'm going to shorten it a little; as always, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
• 600 of his closest ... associates [600 associates ... no one has 600 closest associates]
  • An Americanism I picked up in New Orleans, where Mardi Gras is attended by "thousands of your closest friends". Deleted "closest" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You're right, that one is our fault :) - Dank (push to talk)
• Bethe, Kennan and Smyth gave brief eulogies. Oppenheimer was cremated and his ashes were placed in an urn. Kitty took his ashes to St John and dropped the urn into the sea off the coast, within sight of the beach house. [In a novel about Oppenheimer, sure, you'd want to know. I don't see any of this kind of thing in our FA bios, and IMO, this makes me think that I'm reading an obituary rather than an encyclopedia.]
  • Again, the problem stems from the wiki bio pro forma, which wants to know the exact place of burial. I've spent a lot of time tracking down the graves of general officers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Aha. If you don't mention the beach house and St. John and the urn, you haven't specified the place of burial. It still feels like too much, but you make a convincing case. - Dank (push to talk)
• the beach property in St. John was inherited by their daughter Toni. [I think this is the first mention of the beach property; if it didn't play a significant role in Oppenheimer's life, then short bios in general and FAs in particular generally don't mention this kind of detail. Same goes for "... in the beach house" and following. OTOH, his daughter's suicide after being denied a security clearance could certainly be relevant to his bio, although the implication of the link between the two might make for some fireworks. I haven't read the source, so I can't say.] - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The beach property appears at the start of the "Final years" section. Of course, the ranch and beach house figure much larger in biographies of Oppenheimer than they do in the article. The bit about inherited stems from discussion about where his money went, which goes back to the bit about his political beliefs. Toni's depression was probably genetic, and her security problems were solely due to her father. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, my search failed, thanks. Do we need the sentence about the community center? - Dank (push to talk)
• I'd like to thank you for your proofreading efforts. I find myself having to write to unfamiliar grammatical and spelling rules without the aid of my automated assistants (which are currently warning me that you misspelled "encyclopaedia"). I wish they would just let us write in our own English. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure; ideally, you'll feel supported by me and the other copyeditors at A-class and FAC, that is, you'll feel free to write and not worry so much about catching every mistake and meeting everyone's expectations. Btw, I was concerned about SV's impending oppose, but it looks like she's plowing on ahead with her copyediting, and she's doing a generally great job IMO so I think the FAC is on the right track. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, question for you here in case you miss it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

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) 21:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Milhist ACRs

I've closed Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Singapore_strategy as "no consensus"; although some development work was underway, the review was well over the allowed 28 days and in the interests of fairness to other reviews it unfortunately couldn't be extended indefinitely. However, on the plus side Manhattan Project is now A-Class so please accept my congratulations for its successful nomination. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pity about Singapore Strategy but sure it will sail through next time, Hawkeye -- anyway, great work and big congrats on Manhatten Project, and I can't see much holding up Oppie from a successful FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which ... one of the things the delegates pay particular attention to (sometimes) is WP:LQ, so I'm going to move some punctuation outside quotation marks. If I've got it wrong ... that is, if the punctuation was inside the marks in the source, and the punctuation could make a difference to the meaning, please revert me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball in the Cook Islands

Hawkeye7: I have enjoyed working with you on J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Interim Committee GA Reviews, and I want your guidance on Netball in the Cook Islands and Netball. Although I write in American English, I never insisted that my spellings carried over to those articles. I am a bit puzzled by User:LauraHale's reaction to my questions and suggestions and am not sure what prompts that.

I see that you have signed on as the reviewer of Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3. Is it possible that (diff and diff) are "significant contributions to it prior to the review?" Maybe we should let a fresh pair of eyes figure out how to take the GA process forward.

In the meantime, I have gone through all of the talk page and review comments on Netball and made a check list of remaining items. I hope that you will work with me to conclude the Netball review. Many thanks for all that you do for Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:LauraHale is a doctoral student whose expertise is in social media, particularly in its relationship with sport. She has done a lot of work with Wikimedia organising conferences and events for them but is a necomer to Wikipedia as such. She was commissioned to write about the Wikipedia and decided to create a featured article as part of the exercise. Her experience so far has been very negative and I can only anticipate a scathing indictment of the Wikipedia, its editors and its policies. Being an American herself she has not been on the recieving end of American cultural imperialism before, and is shocked and indignant, whereas an Australian would just shrug. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that frame of reference. Again, although I insist on my talk page statements being in American English, I do not expect the spelling of postings on article pages conforming to American spellings. I also reject the claim that grammar rules in New Zealand are different. I want all of my GA reviews to result in a "passed," and I felt a sense of defeat when Netball in the Cook Islands resulted in my first "fail." Racepacket (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you can put your talk page comments in New Zealand English. That would be common courtesy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

American English Spell checkers and a lack of New Zealand spelling would make that very difficult to do. On another point, I was surprized to learn that asking for help in spot checking sources for copyright infringement would be "harassment." How do you deal with reviewing materials that are not available on-line? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

On the Oppenheimer article? I borrowed the books from the library. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Olympic sports

Will you please give me a valid reason - why you reverted my change of removing this category from Netball? This category only contains articles about past and present Olympic sports; or do you've some other definition of Olympic sports? which even ignores the IOC.Bill william compton^Talk 20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the category description and it said no such thing. See the article on Olympic sports for details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This category contains articles about past and present Olympic sports and links to the categories for those sports. - from category

The Olympic sports comprise all the sports contested in the Summer and Winter Olympic Games. - very first line of article you suggested to me. What you think i'm a bull who hit for no reason, of course i'm aware of this article and category's description. Now tell me where you read this thing that this category also include all IOC recognized sports?? thanks Bill william compton^Talk 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball

Are you interested in continuing and finishing the GA review without the original nominator. If so, please let us know on Talk:Netball/GA1 Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The nominator has withdrawn the article from consideration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but are you willing to step in and finish it without her? Racepacket (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Stafford L. Warren

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:Racepacket

Hi Hawkeye, Racepacket (talk · contribs) is appealing their block. I think that you should post an explanation of why you implemented the block on their talk page for the benefit of the reviewing admin (including links to diffs and/or relevant discusussions and reports which led to the block, of course). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Nick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"World War I", "World War II"

Hmains is making a lot of changes again to non-American articles. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fix bunching

It was my understanding that this problem was solved, see Template talk:Fix bunching, in almost all cases. Could you tell me what difficulties you were seeing that required your reversion of my edits at Manhattan Project. We are working to resolve any outstanding issues. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Could be. I never saw any problem. But if there is no effect to keeping it there, why remove it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  Compare without and with the additional {{fix bunching}} templates. Notice how in the version with the additional template, the text is pushed farther left of the infobox, introducing additional whitespace. Now, this may not seem like much space, but if you scroll down and expand the bottom World War II collapsible box (within the larger World War II series campaign box). When that bottom box is uncollapsed, it increases the width of the campaign box. Now, if you scroll back up you will see that pushes text next to the top infobox in the case that we have {{fix bunching}}, but it does not in the case without it. The reason is that {{fix bunching}} links these two elements, making it so the left margin for both is set by the widest of the two elements. If one element is wider than the other, or becomes wider when it is uncollapsed, it creates unnecessary whitespace since the text does not wrap around each element individually. Does this make sense? Another reason for removing it is that some editors don't fully understand how it works, and end up putting too much inside of it. Yet another reason, right now, is to get feedback if this particular [edit] link float bug is actually fixed. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  I'll tell you what I see. On the one without the template, there is slightly less space between the infobox and the WWII campaign box, but slightly more space after the campaign box. There is noticeably less white space to the left of the one with the template as you say. Both versions look fine to me. But someone else did have a problem and added the templates.

  The templates claim to fix bunching and therefore they should fix bunching. If this is best done by doing nothing, then that is what they should do.

  Because I wanted to prepare the article for FAC later in the year, I did not want any drama about white space and infoboxes. So what I am going to do is remove the templates and see if anyone complains. If someone does, the templates go back in and stay there. You will be informed but usually the complaints about layout are too vague to follow up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Better Than Today

Hello. I was wondering if you are free, could you please examine this Good article candidate. I give a thank you in advance. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... The editor who nominated those articles... He just popped up out of nowhere and nominated them, then he doesn't fix the articles after they are put on hold. Personally, I'd give a quick fail to whatever he does. He's not even a regular contributor. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 20:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Mar 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Parphrasing accusations.

I've posted the following to USer:jayvdb's talk page.

If there are genuine concerns regarding close paraphrasing that could be problematic (and I've checked and I've asked User:Hawkeye7 to verify already [where he found none]) and help resolve the issue of whether or not I actually did it as relevant to the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2‎ and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2‎, I am more than happy to ask User:Hawkeye7 to scan and e-mail the relevant pages to you. (I'm not at home at the moment so I do not have access to the exact text myself.) Most of the sources are available on Google Books. I think there are only two books in question. I'd like to get that issue out of the way because it is annoying. I've already had one person verify it. No one has found any inappropriate paraphrasing with the publicly available texts and I'm rather annoyed that the accusation continues to be repeated with out anything to back it up. --LauraHale (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you could find the relevant texts that Racepacket was citing (very handy that they were the only ones not publicly available. Because yes, I went to all that work not to do inappropriate paraphrasing with all the rest of the sources but I chose to do it for the book sources.) and scan the I think 5 pages in question and e-mail them to User:jayvdb, that would be awesome. I want this stupidity to go away and it looks like people won't until I prove my innocence. --LauraHale (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Which books are we talking about? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing

We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A-class Medal with Swords

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		For outstanding work on Manhattan Project, Horace Robertson, and Walter Bedell Smith, all of which were promoted to A-Class between and March and April 2011, I hereby award you the A-class Medal with Swords. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal congrats on becoming only the third bloke to achieve this milestone -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)