User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2015
 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 |
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) |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
| |||
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
 | On 20 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Horace Robertson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Horace Robertson accepted the surrender of an Italian general, an Italian admiral and a Japanese general? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
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)
Please remove the text you have interspersed into my review of this article Fasach Nua (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)