User talk:Dana boomer

; Archives
	December 2007 - May 2008; June 2008 - September 2008; October 2008 - December 2008; January 2009 - August 2009; September 2009 - December 2009;

Peer reviews needing feedback:
Update:

Talkback

Hello, Dana boomer. You have new messages at Hohenlohe-Kirchberg GA's talk page.
Message added 21:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

should be okay now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR thanks

Dana, thanks for all the help at FAR ... reviews there are really lagging, so your good work is appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome :) I try to run through a few now and then... Please let me know if there's anything about my reviews that is off-kilter, I'm rather new at reviewing for the FA processes! Dana boomer (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing great! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dana boomer. You have new messages at Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire/GA1#Next_set_of_comments.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Malvern

Hello, Dana boomer. You have new messages at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/GA1#Next set of comments.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Kudpung (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donkeys

Good luck on your new project, let me know if you want a second set of eyes. And this one is a MUCH needed effort! Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's probably going to be a slow one. It'll take quite a bit of time and som ILLs before it even goes live, much less to GA or further. Cross your fingers for me on this one..., although I suppose it's better than tackling Laminitis or Horse meat at this point (the other two articles with the highest tag count at the cleanup page). Dana boomer (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't touch the horsemeat article with a ten-foot pole, I admire that you are even thinking about it! I would have an interest, eventually, on a collaboration on the laminitis article, though -- it's a topic near and dear to my heart, having dealt with it personally, plus I have a ton of stuff from The horse -- the research is quite cutting edge, our understanding of laminitis is changing almost as dramatically as is our understanding of genetics. It's going to be a daunting task and maybe one where we don't even look at the existing article and just recreate it from scratch. Oh, FYI, speaking of horse health, noticing a redlink on one of Ealdgyth's new articles, I created Colitis-X, which was somewhat new to me, at least in how serious it is. =:-O The up side of that is that I realize that we will have a lot more luck getting scientific articles on the net than we do the history/breed stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.. Lightning Bar isn't new.. he's just getting ready for his FAC push. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN for Horses in World War I

I left a review at Talk:Horses in World War I/GA1. NVO (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern, Worcestershire GA review

Hi Dana boomer. Perhaps I could make some observations.

Firstly, on the mix of embedded and List-defined references, as I now know they are called. They sit quite unproblematically side-by-side, and create no problems for the readability of the article. Nor do they create any problems for the editing.

Indeed there are featured articles with mixed styles, such as the recent M249 light machine gun. This contains a type of list-defined style (Harvard templates, which result in a list-defined style), and embedded reference, analogous to that which you refer to for Malven. And today's featured article Splendid Fairywren contains both "cite xyz" and "citation" templates, with no problems. For example, Schodde R (1975) (a "citation" ref) has sat alongside other ref templates without issue since 23 September 2007. One can find other examples, such as Jerry Voorhis, or Elwood Haynes. Differing styles can and do co-exist. Probably the most common reason for the same style in any given article is simply that new editors copy the format of previous editors - and this applies to me as well as anyone else. That's more about group dynamics than the physical inability to make differing styles co-exist.

In the Malvern, Worcestershire article, I don't see any evidence that "citation" and "cite xyz" screwed up the formatting. They sat quite well alongside each other, as they continue to do in some other articles, along with the simple <ref> </ref> style, with or without <ref name="myRefName"> . They showed up in the References section in the fashion intended, no problem.

Indeed, the mere fact that references such as <ref name=rsre>{{cite journal |....</ref>, and <ref name=SmallTheatre>{{Cite web|...</ref>, and this <ref name=Smith1978p2>{{Citation|...</ref> sat alongside each other without causing problems either for each other or the referencing layout, is all the proof that is needed that the template co-existence is not a genuine issue.

In the end, it's how the reference displays that matters. What one does behind the scenes to make it work is less relevant. One can get the same effect with 'free-hand' references between ref tags, or using the various templates available. In my experience to date trying to get various templates to work, what I have found sometimes is that it is the "xyz" that causes the problem, preventing the reference from showing up in the fashion desired. In some such cases, I found removing "xyz" and exchanging for "citation" fixed it. It doesn't always work. Sometimes the problem appears to be whether you're using "cite x", when "cite y" will give the desired display. Here it's a matter of trial and error, checking previews along the way.

In other words, sometimes the utilisation of ever more specific templates creates more problems than solutions. Certainly GyroMagician and I found this in trying to implement the Harvard style templates in an article probably not suited to to that layout, and thus not benefiting from the templates, which of course are not the style, but tools for the style.

The creation of more problems than solutions by the implementation of ever more 'sophisticated', or at least ever more specific templates is the crux of one of Kudpung's points, which is easy to acknowledge, as I have in our discussions. One can find examples of my earlier citations, where I simply placed free-hand information between the ref tags. Later, once I was familiar with templates, I 'upgraded' to template format. But in some cases, this added no new information, apart from say, ISBN, which could have been placed free-hand anyway. The point? There's no point trying to impose the ever-increasing use of templates on someone if they're using a method that is compatible with more recent developments - it may well be those people who are showing the greater sense!

Thus there was unambiguously no serious disagreement as such among the editors. Certainly nothing that of itself created a problem for the article. We tried a referencing layout style (like a phenotype, or visible layout), and while in the process of doing that, we had some very good, rational discussion about the pros and cons, which serves as a good example, not a bad one (we've all seen bad ones, probably you more than me with your experience and role). I for one had my doubts about the new layout (not the templates - it was always a question of the referencing layout), and as a courtesy, I elaborated them as best I could formalise my thoughts, as soon as I could, to give people time to ponder on it as we beavered away. I could have been wrong. The referencing exercise would have been completed just the same, with help from me as I could. So the discussion was far from an indicator of anything problematic.

So all the while we made the effort to make the style work, and see how it panned out. There came a point where, of hs own volition, GyroMagician reached the same conclusion as me about the style we were trying. At that point, we reverted to the style we'd had previously, and carried on. There was no one-upmanship, coercion, ingroup-outgroup, dominance-submission stuff, or edit-warring, as one sees when people get irrational with each other or pursue secondary agendas. Rather, we all realised that no matter what, progress was occurring, and that we could all learn from the exercise, and from each other. Which we did, remarkably well.

During this process, Kudpung's style remained unchanged, placing embedding references within the text. This worked, and works, for him, and was certainly not an issue for either GyroMagician or myself. The references show up just the same, and did not affect the attempt to find a suitable layout or make the templates work. Someone else could format them into template if they wanted, but if they didn't the net effect on the article would be zero, as long as the referencing details were spelled out correctly between the ref tags.

As you doubtless know, not all editors are familiar with, or comfortable with, or can see much gain, from the use of templates. Some get a better return for effort by simply using the <ref name="myRefName">free-hand insertion of references in the appropriate citation style.</ref>, while others do well using templates. Some of us have no strong opinion either way.

The main function of the list-defined references is to declutter the article text to make editing easier. I saw this in User:Chienlit's implementation of a reference update for the Vincent Priessnitz article on 15 November 2009, and knew immediately that I was looking at a useful tool. I find it particularly useful for articles that are heavily referenced, or have long references, and/or clusters of references. When I came to the Malvern article, GyroMagician was, as I understand it, approaching the same conclusion, from a different direction. At that point, the main objective was implementation of templates, which were embedded in the text. But the templates were deliberately spread vertically (rather than collapsed horizontally) to try to make the task of reading and editing easier. But I could see it was slow going.

I already knew from previous trials that by grouping the references at the end, and reducing the clutter WITHIN the article, the task of editing both the body and the references could be made easier. GyroMagician, who was working on the templates, could see this too, but suggested we try another way of achieving the same thing. I had my doubts, and gave others the courtesy of outlining them at the earliest time that I could formalise them (per discussion pages). But on its own, that was no reason not to see if we could make it work. No matter what, we'd achieve something useful, and no matter what, we'd learn something useful. So we proceeded. GyroMagician eventually reached the same conclusion as me, of his own volition, albeit making the effort to see what I was on about. And of course I now know the history of that idea.

I sum, I don't see the evidence that the behind-the-scenes referencing formats as were used caused any conflict. Errors occurring during editing are quite normal business, and it's always the solution that counts. We sorted those as we went, as one does. The dialogue accompanying that is not evidence of anything other than good problem solving dialogue.

My impression was that the overall readability of the article was the aim, and in this I had the impression that the progress was in the right direction. Regards Wotnow (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And another thing...". No actually, when fixing the refs (#90, 91, 92), I recalled how it came about that we had templates with "citation", and "cite xyz". When trying to implement templates for the Harvard style, I found that when placing citations in the bibliography section, those with "cite xyz" didn't work. I looked at a couple of articles utilising the Harvard-style templates, and saw that they used "citation". On the offchance that this would fix the problem, I changed the recalcitrant refs, and they worked (see e.g. this version at beginning of changeover, and this version just prior to reversion from Harvard to Malvern Water style.

When we reverted back to the previous referencing layout, having given the Harvard layout a good shot to see how it would fare, those citation changes didn't cause any ill effects, so remained. I think I see something of where you are coming from. There wasn't any history of edit warring etc, and the article was stable and looked ready to roll, but then you notice these changes going on. If I were you, I'd feel remiss not to comment, and I acknowledge and appreciate that.

I guess the crux of the point I was trying to make is that we initially went down a 'wrong road', recognised it just in time, and despite it all, we seemed to pull it off, with the refs reading as refs should, bar ordinary bits to fix, like missing publishers. I'd have spotted that, along with the double up of the Tony Freer-Minshull (2007) listing in 'Further reading', which I'll fix just after this message. I would only say that if all is not lost, lets not lose it. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HI Dona, I would like to thank you both personally, and on behalf of the WorcestershireProject team for you patience and perseverance, and for according Malvern, Worcestershire a GA. :) Kindest regards, --Kudpung (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur wholeheartedly with Kudpung's sentiments. Your role must be at times difficult and frustrating, yet simultaneously fascinating (powerful motivators to learning if ever there were). Despite it all, you have done a good thing, for which I not only thank you, but also commend you. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana boomer - a slightly belated thank you from me as well. I was sceptical about the WP review process, having had some less than helpful interactions with reviewers previously. Your specific, detailed comments have restored my confidence in the process! Thank you for taking the time to not just say "it's wrong", but to explain what was wrong/missing/repeated (we had a few of those), and how we might address the problem. Your regular updates on our progress were also very helpful. If such a thing existed, I would give you a FR (fine reviewer) rating :-) GyroMagician (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smedley Butler

Thanks for your comments on the Smedley Butler article. I think I have addressed most of the things you mentioned however there are a couple of questions that I have. If you get the time could you swing back by and see if it meets your expectations.--04:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for taking time to review the article. I think I have addressed all of your concerns but please let me know if you find anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Second Battle of Heligoland Bight; Jive (dance); Prometea; Alter Real; Asa; Puissance; Mare; Clydesdale; Horse-drawn boat; Pinto; San Fratello; National Show Horse; Tinker; Derby (horse race); Welara; Zebra; Cutting (sport); History of the Netherlands Antilles; Stallion

Cleanup: Eventing; Tarpan; Barb (horse)
Merge: Cremello; Selective breeding; Buenos Aires Convention
Add Sources: Show hunter; Lusitano; Zebroid
Wikify: Snowman; Gender identity; Post-materialism
Expand: Belgian (horse); Plains Zebra; Konik

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients list

I just noticed you are working on this list (I edit conflicted with you). I am in the process of rebuilding this list also and was just about to add a bunch of changes (my internet is slow so I am drafting it in word). I am reformatting this to look like the other Medal of Honor recipient lists nd hope to have most of it done this weekend. Please let me know once your done so I don't accidentally undo your edits edits. --Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Home of Heroes website isn't unreliable but I use the Army Center of Military History site or the Marine Corps Who's Who (for the Marine Corps recipients) just as a general rule. --Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I really do appreciate your help on the article. I just reread my comment and I think I came on a little strong and didn't mean too. I also wanted to point you to the page I created to track the MOH recipients here. Its still in a state of development but it helps me figure out who has an article or not and I am adding the statuses so that will be visible as well. I am also trying to figure out a way to show the last date an edit was made for each one, but I haven't broke the code on that one yet. Eventually I would like to get a project going similar to teh one running now for the battleships but I havent got all my ducks in a row yet. Since you seem to be interested in the topic here are a few notes.

All MOH recipients with articles have Infoboxes,
most have persondata,
all have links to the relevant list (related to the MOH anyway)
all have links to relevant portals
most have the citation of the Medal
Most are start or better, very few are truly stubs and those that are still have the above listed items.
using this list I can easily see if a new article for a recipient is created so if a new one appears I add the above items if they arent there, then I line it out. This can be seen easily on the articles for creation page. Thanks again for the help. Cheers--Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

military people

Have you checked in every case that they were not notable subsequently for something else? (If you have, it helps to say so on prod listings. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way you are doing them now is exactly right, and is a model for what ought to be said in such cases. Very nice work. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toys for your sandbox

] Here is a decent photo, been used on other wikis. Sometimes surfing those interwiki links to see what the other language articles have is a good place to surf images. Montanabw^(talk) 03:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, saw that one, but thanks. I'll work it in soon, just need to get some more length to the article to be able to fit it in :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an argument for it to be the lead. The other horse is not as attractive, though the photo is somewhat clearer. Your call. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horses in World War I/Sources

By a somewhat convoluted route I've just stumbled over http://horseinculture.blogspot.com/, an academic group blog which does what it says on the tin. They also have the following group library online https://www.zotero.org/groups/horses_in_history_and_culture/items which might identify some additional sources. David Underdown (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot this was here. A belated thanks, David, this looks like it could be a good bibliography-type site for horses in culture type articles. Dana boomer (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Horses in World War I

Hi Dana. The editor I had in mind was Eurocopter. He had originally asked me if I was interested in reviewing the article as it would be one of the more important topics to be promoted during the WWI Contest period, so may be interested in reviewing it himself. I just left him a little note on his talk page here asking him if he was willing to do so. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But of course

I'll have a look ASAP. Sounds like an interesting article. RB88 (T) 15:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I threw in my two cents. It's a good article, source wise. I hope I've made another pony person happy as it's part of my job description around here. RB88 (T) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's me done I think. Any more FARs you need help with, just send a message. It's a nice change from the FAC fandangos. ;) RB88 (T) 02:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota

Thanks for asking for my help, but I don't know about the subject, and have no experience in FA reviews. Best of luck in your endeavours. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Parrot of Doom has done some FA work. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

You are one of the six editors advancing into the final round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The final round started at 00:00, 11 February and ends 23:59, 10 March. The top three ranked players at the end of this round will become winners of the contest and receive special prizes! Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Dana boomer's Day!

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

Peace,
Rlevse
00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)hap[reply]

George F. Engel

You prodded George F. Engel; however, the article was prodded and contested by the author in September 2009. I have opened an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George F. Engel, and copied your prod rationale. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marwari horse

I've been through Marwari horse as you asked; hopefully I haven't wrecked your article. I do have a couple of queries though, things I couldn't resolve myself:

The opening sentence of the 1900s to today section says "the period of the British Raj perpetuated the breed's downfall ...". "Perpetuated" is clearly the wrong word here, as the downfall wasn't perpetual, but I'm not sure what's really being suggested here. "Hastened the breed's downfall"?

There are a couple of citations where it looks like the authors are being listed firstname lastname (#14 and #21), but I don't understand what an author name of "S. N. Tandon and Sonia" is supposed to mean. Is that "Sonia Tandon"?

Overall though it's another nice little article. Shouldn't have much trouble with it at FAC I wouldn't have thought. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: Texas Oil Boom

Thanks for looking at Texas Oil Boom.

Question/advice: I took a look at 102 329 nobel oilwells.jpg (I had been remiss in not checking this more thoroughly before). I found the exact place it was copied from (though that was a copy from another credited source that I don't have direct access to). I have found copies of this image around different locations on the web but have seen no specific info on the photographer or the date it was taken. Since the photo is specifically described as the "Nobel wells" and the Nobels abandoned this site in 1920 (which would be the cutoff for the public domain justification) it seems likely the photo was taken before that year. However, I don't believe the wells were destroyed in any fashion after the Soviet takeover so it is not inconceivable that the photo was taken after that but is still described to credit the men who first created the structures. I hate to take the photo out but I'm not sure how else to pursue establishing with certitude the dates/rights. Suggestions?

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horses in World War I

I've leeft comments at Talk:Horses in World War I/GA1. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Brothers FAC

Ack, sorry for misplaced FAC. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Aepryus (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Fun!

Congrats on getting Suffolk Punch as today's featured article! Good for you! Going to update the horse portal and WPEQ? In local news, we put in our early greenhouse 'crops' over the weekend. Montanabw^(talk) 00:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horse headings

You need to sort out the preferences, and make them logical! If they had followed a sensible consistent order, I would not have bought into it.

Three points here:

Among the FA articles they were inconsistent. One article already had Notes, References, Bibliography. A number of the articles had Notes, Citations, References. At least two had Notes, Footnotes, References.

It is inappropriate to label something that is a "reference" or "citation" as a "note" or "footnote". These two headings imply that the content is not simply a reference but contains "notes" ie further information or comment.

The term "references" can apply either to a citation or a list of books. It is quite applicable to use it for the latter, but then a word other than "notes" or "footnotes" needs to be found for the inline references. "Citations" is a perfectly good solution. "Footnotes" is not. And using a list of headings that includes both "notes" and "footnotes" is, frankly, ridiculous!

Amandajm (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review for Lusitano

Hello, Dana boomer. I have been reviewing Lusitano, and so far I have found it to be well written; however, I noticed several problems with the article that need to be addressed before the article can pass the review. I have noted the issues here: Talk:Lusitano/GA1. I will be watching for the articles revisions, and please feel free to ask questions or give your concerns on the talk page. --Tea with toast (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horse

Hi, I'd love to trot over for a look. I've been insanely busy in real life in the last couple of months but I may have a moment tomorrow and/or Wednesday when I can stop being a headless chicken for a bit. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a look in the near future. For what it's worth, my Delichon article is also at FAC, about three places above your candidate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Dana boomer for keeping a close, attentive eye on articles at FAR YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, and also thanks for this! I can't believe I forgot to do that. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Place - Henry Allingham World War I International Contest (1st edition)

THIRD PLACE

Henry Allingham World War I International Contest

1st edition (11 November 2009 - 11 March 2010)

Eurocopter (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Tinker; Music of Wyoming; Bay Horse; Jive (dance); Music of Connecticut; List of health and fitness magazines; Asa; Music of Vermont; Economic materialism; Derby (horse race); Omnivore; Likoma District; Prometea; Music of Delaware; Blantyre District; Horse-drawn boat; Skewbald; Easton, Hampshire; Stallion

Cleanup: Eventing; Music of Ohio; Barb (horse)
Merge: Broomball; Nazism; List of national capitals
Add Sources: Standardbred horse; Fistball; Music of Arkansas
Wikify: Lilongwe District; Snowman; Plastic welding
Expand: Music of Virginia; Connemara pony; Music of Georgia (U.S. state)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horses in the Great War

Hi Dana,

You might want to take a look at this site. I haven't read it through yet, but it looks useful. Kulystab (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kulystab. This site has been mentioned before on the HiWWI talk page. However, we had a few problems with it. First of all, we don't know how the site itself is reliable. The index page doesn't exist, and as far as I can find, there is no "about us" page that describes the site. Second, how do they have permission to post these magazines and stuff? Although it is doubtful that any of them are still under copyright, that is possible. Third, most of the magazines themselves are contemporary publications that were meant to arouse patriotism in the population of whatever country they were being published in. There is a good chance that not all of the info is actually factual, and that a lot of the exploits described haven't had a bit (or more) of hyperbole added to them to make them sound better and more heroic. Thanks for pointing this site out to me, but at this point it's not one that I want to use in an article that will, I hope, soon be going to FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Bridgeport (AD-10)/archive1

I never said the article was copyvio, so I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my views by bringing up copyvio. If you have an opinion about the article's quality then say it, but quit wasting time by changing the topic to copyright when that was never the topic to begin with. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Yellowmonkey has told me we need another FAR delegate and recommended you for the job. Is that something you're willing to do? Raul654 (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Triple Crown

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR delegate

Welcome, Dana (hope you don't regret it :) If you ever need any help, drop a note on my talk. One thing you might be aware of is that Gimmetrow (Gimmebot) runs the bot on Tuesdays and Saturdays, and prefers that we archive on those days. Let me know if you have any questions! I'd love to see FAR get back to a higher save percentages, and pinging people in to work in their specialty areas might help. Have fun, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both the welcome and the offer of assistance if needed, Sandy. I will keep Gimmetrow's archiving schedule in mind and make a special effort to archive on those days. I have been attempting to ping people about some articles that are at FAR, and I want to make this even more of a priority. Dana boomer (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, I was expecting some dramatic drumroll or unveiling on a catwalk or something... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, YM! For my part, I was for some reason expecting it to be slightly more painful. Perhaps something to do with Sandy's comment about Raul putting it up for community consensus - that thought scared me for a while :) Dana boomer (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tony has gone soft and has been overtaken in the reviewing stakes for high standards by the new crop :P I was rather surprised by his stance. Wonder what Malleus will come up with if he comes YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The apathy on the two Australian FARs is a bit depressing, with the article fix-up that is. The two FARs you just pinged Tony for, I'm still wondering if Malleus will respond. Maybe a second nag will work YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder, don't forget to update the counts [1][2]... Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of closing Biman and Dalek soon? I was thinking about it and didn't want a edit conflict or anything, since the result may not be obvious YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel FARC

Hi Dana, I'd prefer not to get involved for two reasons. First, when I did earlier try to help at the Israel FAR stage, I ended up being attacked by one of the main writers because I didn't agree with him over something, so I'd prefer not to expose myself to that again. Secondly, I'm so sick of the whole Israel-Palestine situation on Wikipedia that I've vowed not to get involved in it again, apart from one article I brought to FA which I'd like to help maintain. I'm sorry! Good luck with sorting it out. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Krauss

By "move it to FARC stat," I obviously meant "within the minimum time the process calls for." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horses in World War I

I read an article to which you have made major contributions, Horses in World War I, and thought it ready for Featured Article status, and nominated it. However, I was informed that FAC is hostile to 'drive-by noms,' and that I should consult you. I could withdraw, if it would make it better for you. mynameinc (t|c) 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]