| Revision as of 01:26, 2 February 2015 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,172 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 12) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:34, 3 February 2015 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,172 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 12) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 13:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 13:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :Don't know if you noticed but this one's ready for you, mate. Cheers, ] (]) 23:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | :Don't know if you noticed but this one's ready for you, mate. Cheers, ] (]) 23:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Yugoslav monitor Morava Suggestion == | |||
| Since you seem to work on that article at the moment, a few suggestions: | |||
| # The infobox namesake links should link to ] rather than the Czech-Slovak-Austrian river system, I think{{tick}} | |||
| # Footnote 18 (Gardiner, p. 422) refers to three monitors given to Romania, rather than to Yugoslavia (or the acronym I keep forgetting) | |||
| # The whole sentence does not make sense to me (could be me though), with the acronym becoming Yugoslavia there is no need for a but, I guess | |||
| # Have you considered to cut the first sentence in two, one on the monitor and one on the class, that way the name ship would have the same name as the ship class? | |||
| Regards ] (]) 06:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks, have made some changes. However, p.422 of Conway's clearly states the names of the four monitors transferred to the "Yugoslav" (actually KSCS at that time) Navy. ''Morava'' (ex-A-H ''Koros''), ''Sava'' (ex-A-H ''Bodrog''), ''Drava'' (ex-AH ''Enns''), and ''Vardar'' (ex-AH ''Bosna''). Confusingly, the A-Hs, KSCS/Yugoslavs and NDH used the same name for river monitors in a few cases, but they were sometimes different vessels. eg The A-H ''Bosna/Temes(II)/Bosna'' ended up the Yugoslav ''Vardar'', but the A-H ''Koros'' became Yugoslav ''Morava'' and ended up being the NDH ''Bosna''... Cheers, ] (]) 06:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem. According to my book (reprint 1986), page 422 deals with Romanian ''Ardeal'' (ex-A-H ''Temes''), ''Besarabia'' (ex-''Inn''), and ''Bucovina'' (ex-''Sava''); none other river monitors are mentioned by name. Page 426 describes the transfer in more detail. Unless the page numbering changed (which I doubt, since Fn19 checks out), the page number for Fn18 should be 426 then. Regards, ] (]) 08:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jeez, my eyesight must really be going... Thanks, ] (]) 08:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == 66th Division == | |||
| Hi - quick note to say thanks for your constructive criticism on this! I've spent the weekend ferreting through the local library and have some material to be going on with, but it'll take a couple of days longer to get it all assembled - apologies. I've updated Reconstitution and the Hundred Days, but not yet gone over the Spring Offensive (which is perhaps the most complex part). | |||
| Do you have a page number for ''Bloody Red Tabs'', by the way? Would be good to mention the CRA's death but I don't have access to a copy. ] (]) 22:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ]== | == Your ] nomination of ]== | ||
Revision as of 01:34, 3 February 2015
G'day. If you have got something to say, pull up a pew and say it (but please follow the rules). There are three rules here:
- If you post on this page, I will (usually) reply on this page, in order to stop conversations from becoming fragmented;
- If you are the type of editor that rarely contributes in article space, one that prefers to moan endlessly about mouseshit on article talk pages without actually editing those articles using reliable sources, you will soon find that I am not interested in encouraging what I consider to be disruptive behaviour. If I don't respond to you, and you are wondering if this might be what I think about your approach to editing, don't be surprised if I refuse to engage in discussion with you; and
- If you are an editor that has posted here and had your post deleted without a response, or with an edit summary telling you to go away, don't post here again. If you have a complaint against me, there are places on WP to do that, this is not one of them. If this is you, repeated postings will result in a complaint by me against you for wikihounding. If you are intent on demonstrating that you are completely delusional, especially in areas covered by Arbitration Committee rulings, then you may find that you reap the whirlwind.
This is NOT the place to ignore all rules...
 My Talk Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Your GA nomination of Uroš Drenović
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uroš Drenović you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't know if you noticed but this one's ready for you, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Stanley Price Weir
The article Stanley Price Weir you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Stanley Price Weir for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 28 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 January 2015
- From the editor: An editorial board that includes you
- In the media: A murderous week for Misplaced Pages
- Traffic report: A sea of faces
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Artur Phleps
Sir, you have removed WWI decorations and awards I had added to the Arthur Phleps page. I gave a proper source, the Austro-Hungarian equivalent of the London Gazette, in addition, most of those decorations are clearly visible and can be identified on the photo. Please inform me, why you still removed my additions. I think, his WWI service carries importance too. (Moved unsigned thread started by Africai to the bottom)
- G'day Africai, the awards you added are not cited to a reliable third party source independent of the subject. As I understand it, you have looked at the photograph yourself, and worked out which awards are which, then added them. That isn't how we cite awards (or anything else) on WP, and certainly not on a Featured Article. In order to add these awards, we would need a reliable source for each one, not your personal interpretation/observations of a photograph (unless, of course, you are an acknowledged expert ion the field who has published works on the subject. I'm happy for you to list them in a thread on the talk page, but only when each one can be reliably sourced can they be added. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sir, I had given a proper third party source, the Offiziersschematismus der kuk bewaffneten Macht, edition 1918, a publication comparable to the London Gazette plus page number. The decorations are there. What else do you want? If you give me your eMail address, I will happily send a scan. (unsigned by Africai).
- I was under the impression from your edits that you had viewed the photograph and identified the awards from that. If the source lists Phleps as having received those awards, then I apologise. Does it state when he received each one? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sir, I had given a proper third party source, the Offiziersschematismus der kuk bewaffneten Macht, edition 1918, a publication comparable to the London Gazette plus page number. The decorations are there. What else do you want? If you give me your eMail address, I will happily send a scan. (unsigned by Africai).
GA Cup - The Finals
GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though! Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Misplaced Pages priorities. Congrats to all! Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month. In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish! The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Good luck to all our finalists! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants. |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balkan Campaign (World War II), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (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) 09:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
GA-review
My internet has been jumping on and off the past couple of days; it's finally working normally again. Will review the article in a bit. Sorry for the long delay. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- No worries, no deadline. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Uroš Drenović
The article Uroš Drenović you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Uroš Drenović for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Yugoslav monitor Morava
The article Yugoslav monitor Morava you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav monitor Morava for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, by the way ...
Not that it really matters anymore, but I don't reject peoples suggestions and thank them! I start by thanking them for taking some time to leave some advice, and then, individually respond to each suggestion. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Jonas, we all have our own way of reviewing and responding to reviews. I consider some approaches to be more effective in attracting reviewers and constructive improvements to articles than other approaches, and I've learned that by watching the best reviewers and article writers Milhist has. Not everyone wants me to review their articles, and I'm just fine with that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)