User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016

Happy New Year!

Hawkeye7,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Hawkeye7,

Hope you had a good New year. Recently, you assessed the George Grimson article as "C-class", but yet it remains a "stub-class" article. Adamdaley (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) FWIW I've now added the MILHIST banner and assessed as C class. Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for that! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The article Jacob L. Devers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jacob L. Devers 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 Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

On 6 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Arthur V. Peterson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Major Arthur V. Peterson traveled to Europe before D-Day to warn General Eisenhower about the dangers of the Germans using radioactive weapons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur V. Peterson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seth Neddermeyer 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) 05:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN aside, a redirect in a navbox is broken, as it does not display correctly on the target page. The link is supposed to be a bold 'non-link' on the page in question - if the link is a redirect, it doesn't do that, but instead is still is an active link, making it look like there is a different page for the subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

But... I am looking at it, and it does wok that way. I have put it back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The article Seth Neddermeyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Seth Neddermeyer 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) 04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Hawkeye7. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Sharyn Canyon.
Message added 06:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request to revisit the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

On 12 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Norman Hilberry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the start up of Chicago Pile-1, Norman Hilberry stood ready with an ax to cut the scram line? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Norman Hilberry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The article Chicago Pile-1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chicago Pile-1 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article X-10 Graphite Reactor 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The article X-10 Graphite Reactor you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:X-10 Graphite Reactor for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The article X-10 Graphite Reactor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:X-10 Graphite Reactor 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I refer to this RV. "commenced construction of the plutonium semiworks, codenamed X-10" or "[X-10] was the world's second artificial nuclear reactor". The lede bounces back and forth. I don't believe the chemical extraction side was referred to as X-10, and since that is definitely part of the semi works then my edit was correct, or the rest of the lede is wrong. So which is it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The first one is right. X-10 was the codename for the plutonium semiworks, of which the reactor was part. So what do we have?

"The X-10 Graphite Reactor was the world's second artificial nuclear reactor"

"In September 1942, Compton asked a physicist, Martin D. Whitaker, to form a skeleton operating staff for X-10"

"By March 1944, there were some 1,500 people working at X-10"

"Exterior of the Graphite Reactor at the X-10 site"

"the cost of construction at X-10" (Clear here that we are talking about the entire facility)

"X-10 operated as a plutonium production plant until January 1945"

"X-10 supplied the Los Alamos Laboratory with the first significant samples of plutonium"

"The X-10 chemical separation plant"

"The X-10 Graphite Reactor was shut down on November 4, 1963"

"One reactor of similar design to the X-10 Graphite Reactor is still in operation today"

I think the wording is consistent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

So the chemical plant beside the reactor is also known as "the X-10 Graphite Reactor"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is the "X-10 chemical separation plant". (Am I missing something here?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be good if you would voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 20. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

G'day Hawkeye, I've been trying to reference the Salamaua–Lae campaign article this weekend, but have come up blank with the base development information in the Aftermath section of the article. Given the sources you were able to bring to the Battle of Milne Bay article, I was wondering if you might be able to check your library to see if you can add the last couple of references. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Looks like I wrote it back in March 2007. I know where it all comes from. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

—Ready whenever you are. Don't feel any need to rush. And good luck. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

16:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a very special beer. It refills daily for those in the midst of a request of adminship. Cheers! MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Just what I've always wanted! Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming you didn't actually memorize Russian poetry by a small Iranian village. But notifying you, just in case you actually did. (I guess there could have been an anonymous Russian poet known only for living there, so becoming known by...) --GRuban (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In the wake of the Vietnam War, the educational authorities decided that the Cold War was lost, and that we should all learn Russian. I found it a difficult subject, not least because I missed a term as a result of a surgical operation. You could pass by passing the exam, or by memorising and reciting a Pushkin poem. So that's what we did. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Congratulation Hawkeye7, you're gonna be an admin! (N0n3up (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC))

It's not over yet. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've opposed your bid to become an admin, with a degree of regret and awkwardness. My best to you all the same. Tony (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry here, too, for not voting, but I won't be voting in any 2016 RfAs because of my work with relevant RfCs. (I suspect we'll be seeing several more big ones this year.) Best of luck, Hawkeye (and Tony, good to see you here). - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. One thing that is worth a second look is what bits are needed for ArbCom. There was a couple of hasty RfCs when it was thought that I might win a seat; but it looks now like it has been shelved until next year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've considered closing RfCs related to Arbcom, mostly because what Arbcom does and doesn't do has a big impact on RfA (as you may have recently noticed). But I'm probably out of my depth there. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

diff | hist) . . Bill Mauldin; 22:40 . . (-2) . . Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs) (Have their own article now)

For shame, for shame! Anmccaff (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sadly I don't have the time to review the article in a way that would do it justice, but congrats on tackling it looks fantastic. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I was proud to support your RfA. Collect (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Per your inquiry, the answer was probably in part here. But I'll be trying again, probably next spring or so...maybe summer, probably after the Belmont Stakes and the flurry of horse article editing surrounding the triple crown races concludes. I'd most certainly by interested in your input on how I might do a better job next time or if there are ways I could handle things better. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with the above sentiments. It was my pleasure to support your candidacy. I don't quite understand the process or why things work out the way they do, but I tend to believe that timing has a lot to do with it. Atsme^{📞 📧} 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Congrats! Ditto on Collect's comment. I still think you'd be a good arb - go for it next year. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I expected the decision to go against you. I hope the Bureaucrats come to the right decision. I will ask one to have a look at your RfA...SethWhales ^talk 23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean it's in the bag?Keith-264 (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah wellKeith-264 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the DYK-relevant pages could be set to template-protection, and you could leverage your template-editor rights? Do you think that would fly, from a technical or consensus perspective? Or am I completely off the mark... –xeno ^talk 02:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Why don't you do it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Do what? Certainly not present the argument for it, I'm a relatively unknown around those parts. Which pages would need to be template-protected instead of fully-protected for you to work there? –xeno ^talk 13:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if we can do that, as the protection comes via the cascading protection from the main page. I don't know enough about such things? I guess it could be request to lift that cascading protection? If possible, it would definitely be a very good idea at looking at. Harrias ^talk 17:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would involved lifting the cascading protection on the main page, so I don't think it is practical. By "do it", I meant "approve the DYK hooks". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

We could probably change the cascading full-protection to cascading template-editor protection, but the question then becomes - is the community comfortable opening up editing of the mainpage to another 212 users who weren't specifically vetted for such a role? –xeno ^talk 00:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, I can see how this could have happened unintentionally. But I don't think it's entirely appropriate to notify/thank among others the 4 bureaucrats ( ) who were positive towards your nomination, because they are still in the process of deciding the result. Anyway, I just felt I had to get that off my chest, and I don't want to cause any hassle. Feel free to remove this comment after you have read it. -- intgr [talk] 11:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hawkeye thanked Avi for his work on the RFA, not his support (which Avi did not offer in any case), and the other three crats have recused themselves from the discussion, so the point, however well-meant, seems moot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You're a great editor who's feeling rather cheesed off at the moment. I get it. RfX is tough, even for successful candidates.

Take the advice on my usertalk and come chat with me in March. Because if you choose to, you can turn this around, and I'll happily turn this into a bluelink with a nomination in a few months if you do. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So what if you don't get the position as an admin? Think of all of the readers you help out/make smile when you improve articles on the topics that interest you. Shouldn't that be enough motivation? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't leave over it. Take some time out if you need to but don't leave for good. You'll be sorely missed :)--5 albert square (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be more motivating if I got some feedback from them. As it is, all I can see is page hit counts. But thanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

+1. Did you really join the project just to be an admin? Surely you joined to edit articles? --GRuban (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I did. But I do everything. Without I admin toolbox, I am constantly stymied. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

We once had such a feedback mechanism, but it had flaws. Maybe this is something we should look back into? Mz7 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Back in 2007, one RfA was basically not deemed successful with 201 supports and 71 opposes, but the usual RfA in those days had far more votes than any recent ones - even with auto-notification to editors. The issue then was (get this) how opposed the candidate was to off-Wiki sites that must not be named <g>. Collect (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that your recent request for adminship was closed as "no consensus to promote". I encourage you to review the comments in the discussion and on the talk page to see if there are areas in which you could make changes. This may allow you to have a successful RfA in the future. Thank you for your patience during the bureaucrat chat and during the RfA process itself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You will make a fine admin. Must give it another go! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the result, but thanks for bearing "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" for the betterment of Wikipedia. And thanks for your note. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To cut the b.s., I think the reason for the failure was because you were in the lower half of the 65-75% discretionary zone, it's probably as simple as that. Whatever the 'crats might say it's basically a numbers game. A no consensus result means you could try again, and probably pass, in six months time. Now I do think you could answered the questions a little differently, please contact me if you like for my views on a strategy. But if you've had enough of RfAs I understand, you have to be pretty brave to put yourself through that. Which makes you a bigger person than many. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see it went the way it did. I didn't expect it to be plain sailing but I wouldn't have nominated you if I didn't think you had a chance, nor if I didn't think you'd be a good admin. Okay, you got a lot of opposition; some of it we foresaw, some of it we didn't. There is certainly a feeling that you haven't learnt from the evens of four years ago, or haven't moved on, or haven't shown enough contrition. But remember very nearly two hundred of your peers supported you. That's quite an incredible turnout. The lengthy and well thought-out rationales from many of those editors, among them some of the most respected editors on Wikipedia, show that you have the trust of a significant majority of the community. Beyond that, even most of the opposers spoke highly of you and praised your work and your dedication to Wikipedia. To me, it says a lot about you that even many of your detractors went out of their way to praise your contribution. Besides, most admin work is boring grunt work that's forgotten about in seconds whereas you article work will be around in one form or another for decades. People will remember Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia—not necessarily a perfect one, but one that could at least provide a decent overview of any subject imaginable—not for all the vandals that were blocked, and that's down in no small part to you. So my advice would be not to focus on the final tally, but to dust yourself off and do what you do best. And if you find yourself in Blighty, let me know and I'll buy you a drink. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Harry. I'd really like to take you up on that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry the RFA didn't work out. This time. You're the reason I got my first FA. Absolutely the reason, because you encouraged me to go forward with the effort. I was at the point of completely throwing in the towel. If it wasn't for your being there at the exact correct moment to encourage me, I'd still be diddling around in the shadows somewhere. And besides that, you're a coordinator at WP MH - fulfill the term. Your content contributions on the Manhattan Project have been somewhat extraordinary. So, what's more important - the small handful who opposed at RFA, or those educators out there who are quite probably using your articles to teach students about the Manhattan Project. Carry on and try again later. We salute you for your tireless contributions. — Maile (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well put, Maile. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

On 3 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles V. Shank, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles V. Shank co-invented the distributed feedback laser? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles V. Shank. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

G'day Hawkeye. I am sorry to see your RfA ended up as it did. I followed it closely and winced at every new oppose – it truly can be a dreadful and unforgiving process. I hope that the last week or so hasn't dampened your enthusiasm for Wikipedia, content creation, or your eventual return to admin ranks. Just remember... we all love you at Milhist! Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we ever... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd third Peacemaker and Ian. I hope that you don't let the folks with an ancient grudge and love of piling onto admins get you down - you're a better editor then them all stuck together. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that your request for the tools did not succeed; although the !vote was about two to one in favour, we do know that it is not a simple mumerical majority decision. unfortunately, while a number of well-respected admins supported you, a similar number opposed. I would be happy to support again after a reasonable interval. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 I too am saddened that your Request had a no consensus. Sometime in the future. I will definitely cast my vote for you later. Anyways, keep on updating this Wikipedia!

~The Special Wikipedian Tribble Award~ Go forth and multiply, we need more 'pedians like you!

You're a very special Wikipedian in my book. Your contributions to the encyclopedia - the many GAs, FAs and DYKs you've collaborated on are exemplary - and well, I have a special respect for editors who go that extra mile to produce quality work. Thank you for all you do and all you've done to make editing an enjoyable experience. Atsme📞 📧 03:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Other fun banners are available at

And Hawkeye7, I want to extend an invitation to you (it's actually a plea for help) to collaborate on a new project I just created, WP:Project Accuracy, for which I'd like to recruit other FP/GA/DYK editors to join. I'm in the embryonic stages of development - just now working on the header but I'm not very well-versed on changing syntax in templates, so I will probably just create a page header of my own design. I'm not sure why the TP isn't connecting or what categories to include or .... well, any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Atsme^{📞 📧} 03:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A tribble! Always wanted one. Always willing to help out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've got an ~in use~ template at the top of the page but you can ignore it if you see anything that needs fixing. Oh, and what I'd like to do is establish a 5 person PAC = Project Accuracy Coordinators who will oversee the project, and vet the fact-check promotion candidates who apply. This project is actually the foundation for a much bigger plan I proposed to WMF during their current community consultation re: their "Reach strategy. My suggestion was in regards to protection and promotion of articles that have passed stringent reviews and accuracy checks (and will carry our project seal which you can see at the project page). I tested the waters a tiny bit at Drmies TP, and now I'm hoping to get a good team together comprising content creators/FA participants/reviewers for PAC. Let me know if you're interested. Atsme^{📞 📧} 07:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Harrie Massey.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Canberra Meetup Next: 17 February 2016 This box: view talk edit

Hi, you're invited to the Canberra meetup which will take place at King O'Malley's Irish Pub in Civic on 17 February 2016. Bidgee (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landing at Lae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LCM. 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) 09:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Hawkeye, do you have some spare time to perform a source review on Ride the Lightning for formatting and reliability? The FA nomination is here. I usually wait for the FA coordinators to make a request at the project's talk page, but I want to get pass the image/source procedures as quickly as possible, so I can focus on other issues. Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wondering if you can tick off this one? It looks like it doesn't need a QPQ, so hopefully an easy affair! Jolly Ω Janner 06:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

On 12 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article X-10 Graphite Reactor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the X-10 Graphite Reactor (pictured) was the first nuclear reactor to produce radioisotopes for medical use? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/X-10 Graphite Reactor. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you keen to take this to GAN? If you are, I will put in the nom as a co-nom. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I thought the entire Huon Peninsula campaign could become a Good Topic, but we are still a couple of articles short. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I'll have a go at improving Battle of Finschhafen, but I might have to try to get a few books from the library, so it could take a while. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I was intending to have a go at it too, but I am still bogged down on the landing at Scarlet Beach. My idea was the Battle of Finschhafen would cover everything between Scarlet Beach and Sattelberg. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on March 2 2016. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until March 2 2017, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. Thanks, HazelAB (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I was under the weather yesterday, but hopefully I'll get to this one today. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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 Tom Kilburn page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (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) 00:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on March 2 2016. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until March 2 2017, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. HazelAB (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tom Kilburn 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 Yoshi24517 -- Yoshi24517 (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

On 25 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Dumpu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the Battle of Dumpu, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Honner, although covered in blood and black ants, refused to be carried from the field for fear it might endanger the stretcher bearers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Dumpu. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

On 27 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Landing at Lae, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first waves of the landing at Lae were carried in four destroyer transports? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Landing at Lae. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Hawkeye, I was thinking of taking Battle of Wareo to GA next as part of the effort to get all the Huon Peninsula battle articles to GA. One concern I have, though, is the Japanese logistics section, which seems quite limited. I wonder if you have anything that you would like to add to the article before I nominate it. It was many years ago that I worked on it last, so I will need to get my head back into the article over the next week or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I have plenty of information on this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, hope you are having a good weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Hawkeye, I've nommed this for GAN now with you as a co-nom. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Hawk, not sure if you are still keen on working on the Wareo and Finschhafen articles, but I have the Coates book for another couple of weeks or so, then I have to return it, unfortunately...I also have to go away for a week or so with work at the end of next week. If you have the time, Wareo still needs a bit of work regarding logistics, and Finschhafen...well, I'm completely out of my depth and it probably needs a considerable effort to bring it up to GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Metallurgical Laboratory 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan Shepard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Guard. 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) 09:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Metallurgical Laboratory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Metallurgical Laboratory 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Tom Kilburn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tom Kilburn 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 Yoshi24517 -- Yoshi24517 (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help you, if you tell me the correct pronunciation. Let me see: it's pronounced as if spelled Deevers, isn't it? イヴァンスクルージ九十八 _（会話） 20:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wait, sorry; I saw it later :) イヴァンスクルージ九十八 _（会話） 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Done! Happy I could be helpful!! イヴァンスクルージ九十八 _（会話） 21:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to find someone to help with TFAs on Australian sports (such as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 18, 2016). Any suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I can help you with that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, give it a few whacks. We're aiming for roughly 1150 characters in the text the readers see (not counting "Full article" and below); this page gives you a character counter. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That's 1409 characters, I usually aim for 1150, I'll have a look now. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

1171 according to the counter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You have made many changes to the article John von Neumann, including adding statements directly contradicted by the cited sources and removing statements supported by cited reliable sources. I reverted two changes, then realized how many other problems you had introduced. I do not know what your purpose is, but this is really an extraordinary harm that you have made.
81.158.250.223 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The purpose was to properly reference the article. Nothing properly referenced was removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Then use "citation needed". Additionally, making up a story about the cause of his divorce, etc., does not fall under "properly reference the article".
81.158.250.223 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Never. I have supplied references. And the text has a reference. Did you check the reference? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No idea about the other problems, but at least about the divorce the IP is correct, the source does not support your statement that the car crash had anything to do with the divorce. Fram (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You can readily confirm that the book does not attribute the divorce to the car accident, but rather to Mariette wanting to party more: page 172 and following. Additionally, the book does not state that they had two parties per week, at least not on the pages cited.

Those are two examples of false claims that you have added to the article. An example of a true claim that you removed from the article is that von Neumann was fluent in Greek. That von Neumann did know Greek is stated in the same book: page 48.

True, but the following sentence was about the professor of Byzantine history, and I couldn't find it in the reference given, or in Macrae. So I removed it while I went looking for it. I did eventually find it somewhere else, but forgot to put it back into the article. Now I guess I need to find it again, unless you happen to have a source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The "Professor of Byzantine History" thing is in the source given (Life magazine), but as it there is said that he made the statement "jokingly", that part is better left out. Fram (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That's it!!! Thanks for that. I remember now. That's why I didn't put it back in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Macrae also says that the rest of the family denies that Johnny and Max could converse in ancient Greek at age six. So I thought it best to leave that whole sentence out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Macrae does not say that the rest of the family denies that he knew Greek. Rather, Macrae says that the rest of the family denies that Johnny "converse[d] at the lunch table with his father in [Greek]" and the rest of the family did not understand; perhaps such conversations occurred only a few times and the rest of the family did not recall. The same page tells that his father instilled in him a love a Greek (and that Greek was a required subject in high school). A google search readily turns up other reliable sources: e.g. which cites Poundstone (1993)—which is already cited in the article. 81.158.250.223 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have now looked at five of your edits and found three in serious error. 81.158.250.223 (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC) s.

You have now repeatedly demonstrated that your edits to the article should not be relied upon. What should be done? There seem to be two approaches: either someone needs to go through all your edits, checking each individually, or the article needs to be reverted to what it was before you started editing it. 81.158.250.223 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is up for review, so the former will occur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Alan Shepard

added a link pointing to James Webb

Metallurgical Laboratory

added a link pointing to Roentgen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

On 9 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Landing at Scarlet Beach, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Landing at Scarlet Beach on 22 September 1943 was the first time Australian forces had made an opposed amphibious landing since the Gallipoli Campaign in 1915? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Landing at Scarlet Beach. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I downloaded it from carl, it looks like a RS but I'm unsure how much to include in OOB articles, since some of the pdfs are 20 pages long. Is there a rule of thumb or a WP: on OOBs? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. What a source. I don't know of any rules about OrBats. I would toss it all in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen individual pdfs from it but never realised that they were part of this. I shall fill my boots. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I visited a bunch of WikiProject Military History articles and they are pretty good. :D Winterysteppe (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, I kind of hate to say this, but there was still one good-faith delete vote in that AfD. I'm not sure it can really be speedily closed. Take a second look, please? LadyofShalott 01:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! LadyofShalott 01:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Para-alpine skiing classification, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages B2 and La Molina. 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) 10:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landing at Scarlet Beach 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

H, I see you're into the Manhattan Project. Too bad we have a minor disagreement about a comma. Both of my wife's parents worked on the Manhattan Project. See Larned B. Asprey, where you can see me, second from left, in the photo I took with self-timer. My mother-in-law is still sharp, if you need someone with recollection from Met lab days. She gave a speech about that time when she got the Walter H. Zinn Award in 2005. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Only a minor disagreement. No big. You are the fourth family member of an Atomic pioneer to contact me. I have written or improved about 100 articles related to the Manhattan Project, bringing a dozen or so all the way to featured status, including the main article. There were lots of biographies. Some are famous; some ought to be famous, but are not; and some are obscure. Isidor Isaac Rabi is currently a featured article candidate. Drop by and post a review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I added an infobox, some references and some commas, harmonised the date format, and repaired some link rot. Sent the article of for a MilHist B class assessment. Changes are here. As always, revert anything you don't like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, since you approved this with the ALT1 hook, Maury Markowitz has suggested an ALT2 hook that he thinks is better. Can you please stop by one more time to take a look at the new hook and see whether it meets with your approval, and mark it accordingly? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephen Jurika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily News. 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) 10:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Landing at Scarlet Beach you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Landing at Scarlet Beach 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)