This user may have left Wikipedia. Factotem has not edited Wikipedia since 1 August 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hi, first of all welcome to Wikipedia. You did a great job with the Irish Sea article, but I just want to point out one small error. You need to use this character -> " in the <ref name="foo">bar</ref> element, as the character you used is not recognised and caused the problem you encountered. I went and tidied it up, but well done for being bold and having a go. Sorry if I sound patronising, but not many new users attempt to use the <ref> tags, and you did a bloody good job nonetheless. You're definitely the type of contributor we should be helping and encouraging. Keep up the good work!

You're very kind, and also very quick! Thanks. The perils of compiling an article using MS Word where " becomes ”. --FactotEm 13:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I award you the Special Barnstar for your excellent work on the article Irish Sea — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got my first barnstar the other week, so I'm only too happy to award you one too.

which image do you want to use? Chanueting 12:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was the map of Omaha beach, but the question has been answered now. Thanks. --FactotEm 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award Factotem the Barnstar of Diligence for his excellent, detailed and dedicated work on Omaha Beach. His willingness to remain calm, cool and polite whilst around him raged abuse over Severloh is also notable. Gillyweed 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there Factotem. You have done nothing wrong with inserting these Images into the article on Omaha Beach. One thing I may suggest is getting some references in the paragraph that it's in, if unreferenced text is removed, more than likely Images having to do with unreferenced text can be nominated for deletion.

A problem I spotted is that 3 Images, Image:Capa, D-Day2.jpg, Image:Capa, D-Day1.jpg and Image:Capa, Death of a Loyalist Soldier.jpg do not have rationales and I am going to tag them as such. The uploader of all three Images is User:Cactus.man, so I'll leave him messages regarding it. But you can help if you like. You can write rationales for these Images if you like, see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline if you like to learn how to. After seven days of me tagging them, they will be deleted, so you can either write a rationale or see if Cactus.man will.

If you need help, just drop another line :) — Moe ε 17:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the late response. Sure, you move the Image were you think is most appropriate for the article. If you check the Fair Use rationale writing guideline I linked above and followed a few categories to articles using fair use templates, I'm sure you'll find some that are properly sourced. If you need help finding them, ask me. Or if you're in doubt that an Image has correct information, you can ask that as well. — Moe ε 18:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found an essay if you like: Wikipedia:Fair use rationale examples. Cheers! — Moe ε 18:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm.. I suppose the most applicable one would be ((Non-free historic image)). Just type this (under a heading called Licensing) and rationale for Fair Use in the description box while uploading and you should be fine. — Moe ε 19:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost perfect, but otherwise a gem :) — Moe ε 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi FactotEm, thanks for adding the fair use rationales to these images. You just spared me a wee bit of work. No big deal perhaps, but much appreciated nonetheless. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits were also valuable to the final product that is the article on Augustus. I commend you and everyone else who contributed.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll toss my thanks into this basket. Appreciate the feedback on Operation Battleaxe, I've started on a few of them and I'll try to address the other suggestions when time permits. Thanks again! Oberiko 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on Omaha Beach becoming a featured article. Well deserved! Gillyweed 10:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And thank you kindly for the barnstar - and on my birthday too! Gillyweed 10:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is indeed a great picture, but it is an unfree image, and it does not add anything to the article that a free image could not do. Danny 13:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say, excellent additions to Gimli Glider, the story of how it went wrong is the part I wanted to read most. Hope you don't mind my rather extensive copyedits. :) Eaglizard 21:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fact, I'm honestly very glad that someone is checking my work, thank you! And I will concede to your opinion completely on undaunted; I really thought it was over the top myself, but I guess I was feeling a little impressed by those damned engineers! As for other changes you made, I'll have a look the next time I pick up this article, but I'm sure I'll like them. I'm mostly just trying to rewrite some of the really dry, oddly-syntaxed sentences in that one, maybe hilight a bit of the drama more clearly (which is not out of place in an encyclopedia, within reason; for instance, I really liked the change to the active "found themselves passing struggling men" (although I don't like the two "...ing" words together), but undaunted I guess is too much :). This sort of copy-edit is actually what I do for fun and relaxation when I need a break from the deeply-obfuscated and emotionally challenging Talk: Alice Bailey page. :) Eaglizard 11:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I made a minor change, inserting the word "however" at the beginning, for a slight dramatic effect, and replacing "40%" with "forty percent", as per WP:MOS. The second change prompted me to reword the sentence altogether, so see if you're ok with it, if you want. Also, I want to add that my reference to "dry, oddly-syntaxed sentences" wasn't meant to malign anything you wrote; in fact, perhaps I was a bit inconsiderate using those terms. I hope you'll take my meaning well, but if you feel slighted, I certainly apologize. The kind of edits I making would be rather absurd on a blank page, so thanks for your contributions! Eaglizard 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify, I wouldn't switch the entire ref section to short-form. Just the things you cite more than once, to avoid repeating the entire ref info. Pagrashtak 16:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I have responded to your useful comments on the Flying Matters talk page which is probably the best place for the main thread of the discussion.PeterIto (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you engage with the discussion on Talk:AirportWatch as it is currently being challenged very strongly in a way I find unhelpful and needs input from others with a konwledge of the sector. Thanks. PeterIto (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the update. Possibly we should first move all the discussion on this to the talk page for your 'Future....' article. Personally have been thinking along the ideas of an article/section on 'aviation campaigning and protests' which would list the issues, the airports that each issue relates to, and then a table showing organisations are active in which geographical areas on which issues. For example StopHeathrowExpansion are active on noise/climate change/air quality/airportexpansion in relation to Heathrow, StopStansted expansion in regard to Stansted, and Plane Stupid are active in the whole of the UK on airport exapansion, short haul flights and taxation. Flying Matters can also fit into this structure. This article could be a world scope article to pick up on campaigns (pro-growth and anti-growth) all round the waorld as the issues are likely to be the same PeterIto (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, although Kyoto gives individual countries/parties a free hand over what it does domestically, it defines what forms the AAU - assigned allowance units - can take, and how they can be traded internationally. Aviation is explicitly excluded. This was set up in the Marrakesh Accords immediately after Kyoto. This will present the European Commission some challenges, as they wish to include aviation within their ETS trading system. They use EAUs which are currently fungible/equivalent with AAUs, as they built them on the Marrakesh standards. There is currently no legal basis for exchanging a tonne of aviation carbon - however that eventually gets defined - with an AAU. Thus any domestic or EU scheme cannot trade Kyoto units for its own aviation units. This isn't just a problem of "whose carbon is it?", but there is currently no definition in aviation terms of a what an equivalent tonne of CO2 (CO2e) is, and what factor it should take at high or low altitude. (There are agreed factors for the fluorocarbons, methane, etc.) There is a similar problem with maritime shipping which is also outside Kyoto. Ephebi (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has nominated Future of air transport in the United Kingdom, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of air transport in the United Kingdom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that made me laugh! --FactotEm (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou very much for your comments and peer review, I have responded at the [FAC page].--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou very much for your comments and support for the Glorious First of June article which has just passed FAC. Your input was much appreciated. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you so much for the thorough, unexpected, and extremely useful copy-edit! Maximian's looking much cleaner now that you're through with him. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replied to your issues on talk. Have they been suitably clarified, or do you still feel there are issues with the article? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've clarified their qualifications. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's accurate. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are further changes needed? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindent) I've tweaked out all but one "purples" and all the "thrones". About the possessive "s", it's general practice to require it in more formal settings. According to Wikipedia: "Traditionally it was more common to require and many respected sources still do require that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. [...] Such sources would demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Mephistopheles's cat." The MOS accepts both styles, but requires consistency: "Usage varies for the possessive of singular nouns ending in s sounds. Maintain consistency (James' house or James's house, but not both in the same article). Some forms almost always take an extra s (Ross's father); some usually do not (Socrates' wife; Moses' ascent of Sinai; Jesus' last words)." It's not an entirely uncommon practice in this situation, as Google searches can attest: Constantius's and Galerius's. (Do you know how to get the search box to recognize a search for "Galerius' "? Google's obstinate on this point, so I can't get comparative data.) So it's not a straight-out error, though it may be the less popular choice. As for the general quality of the prose, I'll give it a going over some time in the coming days. Thanks again for the copy-edit! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've checked: Barnes and Williams don't use the "'s", so I'll remove them. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I've addressed your final comments. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. :) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I would just to say thank you, for all the copyedits which you have made over the last couple of weeks. They have really helped in whipping the Operation Brevity article into shape. Prost!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say, excellent work on this article! (Nico) 18 Jun 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, and apologize in advance for any mistakes I have made in formatting or protocol. I commend you on your work on the Omaha Beach Wiki. It is simply outstanding. I am the person who recently edited the sentence in the Naval Support section of the Omaha Beach Wiki from:

"With no naval shore parties in action, targets difficult to spot, and because of the fear of hitting their own troops, the big guns of the battleships and cruisers concentrated on targets at each flank of the Omaha beaches."

to

"With targets difficult to spot, and because of the fear of hitting their own troops, the big guns of the battleships and cruisers concentrated on targets at each flank of the Omaha beaches."

You subsequently undid the edit, stating "Sources say that naval shore parties were on the beach but unable to operate, thus this statement."

I request that you restore my edit, or at least reword the part that states, "With no naval shore parties in action." Here's why.

I have found two official sources (Army and Navy) that explicitly state that Naval Shore Fire Control Parties (NSFCP) were in action on Omaha Beach. The first, http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/100-11/ch4.htm (page 83) states, "Naval gunfire became a major factor as communications improved between shore and ships. At first, targets were still hard to find; Gunfire Support Craft Group reported at 0915 that danger to friendly troops hampered fire on targets of opportunity; an NSFCP in contact with ships was told by General Cota (about 0800) that it was 'unwise to designate a target.'" The second can be found on http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Normandy/ComNavEu/ComNavEu-507.html#cn521-1, in footnote # 1 for page 521. It states, "Although Shore Fire Control Parties were landed at H plus 30 minutes, they were in many cases unable to set up their equipment because of casualties and enemy fire," which supports your statement, but then continues, " At this juncture the destroyers Carmick, Doyle, Mccook, Thompson, Frankford, Harding, Emmons, and Baldwin, and the three British Hunts, Melbreak, Talybont and Tanatside, closed the beach and took under fire many of the enemy positions. Their fire was directed in part from the ships and in part from Shore Fire Control Parties which managed to set up communications."

Finally, a Naval Shore Party consisted of much more than just fire control. Please see http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Normandy/ComNavEu/ComNavEu-563.html (pages 571-572), which details the composition that was used for the American beach landings. Omaha Beach was served by companies of the 6th and 7th Naval Beach Battalions, attached to the Army's 5th and 6th Engineer Special Brigades respectively. To state that there were "no naval shore parties in action," or that they were "unable to operate" can be interpreted as overlooking the contributions of the other elements within the beach battalions. Uncle adal (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brilliant stuff. Hit hard and enjoy it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where do you want me to post the new review? On the article's talkpage?Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In view of the meticulous peer review work you did for this article, I thought you'd like to know that it has finally made it to FAC. Fingers crossed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I surely would appreciate some help. English is not my native language and it has already required a lot of effort to translate from German to English and put the information into correct context. I don't mean this as an excuse not to fulfill FAC standard but as a gesture of an outstretched hand to except help where my capabilities are exhausted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, will do. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, it sounds much better! I approve!MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations. This is a high-class article, and I am pleased to have been involved, in a small way, with its deserved promotion to FA. Your next project is awaited with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll second that. It was a nice change to see a FAC that wasn't about a film or a video game. Hope my contributions were of some use & not too pedantic! All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any plans for WP:TFAR? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right—it does seem an arcane process! It must have changed over the last few months: the last one I was involved with (Turkish language) was pretty straightforward (no points system etc).--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Factorem, Congrats for your article “General aviation in UK”. I really think that we should start an article on “General aviation in Europe”. As I am a newcomer in Wikipedia, are you interested in taking the lead of this work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nic Germ (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sry, you wanted a yes or no start-up cue, and I thought you'd done your example already but just saw from the edit history that you haven't. Please go ahead. Tony (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am happy with your proposal Factotem. :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reply to your question:

Jentz, p.129
British order of battle: On the border 14 May 1941 (i would take it, considering some forces named there is no information on them taking part and some were followup forces that the OOB is for all forces on the border and not all forces taking part in Brevity)
7th Armoured Brigade group (although Jentz and Playfair spell "group" with a capital G, it is my understanding that since there were not permant formations the correct spelling is with a lower case G. See Brigade group):
2nd RTR
6th Aussie Divison Cavalry
11th Prince Albert Victor's Own Cavalry (Frontier Force) (as far i know, did not take part in the fighting)
One squadron 2nd Royal Lancers (think he means the 2nd Lancers (Gardner's Horse), who i have never seen any mention in all sources that they took part in actual fighting so have not included them)
259th AT Battery

Likewise the 7th Support Group has elements of the 3rd Hussars in it and the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, both regimental histories are hazy about if they were involved or not and no accounts mention them being in the actual fighting so likewise they have been dropped from the OOB.

Am not going to be around for a few hours so i can give your CE the once over later on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok feedback as requested.

Since the context of the paragraph has changed the citation: "Clarke, pp. 166–167" can go as iirc it does not back up what is now currently there. While Jentz gives an order of battle he does not provide tank figures which is what Playfair gives so those two will have to stay.

Overall the CE looks good although there are a few minor things:

Should there be a second comma in:

His primary objectives were to capture Halfaya Pass, drive the enemy from the Sollum and Capuzzo areas, and inflict as much loss on the opposing forces as possible.

&

The Allied force comprised elements of the 7th Armoured Division, and the 22nd Guards Brigade.

As discussed above, i believe that this should be a lower case "G":

7th Armoured Brigade Group

Not to sure on this one as i have now seen people do this differently. I would be tempted to put a comma in after battalion however i have seen others who dont - i guess it doesnt matter lol.

2nd Battalion Panzer Regiment 5

Finally, i think that should be "ordered"?

and order Kampfgruppe von Herff to act more aggressively

As i said nothing major and it does read allot better then it use to.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of months ago you reviewed this at PR, leaving some useful comments. I've developed the article further, and you may like to see it in its expanded form at FA, where it now is. Cheers, Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the note on my talkpage. I realise that time is not always available to review articles; fortunately, Farthest South seems to be holding its own at FAC for the moment. I hope soon to shift my emphasis away from the South and turn northwards - a Farthest North companion article is well under way & should be at PR before the end of the month. And, yes, the Arctic was fine, thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'll start trimming this one later today. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

air transport in the United Kingdom

Thank you for quality articles such as Omaha Beach, Air transport in the United Kingdom and General aviation in the United Kingdom, for activity in peer reviews, inviting and reviewing, for your clever user name made up of fact and totem, explained on a clear user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

We miss you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. 2nd of 'my' articles to be featured on the front page, and a nice note to boot. Maybe I'll come back. FactotEm (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1402 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - Welcome back! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Than you for today's Gloucestershire Regiment, one of "the UK's more unassuming regiments, now history, which was unique for wearing a back badge on its headdress after one of its antecedent regiments fought back to back in Egypt. It fought in the Second Boer War and both world wars, and achieved for itself both fame and the American Presidential Unit Citation at the Battle of the Imjin River during the Korean War."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Now three. :) Factotem (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now two years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerne Factotem (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and three ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and another TFA, thank you: Yeomanry Cavalry, about "the history of the British yeomanry from its formation in 1794 during the French Revolutionary Wars until its amalgamation into the Territorial Force in 1908. A uniquely aristocratic institution, it was retained after the Napoleonic Wars for its utility as a mounted police force, gaining notoriety for its role in the Peterloo Massacre. It struggled to justify itself militarily, and survived in the late 19th century largely due to the wealth and political influence of its leadership. It found a renewed purpose as mounted infantry, much to the distaste of those members who remained wedded to the cavalry tradition, following the failure of the regular army in the Second Boer War."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and fout ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you today for George Washington and slavery, - saying: "Relatively little attention has been given in the sources to the subject of George Washington and Slavery in comparison to other aspects of the life of a founding father and first president of the US"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - Please can you add some citations to some of your recent edits. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean the uncited paras in the "Formation of the Gloucestershire Regiment" section? The final citation applies there - am I supposed to add the same cite to each para? FactotEm (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - Yes, the minimum requirement is a citation for each para. Sorry, I was not aware that all the information came from the same source but it should be easy to cite accordingly. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. No problem. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it turned out, the penultimate para needed another cite anyway, so good catch. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Glosters Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work on the Gloucestershire Regiment! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Some ways to go yet, but preparing the next tranche of changes off-line so that the current article does not become a disjointed work in progress.FactotEm (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please can I echo that...great work! Dormskirk (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gloucestershire Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 57th Brigade. 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) 12:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Factotem. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tnguyen4321 has come back with restoration of the info that you've deleted. I think it's nothing new but OR. So keep an eye on the article please. Dino nam (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi first of all great work on the Glosters page! Just a quick query though you changed the tag on the photo of the colours that I uploaded to "Last regimental colours of the 28th Regiment before amalgamation". I believe that these were the colours post amalgamation 28th and LXI and pre amalgamation RGBWR. Prior to the amalgamation with the 61st the colours would have had the regimental number in the middle and after amalgamation this was replaced with the sphinx. I have my doubts about from when the colours date from as there should have been a Solma-ri ribbon on them and this photo doesn't. I was lucky enough to have carried them myself and I should have a photo somewhere. let me know what you think. --Domdeparis (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi & Thx. You're right! I completely misread the image description. I've got to rush now, but maybe the best place is further down, in the section where the amalgamation with RGBWR (who on earth came up with that name!?) is discussed? That section will get fleshed out in due course. FactotEm (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know it's a horrible thing! One of the reasons why I decided not to apply to stay on after my SSC. Some of the smart arses in other regiments suggested calling it the M4 regiment as the M4 goes through each county. That did not go down well with the boys! Domdeparis (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe they didn't like being rivet-heads all of a sudden. :) I fixed the image description, but feel free to edit it if you think it can be improved. I'm going to leave it where it is for now though. It's appropriate to the section it's currently anchored to, and it's a bit too busy down the bottom of the article to move it there just yet. FactotEm (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just thanking you for taking a look at the Operation Hailstone article. I made the changes you had suggested for movement from C to B-class. Think it qualifies now? I'm hoping after the bump to B to have the article copyedited and submitted for GA review. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. I think though that you need to add page numbers to the cites you just added. FactotEm (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same goes for the evacuation log, which was already cited, but also lacks page number(s) FactotEm (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not able to pull page numbers unfortunately, since I don't have a physical copy of the work cited and Google Books does not list page numbers. The only source that could probably corroborate the data is Lindemann's book (mentioned in the Further Reading section), but I don't have that one either—it runs $40 on Amazon and no library within 800 miles has it! So this is the best I can do for the time being. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shame. I've come up against that problem with Google Books as well. Just a note of caution; I noticed that Merriam's book is published by Lulu, which is a self-publishing house, and self-published works are not regarded as reliable sources FactotEm (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah that's the other issue here. Unfortunately Merriam doesn't provide provenance for the list he's citing. The series—including the volume I referenced—contains a mix of firsthand accounts, primary source documents and short historical works by credentialed professionals, so it doesn't have the same problems as some other self-published works. However, the Truk list included here seems to be provided directly by Merriam himself rather than deriving from a primary source doc or some historian he's re-publishing. The evacuation log and ship loss lists were both in the original article and I was loathe to take them out, since every vessel I've double-checked thus far is accurately represented by the list. Maybe I should ask on the MilHist discussion page if anybody has access to the Lindemann book. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and replaced the Merriam list with a list derived from a PhD thesis by William Jeffery, who worked with the NPS and whose list contains four primary and four secondary sources for each ship. I've retained Merriam for the Evacuation Log until I can find an adequate replacement (the information may be contained in Jeffery in another format). I think the article now merits B-class but I'll leave that up to you. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There were a couple of other refs without page numbers. I've had a quick look at two of them, and they were websites, so no problem specifically, but I want to check through a bit more. Unfortunately I won't have the opportunity to do that until late Sat or Sun. FactotEm (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Afraid you still need to add page numbers for the Jeffery information, and the article won't qualify for B Class while that evacuation log is still sourced to Merriam without page numbers. Them's the rules. I've checked through all the other un-page-numbered refs and they're all websites, so they're no problem. FactotEm (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added the appendix location within Jeffery to the cites missing page numbers—the page number would be listed as pg. 1 of Appendix 4 unless I reference the .pdf page numbers. I downloaded the Merriam eBook and found that there are no actual page numbers. Rather, the articles are listed in the introduction and numbered accordingly. I could list the Truk article number (13) as I did with the Jeffery appendix if that would be helpful, but that's the best that source can get to. Let me know if there's more I can do. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Jeffery appendix number is fine. If you add the Merriam article number to the evacuation log then you'll be there. FactotEm (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done and done. Thank you for helping me improve the article! Cheers, Finktron (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Nice job. FactotEm (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Factotem. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your excellent work and A-class review of Sam Manekshaw. May be you must try your hat at WP:GOCE. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. Thank you! I'm considering trying for GOCE, but I'm not sure my standard of English or my knowledge of the MoS is quite up to scratch yet. That's an interesting article you have written. Well done. I've only commented on the prose so far, and will have another look later to see how it stacks up with the rest of the ACR criteria, but it looks good. FactotEm (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to say I was very pleased to see the Gloucestershire Regiment promoted to A class. Will you be taking it to FAC? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Yes. Just waiting for Christmas to pass. I plan on submitting next Tues or Weds. FactotEm (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent. Do let me know it's up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will do. Thanks. Merry <insert preferred festive greeting here> to you. FactotEm (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: At FAC now. Factotem (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Factotem—I want to thank you for your peer review of the William Henry Powell article—and apologize too! Your review did not arrive until after I thought the peer reviewing was completed, and I had already submitted the article for GA review. Therefore, I missed your suggestions until today while working on GA review suggestions. Your work is appreciated and some of your strengths are where I have weaknesses. I am trying to "sneak in" some of your suggestions now, but must be careful not to upset the GA reviewer with too many unexpected changes. In case you are interested, I will have one military article and one glass factory article ready later in 2018. Thanks TwoScars (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I've had peer reviews left advertised on the Milhist page long after I thought I had closed them. Good luck with the GAN. Factotem (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 12 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yeomanry, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Western Front and Volunteer Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi it seems a shame that there is no image of the back badge. Do you want me to take of photo of one of mine to be used on the page? Domdeparis (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and wholeheartedly agree, but the licensing is a nightmare. As I understand it, the government claims copyright on regimental insignia, and even though you can release your photo into the public domain, the object itself would need its own licence. The only reason I could get the cap badge as the lead image is because the source claims it is of 1914-1918 origin. If you could prove your back badge was made pre-1968 it might fly, otherwise not. I've even looked at militaria shops online to see if I could purchase an old back badge, but I seriously doubt they would be able to provide any proof of its age, and I also tried to find out if designs changed over the years, so that I could say "Look, this is what they looked like in 1920, so it must be out of copyright", without success. Absolute nightmare! Factotem (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a pain...what I can do is ask my father to take a photo of his I know he still has them and he did his national service in the early sixties (before he married in 1963). Would his word or a sworn statement be enough do you think that would cut it? Domdeparis (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Willing to give it a try but can't guarantee. I don't think it needs to be a sworn statement, but if you upload the image to commons, date it to the year it was issued to your father, and state the source along the lines of his own badge issued on joining the regiment, that might pass muster. If he could take the picture on a sheet of paper and try to minimise any shadow, I can photoshop a transparent background, which I think looks better - that's what I did with the lead image of the cap badge. The article is book-ended by the back badge, and I'm keen to get an image in there if we can. Factotem (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok that's great I'll try get that up there as soon as I can. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's great! Thanks. When it comes to providing the licensing info, see how it's done for the cap badge image. The photo is licensed under ((cc-by-sa-3.0)) - that should get around any problems that technically it's your father's photo and so not yours to upload - and the badge is licensed under ((PD-UKGov)) Factotem (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can ask my father to agree to release the photo under that licence in the email. I just spoke to him and he would be delighted to do the photos he's also got the front badge shoulder patches and presidential citation. He's got them mounted in a frame so I'll ask him to take a photo of the frame and the individual pieces on white paper and then you can use whatever you like. Domdeparis (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grand! Thanks. If the article passes FA I'm going to try and get it scheduled for the front page on 21 March. Factotem (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I just got the photos from my father and they are not bad at all, the back badge is made of brass and as such is quite worn. The only thing I am concerned about is the date. You said that the insignia have to date back to in 1968 (50 years old), my father joined in 1955 but the PD-UKGOV license mentions 70 years. Did I miss something? Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I understand it, the PD-UKGov license applies to three different types of work:

• Photographs taken prior to 1 June 1957; or
• Published prior to 1968; or
• Artistic works other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created prior to 1968.

As the badge is clearly not a photograph, I believe one of the other two conditions apply, giving a cut-off year of 1968. At least, I think that's how it works. When you've posted the image, I'll ask someone to check it out before I add it to the article. Factotem (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are my uploads, I think I've put the same info as on your front badge, [1], feel free to edit and or use! cheers Domdeparis (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, and to your father, for those. I've posed the question to the person who completed the image review at FAC. If they give the OK, I'll create new images with transparent backgrounds and use them in the article. Factotem (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking good. Shame the back badge is so worn - may get some comments on that, but the front badge is a huge improvement on what was there before. Thank you! Factotem (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. I know it's a shame, if you can find another one please don't hesitate to replace it. I've also got a photo of the presidential citation that we wore on the shoulders. This is obviously not crown copyright so can it be used or does the federal gouvernment of the USA own the copyright on it? Domdeparis (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick one about the back badge. From what I can remember from my regimental history (we had to buff up on it for our dining in) after Alexandria the men of the 28th started to wear the regimental numbered badge on the back of the shakos as a personal commemoration of the battle and refused to move it to the front. The back badge was introduced as a compromise I don't know if this was regimental folklore or fact. The original official shako back badge was a smaller brass diamond shaped badge with a sphinx egypt and the number 28 on it. The Glosters are one of the few British army units that did not have a crown incorporated into their badge and I seem to remember that this was added as a means of reminding regiments of their loyalty to the monarch but as the loyalty of the Gloucestershire regiment was never in question this was not necessary. This again may have been regimental folklore. I'll try and see if I can find any sources. Domdeparis (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. I may be biased, but I've always thought the Glosters' cap badge to be one of the best designs of all the regimental badges, equalled only, maybe, by the RTR, and that's only because they get to have a tank on theirs. I will probably add the shoulder flash to the article at some stage, but it takes a bit of effort to photoshop the transparent background in, and anyway, I don't want to mess with the article too much whilst it's still in FAC. Factotem (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Territorial Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Territorial Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Territorial Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that the Gloucestershire Regiment article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 22, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 22, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Jimfbleak: I am doing a little editing to try and get some salient points in, roots going back to 1694, as an ex-Gloster I know that this part of the history of the regiment is very important. Amalgamated regiments inherit the history and battle honours of their composant parts. Also the Glosters were not overrun at the battle of Imjin River but were given permission to breakout. If I can pare it down to around 1100 characters I'll try. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dom from Paris, thanks for that. Don't worry too much about an exact word count for the blurb because Dan will edit it down to that anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He already reverted my edit as it was too long! So I'm discusing a couple of things I'd like to get in on the talk page. Thanks. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a problem, I'll bring this up at WT:TFA so others can weigh in if they like. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite an achievement given the size and complexity of the topic, congrats on the B. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks. Hopefully it will be good enough for FAC soon. I'm keeping my eye on Second Alamein. I'll jump in if necessary, but you appear to have it under control for now. Factotem (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Special Reserve 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Special Reserve you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Special Reserve for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd. The article passed, and is now a GA, according to the latest TP edit. Factotem (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia has rules against canvassing for votes, obviously: WP:CANVASSING. However, without doing that, how on earth do I even raise awareness about the FA candidacy for my article, short of leaving messages on WikiProject talk pages and the talk page of the main article? All of which I have already done. No one seems interested in reviewing the article. I thought Cleopatra of all people would garner some attention, but nope. It's a graveyard of silence aside from your input about sources. I used to think this essay was humorous, but I don't find it very funny anymore: Wikipedia:Imminent death of Wikipedia predicted.

It seems tacky to raise awareness about the FA review in places like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, or other social media sites, but I don't see how else to do so. Furthermore, I'm not sure if that's allowed or not by WP:CANVASSING, going to other sites to encourage people there to come to Wikipedia and review the article. It sounds desperate, I know, but what else can anyone do? Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but from my perspective there are two issues which make me wary of contributing any more than I already have to the article's candidacy. The first is the sheer size of the thing. It puts people off reviewing it at all, and there is a danger that it will be failed on criteria 4, making any effort put into reviewing against the other criteria a waste of time and effort. This is not an issue to be taken lightly (and that diff relates to an article with 6Kb less readable prose than Cleopatra currently has). Even if you do pick up a support or two, they will need to be good quality supports to justify the FAC coordinator who assesses consensus turning a blind eye to the length criteria if someone chooses to oppose on that basis. The second is the large number of edits you have made to the article. I accept what you wrote in response when I raised this, but it still puts me off, because I fear I will get caught up in a cycle of re-reviewing changes which, because of the size of the article........ Maybe someone is already working their way through a review on Notepad somewhere and patience will be your reward. Sorry, can't be any more positive than that. Good luck. Factotem (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If someone raises the issue of the article length I will be more than happy to trim it wherever I can to reduce its length. The problem is that no one has bothered to complain about it yet, or complain about anything for that matter. I have pinged some users on Cleo's talk page to see if anyone who has commented there in the past would be interested in reviewing the article. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again, Factotem! You seem to be quite experienced with the FAC process, so you seem like the right person to contact about how to make sure my Cleopatra nomination passes smoothly. It has six supports thus far and one commentator who has yet to return or reply, although as far as I know I addressed his concerns. Is there anything else I could do to improve the standing of the article candidacy? It hasn't seen any activity since you supported it, but that was more than two weeks ago. Do you think there might be some sort of reason why the nomination is being held up? Is it just the general glacial pace of FACs? I see that coordinators Ian Rose and Laser Brain have promoted and archived some articles this month, so they aren't completely inactive in that regard. I'm at a loss as to what else I should do to help it become a promoted FAC. Sorry to bug you about this, but I'm getting itchy and eager to nominate either Ancient Macedonians or Death of Cleopatra as FACs, and I'm obviously unable to do that without first having this one closed/archived/promoted. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm actually a complete novice with the FAC process, and I can't offer you any material help, I'm afraid, other than to be patient. There's a lot for the co-ords to process in that candidacy - just let them go through it at their own pace. One thing that may be making it difficult for them is the lack of further input from that one reviewer, especially as another reviewer, although supporting, has expressed some unease on the same subject of sourcing. I would be tempted to respond to Septentrionalis, stating that you believe you have addressed their concerns and asking whether anything further is needed. It mitigates against the lack of explicit support if they do not respond, and if they do, you'll be clearer on how to progress this. Opposes need to be actionable, so if there's nothing there that is, then you're pretty much in the clear in terms of a straight count of supports. But mainly, be patient, I think. Factotem (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay! I guess I'm just getting antsy. I'll try to be more patient. I just wish I had a means to be more in tune with the Wiki gods of the FAC process, to know what they're thinking or why the nomination hasn't been promoted yet. If only I could be a fly on the wall of Wiki's Mount Olympus (figuratively speaking of course)! Perhaps that one reviewer didn't return because I answered his clearly snarky question about sources with a bit of sarcasm. I hope that's not the case, but I think that is the real reason why he hasn't responded. In that case I regret responding the way I did, although I genuinely addressed the issues he brought to the table. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant article for FA status here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Piquette Avenue Plant/archive1. I saw on the WP:FAC page that you have done several recent source reviews, so I am inviting you to do a source review of this one, also. This building played a huge yet mostly unknown role in the early years of the automotive industry in the United States, and I am certain that anyone interested in history will appreciate it. Any input that you would be willing to provide on its review page would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 02:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I scanned this when you first submitted it, and was a little put off by the to me unfamiliar citing format and the heavy use of websites as sources. Those are not problems with the candidacy, but I'm not sure about my competency in completing a proper source review. I can make no guarantees, but maybe I'll have a look over the next week. Until then, a couple of things jumped out at me looking at the sources just now. First, you have a mix of ISBN-10 and 13; I understand that it is preferred to be consistent in how ISBN numbers are formatted. If you accept that (I don't believe it's mandatory), you can usually find the corresponding ISBN-13 number by looking up the ISBN-10 at worldcat.org. Second, your main source, the NPS National Historic Landmark Nomination, mentions in a footnote on p. 11 a three-volume history by Nevins and Hill, which appears to be Ford: Decline and Rebirth, 1933–1962, and states that it "still stands as the most thorough and complete history". There's also a bibliography on p. 24, in which is listed, for example, Ferry's The Buildings of Detroit: A History; GBooks snippet view lists 6 mentions of "Piquette" in that publication. Neither of these books are used to source the article, which has implications for criteria 1c ("thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). If I do attempt a source review, I would be asking about that. Factotem (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, thank you for responding. The heavy use of websites is a non-issue as they are all from reliable sources, such as published articles and newsletters. I looked up the ISBN-13 numbers like you suggested and added them. The page-11 footnote you mentioned is referencing information about the early years of Cadillac, which is not relevant to this article and hence is not mentioned. I added the source you noted from the bibliography to an appropriate spot in the article. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear, I don't regard the use of websites as sources to be a problem, only my ability to assess whether they are reliable. Factotem (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 7 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Cool. Thanks. Have a great ANZAC Day. Factotem (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating County Territorial Association, Factotem!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-written article and a useful addition to Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing Buckton Castle at FAC. It passed a few days ago, and that's only possible because a group of reviewers took the time to give feedback and help improve the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Gloucestershire Regiment, Royal Gloucestershire Hussars, and Yeomanry Cavalry. MilHistBot (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for reviewing a total of six Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

On 9 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a German plan for the invasion of the United Kingdom became part of the plot for a best-selling novel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day Factotem, I just wanted to encourage you to think about nominating for the upcoming Milhist coordinator elections. Your content creation and reviewing record since joining the project are great indications of your value to the Milhist project, and we can always use an additional willing pair of hands. Sincerely, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Not sure. Maybe. Factotem (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Factotem, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, assess and review articles, read the news, or find an open task. If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please add your username here. We hope you will join us! Kges1901 (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Given your hard work on military history subjects over the years, we would love to have you as a member. Kges1901 (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiStripes for reviewing a total of five Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

I just wanted to say 'thank you' for your advice, edits & patience re The Reluctant Tommy article. I appreciate you're very busy, but wondered if you intend to come back to it at some point. I've summarised the remaining edits on the Talk page - all bar 1 should be straightforward.*ptrs4all* (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responded on the article TP Factotem (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgetting my manners. Sorry. Thanks for the thanks. Factotem (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Factotem, If you have time, could you please look in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire? There's a discussion about whether the article is some kind of fiction or not, and I suspect that you're the best-placed editor to comment on this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Factotem (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Factotem. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		2018 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the WikiProject Barnstar for being nominated for the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Gloucestershire Regiment, Royal Gloucestershire Hussars, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Territorial Force you are hereby awarded these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		For your work on Gloucestershire Regiment, Royal Gloucestershire Hussars, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Territorial Force you are hereby awarded The Featured Article Medal. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, The book I mentioned during the TF's review process on the deployment of TF units to India now has a release date. The historian, Peter Stanley, tends to focus on social military history, so it might be broader-ranging than the title/topic suggest. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll keep a look out for it. Factotem (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For George Washington's political evolution. Please nominate this for WP:DYK, its great! DannyS712 (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this edit you deleted 2 direct references (Anderson 2007 & Misencik 2014) - which would not normally be a problem - except that you left the cites standing in the References section. If you could check your edits with the "Show preview" and see if any new referencing issues pop up that would be really helpful. Just do a page-search for "Harv warning" & "Harv error" before you hit "Publish changes", correct any issues you find, and that will save future cleanups from having to be done. I went ahead and cleaned up the Warnings by removing the Anderson & Misencik cites. Shearonink (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep. Sorry. Meant to check when my edits remove refs to make sure that I don't leave unused sources hanging in the bibliography, but simply forgot. I'll try and do better in the future. Factotem (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're doing fine - it's just a heads-up. I personally hate Harvard referencing with the blinding white-hot passion of 10,000 suns - the nomenclature is not easy to master & maintain, most editors who are unfamiliar with it find it confusing to work with, it's not pre-loaded into the editing window, etc. No worries, Shearonink (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Washington's political evolution 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 BMO4744 -- BMO4744 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article George Washington's political evolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Washington's political evolution 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 BMO4744 -- BMO4744 (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. I've long thought this page had the intrinsic interest and the volumes of sources necessary to make it to FA class. One sunny September day I visited the battlefield (which is only a local park but amazingly spacious and well preserved, especially considering the value of nearby NJ real estate). I was captured by the narrative and fine exhibits in the old visitor center (the new one is way nicer) and on returning home and logging in I found myself shocked at the deplorable condition of the opening. I immediately went to it. I find myself proud how little the lede has been changed in almost ten years. The battle is a worthy subject and the page deserves the best kind of coverage. I appreciate your interest. BusterD (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Sadly I never had the interest to visit any of the Revolutionary War sites on any of my visits to the States, other than Independence Hall, which I thought fascinating, though I wish I had known then what I know now. I did get to tour a few of the civil war sites, which were just superb, none more so than Gettysburg. I ordered Lender & Stone's book, and will be working through that in some detail when it arrives. It is a fascinating episode, and there's so much more to it than just two armies having a rumble for a day. Hopefully I can get it on the path to FA, though I'm a little concerned about the paucity of sources that deal specifically with the battle. I would have thought there would be more, but as far as I can tell, Lender & Stone are the only ones to have focused on it recently. If you know of any others, I would be grateful to hear about them. Cheers. Factotem (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some very effective writing here. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It's proving quite difficult to make sense of the very detailed and occasionally inconsistent source and condense it into summary form, but I think I'm slowly getting there. May I ask a question? I'm a little confused about the difference between Monmouth Court House and Freehold. I believe there was actually a court house, but the source seems to use the names interchangeably for the same village, though in one place it talks of Freehold Township, 4 miles from Monmouth Court House. Are you able to clarify this any for me? Factotem (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for not seeing this sooner; I've been largely afk this week. Real life catches up with one. I found a good source for this: page 25. You might have already found it. I was calling on you today to acknowledge and appreciate the pruning you've been doing this week. This is stronger now. Not counting notes and sourcing, this isn't much larger than it was before you started. BusterD (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. And no problem - I eventually found that both of the main sources for the battle confirm the two names refer to the same village. Your comment was well observed, and I'll be continuing to copyedit mercilessly for a while, as I usually do anyway. I also need to add something about the situation with the civil war between patriots and loyalists in Monmouth Court House and the rather shameful behaviour of the British troops whilst there, but it only needs a paragraph. Thanks again for your overwatch. Cheers. Factotem (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Factotem, not to belabor the point but the WP:TPO guideline says "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies." The conversation was getting very lengthy so I thought it best to insert my comment after Cmguy777's comment. I've used the insert notation for years with no issues, but will not employ it again when discussing matters with you, making a noted effort not to make it seem I'm addressing the wrong party when I do. Apologies, once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Factotem, (urghh!) I did it again. I expressed a pause (...) after the phrase "fair enough" thinking it was my own edit, as I recently used the term also. I did this to keep the section from being archived by a bot for lack of recent edits, as it is being currently referred to. Please believe I did not do it to antagonize you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tried to work on the slavery section and in my opinion, every edit seems to be contested by a certain editor. It is becoming difficult to make any edits that just get overturned or over ruled. Morgan 2000 view has been taken out. I am not sure what can be done. Compromise does not seem to work at all. Any suggestions ? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're challenging Morgan's view on the TP, but they haven't removed it from the article, at least not yet. We all view the world through the lens of our own prejudices and biases, and they have as much right to challenge ours as we have to challenge theirs. It's frustrating, I know, but you're doing fine. Just keep arguing your case civilly, strictly in accordance with policy and guideline, and root it firmly in reliable sources. And try not to get bogged down in arguments that are based only in opinion; it's a pointless waste of time and energy. Factotem (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am finding it difficult to work on this article particularly the slavery section. A certain editor has an iron grip on the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then stop working on it. I'm out. Clearly, their POV is so deeply entrenched that they will not be dissuaded even by a formal dispute resolution process, let alone single editors. Let them make a fool of themselves by taking that rubbish to FAC. Another failure there might reveal to them the truth about their self-proclaimed FA expertise, though I suspect it will take more than one failure before they (or quite possibly we, given that I'm pretty sure the Dunning–Kruger effect is in play somewhere here) finally 'get it'. Factotem (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have stopped. This certain editor is hyper-protective of Washington's reputation, defiant of RfC, and I think intent on establishing a conservative POV in the article, particularly slavery. For now a break from the article is best. Maybe I will resume editing at another time. One editor is controlling the entire article. It impossible to edit on right now. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<WP:PA and BS removed> Stay off my TP Gwillhickers. Factotem (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't edit that article any more and have actually taken it off my Watchlist, I just pop in from time to time and check it for any new Harv cite issues and then go ahead and fix them. I can't take the constant...I don't know what to call it but I decided I can't take it any more.
I don't know if you have this bit of code installed on your /common.js page but it's the only reason I can "see" any new Harv issues: importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
If you celebrate Memorial Day, have a great holiday weekend and thanks for being a voice of reason at that article. Shearonink (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Fully appreciate where you're coming from, and don't blame you in the slightest. Thanks for the note, and sorry about messing up the ref. I did have that script installed, but it bugged out the sfn ref popups, so I disabled it. We honour ours in November, but it is actually a holiday weekend this weekend here too. Have a good one. Cheers. Factotem (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 7 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

In approximately four weeks, we will open nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections. Have you given any consideration to running? You'd make a good coordinator, I think, and Lord knows we could use some new blood in the team. Think it over, and if you have any questions you can ask me or check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Somewhat disillusioned with WP lately, and it has already been too much of a distraction. I would not be able to find the motivation or be able to give enough time to justify any vote of confidence the project might place in me in that capacity. Sorry. Factotem (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between July and September 2019. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just since you were active on the Pacific War Talk page before, I thought you might be interested in a proposal here: Talk:Empire of Japan#Predecessors and Successors --Havsjö (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we've ever come across each other before, but I was wondering if you could help me with a non-WP related manner connected to your area of expertise. It's about the Yeomanry Cavalry, an article that you took to FA level; it is tangentially related to something I've come across off wiki that you may be able to help with. As it isn't WP related, I'd prefer to discuss it elsewhere but you don't have email enabled. Would it be possible for you to drop me an email? No worries if not! Sarastro (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've enabled e-mail now. Factotem (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replied, after a few problems with junk filters! Sarastro (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for all the time you've taken to give constructive feedback on these Silesian Wars articles! As an educator I frequently give my students rather more rigor than they care to receive, so I can hardly complain when receiving some in my turn! I hope you'll be available to point out problems with the others when they go through FAC, but, either way, thank you for upholding high standards for encyclopedic content! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and you're welcome, though I think I've only provided input on the First. If I have time when the other two come up, then sure. I learned quite a lot digging around the sourcing. I find German history quite fascinating, but navigating my way through the labyrinth of the Holy Roman Empire has always been difficult. Merry Christmas, or whatever well-wishing sentiment is appropriate for you at this time of year. Factotem (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that Yeomanry Cavalry has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 11 February 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 11, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Article and blurb are both good to go as far as I am concerned. Factotem (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have yet, since the FA nom failed, returned to this article to further refine it. However, I was wondering - from your perspective - if the current article at least addresses your concerns in regards to the Territorial Force role the division had prior to be being deployed? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Yes, I've just read through the relevant sections, and they now substantially cover the aspects I thought were missing when the article went to FAC. When you're ready to submit it again, please do give me a shout, and I'll go over it in more detail and help out where I can. Good luck. Factotem (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to hear, and will do. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently the sidebar version of User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been broken for a long while. It should be fixed now. Sorry for the inconvenience. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord teamReply[reply]

Hi there Factotem. I enjoyed reviewing your recent FAC. I was wondering, would you mind reviewing one of the four other tropical cyclone related FACs? In the spirit of no quid pro quo, I'd ask you not to review mine (Gamede), but one of the other hurricane articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Sorry. I generally do not conduct any FAC reviews whilst I have a FAC running myself, for the no quid pro quo reason you identify. I completed four reviews in January, so my FAC credit is in reasonably good standing. Having said that, I'd be happy to return to reviewing once GW&S is out of FAC. Feel free to nudge me then. Hope you understand. Factotem (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hurricanehink: With GW&S pretty much done at FAC now, I reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Humberto (2019)/archive1. Thanks for your help. Factotem (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for spreading the reviews around! I (and the other hurricane editors) appreciate that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you have enough support to make a request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. I saw this edit [[2]]. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I did not know that page existed. Factotem (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wondered if that was the case. It's more usual to post there before shopping around. :) Good Luck! --Ykraps (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that the George Washington and slavery article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 19, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 19, 2020.—Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. buidhe 17:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your excellent work on George Washington and slavery. Thank you! Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I'm curious to see what state the article will end up in after its day at TFA. Factotem (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assure you it is worth the trouble. Twitter for one is have a field day. You have evoked a lot of discourse. You certainly made my Juneteenth a memorable one. Thank you!

We may have also caused this.[3] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for your efforts. I think a fair bit of fuss is being caused by people thinking this is the main GW article, which is unfortunate. Factotem (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Factotem, just stopping by for moral support, if you need it. That long discussion we had on the biography talk page resulted in an excellent and well researched piece of work on the slavery page. I've been watching the progress and am more than thrilled to see it as TFA today. Well done. Victoria (tk) 17:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Victoria. Thanks. Yes, it turned out to be quite a fascinating topic, full of nuance and complexity. Factotem (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord teamReply[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated General aviation in the United Kingdom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 17:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Omaha Beach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]