Hi Whizz40! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Whizz,

You have recently deleted from the History section of the Democracy Article, the fact that the American state was founded as a "representative form of government". Could you please explain your reasoning for this deletion? It seems to me that this fact is very relevant here, is it not? Why not? Could you please document why you might feel that this fact might be inappropriate in an article section about the historical development of democracy at the founding of the United States?

You have also deleted from that section, the fact that the American Revolution was the very first time in modern history that monarchism was successfully replaced with a representative form of government, apparently claiming that this fact was an "over simplification", and therefore, I would assume, somehow misleading. Could you please also explain your reasoning for that deletion as well? In exactly what way do you feel that this fact in this section might somehow be a "misleading oversimplification"? Could you please document your feelings to that effect?

Your clarification of your reasoning for these two deletions would be most appreciated.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, it's not that I disagree with your points, I'm editing to maintain the quality of the article overall. There is a temptation for each editor to add the point they are more interested in or feel most strongly about. The aspects you raise are discussed in other parts of the article, and I think the remaining edits we made are good and add to the quality of the article. --Whizz40 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whizz, The one event which seems to me to be quite significant, but which you have deleted was the American event of 1776 which marked the first time in recent history that a successful overthrow of a monarchical system occurred, followed by its replacement with a democratically elected leadership, and that this political shift was then followed by numerous other similar shifts towards democracy throughout the world. I could find no other discussion of this particular event anywhere else in the article, and it seems to me that it was a somewhat relevant historical event, worthy of noting in an article section on the history of democracy. Could you please specifically explain why you might feel that this event was either not "important" enough, or why it might somehow pose as too much of a "misleading over simplification", to warrant inclusion in this article?

While Americans may have fumbled around a great deal since 1776, I don't think that there are many historians who would tell you 1776 was irrelevant to the development of democracy in the world. How specifically might you feel that inclusion of a reference to this event in the article would "degrade" the quality of this article?

Other than this, I am satisfied with our edits.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, I think it's fair to say the ideas of the revolution and rights conferred by the Constitution developed over time. At the same time democracy was developing of its own accord in many countries around the world. We need to be careful not to promote one form of democracy over others. Nor to overstate the influence of events in one part of the world on others. Successful overthrow of a monarchical system in not essential to democracy; development of a constitutional monarchy can be just as effective, as has been the case in many countries.

Regarding your latest change, this is covered in the previous section of the article. The Parliament of England was long-standing before this and was more powerful than the monarch by this time. The most recent edit clarifies this. --Whizz40 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you will, the American revolution for democracy was irrelevant to democracy. I will allow you to rest your case, though I would ask you to consider your own national background, and whether or not you might personally be favoring one form of democracy over another. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, we could add a point about the Bill of Rights in 1791 guaranteeing a number of personal freedoms and legal rights. I don't think many other countries would attribute their own revolutions to that of another. For France at least, the financial impact of their actions to support the American revolution was probably a more significant driver of their revolution than cultural or social influence. I have relatives on both sides of the Atlantic some with dual citizenship so I am indifferent as long as the content is neutral, as it should be in an encyclopaedia. Since we share the same language we share the same wikipedia :) --Whizz40 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I inadvertently mangled the summary explanation for my reversal of your recent good faith edit to the United States Constitution article, so I thought I'd leave a note of clarification for you here. Going by MOS/L I concluded that the article you linked to, Presidential system#Criticism and disadvantages, is not the most specific topic appropriate to, nor is it specifically about criticisms of the United States Constitution. Drdpw (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drdpw, makes sense. Whizz40 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits in and around Parliament in the Making — great minds think alike. Note that I have contacted User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK), suggesting that WMUK organise some events for these anniversaries. If you're based in the UK, I hope that we might meet there. Andrew D. (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please keep me in the loop. Whizz40 (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your latest large updates but I'm afraid I felt I had to revert them as it seems that too much of the phrasing was cut and paste from external sources. I have put an example on the article's talk page. This is policed quite strictly on Wikipedia - please see WP:COPYVIO for guidance. Andrew D. (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I clicked too hastily, before I had written what I actually had in mind, which I shouldn't have done. Written now in my sandbox is what I had in mind at the time. Welcome any thoughts on this. Whizz40 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, I wondered if you had a chance to review my edits to close out this discussion. Happy if you want to leave it to others but no one has picked it up from DYK yet, and would be good to close it out. Whizz40 (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Whizz40. I thought moving this page would be uncontroversial, but of course happy to have a discussion on the talk page. Moonraker (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Moonraker: with the additional context given on the talk page and having had time to look through the other edits, I support the article move and your improvements to the other articles. Whizz40 (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I read up on Wikipedia:Citation templates and found they are neither encouraged nor discouraged (but consensus is encouraged), and read up on the usage of realise vs realize here and at Oxford English Dictionary#Spelling which I found interesting. Whizz40 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whizz40, I'm no expert on these topics, and recognise that history is much more complex than a table might suggest, but my aim has been to offer some clarity via these tables, so thanks for your help with tidying my clumsy starting suggestions. Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yadsalohcin, the initial table draft was the insightful part. For the latest additions to See also, these are already linked in the article and I recall the usual approach WP:SEEALSO is to use this section for links to articles not linked in the main body. Only mentioning because my sense in this case is a shorter list will be more useful for readers if the other links are available in context in the table above. Whizz40 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whizz40, while we were discussing Simon de Montfort's parliament, I noticed that you were thinking of nominating it for WP:GAN. If you go ahead with that, would you be interested in doing a quid pro quo? I nominated my article Rwandan Revolution at GA today, and I could do the review of Simon de Montfort's parliament if you would be able to review mine. No worries if you'd rather not, or if you decide not to go ahead with GA anyway, just thought I'd ask :) Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, thanks for the thought and it looks like an interesting and important article. In terms of GA review, I have not done one before and and am not familiar with the topic area; I realise experience with either is not necessary but I think if you let it run through the normal process, you might get someone with specialist knowledge of either GA reviews and/or the topic area which could produce a better article in the end. Whizz40 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article last night and read the good article reviewing guide and i will be able to review your article. In terms of SdeM's Parliament, i will nominate it. Some medieval articles have been picked up quickly, such as Magna Carta, but that is a more prominent topic although longer. If it does get picked up quickly then feel free to pick another article for a QPQ. Whizz40 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I see you have nominated Simon de Montfort's parliament now, so I'll wait until next week, if it's not done by then I'll pick it up for you, otherwise I'll pick another one as you suggest. Thanks again!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rwandan Revolution/GA1

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Simon de Montfort's Parliament 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 Amakuru -- Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to you and the other contributors on a well written and interesting article! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Simon de Montfort's Parliament you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Simon de Montfort's Parliament 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 Amakuru -- Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Forces Armee Neutraliste

Hello,

I most certainly do approve of your proposed ALT2 of the above. And thank you for the review.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whizz40, not sure what your interest in the subject is, but it would be useful to discuss how best to integrate the article(s) with the existing men's stuff before making changes which may impact hundreds of pages (e.g. to the Boat Race template). If you feel like talking, let me know! Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, happy to discuss and defer, was just being bold. Any inital thoughts? By the way, per the other discussion, the 1929 women's race would be notable as the first on the tideway. Whizz40 (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm away from home (although as you can tell, still keeping "tabs" on this year's events), but would welcome further discussion on how best to go forward with the individual women's race articles. Are you aware of any decent sources for each of the races? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem initially illusive, one of the Telegraph or BBC pieces says the lack of a boat house in the early years hampered record keeping and the 1927 article Gareth E Kegg created references contemporary news stories. Gareth, welcome any thoughts. I have another project awaiting consensus on an article move, to turn List of British inventions and discoveries into a timeline, so will switch to that if the move goes ahead. Adding 1927 to the template in the way it is seemed to make sense given it appears to be the only one at the moment. If there were many women's race articles then there are plenty of solutions like listing by year in a section like the men, or tweak the existing section to a format like 1927 (W) where the W links to the women's article, or put a hatnote on each of the men's articles and link only to those in the template. No strong views on these, there are probably other ways too (could even have one article for each year like 2015). And there's plenty that could be done on the main women's boat race article which would consolidate the gains in one place. Some ideas for the discussion but I probably can't do this work myself so happy to leave it for now and/or defer to others. Whizz40 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should be able to find references for each of the previous women's races and create separate articles for them. From 2015 hence all articles should be men and women combined to reflect the newly welcome parity, to do this for the past would suggest a false equality when the women were really, regrettably, an afterthought. Coverage of previous women's boat races is maddeningly sporadic, patronizing, and confusing. A 1973 Times article refers to the 10th consecutive race, but several 1930s articles refer to a race only between Newham College and the London School of Medicine. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, given sources indicate the 1929 race and possibly the 1930 race were held on the Tideway, would the following small change be beneficial to the main page ITN wording. Whizz40 (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In rowing, Oxford's men's crew (pictured) and women's crew defeat the respective Cambridge crews in the first Boat Race and Women's Boat Race to be held together on the Tideway.

I think it might, but it's so unpopular and about to slip of the main page, I'm reluctant to draw any further attention to it. In the meantime, I've created Women's Boat Race 2014. A stub, sure, but are we happy that Gareth's suggestion to create articles for the women's races prior to 2015 is a good one? It's not a bad start (although I say so myself....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and does anyone care to email The Boat Race Company Ltd to get an understanding about the asterisk next to the 1929 and 1930 races? I'm assuming they now consider them unofficial? But then I looked at the official race report for the 2014 race which knocks two wins off the Oxford score, stating "40 wins to Cambridge versus 27 to Oxford" prior to the race. The website does have a NUMBER OF ISSUES! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree articles on the women's boat race prior to 2015 are worthwhile. I would say go ahead and email them to ask for clarification. Separately, there is a comment on Talk:Henley Boat Races#1935 women's boat race that the 1935 race was on the Tideway; that may be the other year that the CAM magazine article is referring to, along with 1929, leaving the 1930 location unknown as per the Telegraph article. It may be worth emailing the authors of these articles and British rowing for clarification and potential sources at the same time. Whizz40 (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love these moments when we become real historians! This is what makes Wikipedia so special for me. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. TRM, in the 2015 and 2014 Women's articles, should the previous/location of the women's race be linked to Henley Boat Races rather than Henley Royal Regatta, the commanlity being the H Boat Races use the Regatta course (but in reverse direction)? Whizz40 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free to roll up your sleeves and get stuck in. It would be helpful to generate a comprehensive article (e.g. 2013 or 2014) which we could then base the other 65-odd articles on. We're not that far off as far as I can see with the Women's Boat Race 2013 one. Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whizz40, 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, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: ((WPMILHIST Announcements)).
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whizz40: Hello, I have seen that you noticed my edit on parliamentary system, about Tunisia. I need a third opinion from you, since me and another editor entered into a conflict about its system of government. The user in question (Fumehime) says it's a parliamentary republic while I say it's a semi-presidential republic, premier-presidential system subtype. I have provided articles of political scientists and scientific papers that mention its semi-presidential government, while the other user points to news articles which vaguely describe a parliamentary functioning of government, confusing parliamentary confidence with parliamentary system. I even asked him, if he could mention me an article from political scientists, with published work, who describe Tunisia operating under a parliamentary system of government instead of a semi-presidential one; no answer from the user until now. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have no view either way so I started a consolidated discussion at Talk:Tunisia#Tunisian system of government. Whizz40 (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous layout wasn't in size order from left to right, because JPY had a higher weighting than FRF from 1986-1998. The column order should nevertheless be maintained in order to give a sense of continuity, and allow a visual merge from DEM and FRF into EUR. But it's obviously incorrect to imply a split from EUR into EUR and CNY. It makes more sense to show CNY as an extra column, making it visually obvious that this is a discontinuity, the first true addition to the basket since 1981. – Smyth\^talk 12:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All fair points. If you prefer the new format then fine by me. Let's see if it sticks. Whizz40 (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whizz 40, what problems my editions have?

An editor with an different ideology who attempts to improve the Wikipedia and demonstrate that is impartial, normal and that is not manipulated by cultural New left of the 21st century is not a vandal. - 201.81.64.163 (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Are my editions have English troubles or have serious troubles related by Conspiracy theory? 201.81.64.163 (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:201.81.64.163. Whizz40 (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Women's Boat Race you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Women's Boat Race 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whizz40. Since you created Timeline of voting rights in the United States, I'd appreciate if you took a look at what I just posted on the talk page at Talk:Timeline of voting rights in the United States. —METS501 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Action Fraud.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:National Ballistics Intelligence Service logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Nation state". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 March 2017.

The request for formal mediation concerning Nation state, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hey Whizz40, I've made an alternative suggestion for the re-categorisation which wouldn't need a requested move, let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, agree with changing to your suggested approach. Whizz40 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

another alternative is to just leave it as it is. Whizz40 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got more than enough of a body of work on the Women's Boat Race for it to have it's own category, so let's just do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British intelligence agencies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Security Service. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whizz40. 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]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no problem then. Wikidea 11:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jacksonian democracy#Women's rights -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the kind barnstar Whizz40. It is appreciated! Kind regards Britishfinance (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Whizz40,

I love the work that you are doing on the above article. Well done!

However, I'm not keen on the second paragraph in the lead "Since the 1930s and 1940s, cavers in the UK pioneered cave diving to explore caves in the British Isles through their flooded passageways. Later they developed knowledge and experience internationally and in recent years have been called on internationally for cave rescues and recoveries." I don't think that it reads very well, and it doesn't sit well where it is. How about placing the sense of it in the History section? Langcliffe (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine, although cave diving has been a central aspect of caving in the UK. See for example [1]. What do you think? Seems like it deserves a mention in the lead to me, although the wording could be improved. Some of the history of cave diving in the UK is linked in the History section at Cave Diving Group#Early history of cave diving in the UK to avoid duplicating it and perhaps differences emerging. Feel free to jump in directly with edits, the article will be improved with multiple editors contributing. Whizz40 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that central an aspect, Whizz40 - there's never been more than about 30 or 40 people, or less than 1% of the caving population, regularly diving at any one time in the UK, and let's face it, Martyn is a little biased! I used to be a cave diver in the 1970s, but retired when a friend of mine died in Bull Pot of the Witches, leaving behind a widow and child, but I've been an active non-diving caver for 50 odd years, so I have a reasonable overview of the subject. I'll mull it over, and have a go at rewording it in a day or two. Langcliffe (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I saw Swole wasn't on Wikipedia, and has been admin-locked for 9 years now. In that interim, that term's gained a lot of use in Fitness_culture. A Wikipedia:Redirect might be appropriate; if you know an admin that can implement such. Thanks!

Unquietwiki (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:British Caving Association logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Women in government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President (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) 08:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Federation for Information Processing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Kirstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Tom Moore (fundraiser) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Protocol Wars 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Protocol Wars you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Protocol Wars for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Protocol Wars you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Protocol Wars 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books is useful for formatting cite books. I will trim back the date to solely a year, and trim the names of some common publishers (Wiley, Springer, ...) The google books data will sometimes double up the author information. Worldcat can be useful for finding book data, which can give you an ISBN for a google books search. google scholar is good for finding DOIs. I don't provide ISSNs for journals unless they're uncommon, when there is a DOI or other identifier. Similarly I provide language only when not English. If you're editting BioMed pages DiBerri's template filler can be useful. Hope this is useful. RDBrown (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why this:

Rise of Kumasi=

Was deleted. Please explain why you deleted this from history of financial centre Kwesi Yema (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't seen this covered in books on this topic. Are there any sources discussing the history of financial centres that support its inclusion? Whizz40 (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then delete all of the information under pre-17th c. Financial centres because they are just ideals and assumptions written and accepted by men. But what we are trying to build African history which is covered mostly by oral tradition instead of written language. Kwesi Yema (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Employee share schemes in the United Kingdom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Essay. Not an encyclopedic article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to talk to you about re-adding the information I moved to the other article, Voting rights in the United States. Those items are a better fit there because they are not framed as specific times, unlike the rest of the timeline. If you would prefer to reformat that section, I say leave it, but otherwise, I think it's best on the other page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but manually removing the offending material would be impractical, especially given the several socks used by the page creator over a span of years and the several sources used. If you want me to, I could restore the page with edits you made or I could drop the text of those edits into a sandbox of yours. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 22:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. With all the editors we have on Wikipedia, I think we can salvage more than my edits on this article. Megalibrarygirl would you be interested in being involved in this? Pls see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 January 12. Perhaps others can be salvaged too. Whizz40 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Whizz40 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whizz40, Wow. That is a lot of pages being deleted instead of rewritten! I think I can help. I needed a break from working on women's suffrage articles. I'll help with the Timeline of women's sports and others. I suspect that Ipigott and many others might be interested in helping, too. I'll cross post this issue on the Women in Red talk page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that most of the content in the Timeline article's were pasted from their sources and other wikipedia articles; I thought this was well known due to a comment I saw at Talk:History of bisexuality, which is why I didn't inform related projects at the time, Sorry. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 22:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Moneytrees. As we now have interested editors, would it be possible to undelete Timeline of women’s sports and allow 7 days for the major issues to be addressed? Whizz40 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I had to do a selective restore to get around some problematic sock edits, but it's back. I've reblanked the article to deal with the violations; I'll try and remove all text inserted by the offending editor within the next few days. In the meantime Talk:Timeline of women's sports/Temp can be used as a rewrite, I recommend adding text you've added in your old edits there. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 23:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this was one of the main topic of Wikipedia Project Military History, and I saw that there were some views that "Grand Alliance" was not used widely during ww2. If so, I think we should carefully used this word. Also, I don't know the reason you put paragraph's title as "Grand Alliance", because it is only mentioned in Winston Churchill's book. -- Wendylove (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peelian principles 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Peelian principles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peelian principles for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I noticed you've created Kevin Lee (actor). I'd begun a draft of the article at Draft:Kevin Lee (actor), if there is anything there that you think is notable for the main article please add it! --QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your draft looks good, there are two independent RS (BBC and Guardian). Please feel free to move your draft into the main space. I think it can be developed there. Whizz40 (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've been pitching in to help improve History of the World Wide Web, would you like me to resume my peer review based on the current state of the article? Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ruбlov, further peer review would be welcome. Whizz40 (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:FounderDECMail requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Commission on Training Camp Activities at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Investigatory Powers Tribunal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Battle For Access Standards.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited X.25, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CTCA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you previously merged Barclays Investment Bank with Barclays before. I'm thinking of doing the same for BofA Securities since there really isn't much to support giving it its own article anymore. Do you think it should be merged from your point of view? I already put out a discussion point but no responses yet. So I'm not sure if I missed any procedures in this. Imcdc Contact 04:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imcdc, thank you for asking. The decision for BofA isn’t so clear cut. The BofA article is large, the company is larger than Barclays and the separate divisions have a longer history (for Barcalys, the investment bank was a recent creation). As well as BofA securities, there are also articles on:

• Merrill (company)
• Banc of America Securities (1998–2008)

It does need some further disucss ion and thought. I’m happy to post these comments on the talk page if that would help? Whizz40 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whizz40 Yes that would be appreciated. Get the discussion started - Imcdc Contact 04:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your view on the best approach? Whizz40 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can start by adding your comments into the discussion.

I will say though, I think Banc of America Securities (1998–2008) also needs to be merged. It only has two references with neither giving any real significant coverage on the firm. Merrill on the other hand has tons of references.

So I guess the next step is seeing if both BOA securities pages can get enough independent good references to support them having independent articles. If not then we should proceed with arguing for them to be merged. Imcdc Contact 11:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you have rollback, this article you created appears to be eligible for speedy deletion under A1, A3, A7 and G1. I know you are a reputable editor but can you tell me why you created this article? Not trying to be aggressive, just wondering. JustAnAmateurEditor1 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering too? this kind of article creation doesn't seem to be common practice. Killarnee (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors will come along and improve the article; there’s a series on the topic and international coverage is growing. We lost the interest of the main editor on this topic due to some overly negative and oppositional editors at ITN but hopefully he may consider coming back to improve the article, especially if we can get the topic back as ITNR. Whizz40 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]