User talk:Renamed user df576567etesddf/Archive 7

Hi man

Hi man, how have you been? How's the life in the military so far? I've been working on Malmö FF league record by opponent for the weekend and it is now complete with home and away statistics as we talked about before, it didn't take me as much time as I initially thought. The list is at FLC now if you would like to take a look. Talk to you later! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey boet, it's okay so far but, well, I haven't really had to do anything so far, per se... I went down to the base and did well in all the tests they wanted me to do on the first day, but I didn't do so well on the Hebrew test so they sent me home and told me to wait until a new call-up date, because I'll have to start out in a special basic training unit where you learn Hebrew while you're doing it, then after three months I'll be back in with everyone else. And the next intake for that training unit isn't for a few months. So, long story short, I've been in the army nearly two months but I've only actually spent a few hours on call-up and I have to wait until August to get started again. Makes it all seem like something of an anti-climax, really, but I know I did a good job in every department apart from spoken Hebrew (I did relatively well in the written and reading tests) so in the long run it should be okay.

I'll have a skim through the Malmö FF league record now, and leave my comments there. At first glance it looks a pretty strong contender, so well done on that! If you find yourself at a loose end at some point, there is an all-Israeli collaboration relatively near the top of the FLC list. Anyway, talk soon: it's always nice to hear from you. I hope you are well. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, sorry that I haven't replied here until now. It sounds like you have something to look forward to in August then! I'm sure its well worth the extra wait. I'm good and significantly less stressed than I was a couple of weeks ago, I've been spending the entire month of May working on practical cases relating to accounting information systems for my university program as well as a major exam on the topic. I'm just really glad that the semester is over!

Thanks for your comments for the league record FLC, it looks about ready now so I'm currently spending a lot of time on the players list. I've spent a couple of days researching and compiling statistics so that I can make the players list as good as possible. I'm aiming at completing the current players list and then creating two additional lists, one with players with 25–99 apps and one with 25 apps and under. Since it is very difficult to find and verify cup and other minor competition apps I've decided to go with only league apps instead, I have reliable and verifiable references for this which I can easily use to create the three lists. So that is probably what I will be doing in the coming weeks when I have the time, I have some more time on my hands now that I'm out of university for the summer.

I read and commented on the list of Israeli national footballers. Great work by you and Honor! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's okay, don't worry. I don't know what accounting information systems are and if I'm honest I don't want to know; things with those kinds of names just confuse me if I'm honest.

Re: the players list statistics, I think only including the league appearances and goals is a good policy if you can't be sure on the other competitions. I must warn you that although it may not be hard work, it will be tedious and at times soul-destroying, so you must be prepared for that. If I were you I would set aside an evening, stock up on canned drinks, put on some music with a good beat and just try to get as much done as you can.

Thanks for the comments on the Israeli footballers list, I've replied. And thanks for the compliment! More credit should go to Honor, though, if I'm honest. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are probably better off not knowing about it, it is exactly as confusing as it sounds like!

Exactly, I would be able to find cup statistics for some players but far from all, unfortunately statistics like these are poorly documented both online and in written sources for Swedish football in general. Yup, I've already spent two nights compiling statistics from pre Allsvenskan league matches in an excel document for 80 players so I've experienced the soul-destroying feeling already ;) --Reckless182 (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Eesh, I know the feeling man, believe me... I'm not sure whether it would be better or worse in Swedish (?) —Cliftonian (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Salute

Hello Sir John Patrick Asher, how are you? I'm glad to see you here. Can you help me on Wikipedia? Thank you very much indeed and G-d save your gracious Queen. Rafael 01:17, June 4 2012 (UTC)

Of course Rafael, how can I help? —Cliftonian (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible merger

Hi again! I just wanted to know your opinion about a possible merger of List of Presidents of Rhodesia with President of Rhodesia article? I think it would be much better if we merge them, especially because the list of Presidents is quite a short one (there weren't 15, 20 or 30 Presidents during the history of Rhodesia, but only 2 with several acting Presidents). If we merge them, then we'll have data about the office and list of officeholders as part of the same article. As you know, we already have that case at Prime Minister of Rhodesia, and it looks quite good. Why shouldn't we apply the same example at Presidents of Rhodesia? Cheers!--Sundostund (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! I'm really glad you share my opinion. I'll merge them. --Sundostund (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of Israel international footballers

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rhodesian military articles

Thanks for all your hard work on these. I'm doing some tinkering; please feel free to query me on changes I've made. Good luck and Godspeed with your IDF service. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot. I'm glad you like them. As you have probably seen in a few places I have given minor corrections or rephrasing to your additions, but as I say in the edit summaries your stuff is on the whole very good. Thank you for the kind words regarding my service in the IDF. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to correct away - my concern is to create a 'home' article for the Rhodesian armed forces from the BSAC period to 1980, which we only have the bare basis of at the moment. Will you end up with the combat arms, or in CS/CSS? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a "home" article as you are describing would be a good idea. I believe we are thinking along similar lines, as I was able to achieve a high standard in the recent article about Rhodesia's contribution to Malaya, and I have been meaning to do work in the same vein on Rhodesia's involvement in the First and Second World Wars (perhaps even the Boer War, too, if I can get the sources for it). It is always pleasant and refreshing to encounter somebody else interested in this subject, incidentally, so thank you for that.

I have not yet been assigned to a specific unit: they told me that will happen after basic training. I requested a combat role when I signed up, and I was told that I scored very highly on the army's mental aptitude tests. I would guess that what I end up doing would somehow combine the two, as I am not aware of any physical or mental issue. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. I can locate no proper internet sources for Rhodesian forces 1914-45, so it will be slow going from my side, though I will chip away at it. As for the IDF? - I suppose I'll hear from you further as you settle in with Sayeret Matkal ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Sayerets require perfect Hebrew, so that may be a leap too far, but we'll see what happens! Thanks for the encouragement. Feel free to leave another message whenever. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Southern Rhodesian military involvement in the Malayan Emergency

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Joyeux Jour de Canada!

Happy Cqnqdq Dqy from Brugge and a French keyboard thqt has a where q is qnd q few other surprises. After Paris spent quality time in Bayeaux that is like a French Canterbury. Visited Omaha Beach, Pointe du Hoc that was kept like it was from, the invasion and filming of 'The Longest Day', ran into a mob of Ami and Royal Brit Legion bikies there and ran into them aqain at Ypres where they laid q wreqth at the nightly Last Post ceremonyFoofbun (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy Canada Day to you too my friend. I have been to some of the battlefields in Belgium, but not to Omaha Beach. I feel like I probably should one day though. More than anything though I want to go see the Trooper statue at Hatfield House in England one 11 November. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Zimbabwe

Hello there John ... I hope this finds you in good health and spirit.

You may find it interesting to read the lively responses in the Wikipedia "Reliable Sources" section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_possible_Semitic_civilization_in_ancient_Zimbabwe All the very best of Good Luck, incidentally, with your Army career. --DLMcN (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note, Dave, I have to say I was taken aback by some of the comments, as I think you can see from my input. Thank you for the kind words regarding my army career. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

COI and RS/N

You appear to have a potential conflict of interest in relation to an RS/N thread as you claim to have intimate knowledge of the review process of a source. My understanding is that you could only gain such knowledge by being an author, reviewer or editor of the source in question. I suggest you explicitly indicate the potential for a COI at RS/N as it will demonstrate your good faith in relation to the potential for a COI. Such a declaration of course in no way means that your editing has been influenced by the potential for a COI. yours respectfully, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can see I did not claim that, and the claim I did make was based on DLMcN's own opening post ("It was certainly not a smooth, straightforward process which eventually led to the publication of the above-mentioned article. The interval between the initial submission - and the printing and distribution, was about 14 months ... (much, much longer than the normal time-lag with non-peer-reviewed publications!) Various changes and additions to the text were necessary in order to satisfy the referees and the editors."). But I appreciate the note anyway, and will do as you suggested. Thanks. —Cliftonian (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

ah, no potential for COI then. 14 months is nothing in the humanities, so it was a fallacious argument. As are the ones regarding citation counts for the humanities. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As I say, thanks for the heads up. I admit I am no expert in the humanities field, so I feel unable to comment on whether or not 14 months is a long time. —Cliftonian (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Mankind Quarterly

I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm genuinely astonished. If anything, I toned down that astonishment. --Dweller (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that case I apologise for misinterpreting that. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Malmö Arena

Hi man. Do you have time to do some copy editing? I've worked a couple of hours today and yesterday to bring this article up to GA in terms of article length and quality and I believe it should be ready for GAN after some copy editing. Would you mind taking a look at the article and if you have time to asses the article in the GAN process after the copy editing? Perhaps the article could be longer but it should be able to fulfill the GA critiera anyway. The arena was only inaugurated in late 2008 so it's fairly new anyway. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be more than happy to do this, but I'm fairly busy at the moment so it may take a couple days. Don't worry though, it's in hand. Based on a very cursory glance over it just now the article looks like a pretty good effort, after some copy-editing I don't see any problems at GAN. I'll let you know when I've done some work on it. Hope you're well —Cliftonian (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats alright! Take your time. I'm all good except for the terrible weather we're having which prevents me from being outside and enjoy the summer. All the better for WP editing though I guess ;) --Reckless182 (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Come to Israel, where the sun shines all day, the girls are pretty and most of them speak English ;) —Cliftonian (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, Israel is definitely on my travel wish list :) --Reckless182 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Good choice! —Cliftonian (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've copy-edited this now, and I think it looks good for GAN now. It might be considered a conflict of interest for me to review it for GA seeing as how I worked on the prose, so I suggest you wait for someone else to review it, but I'm happy to assist at the GA review if you would like that. Well done on what I think is a good article, I enjoyed reading and copy-editing it. Keep well now! —Cliftonian (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man! Your opinion is very much appreciated as always. I understand your position and I agree, I'll look for a reviewer. I'll tell you if I have any trouble at GAN but I hope it will be straightforward. Talk to you soon. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Great stuff. Cheerio now. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Cosmos article move

I did it like that with the changing redirects because I couldn't use the 'Move' tool so long as "New York Cosmos" still re-directed to "New York Cosmos (1971-1985). Since I don't have the authority to delete a page I think that may be the only way to get it done, but I don't know for sure. Do you know of a way to do it properly despite this obstacle? -- Fifty7 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What you have to keep in mind is the links which go to "New York Cosmos" at the moment, which are all supposed to go to the article on the old team. A similar situation is that we had before with the two North American Soccer Leagues. The article called "North American Soccer League" was the one of the old league, and all the links referring to that league pointed there. The important thing is to ultimately get all of the links pointing to the right article. It'll be much harder and much more confusing if you move the article on the new team to "New York Cosmos" right away, because we'll still have lots of links pointing there which should go to the old team's page. So, what I think is we should hang on for a while, keeping the new team's page where it is and the old one's where we have it now, and turn the "New York Cosmos" page into a disambiguation page. Over time the links will get sorted to the correct article, and eventually we can move the new team's page to simply be called "New York Cosmos". This is what I meant what I said "move it properly". I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I'll turn the Cosmos page into disambiguation now so we can get on with this. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. As you were typing this I requested a technical move by an administrator in the Talk:New York Cosmos (2010) page, but if you know how to manage it then by all means. Thanks! -- Fifty7 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

By all means keep the request there, it helps to get more opinions and attention on this. Thanks to you too, feel free to leave another message any time —Cliftonian (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Malmö FF players

Hi man. I thought I'd make an effort to try to improve the lists of players to FL status now when they are complete with all players with league caps for the club. What's your general opinion on the list? I might still improve the key with some colour symbols for club record holders and current players. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Here's what I see just from a quick skim through

"I say, Björn, verily this lager beer is exquisite."

• "Capped" is a word only used in English (in this context) to describe international appearances. You can't use it to describe matches at club level – just keep that in mind, I see it in the lead
• The prose is a little bit choppy in places. If you like I can fix this directly, but if you prefer I can give you tips instead
• I like the images, particularly the one of this refined gentleman Mr Svahn (right)
• The list itself looks fine, but I'd try to find out Ove Karlsson's position if you can
• I'm not convinced of National-Football-Teams as a reliable source. You might want to find something better. Alternatively, find a reliable source that cites National-Football-Teams.
• You should probably put dashes into all the empty national team cells, but don't worry about putting them in the notes column
• Apart from National-Football-Teams the sourcing looks good
• Alt text looks okay at a glance, I'll look more closely another time. So do captions, but I see the word "capped" in one of them, which is not correct usage

• Hope all this helps get you started boet. It generally looks very good. Let me know if it goes to FLC and I'll give you a hand there too —Cliftonian (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for a quick reply. I'll fix some of the small stuff in an hour or so. You are free to do whatever you think is best for the prose and the alt text, if you have the time that is! All of the pre 2009 players international caps can be sourced to Smitt, Rikard (2009) and perhaps I can find an online source for the most recent ones. I'll probably nominate the list for FLC as soon as these small issues are resolved to get a more thorough review. If I can get this promoted then promoting List of Malmö FF players (25–99 appearances) and List of Malmö FF players (fewer than 25 appearances) should be fairly easy to promote as well, however these are currently full of red links and most of the players lack positions and other information. Thanks for your advice, very helpful as always! --Reckless182 (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad it's helpful. I'll keep an eye on this and I'll do some general copy-editing and tidying at some point today. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I've resolved your concerns and the article is now nominated over at FLC. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some copy-editing and I'll pop in at FLC at some point. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! cheers! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What's your opinion on the flag and linking issues brought up by Arsenikk in the FLC? --Reckless182 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If I were you I would suggest that you delink and deflag (is that a word) in the "nationality" column, but keep the links and flags in the "international selection" column. I think that will stop them from being distracting and go a long way to allaying Arsenikk's fears in this area. I wouldn't link "Sweden" in the lead, as most readers will know what Sweden is. Present MOS is not to link modern countries' names. Hope all this helps. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Cheers! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey sorry to bother you so soon again. Both Arsenikk and NapHit have brought up the discussion about the columns with international selection and caps. It would be nice to hear a second (or third) opinion on this, what do you think? I could remove it and a column with "total appearances" and "total goals", that could be sourced to Smitt, Rikard (2009) and to other sources for current players. This would perhaps "enrich" the list a bit and the caps could be removed, however I wouldn't be able to add the same columns to the other players list so the three lists (this one, 25–99 appearances and fewer than 25 appearances) would differ. Do you reckon that would be a problem? --Reckless182 (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this solution sounds practical and effective. I wouldn't worry about it making the other lists differ. If anybody pulls you up on it, you can always make the argument that this list covers the most prominent Malmö players, and sources aren't available for the less prominent guys in the other two lists. So long as you're consistent within each of the separate lists, I don't personally see how this would be a problem. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! And hey, congrats on making the main page the other day! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers boet! Talk again soon, feel free to leave a note any time. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Eduard Streltsov

This is a note to let the main editors of Eduard Streltsov know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 21, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Eduard Streltsov (1937–1990) was a Soviet football forward who represented Torpedo Moscow and the Soviet national team. He was widely regarded as one of the Soviet Union's finest players, earning the nickname "the Russian Pelé". Streltsov joined Torpedo in 1953, aged 16, and made his international debut two years later; he then played a key role in winning the gold medal for the USSR at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics. Ranked among the top seven footballers in Europe during 1957, he was accused of rape the following year. Evidence against Streltsov was inconclusive, but government agents told him that he would be retained in the USSR's 1958 World Cup team if he confessed. When he did so, he was instead convicted and sentenced to twelve years in the Gulag. He was released after five, and received a hero's welcome from fans when he resumed his football career with Torpedo Moscow in 1965. In the first season of Streltsov's comeback, Torpedo won the Soviet Championship. He returned to the national team in 1966, and was twice named Soviet Footballer of the Year before he retired in 1970. Since Streltsov's death in 1990, Torpedo's home stadium has been renamed after him, and two statues depicting his likeness have been erected in Moscow. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Woo —Cliftonian (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Malmö FF chairmen

Hey man. Just a heads up that I've nominated yet another list for FLC. The review of the players list looks pretty much finished so I thought I'd nominate this one in the mean time since I've done a LOT of work on it. I don't think there will be any major issues at FLC except for perhaps some copyediting of the main text and alt text which you are free to look at if you have the will and time. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look now. I have to say the placing of Mr Persson's hand in the lead photograph is more than a little unfortunate. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha! I noticed that earlier. The boy in the picture is actually his nephew, not sure if that makes it better or worse. Thank you for looking at it! --Reckless182 (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've given this a copy-edit now. It generally looks good, but there are some places where citations are needed, and I think you should give the SEK transfer fee in £, $ or € as well (I'd probably go with £). You might also consider wikilinking SEK. I'm not sure why you can't just give the years for the chairmen you don't know the exact dates for. I think you might get pulled up on this at FLC, just a warning. I would just put the years. It's more vague but it's also more clear in a way; putting "1 January 1934" and then saying "this is just the year" is kind of superfluous and could be a little confusing to somebody reading the list quickly. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man! I added refs where you indicated that they were needed and clarified the transfer sum for Ibrahimovic, I put the sum in Euros since I used that currency for clarification in the main Malmö FF article. I also removed the redundant dates for the unknown years as you suggested. Thanks again! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'll keep an eye on this and I'll pop into the FLC at some point too. But have a pat on the back now for what looks like another job well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Rhodesia [and South Africa and Israel]

Thanks for your most recent note on Wilson wondering about invading Rhodesia ... which was interesting: I had never heard it before.

Incidentally, in addition to comparing Rhodesia's 'resistance' with South Africa's 'surrender', we could probably also compare them both with Israel's determination to carry on. At first glance, Israel's position seems a lot more precarious than South Africa's ever was - e.g., in addition to all the wars it has had to fight, Israel has had to endure far more terrorist attacks in its cities. So it is notable, one might say, that you have not been brainwashed into 'giving in'! --DLMcN (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, I feel quite flattered. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okecie Airport Incident

Hi there. I remember you were vividly interested in this article. I have just come across a very interesting account of the incident, written by a professional historian. I have added some information, and will add more in the near future. If you are still interested, your help is appreciated. Greetings. Tymek (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tymek, I've had a look through the additions and given a little copy-edit; I'll do the same for any more you add. Thanks for letting me know, and keep well. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man, I knew I could count on you. There is more information coming, I will add it as soon as possible. Cheers. Tymek (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Great stuff. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lisbon Appointment

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Harrison Clark

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Rhodesia Lead

Of course I'm only too happy to hear your concerns on the Rhodesia article's lead, but stand by what I noted in my editing comment. No country article, for states defunct or present, should overload this important section with unnecessary facts. The primary purpose of the lead section, as I have always understood it, is to offer a brief overview which caters to short attention spans - think vague but promising language which satisfy the casual reader and entice the serious one (in reading further).

Now to address your specific remarks, in respective order:

• • "it occupied the region presently known as Zimbabwe"; seems to imply it might not be known as Zimbabwe in the future, I would prefer "now Zimbabwe"; "renamed Zimbabwe in 1980" is even better as it gives more context. - I wish to avoid more than one reference to the same date in the lead section. The "region presently known as Zimbabwe" is a statement intended to emphasize early on that the territory was once known by other names (Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, Zambezia, etc) but that "Zimbabwe" is the proper, present-day, name. --Katangais
    • I understand your reasoning, but I would still recommend simply changing "presently" to "now", since my original concerns remain. —Cliftonian

• • "based in Salisbury"; I know you mean the seat of government, but this still sounds strange to me. I would not say the entire United Kingdom was based in London. - Of course not. But Southern Rhodesia and the subsequent Rhodesian republic were both based in Salisbury. It does not sound strange to me, since the sentence isn't intended to imply that Salisbury was the center of anything and everything...an absurd suggestion. --Katangais
    • I'm not saying the sentence is intended to imply that, but when I read it it kind of does, and we should really avoid this kind of ambiguity if we can (in my opinion). —Cliftonian

• • "was considered an immediate successor state to"; no it wasn't. Only Rhodesia itself considered itself anything remotely close to this. The rest of the world said it was a colony in rebellion. - Ah, but it was a de facto successor state, not a de jure one. Under your logic, the rest of the world also continued to officially say it was Southern Rhodesia, colony of the UK - which it certainly wasn't after 1965 (Source? Check some world books from 1965 to 1972 - they continue to maintain this viewpoint). --Katangais
    • The official view of other national governments was that the government in Rhodesia was illegal and that "Southern Rhodesia" (as they called it) was still de jure a British colony. If I were you I would qualify this statement by putting "an immediate de facto successor" or something like that. —Cliftonian

• • "the former British dependency of Southern Rhodesia." Again this is misleading. "the former" could be taken as POV, as it lends perhaps undue credence to UDI (which I personally think was legitimate, by the by, but we have to be neutral here). "British dependency" is wrong, as before 1965 Southern Rhodesia was called a colony (a self-governing one), not a dependency. "British Dependency of Southern Rhodesia" was the name used during the interim period of British rule between Zimbabwe Rhodesia and Zimbabwe (December 1979 to April 1980). - My sources claim it was a self-governing dependency in practice. I will quote: "Status: Self - Governing Dependency" (contemporary as of published 1966 facts). However, if you wish to contest this, I have no problem with rewording it to "self-governing colony". --Katangais
    • Having read a great many sources on Rhodesia I have never heard of it being referred to as a "self-governing dependency" in this context, so I must say this surprises me. I'm inclined to take your word on the 1966 source, but based on my own experience I would still reword it as you suggest. —Cliftonian

• • "During an effort to thwart future transition to indigenous African rule"; Not sure this is true. I would say they were trying to block an immediate transition, as this was what was being threatened. Neither the 1961 nor 1965 constitutions impeded on black political progress, nor even the 1969 one, incidentally, though the last of these did limit black aspirations to potentially being equal partners in government with the white community once blacks collectively contributed enough tax. - I have read Smith's memoirs and have very deep respect for this man of integrity. I also follow his thinking, and while certainly not going so far as to scream, "Smith was a racist who wanted to keep whites in power forever" like the "starry-eyed liberals with one-track minds" he mentions in his book - he did take the UDI step to prevent immediate transition to indigenous African rule. I suppose "future" could be taken out....what I meant was "immediate future" - my own projections show that under the established system Rhodesia would have achieved predominantly black administration by the year 1997. --Katangais
    • Yes, I would reword it along these lines. —Cliftonian

• • "Rhodesia's white settlers"; could be taken as POV again, as many (though not all) of the whites were locally-born, or born in South Africa. Smith himself was born in Selukwe (now Shurugwi), for example. - Note the language here is "Settlers of European descent" - they could very well be South Africans or Britons by birth - I only call them 'settlers' (as in 'residents'), making no direct reference to national origin. Incidentally, the white Zimbabwean exiles I've met in my lifetime were at least fifth-generation Rhodesians. --Katangais
    • I don't know what your experience is, but many of the ex-Rhodesians I know would consider the term "settler" somewhat derogatory, not least because it is a term still thrown at whites in Zimbabwe today to try to de-legitimise their ties to the country. It should also be made clear that it was the government that issued UDI, as most casual readers will not be aware that Rhodesia was self-governing. I would reword to "predominantly white minority government" or similar. —Cliftonian

• • "UDI regime"; could be taken as POV again as "regime" is a loaded word implying the government is illegitimate and/or oppressive. - I certainly don't regard "regime" as oppressive language, particularly because my own pro-Smith Zimbabwean acquaintances refer to the "previous regime" (quoting word for word) when referencing his government. Unable to come up with a more neutral word, many international news sources at the time called it a "settler regime". Regime here is simply used in context with administration. --Katangais
    • Perhaps my understanding of the word is incorrect, in that case. I have always tried to avoid the use of the word for the reasons I gave, but maybe I have been wrong. —Cliftonian

• • "conceded to biracial democracy"; I'm not sure this is fair. Smith took part in negotiations throughout the 1970s, all of which had some form of multiracial rule as their objective. Up until the 1978 Internal Settlement they failed, granted, but the failure of the previous talks had far more to do with the perhaps excessive demands of ZANU and ZAPU than the stance taken by Smith. - Yes, I am perfectly aware of his commendable attempts at reaching an earlier settlement. But he did not actually announce until 1978 that Rhodesia was accepting a more 'black' government. --Katangais
    • I suppose that last point is true, but I still think the wording is somewhat misleading. I would look at rewording it if I were you. —Cliftonian

• • "A provisional government subsequently headed by Smith and his ally Abel Muzorewa"; this is again rather misleading. Muzorewa headed the Zimbabwe Rhodesian government alone; Smith was just a minister without portfolio. And to call Muzorewa "Smith['s] ... ally" is rather spurious, considering they were political opponents right up to the Internal Settlement. - Read Smith's memoirs and you'll find out that although he was exasperated at Muzerowa's incompetence, he still regarded the man as being on 'his side'. Smith also sat on the Executive Council under the early Zimbabwe-Rhodesia state; chairmanship rotated but for a subsequent period he maintained the title of Prime Minister. --Katangais
    • I have read The Great Betrayal many times, yes, and you are right that he considered Muzorewa amateur, easily corruptible and weak. He did still regard him as being on his side (as you put it) after the Internal Settlement, but I'm not sure he would have done beforehand. Remember, it was Muzorewa who figure-headed the 1971–72 campaign against the Smith–Home agreement, and Muzorewa and the UANC who led the opposition to Smith at Victoria Falls (1975) and Geneva (1976). My main concern is the description of Muzorewa simply as an ally of Smith, which to my mind is somewhat misleading and spurious. —Cliftonian

• • "The state was officially christened after Sir Cecil Rhodes" seems to imply Smith's government actually did this at some point after 1965. - It was christened after Sir Cecil Rhodes, not only originally but after UDI - Smith told as much in his 2004 interview with Reuters - because the young nation may have been different, but she still preserved the spirit of everything Rhodes had stood for - Christianity, Western Civilization, and other decent principles. --Katangais
    • It was officially named after Rhodes way back in 1895 by the British South Africa Company. I agree that Smith and others would say the country continued to preserve the spirit of Rhodes and so on, but my concern is that to say "the state was officially christened" after Rhodes seems to me to imply that it was again officially named after Rhodes at some point after UDI, which so far as I am aware never happened. —Cliftonian

I cannot thank you enough for your time and civility. --Katangais (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you also for yours. I disagree somewhat with your assertion that the information I added before was "unnecessary facts"; so far as I can see the lead I wrote gave a brief but thorough explanation of the whole Rhodesia story without missing anything out and without any misleading or ambiguous language. —Cliftonian

As it stands, the lead in the article appears to me to be too short and somewhat oversimplified. WP:LEAD says that the lead should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article", and I don't think the present version can really do that. I don't feel it explains the context of Rhodesia's previous government—that is, self-governing since 1923, and company rule beforehand, never rule from London—and I think this is important, as direct rule from London is what 99% of readers will presume, particularly if we don't make clear that it was the government that issued the declaration. I think it's certainly worthwhile to mention the names of each faction's leader, not least because including Mugabe's will catch the eye of many readers. All this said, the most major point to me about the present lead is the "During an effort to thwart future transition to indigenous African rule" part, which I really do think needs to be amended. An immediate shift to majority rule was what was being avoided, and this must be made clear. —Cliftonian

I thank you again for your time, patience and politeness, and look forward to hearing from you again and working some more on this. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Katangais - Many thanks for your interest and contributions. I am not sure whether or not I can add anything useful here - but I am struggling to work out "Who wrote What?" during the quoted exchange above. Is there an easy way of distinguishing between the two of you? - i.e., in terms of 'one bullet', 'two bullets', bold type? Perhaps it could be argued that it should not really make any difference who the contributor was, i.e., outsiders should judge the content and result purely on merit - but the flow and counterflow are much easier to grasp if the reader knows when the dialogue is switching to a different 'speaker'.--DLMcN (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC) ... Maybe if I study it carefully I can work out 'Who is Who', but other people may find it harder. --DLMcN (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I originally left suggestions on Katangais' talk page. He put them back here (above) with his replies. He put my suggestions in bold and italic type, after two bullet points, and his replies next to them in normal type. Each one of my responses to each of Katangais' replies is directly below in normal type after three bullet points. I hope this makes it clearer. If it's still confusing, I can try to split the conversation up a little. If you're interested in comparing the two revisions of the page, DLMcN, this is the present revision, with Katangais' lead, and this is the version with the lead that I wrote, which I think is more accurate and thorough, but which Katangais thinks is too complicated. I think middle ground can be found. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put a signature next to each of the comments above to try to make the conversation more clear. I hope Katangais doesn't mind. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cliftonian - yes, your insertions have helped. Here are a few preliminary reactions - (I have not really had time to go through everything, and you will be very busy as from tomorrow!) ... My own comments are in italics:

From Cliftonian: "... many of the ex-Rhodesians I know would consider the term "settler" somewhat derogatory ...". > Yes, true ! -DLMcN

From Cliftonian: "... regime" is a loaded word implying the government is illegitimate ...". > Yes, Harold Wilson and his government often used the words "illegal regime" - which [unfortunately] made the word "regime" sound distasteful to many of the older White Rhodesians. -DLMcN

From Cliftonian: "... Smith took part in negotiations throughout the 1970s, all of which had some form of multiracial rule as their objective". Reply from Katangais: "... [Smith] did not actually announce until 1978 that Rhodesia was accepting a more 'black' government". > Up until the mid-1970s Smith and his RF government did not really envisage any kind of 'handover' date "in the foreseeable future". The big change only came in 1976, after the 'loss' of Mozambique, and with Smith under tremendous pressure from Kissinger and (much more seriously) from Vorster. Smith's subsequent radio announcement of 'handover' within two[?] years, came as quite a shock to the White people in Rhodesia. -DLMcN

From Cliftonian: "... to call Muzorewa "Smith['s] ... ally" is rather spurious ...". > There was indeed a certain amount of mutual support, but "ally" is not really the best word. -DLMcN

--DLMcN (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

From Cliftonian: "During an effort to thwart future transition to indigenous African rule"; Not sure this is true. I would say they were trying to block an immediate transition, as this was what was being threatened. Neither the 1961 nor 1965 constitutions impeded on black political progress, nor even the 1969 one ... Reply from Katangais: [Smith] did take the UDI step to prevent immediate transition to indigenous African rule.... my own projections show that under the established system Rhodesia would have achieved predominantly black administration by the year 1997. > Under the 1961 constitution there was no immediate danger of majority rule. It must have been difficult to calculate that it would have occurred (naturally?) in 1997: ... interesting to speculate how that might have been handled by the Whites? - so many other factors could and would have intervened. In 1965, the 'Right to Independence' was partly a matter of pride - [I personally think that UDI was unnecessary]. -DLMcN --DLMcN (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@DLMcN: 1997 was the latest date I give to enough black citizens meeting the standards of education and wealth necessary for this transition - Rhodesians have always been remarkably efficient. With development proceeding at the rate it was, their dream could have succeeded. --Katangais (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest (proposed) Revision for Rhodesia

Taking into consideration your own lead summary, and many of the factors which needed correcting, I have polished a new proposal for the Rhodesian article.

Rhodesia (UK: /roʊˈdiːʃə/; US: /roʊˈdiːʒə/) was an unrecognised state located in southern Africa during the Cold War. From 1965 until 1979, it occupied the region now known as Zimbabwe. The country, based in Salisbury, was considered a de facto successor state to the former self-governing British colony of Southern Rhodesia (which had achieved responsible government in 1923).

During an effort to delay immediate transition to indigenous African rule, Rhodesia's white residents of European descent issued their government’s own Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the United Kingdom on 11 November, 1965. The UDI administration initially sought recognition as an autonomous dominion within the British Commonwealth, but reconstituted itself as a republic in 1970.

Following a brutal guerilla war waged against authorities by two rival black nationalist organisations (Robert Mugabe’s ZANU and Joshua Nkomo’s ZAPU), Rhodesian premier Ian Smith conceded to biracial democracy in 1978. A provisional government subsequently headed by Smith and his moderate collaborator Abel Muzorewa, however, failed in appeasing international critics or halting the bloodshed.

By December 1979, Muzerowa had replaced Smith as Prime Minister and a fresh agreement had been secured with the more militant African factions, allowing Rhodesia to briefly revert to her colonial status pending popular elections. Independence deemed legitimate by Britain and the United Nations was finally achieved with majority rule under the new Republic of Zimbabwe.

A wholly landlocked area, Rhodesia bordered South Africa to the south, Bechuanaland (later Botswana) to the southwest, Zambia to the northwest and Mozambique (a Portuguese territory until 1975) to the east. The state was originally christened after Sir Cecil Rhodes, whose British South Africa Company acquired the land in the 19th century.

I think any more than a reference to the pre-1965 history is unnecessary, as that obviously belongs to the Southern Rhodesia article. --Katangais (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Katangais. I would prefer to replace your "During an effort to delay immediate transition to indigenous African rule ..." with "After unsuccessful efforts to persuade Britain that [Southern] Rhodesia deserved full independence under its 1961 constitution ..." --DLMcN (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only deserved, but Rhodesia was actually promised dominion status. The 1961 constitution provided for "unimpeded progress to majority rule" but then of course some rather devious little men from London played the race card - condemning a wonderful country to the dustbin henceforth. --Katangais (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Great - thanks, so I'll make that change, tentatively, if that is OK, and we will see what other editors say. I suppose we should really transfer this entire discussion to the Rhodesia Talk-Page. Regards, --DLMcN (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Rhodesia Barnstar

I liked your editing contributions on the Rhodesia article.

		Rhodesian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your excellent contributions on Rhodesian articles by Sf46 (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sf46! It is very much appreciated. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Namibian War of Independence

As part of my attempts to restructure the Namibian War of Independence article for the better (and hopefully justify not merging it with South African Border War), I would be very pleased to use your Rhodesian Bush War map as a base for a specifically SWA one. Of course, it would be preferable to have your permission on this proposal first, since you have denoted the original image as your work.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks for asking for permission, it is very much appreciated. I hope you are well; have a nice Sunday. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lone Soldier

Hi Cliftonian, there is a small issue with the nomination. Please see my comments then reply there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed it. Thanks Crisco. I hope you're well. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lone Soldier

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Swedbank Stadion

In Swedbank Stadion#Transportation, I had proposed replacing Image:Triangelns station 1.jpg (view of an underground platform) with Image:Triangelns station, Södra nedgången.jpg (view of the ground-level station entrance closest to Swedbank stadion), for the purpose of illustrating the transport connection available to the stadium.

However, User:Reckless182 keeps reverting this change, stating the article had passed GA review which endorsed all images in their present state, so they need not be changed. Moreover, he insists that the image in this article must be different from that in Malmö Stadion, as if the image is used for decoration rather than illustration.

Therefore, I'm asking you, as the GA reviewer of the article in question, for a third opinion on this subject.

בהצלחה בצבא ושירות קל ‎--82.69.159.205 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay in replying, but as you know I am sometimes away from the web. I have to say I do understand Reckless's point on this one: the Malmö FF "set" of articles is likely to be read together, so it may be advisable to vary the pictures slightly where possible. I think the second image (this one) is more helpful and distinctive, particularly in an article that may well be read by somebody planning a trip to Swedbank Stadion. It would be helpful to know what the station looks like from the outside, while the inside photo just looks like a generic train platform, frankly... just from looking at it it could easily be anywhere in Europe and could even pass for an Israeli winter. I would suggest using the second image in this article, and perhaps one of the other Triangeln photos from here in the Malmö Stadion article. I did indeed endorse the images as they were as the GA reviewer, but that is not to say the article cannot be improved further, and I do believe making these changes would improve the article's quality. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

תודה רבה, אני עובד קשה מאוד בצבא והמפקדים שלי אומרים שאני חייל מצוין. אני מקווה שאני יכול להמשיך לשפר —Cliftonian (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your solution seems rational and I have therefore now changed the images in the two articles. Thanks!--Reckless182 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Any time Reckless, I hope you're well. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The delay in replying is no problem at all, I'm in no hurry here. Reckless182 has in fact just swapped around the two images, putting the underground platform image into Malmö Stadion, so I've taken the liberty of replacing it with another ground-level image of the southern entrance, which wasn't in Category:Citytunneln.

Btw, לשפר is transitive verb, the proper sentence would be "אני מקווה שאני יכול להמשיך להשתפר".

אבל כל הכבוד לך, עברית ממש מעולה! שבוע טוב :) ‎--82.69.159.205 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on my Hebrew, Mrs Cliftonian has just explained it for me in more detail so hopefully I'll get it right next time. Keep well now and feel free to leave another message any time. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Lisbon Appointment

I just went to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lisbon_Appointment/archive1 to support, only to find it had closed. In the circumstances I don't think one support would have changed things. Bad luck, as it is a very thorough piece of work - perhaps too thorough for many reviewers. If you put it up again let me know. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for the note and the kind sentiments contained therein. I will certainly let you know when it is put up again; I intend to do so before too long. In an attempt to rouse interest in it I have now nominated it at the Military History project's A-class review page; if you're interested in taking part of the review there, I'm sure everybody would be very happy for you to do so. The A-class review is here if you're interested. Thanks again, all the very best, and enjoy the rest of your weekend. Cheers, —Cliftonian (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to lend support and encouragement too, when the time comes - (I too was completely unaware of that recent 'case'/submission). Am extremely busy right now, however. But congratulations on all your good work on Rhodesia. --DLMcN (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much David, the untiring encouragement and support you provide is always appreciated, as is your own good work on Rhodesia. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Lisbon Appointment

Hi Cliftonian, I'm sorry how long this review is taking - I forgot to get my comments in on time for your availability last week, and was out of town for much of this weekend. I've identified only a few more issues, and then I'll be happy to support. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I think I've sorted all of this now. Sorry for taking a while to get back. Hope you're well (and please call me John), —Cliftonian (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, John - I must confess that, before reading that write-up, I did not appreciate the significance and importance of this particular event - so it has been valuable; I have learned something ! --DLMcN (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear, David. Thank you for the very kind words. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, I've just added my support - great work with this article. I think that the FA criteria should also be met if you're considering re-nominating it for FA status. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific site where we can register our support? --DLMcN (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick and David, I am indeed intending to nominate this (again) for FA status, assuming it passes A-class. I haven't done this yet but the link will be here. Thanks to you both and I hope you're both well. I'll be back in the army from tomorrow morning until 9 November, so hopefully the A-class review will be resolved successfully by then and we can get it nominated for FA. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've listed it for an uninvolved Milhist coordinator to close. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting Africa Peer Review Working

Hello, Renamed user df576567etesddf. You have new messages at AbstractIllusions's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Europeans" in Rhodesia

Regarding your recent changes to the Zimbabwe article, I feel it necessary to explain why I included the term "Europeans" instead of "whites" in the sentence of object. "European" is not intended to be derogatory at all; in fact many settlers with the Pioneer Column were British-born. Granted, several were also English South Africans and there were quite a few Boers/Cape Afrikaners thrown in as well, but my point stands. Until the 1960s, many white Rhodesians, South-West Africans, and South Africans still thought of themselves as "Europeans" in Africa, rather than white Africans. With the first threat to their status, of course, they closed ranks and came to openly accept the continent as their permanent homeland - the 1970 Area Handbook for RSA notes with interest that this applied to Afrikaners, who really no other country to call their own, and other white communities which still maintained strong emotional ties to a "mother country" (SWA Germans, Mozambican Portuguese, Rhodesian Britons, etc).

Keep in mind that under apartheid whites were classified as "Europeans". W.R. Waley, whose study I made a note of in the Rhodesia article, referred to white Rhodesians consistently as "Europeans", as did the Pearce Commission - according to Ian Smith. In African countries where white minorities have always been small, such as Tanzania (22,000 at independence), Uganda (10,000 at independence), and Kenya (60,000 at independence) such people were always collectively termed "Europeans". Census papers, identity documents, media reports, and parliamentary sessions addressed them as "Europeans". In Kenya today they are locally called "Europeans" in English.

With all the evidence as presented above, I think that we can safely use "Europeans" interchangeably with "Whites" when we describe Zimbabwe's early history - a period when that line was blurred. With regards to any period after World War II, however, distinctions must be made because it is at this time that the identity of "white Africans" began to seriously emerge.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Even in the 1970s and early '80s, the term "European" remained very much in vogue in Rhodesia. White Americans also fell into that category. I don't remember all that much use of the expression "White African" ... I left in 1983, but returned for the occasional visit after that. [In South Africa - under 'White' government - visiting Japanese businessmen were accorded "honorary European status" !] --DLMcN (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for the explanations. I was aware that "European" was the term used at the time, but my point is more that the term could be seen as derogatory now, and could furthermore be misleading to the casual modern reader (who often seems to think there are and have been no white people in Africa, and that any white man found there does not belong). So that's why. Thanks for helping and taking the time to write, I hope we understand each other. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Cliftonian, just a note to say many thanks for your review of Glasgow effect. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Company rule in Rhodesia

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In recognition of your excellent work

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject I am pleased to award you the A-Class medal in recognition of your work on the 7 Independent Company (Rhodesia), Southern Rhodesian military involvement in the Malayan Emergency, and Lisbon Appointment articles, which were promoted to A-class status between February and November 2012 Constantine ✍ 16:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh my; thank you Constantine! —Cliftonian (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Keeping Africa Peer Review

So, I've looked at 50+ other wiki project peer reviews to try and find the linking to Archive1 like the regular peer review page has and have found out two things: 1. Project specific peer reviews seemed to die around 2009-2010 almost across the board, 2. The solution (used by the History project, for instance) is just to create a little box highlighting current History specific projects that are at the more general peer review so there is not a unique peer review anymore. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_History/Review#Peer_review here. The choice then is: 1. Do we want to keep an Africa specific peer review or 2. Follow the norm and just help make the Africa project link easier to find the Africa ones on general peer review? There is certain utility to having an Africa-specific space, but everyone else seems to have either collapsed to assessment (like military history) or outsourced to the general Peer Review page (like history, novels, etc.) We can certainly get it working with the great help the Technical board gave us, or we can get it going to general peer review and we can just keep activity on Africa-related articles that go there (create some space like the history page has for open Africa related articles). What do you think? AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't go down the road taken by the History project. A little box of the kind you describe above seems ideal. I presently have a similar one on my talk page for Military History. I think something similar for African topics would be very good indeed and would balance the need for exposure on the mainstream page with the need for a specific focus on African subjects. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I agree. Keep safe man! AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You too. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Josiah Gondo

The DYK project (nominate) 08:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Transfer

Good luck in the Air Force, John ! --DLMcN (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks David! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Greeting

What a nice message to find on my resuscitated talk page! Thank you, dear Cliftonian. Tim riley (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it, Tim. —Cliftonian (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)