User talk:Renamed user df576567etesddf/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Some Rhodesian bits and bobs

Hi Cliftonian, as someone who's interested in Rhodesia, I just wanted to let you know of a few new articles I've created, in case you have something to add...

• Allan Ross Welsh
• Marshal Clarke
• Ernest Melville Charles Guest

I've also just nominated Ernest Lucas Guest at GAN and wondered whether you'd be interested in reviewing it.

Thanks!
FunkyCanute (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi FunkyCanute, thanks for the note. I'm often away from the internet and Wikipedia because of more military commitments, but I'll certainly have a look at these, and at reviewing Ernest Lucas Guest, if I can find the time (I'm just starting a few days off). I look forward to corresponding some more. Hope you're well, and have a great weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! No hurry - Enjoy your time off. FunkyCanute (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Long time no see!

Hi man! I hope you are doing well in the air force, must be "exciting" times. You look busy enough judging by your Facebook. Are you up for a GAN? I've worked on Malmö Stadion over the last few days and I think it's up to GA standards. It might need some copyediting but nothing major. I only have this article, Malmö IP and two player lists left to get up to GA, FA or FL standard of all Malmö FF related articles. Talk to you soon! --Reckless182 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jakob. I have a couple days off, so I'll try to have a look at this at some point. I hope you're well and thanks for the note. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Jakob, the article looks pretty good but there a couple of places where citations are needed. I've copy-edited and so on. In a couple places I removed things that were repeated elsewhere in the article. Just have a quick look through and see what you think, and I'll have a look at doing the GAN review over the weekend. Hope you're well and well done on another good piece of work. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks great. Your copy-editing and reviewing contributions to this project have been priceless! I'll find the missing sources until the weekend.--Reckless182 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad they've been helpful. Look forward to hearing more. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

All the missing citations have now been added. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Have now reviewed and passed this; well done! Keep up the good work. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks man! Good point about IFK, I haven't though too much about that, I'll keep that in mind.--Reckless182 (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"Harry" letters affair

I recently created an article on the "Harry" letters affair, I'd love your stellar Rhodesian eye to take a look at it. Your work is amazing :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Gareth, thank you for the very kind words! I will have a look at the "Harry" letters article as soon as I can. Thanks and I hope you're well. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting article! I have given it a bit of a go-over, I hope it's all okay with you. Thanks and hope you're well. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to understand how you must be human, only a sublime Wikiwritingbot could have done that! Thank you so much! I'm off to find more forgotten stuff :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it! Look forward to working together again. :) —Cliftonian (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugle interview

Hi Cliftonian. The Bugle runs a semi-regular interview series where we ask various editors to discuss a particular topic. Our next interview aims to bring together editors working in areas of military history that are perhaps under-represented in the English Wikipedia, for instance Rhodesian history. Would you mind adding your views to the questions here? Our goal is to despatch this edition prior to Christmas, so if you can respond in the next two weeks, that'd be great. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've answered the questions, I hope it's helpful. Thanks Ian, I'm rather flattered that I sprung to mind. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, mate -- when Nick-D suggested the idea to me, your name was among the first to pop up. Tks for participating! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Air Rhodesia Flight 825

Hi Cliftonian, while it's probably too late for your period of availability this week, I've posted a review of this article at: Talk:Air Rhodesia Flight 825/GA1. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, it was too late for my period of availability this week, but my schedule has now been altered, and consequently I am here this afternoon. Which was nice as it meant I was able to respond to this. Thanks for the great review! I hope my responses are to your satisfaction. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

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 Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2012 "Military history newcomer of the year" award. We look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ian! Have a great new year and thank you for your very kind supporting comments on the MHOTY nomination! —Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2012 "Military historian of the year" award. We're grateful for your efforts, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ian! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Neville Cardus

Thank you so much for your smile at my return from exile. I have lately been helping User:Brianboulton with upgrading the article on Cardus, and if you care to look in at the peer review it would be gratefully received. Tim Riley (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Tim! I am not going to have the time today I am afraid, but I look forward to participating in the peer review either tomorrow (Friday) or Saturday. I hope that you are well, that you had a Merry Christmas and are now having a Happy New Year. Keep well! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Lisbon Appointment

This is a note to let the main editors of Lisbon Appointment know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 17, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 17, 2013. 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 delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can 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:

The Lisbon Appointment was the decision in 1965 by Britain's self-governing colony in Rhodesia to open its own diplomatic mission in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital, which would operate independently from the British embassy there. Britain objected to the proposal when it was put forward in June 1965, and tried unsuccessfully to block it. The affair came amidst the larger dispute between Whitehall and Salisbury about sovereign independence for the colony. Whitehall insisted that there could be no independence before majority rule, which was opposed by Rhodesia's mostly white government. Rhodesia's staunch opposition to immediate black rule and its disillusionment regarding Britain propelled it towards Portugal, which governed the neighbouring territories of Angola and Mozambique. Portugal, while insisting it was neutral regarding Rhodesia, officially recognised Harry Reedman as "Chief of the Rhodesian Mission" in September 1965. It was careful to avoid provoking Britain, omitting the word "diplomatic" from the titles given to Reedman and his mission, but the Rhodesians still regarded themselves as victorious. Less than two months later, Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well hooray! —Cliftonian (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done John ! ... In his autobiography, "The Great Betrayal", Smith emphasizes that Welensky could and should have refused to allow the breakup of the Federation unless Southern Rhodesia was given full independence immediately, as a Dominion; i.e. the same status as Australia, Canada etc. --DLMcN (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations for the main page apperance! Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nick! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2012, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Why thank you Rupert! What a nice surprise! —Cliftonian (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Precious

defense forces
Thank you for quality articles for project military history, especially on Rhodesia, such as Lisbon Appointment, for excellent reviewing, for being "happy to receive correspondence" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My, what a wonderful way to come back from a tough weekend away; thank you very much Gerda! —Cliftonian (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhodesia

Since your the only active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Zimbabwe I thought I should tell you, I redirected Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhodesia to WP:Zimbabwe. At first I tried just making it a taskforce and having it use much of the Zimbabwe infrastructure, but that was pointless. It was dead and making it a taskforce of an almost inative wikiproject wouldn't have brought it back to life, your the only reasion wp:Zimbabwe has had any significant activity sense 2009. You won't need to worry about updating the WP:Rhodesia page anymore. I salvaged the barnstar and userbox for use by WP:Zimbabwe tough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of me thinks this is a shame—I rather liked having the separate projects—but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Thanks for letting me know politely and promptly. I hope you have a nice rest of the day, and good luck with future endeavours. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There are other people who have contributed items on Rhodesia (including me) - although admittedly I did not formally register for the project. If it means anything, I am inclined to support having them as separate projects. --DLMcN (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of me thinks this is a shame too, but the project was dead, and there's no way zim would have been able to support it as a taskforce. Other then your activity zim is dead but "revivable" which means "has a well defined and sufficiently broad scope that is not redundant to other WikiProjects". Reviving either would have been difficult enough without dealing with heaving effort and communication divided across two projects, and much of the infrastructure for Rho had almost never been used such as the notice board. If zim becomes active enough to bother with taskforce for parts of zim history than there's no reason I can think of that it couldn't be revived as a taskforce. Perhaps with a better defined scope such as saying specifically what part of zim history it deals with instead of just saying "Rhodesia", such a maybe saying that it deals with 1890-1980, if that would be it's scope. If I had known at the time that there was anyone still active at Zim I would have consulted you before doing this. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Even tough Rho was otherwise dead, it's categorization of Zim articles that are particularly relevant to Rho looks quite useful. The articles don't always have the same priority, for example Rhodesian Air Force is mid for Zim but top for Rho. I think we might be able to revive Rho as a taskforce of Zim primarily for the sake for the sake of that categorization system. Nothing fancy for it just bare-bones, maybe not even it's own talk page, lest discussion and effort be divided across two projects. Zim is far too inactive to be able to afford that, let alone for that to be practical or useful. No prejudices against making Rho more then bare-bones once Zim becomes active enough to warrant that of course. What do you and DLMcN think?

Rho's mistake in the first place was probably trying to be a full-fledged Wikiproject, rather then a taskforce, and building so much infrastructure of it's own which went unused. The duplication of effort and infrastructure might be part of the reason both are so inactive. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking just the same thing earlier today. Part of why I bothered attempting to maintain the Rhodesia project all this time was because it was convenient for categorisation purposes. If you could see your way to reimplementing this in some way I would very much appreciate it. I agree that separate projects are not really necessary at this particular moment as both the Rhodesia and Zimbabwe projects are essentially dead. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to whip something up. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Zimbabwe/Rhodesia task force. It's a basically a draft, it might need some kinks worked out. Also tease terms I was using such as "revivable" came from Wikipedia:Inactive WikiProjects. I linked to it, but the link seamed rather hidden in that text. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good as a start; the Wikiproject banner now works properly. I'd suggest trying to change the "Article Statistics" on the right to refer to Rhodesian articles, not Zimbabwe ones. I've altered the userbox myself. Thanks for the help with this! Hope you're well, have a great weekend —Cliftonian (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I accidentally removed the statistics section from the Rho page, but I restored it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Lekker —Cliftonian (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Emmette and John, for the information and invitation ... and Well Done for your hard work and efforts. I've added my name to both the Wikipedia:WikiProject Zimbabwe/Members and to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Zimbabwe/Rhodesia task force. --DLMcN (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

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 Nick-D (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Rhodesian African Rifles‎

I stand corrected. I missed the years and based on the SR flag I thought that it was trying to refer to Southern Rhodesia. Is there some reason that that first Rhodesia uses the SR flag tough, it's pretty misleading. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Southern Rhodesia used this blue flag from 1923 to early 1964:

During the Federal period (1953 to 1963), the Federation used a similar flag:

At the end of the Federal period, Southern Rhodesia's government decided that these two flags looked too much alike. Aiming for a more distinctive design they changed to a lighter blue in early 1964:

Around the same time, it soon became clear that Northern Rhodesia was going to become Zambia. Southern Rhodesia's government passed legislation in late 1964 to officially shorten its name to Rhodesia, but Britain blocked it because the acts naming the colony were British acts and so could not be altered by the colonial government. Salisbury carried on using Rhodesia anyway.

UDI was signed (as Rhodesia) on 11 November 1965 under this flag:

That flag remained until 11 November 1968, when a new flag was adopted:

Rhodesian voters passed a switch to republicanism in a late 1969 referendum, and Rhodesia declared itself a republic on 2 March 1970. The flag remained unchanged.

That design was used until the adoption of the Zimbabwe Rhodesian flag in 1979:

Which was in turn replaced by the Union Jack in December 1979, when Britain took interim control:

And by the modern Zimbabwean flag in April 1980.

I hope this helps explain matters. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of Israel State Cup winners know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on February 4, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/February 4, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The association football State Cup winners of Israel are the winners of the highest domestic cup in Israeli football, the Israel State Cup. The cup is contested on a knockout basis, with its trophy awarded to the team that wins the final. The competition, which has been organised since the foundation of the Israel Football Association in August 1928, was the first nationwide football tournament to be held in Mandatory Palestine. It was named the People's Cup until the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948. In all, Maccabi Tel Aviv (2011 team pictured) hold the record for most cups, with 22 wins. The longest run of successive wins is three, won by Hapoel Tel Aviv between 1937 and 1939, and again between 2010 and 2012. The most decisive cup final victory was in 1942, when Beitar Tel Aviv beat Maccabi Haifa 12–1.

Woo! —Cliftonian (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation of the article Lisbon Appointment

John Patrick Asher,

I would like to know if you have any issue about me translating your article, Lisbon Appointment, to Portuguese, keeping it as close as the original text. I'll take the opportunity to congratulate you for the excellent article.

Continue your good work,
Pedro Miguel F.A Patrício (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pedro, I would delighted to have the article translated into Portuguese by you. Thank you very much for the kind words! Please tell me when it is finished so I can look. I won't understand, but I'll still enjoy seeing it! Thanks, and have a great weekend, —Cliftonian (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll not forget to tell you when it's finished. If you want I can send you the title translated to Portuguese so that you can be the creator of the portuguese version.
A good weekend to you too, Pedro Miguel F.A Patrício (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much Pedro! That won't be necessary, you be the creator of it in Portuguese. I look forward to seeing your translation! Keep well now, —Cliftonian (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Luton Town

Luton Town are indeed the first non-League team to beat a Premier League team in the FA Cup. The most recent instance of a non-League team beating a top flight team before this was Sutton United who beat Coventry City in 1989.

Bob Palin (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, isn't it splendid? I'm rather averse to these kind of "Premier League" statistics as they tend to be rather misleading (football didn't start in 1992) but I do quite like this particular statistic for unabashedly partisan reasons. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

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 Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on your work

Hey, I noticed your DYK nomination of Southern Rhodesian involvement in the First World War. Just wanted to congratulate you on the article you've made, and on the splendid choice of art on your page (especially Bierstadt). Keep up the great contributions. Cheers, - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the very kind words Tourbillon! I am glad to see you have good taste in art. Keep well and I look forward to interacting again soon. Have a great rest of the weekend, and a productive and enjoyable week. :) —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That article is indeed a really valuable contribution, John, certainly enhancing my personal knowledge of the topic - Well Done ! --DLMcN (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much David! I'm glad you enjoyed it. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is excellent work, I look forward to it being upgraded to GA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words, RightCowLeftCoast! —Cliftonian (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Southern Rhodesian involvement in the First World War

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

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 Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sechele and the Ndebele

What we have here is the "official" statement from the highly unsuccessful CMS mission, and the facts reported by Moffat (who knew Sechele well) that Sechele had beaten him to it and that the Ndebele (as quoted in the BBC article) "had regular Christian prayers". In colloquial language "having regular prayers" means that they "held regular Christian prayer meetings". It doesn't mean that they all knew "regular Christian prayers" (whatever "regular" prayers might mean in this context). The word "regular" relates to the "regularity" with which they used them. Having regular Christian prayers is a fairly sure sign of conversion.

Amandajm (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

We had Christian prayers every morning when I was at school (in Westminster Abbey, no less). That didn't in itself mean that all present were Christians, or that anybody was converted. On the specific subject of the Ndebele (or Matabele), here are a few more sources you might find helpful.

Ngwabi Bhehe, in his 1979 book Christianity and traditional religion in western Zimbabwe, 1859–1923, does not appear to mention any conversion to Christianity in Matabeleland on the arrival of Moffat and his party around 1859–60, and mentions a group of named Ndebele married in the early 1880s as being amongst the first converts (page 64).

David Chanaiwa, in his 1981 work The Occupation of Southern Rhodesia: A Study of Economic Imperialism, writes (page 24) that the Ndebele kings and izinDuna "cleverly patronised the residence of British missionaries in Matabeleland, but saw to it that their "poisonous" and destructive religion never took root among the Ndebele people. They allowed missionaries to preach Christianity, but forbade the Ndebele to convert."

Gerald O. West, Musa W. Dube Shomanah (eds), The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories, and Trends. Pages 226–228. Discusses Sechele's returning to some of his people's traditional ways despite remaining a zealous Christian. "Sechele argued that the Bible did not require him to give up the customs of his people, although it required him to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. He could be an orthodox Motswana and a good Christian at the same time. In fact Sechele used to spend hours with Livingstone and his predecessors, defending his stance." (Page 228).

Fidelis Nkomazana and Obed Ndeya Kealotswe, Biblical Studies, Theology, Religion, and Philosophy: An Introduction for African Universities [pages 164–165]: "The history of Christian encroachment in Zimbabwe starts with the arrival of Father Goncalo da Silveira, of the Jesuit society, [in the 1500s]. ... The second phase of missionaries in Zimbabwe opened with the advent of the London Missionary Society in 1859. ... Championed by pioneer missionaries like John Moffat, Charles Helmore and Carnegie, missionaries' confrontation with Ndebele empires of Mzilikazi and Lobengula were quite trying. Despite their spirited attempts to evangelise, the early missionaries paid scant attention to the complex and highly organized religious cults amongst the Africans. Negative attitudes made them believe that "Africans had no concepts of religion." They ascribed their slow progress in converting Africans to what they called "depraved habits" and the "low intelligence of the Africans". ... Apparently the LMS failed to make converts in Matabeleland under the kingship of Lobengula [from 1870]. During more than twenty years labour, they managed only twelve converts." [Personal note: several other sources say they managed no converts at all, but I'm more inclined to give credence to Nkomazana and Kealotswe's exact figure of 12 converts, particularly given Bhehe's account of some Ndebele getting married under the auspices of Christian missionaries in the 1880s.]

David Levinson, 1998: Ethnic Groups Worldwide. [Page 167]: "Although the Ndebele resisted Christianity throughout the 19th century, today most are members of the Zion Christian Church."

I hope all this is helpful, and well done on what is so far a fine article on Sechele, certainly a very interesting figure at any rate. I hope you don't mind my presumptuousness on making a punctuation correction. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all this research. It's very interesting.

However, if the Ndebele were actually using Christian prayers, in the absence of Sechele himself, it would seem to suggest that there was a certain commitment to the practice of Christianity prior to the influx of missionaries. A commitment to the practice (given that this was quite remote from Westminster Abbey) suggests conversion. I would see it as highly probable that Sechele's version of Christianity was far more palatable to these people than the missionaries would have been. David Linvingstone seemed to have difficulty comprehending the depth of Sechele's commitment, because of what he perceived as "backsliding". It's impossible to know how many of these people saw themselves as committed to Jesus, but not converted to the white practices. It is interesting that Ngwabi Bhehe's book indicates some sort of equating of Christian marriage with conversion. Am I reading too much into this if I suggest that monogamous Christian marriage was seen by the missionaries as an essential sign that an African person was in fact converted?

I find it impossible to believe that Sechele got them praying, without having conversions. What were they getting out of it? Maybe he taught them all to sing "Shall we gather at the river" loudly in four part harmony.......

BTW what were you doing at the Abbey? Were you a chorister?

Amandajm (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Two questions. I notice that you left my current wording. Does that mean that you think it is OK?

Secondly, that you for adding the possessive thing.... but why did you change "among" to "amongst". Every time I write "amongst" some tidy person (American, I suspect) corrects it for me. Just asking..... Amandajm (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely to me that, exactly as you describe, the Matabele/Ndebele—and, indeed, almost all indigenous Africans of the time—would have found a brand of Christianity infused with local traditions far more attractive and palatable than the version put forward by the whites. Syncretist denominations in southern Africa often follow the same kind of line that Sechele seems to have developed.

It should be kept in mind that the Matabele, before moving north during the late 1830s to what is today Matabeleland, were based in today's Transvaal, having in turn moved there from Zululand during the 1820s (they splintered off from the Zulus following a leadership squabble). During the 1830s Mzilikazi, their king, was on very good terms with the missionary Robert Moffat, the very man who went north to Matabeleland in 1859. While this would seem to provide another explanation for the presence of Christian prayers before 1859, it is presumably Moffat's LMS group that the BBC article is referring to as being bewildered, so this theory doesn't work—if the BBC claim is accurate, the prayers must have been taken north by Sechele (or someone else). As you say, it seems odd that Sechele would have been able to get them praying without actually converting any, but I cannot find any evidence of formal conversion before 1880s.

I think the wording we have in the article ("official converts") now is good, as it avoids judging either way in the equivocality above. So yes, that means I think the wording is okay. "Among" and "amongst" are both technically correct in both British and American styles of English; I prefer "amongst" myself, but the main thing in any one article, so far as I see it, is to be consistent with one or the other (also with the parallel problem of "amid" and "amidst"). Since the other usages in the article are "among", I have taken the liberty of putting the "amongst" I inserted back to "among" for consistency; I hope you don't find this intrusion presumptuous.

I was at the Abbey as a boy at Westminster, and also concurrently as a chorister. We did all kinds of things in harmonic arrangements, with descants and all that kind of thing. Feels like another life even though it wasn't actually that long ago really —Cliftonian (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"amongst" is a challenge to the wiki-police. You have to be careful. Once they know who you are, they descend on every article and kick the stuffing out of it.....

My son was a chorister at St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney. Back in the days when it was still recognisably a cathedral. It was a lot of work, not only for him, but for his mother....... and we enjoyed every minute of it. Amandajm (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rudd Concession

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Lobengula and Sechele

Hi - I added a bit about Lobengula to his talk page (it's OR so can't go in the article: I have a family diary from 1871-3 which mentions a meeting with him). Anyhow, I saw you had done a lot of work on articles connected to Lobengula, and reading your user page I see you've talked about Sechele and his Christianity. So I scurried to the diary and part of what my relative says about him is:

Saturday [April] 20th [1872]. I was not much better. Secheli does not bother me at all but he preys upon Shelton, so do all the big men, he being an old friend and trader here. Secheli lately put a man to death with great cruelty, he had been stealing powder from a magazine and was caught. His hands, arms, feet and other parts with [sic] smashed with stones before being killed. Secheli is an utter savage though pretending to be a Christian. Price had a row with him over it but without effect of course.

Not sure if it's of any interest but I thought you might like to read it. Cheers. Jasper33 (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Rebecca; the diary portion is interesting and confirms basically what my impression of the man already was. I hope your relative never got onto his wrong side ... Anyway, I hope you have a great rest of the weekend, and thanks again for the enlightening note. Cheers, —Cliftonian (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cliftonian. Well my relative was a foul old racist so it perhaps would have served him right if he had got on Sechele's bad side ... but no, after failing dismally as a diamond prospector he slaughtered a load of elephants for their ivory and went back to Scotland. I keep thinking I should contact someone in a university history dept somewhere and offer the diary as it covers a fascinating period - the very early diamond rushes at Kimberley (when it was still called New Rush); the Waterboer rumblings; Moffat and 'The Expedition' (presumably the one to find Livingstone) all get a mention, plus numerous chiefs and kings, and colonial goings-on ... Anyhow, well done on the Rudd Concession article - it's a great read, and clearly masses of research has gone into it. Oh, and happy Yom Ha'atzmaut. Cheers Rebecca Jasper33 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that'd be a fine idea Rebecca, as the journal appears from your description and sample passage to be very interesting. I'm glad you enjoyed the Rudd Concession article. And thank you for wishing us a happy Independence Day! Have a great week and if there's ever anything I can help with please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, —Cliftonian (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A medal for you!

It's my pleasure to present this Africa Award for your consistently excellent contributions to Rhodesian history topics, most recently the important article Rudd Concession. Thanks for all you do! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Normally I give a Good Article barnstar, but I see you already had some of those. =) Anyway, this is one of my favorite articles I've had a chance to review at GA, thanks to your excellent research and prose. You should think about taking this to FAC if that's not already the plan. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Khazar! Yes I was intending to take it to FAC, and that's where it's going to go now; thanks for your review which has helped us on the way immensely. Keep well now and God bless —Cliftonian (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:LutonTownFC2009.png

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:LutonTownFC2009.png

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

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 Nick-D (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Military career of Ian Smith

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Southern Rhodesian involvement in the First World War: GA pass...

...congrat's on another great article! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hchc, for the very nice review and the kind words! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Geneva conference

Thanks for detailed comments, very civil, very constructive, much appreciated. Reply's on my page Babakathy (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem! :) Have replied there —Cliftonian (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Rudd Concession

Hello, Cliftonian. I'll be pleased to review the Rudd Concession. You're good for me, dragging me from my usual stamping grounds into new and unfamiliar territory. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tim, I look forward to it. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My meagre harvest of quibbles duly added and expeditiously dealt with. I enjoyed this article, which made me understand rather better how the present-day Zimababwe comes to be in its current condition. Interesting, but chastening too. Anyhow, it's a fine article and a credit to its author and to Wikipedia. Tim riley (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much again Tim—have a great weekend and please don't hesitate to let me know if there's any way I can help you with something. It's always a pleasure —Cliftonian (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So pleased (and so unsurprised) to see the article promoted to FA. Important and complex stuff, explained with beautiful clarity. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so very much Tim! Do please let me know if there's anything I can help you out with. Have a great week! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

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 Nick-D (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Cosmos

As the Cosmos near their first match back in the NASL, I think this would be a reasonable time to resume the discussion in regard to the merger of the two Cosmos articles, if you would be interested in. Atban.3000 write me 18:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to thank you for your interest in the Harold Davidson article. I remember that earlier this year you reviewed Neville Cardus which I worked on with Tim riley. I will always welcome your comments. I see that you are from Tel Aviv; I was a regular visitor there between 1994 and 2001, and have spent many an evening watching the sunset from the beach. I was also quite familiar with Jerusalem café society for a while. One day I will revisit. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! I'd like to tell you how much I enjoy your prose and articles, both of which I do my best to emulate. Your Tichborne case article is a personal favourite of mine, and I also very much like this new Davidson one and the biography of C. R. M. F. Cruttwell, which always entertains me.

I don't think it's quite accurate to say I am from Tel Aviv, but I do marry a Tel Aviv girl in December. Jerusalem I actually don't know so well, as the great majority of my modest amount of time there has been with the Army. I was there for the Israel–England under-21 game the other week, mind you. It seemed like everybody in Israel with any kind of link to Albion was at that game. I very much recommend that you come back to visit Israel some time. I have been to many corners of the world and there are few I like better.

Your own comments are always very welcome to me, believe me! If you are interested or at a loose end, I presently have military service of Ian Smith up at FAC, and I'm working Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence, right now at GAN, towards this too. Please do let me know if there is ever anything you would be interested in me having a look at or helping out with, as it's always a pleasure. Thanks, and have a great day. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to confess I had not noticed the Ian Smith FAC, even though it's been there a while (and your signature is quite vivid!). I'm rarely at a loose end, but having just finished a long review on Thaddeus Stevens I'll be glad to take a look at Smith, though it may be a day or two before I can post. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I look forward to seeing your thoughts on it. Have a nice evening. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

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 Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Davidson peer review

Could I ask that you briefly revisit Wikipedia:Peer review/Harold Davidson/archive1, to comment on an issue I have raised concerning the use of this image. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing —Cliftonian (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Shangani Patrol

Before I change the WP Shangani Parol article, I want to run this past you. I have a PDF of Capt. Napier's diary and he has the following entry for 3 Dec 1893: "... I volunteered about 8pm to ride back to the column (six miles away) and to let Forbes know the postion and to ask him to be here very early in the morning with the rest of his column and the Maxim guns. Major Wilson asked Bob Bain and Robertson to go with me, each being given the same message.... We reached the column at 11.45 pm. Bain's horse being absolutely done up and mine very tired. I gave Major Forbes the message which had been given to all three, least any two of us might have been drowned, shot or lost. It was to the effect that Major Wilson was staying out all night, close to the King and asking Major Forbes to come on with the column and maxim gun and to be there at 4 am the next morning. Major Forbes replied that she considered the ground to be too bad for night travelling and said the enemy were all round the column which was true as I had passed close to the fires. He could not risk the whole column but would send a troop of 16 men, with Robertson and Ingram to guide them..."

Napier also states in his diary this entry for 17 Dec 1893: "... Jameson told me to write out the exact message Alan (sic) Wilson had sent to Forbes and as to what Forbes said on receiving it...."

It appears that Wilson's request to Forbes was very clear about what he needed. This would contradict the WP Shangani Patrol section -- Prelude: Forbes' pursuit of Lobengula. Also, Napier says he was accompanied by the Canadian scout Robert Bain and Trooper Robertson, but not Trooper Dillon.

Do you have any sources that contradict these accounts? Thanks for your help! Ctatkinson (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly where I got that it was Dillon rather than Bain, but the bit about the lack of a message comes from Gale (1958). But I think the Napier diary is probably the better source so I think we should implement the changes as you suggest.

So anyway, here's what we'll do; either put the source information for the Napier diary here and I'll make the alterations, or if you prefer you can make changes yourself and I will tidy things up afterwards. Just to be clear, the changes we need to make are to replace Dillon with Bain ("Napier, Scout Robert Bain and Trooper Robertson were the men acting as runners") and to replace this:

"Again, Wilson did not elaborate on exactly what he wanted his commander to do, sending no formal message with Napier; he simply instructed the captain to brief Forbes on the situation north of the river. Forbes asked Napier what Wilson wanted him to do, and the captain replied that he thought Wilson was expecting Forbes to bring the rest of the column across the river during the night, so they could together attack Lobengula at dawn."

With something along these lines:

"Wilson repeated that he was going to stay north of the river overnight, close to the king, and asked Forbes to bring his full force across and to be there at 04:00 in the morning."

What do you think? Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed text looks good and I'll let you update the WP article. I'm helping the author of an upcoming biography of Burnham who is currently visiting Zimbabwe, and he sent me a PDF with the pages from Napier's diary for the period 21 Nov to 21 Dec 1893. The complete diary is in the Zimbabwe's National Archives, Historical Manuscripts Collection, MISC/NA4/1/1. -- Ctatkinson (talk) 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.236.204 (talk)

Okay, that's all fine! Thanks for the help with this CT! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

• Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week

• In the media: Daily Dot on Commons and porn; Jimmy Wales accused of breaking Wikipedia rules in hunt for Snowden

• Recent research: Most controversial Wikipedia topics, automatic detection of sockpuppets

• News and notes: Election results released

• Discussion report: Privacy policy, X!'s edit counter, old rangeblocks, and the Article Incubator

• Featured content: Wikipedia in black + Adam Cuerden

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fashion

• Arbitration report: Argentine History closed; two cases remain suspended

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Garfield Sobers Rhodesia affair

Orlady (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here

Hey Cliftonian

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Okeyes, I gave this a try but although the code is easy enough I can't figure out exactly what I'm supposed to be putting in all the different fields, or how I'm supposed to lay it out. I'm sorry for not being particularly helpful but I did have a go. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sobers

Passed now, and don't worry about the sandbox thing. I didn't consider it dickish! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the very good review! And I'm glad I didn't offend you with the sandbox thing. Be sure to let me know when the D'Oliveira affair article is nearly done and I'll be happy to provide an extra pair of eyes if you would like. —Cliftonian (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It all helps, have no worries on that score! I'm pretty secure on the cricket/MCC side, but less so on the South African background, so these edits are helping a lot. At some point soon, I may move a few bits over to the article, but feel free to keep tinkering there or in the sandbox. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I am helping. If there is anything specific I can help with please let me know. If any of my additions or amendments are not to your liking, please feel clear to remove them. Thanks! —Cliftonian (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In case you are still watching, the latest additions are a bit rough and ready. It's very jumbled and there is more to come all over the place, so don't be alarmed if I seem to be rambling, repeating myself or losing the plot! I tend to churn out the information like this then go back and hammer it into shape. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Southern Rhodesian constitutional referendum, 1961

Thanks for correcting this article. I've made a couple of minor amendments, including the %s given in the results by Wood. No idea how he managed to get it wrong (as his figures did add up to 100%, but just weren't seemingly based on the right vote totals!). Cheers, Number 57 12:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your help with that. It might have been a typo on my part ... Haha —Cliftonian (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

More Davidson

It's at FAC now. If you can find time, a sources check would be very helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. Thanks for letting me know! —Cliftonian (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

• In the media: Jimmy Wales is not an Internet billionaire; a mass shooter's alleged Wikipedia editing

• Featured content: Queen of France

• WikiProject report: Puppies!

• News and notes: Wikipedia's medical collaborations gathering pace

• Discussion report: Snuggle, mainpage link to Wikinews, 3RR, and more

• Technology report: VisualEditor in midst of game-changing deployment series

• Traffic report: Yahoo! crushes the competition ... in Wikipedia views

• Arbitration report: Tea Party movement reopened, new AUSC appointments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Military service of Ian Smith

Congratulations on this innovative article passing its FAC - hopefully it starts a trend of similar articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nick. Hopefully it will. If I am ever able to lend a hand with this or anything else please let me know. Have a nice Sunday. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Military service of Ian Smith

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Military service of Ian Smith. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you Tony! —Cliftonian (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Visualeditor & a thank you.

Thank you for taking the time to show me how to remove that blasted gadget. I am very greatful. :) Pawac (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

• Op-ed: It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project

• WikiProject report: Not Jimbo: WikiProject Wales

• Traffic report: Inflated view counts here, there, and everywhere

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation Board appoints world expert in women's issues, global south

• Dispatches: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

• Featured content: The week of the birds

• Discussion report: Featured article process governance, signature templates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Cabinet_of_Ian_Smith

I have an idea for you.

Mr Hall of England (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, but we should remember that Smith had several Cabinets, being in office as PM from 1964 to 1979, winning four elections along the way. I think for now a better idea is a "signatories of Rhodesia's UDI" article; maybe we can do the more general Smith Cabinet article at a later time. I hope this is all okay with you? —Cliftonian (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Square Enix

• Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation's new plans announced

• Featured content: Documents and sports

• Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case opens; July 22 deadline for checkuser and oversight applications

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence 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 GA bot, on behalf of Lemurbaby -- Lemurbaby (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK William John Harper

Hello! Your submission of William John Harper 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! HelenOnline 09:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence

The article Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Lemurbaby -- Lemurbaby (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well hooray! —Cliftonian (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William John Harper

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hooray! —Cliftonian (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

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 Nick-D (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia flamewars

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion

• Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more

• News and notes: Wikivoyage turns ten, but where to now?; Wikipedia Zero expands into India

• Traffic report: Gleeless

• Featured content: Engineering and the arts

• Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story

Hi Asher,

I know we've never interacted on Wikipedia before, but I was wondering if you would consider reviewing my current FAC for the When God Writes Your Love Story article. No one has commented on the corresponding discussion for almost two weeks now, and I am concerned that the FAC will close from lack of discussion. I noticed that you reviewed the Jesus FAC and thought you might be interested in this FAC as well. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi David,

Thanks for the very pleasant note. I'd be very happy to have a look at the article and the FAC and to help out; thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look at some point over the next couple days. For future reference, my name isn't Asher, it's John. Keep well now. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi John,

Thank you very much for the barnstar and the FAC review; they are both greatly appreciated. My trip did not last as long as I had hoped, but seeing this article promoted to featured status was a nice consolation. I hope we'll encounter each other on the project again sometime.

Neelix (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Congrats!!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For getting Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence to Good Article status. Very important given the lack of quality we have on Africa. Keep it up!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well hooray! Thanks Doc! —Cliftonian (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK review

Thanks for your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Town Range; I've addressed the issue you raised. Prioryman (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't raise an issue; the other reviewer, David Eppstein, did. But thanks anyway. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is another issue that needs to be dealt with. I'm afraid some of the instructions got left off the template - it needs one reviewer to state whether they "perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review". Could you please do this? Prioryman (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem —Cliftonian (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's very helpful. It's kind of hard to see how it could have been promotional - "come to Town Range, it's literally the shittiest street in Gibraltar!" Doesn't really grab you, does it? Prioryman (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Could not agree more. I live amid the endless red tape of Israeli society and am a military man to boot, so believe me I am more than used to this kind of bureaucratic silliness —Cliftonian (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly unused to bureaucratic silliness either - it's no less annoying though! If I might ask a personal question, how did a bloke from Hammersmith end up in Israel? Was it an aliyah kind of thing? Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Kind of, except it was based more on personal and economic factors. I decided to try my hand as a soldier and that I wanted to do so in the IDF, something I was eligible for through partial Jewish ancestry. I had never been to Israel before but the idea appealed to me, so I came here and joined up. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)