User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:00, 3 July 2013 view sourceMontanabw (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers105,492 edits →Precious again: SCOMN!← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024 view source Ealdgyth (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators153,165 edits Happy Holidays!
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<!--{{Notice\|The Wikimedia Foundation is not a software development organisation, and ought not to be pretending to be one. Let's try and make that clear to them by a regular Monday boycott until they come to their senses.}}
	{{quote\|text="It was reading the ultimate paragraph of this post: that finally convinced me it was time to go, yes, Hans is quite right, I am stuck in a vicious circle and there was no likelihood of things improving."\|sign=<small>Extract from Giano's retirement statement</small>}}
			{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} \| Monday \| {{wikibreak\|message=It's Monday now, so I'll be gone until tomorrow.}} \|}}-->
	<!--<center>		<!--<center>
	<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;">		<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;">
Line 9:		Line 10:
	\|archive = User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s		\|archive = User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
	}}		}}
	{{sidebar		{{sidebar with collapsible lists
	\| outertitle = ~~Archives~~		\| outertitle =
	\| topimage = ]		\| topimage = ]
	\| bodyclass = hlist		\| bodyclass = hlist
	\| style = {{box-shadow}} {{border-radius}} background: #F8EABA; font-size: smaller;		\| style = box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px #CCC; border-radius: 8px; background: #F8EABA; font-size: smaller;
			\| expanded =

	\| contentstyle = text-align: left;		\| contentstyle = text-align: left;

	\| heading1 ~~= 2007~~		\| heading1
	\| ~~content1~~ =		\| list1name = 2007
			\| list1title = 2007 archive
			\| list1 =
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
Line 29:		Line 33:
	* ]		* ]

	\| heading2 ~~= 2008~~		\| heading2
	\| ~~content2~~ =		\| list2name = 2008
			\| list2title = 2008 archive
			\| list2 =
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
Line 44:		Line 50:
	* ]		* ]

	\| heading3 ~~= 2009~~		\| heading3
	\| ~~content3~~ =		\| list3name = 2009
			\| list3title = 2009 archive
			\| list3 =
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
Line 59:		Line 67:
	* ]		* ]

	\| heading4 ~~= 2010~~		\| heading4
	\| ~~content4~~ =		\| list4name = 20010
			\| list4title = 2010 archive
			\| list4 =
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
Line 74:		Line 84:
	* ]		* ]

	\| heading5 ~~= 2011~~		\| heading5
	\| ~~content5~~ =		\| list5name = 2011
			\| list5title = 2011 archive
			\| list5 =
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
Line 89:		Line 101:
	* ]		* ]

	\| heading6 ~~= 2012~~		\| heading6
	\| ~~content6~~ =		\| list6name = 2012
			\| list6title = 2012 archive
			\| list6 =
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
Line 104:		Line 118:
	* ]		* ]

	\| heading7 ~~= 2013~~		\| heading7
	\| ~~content7~~ =		\| list7name = 2013
			\| list7title = 2013 archive
			\| list7 =
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
Line 113:		Line 129:
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			\| heading8
	\| content34style = text-align: center; margin-top: 1em;
	\| ~~content34~~ =		\| list8name = 2014
			\| list8title = 2014 archive
	<span style="display: inline;"><span style="display: table-cell; border: 5px solid rgba(64,255,64,0.9); {{box-shadow\|0\|0\|2.0em\|rgba(64,255,64,0.9)}} {{border-radius\|0.5em}} background-color: #eee; opacity: 0.9; -moz-opacity: 0.9;">]</span></span>
			\| list8 =
	<p>
			* ]
	]!
			* ]
	</p>
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			\| heading9
			\| list9name = 2015
			\| list9title = 2015 archive
			\| list9 =
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			\| heading10
			\| list10name = 2016
			\| list10title = 2016 archive
			\| list10 =
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			\| heading11
			\| list11name = 2017
			\| list11title = 2017 archive
			\| list11 =
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			\| heading12
			\| list12name = 2018
			\| list12title = 2018 archive
			\| list12 =
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			\| heading13
			\| list13name = 2019
			\| list13title = 2019 archive
			\| list13 =
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

	\| content35 =		\| content35 =
Line 132:		Line 248:
	\| navbar = none		\| navbar = none
	}}		}}
			{{-}}

	== ~~Precious again~~ ==		== TFA ==

			{{User QAIbox
	<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; {{box-shadow\|0.1em\|0.1em\|0.5em\|rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 )}} {{border-radius\|1em}} border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix">
			\| image = Sunflower against sky, Ehrenbach.jpg
	<div>
			\| image_upright = 0.8
	<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; {{box-shadow\|0.1em\|0.1em\|0.5em\|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}} {{border-radius\|0.5em}}">]</div>
			\| bold = ] · ] · ]
	'''forum'''<br />
			}}
	Thank you for content such as today's ], for adding quality to the articles of others, for speaking up to the point with "]", and for running your talk as a fascinating forum of ideas and beers, - and yes, to quote you, "", - repeating: you are an ] (30 September 2010)!
			Thank you today for your share in ], introduced (in 2010) by your conom: "I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom."! - I miss you. -- ] (]) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

			==Io Saturnalia!==
	--] (]) 05:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	A year ago, ] of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in ]ly style. What do you think of "move at greater than the speed of consensus because any large discussion results in no consensus"? - Thank you for today's ], it's your day! Thank you for leaving the Olympus of an awesome Wikipedian ( anyway) to be a human Olimpick gamer, Eric ;) --] (]) 09:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

			{\| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
	:Thanks Gerda, very kind of you. ] ] 12:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
			\|rowspan="2" valign="right" \| ]

			\|rowspan="2" \|
	::How do you like the game ] for GA? (I will have to ask ] if he scheduled on your day on purpose.) --] (]) 14:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" \| '''Io, ]!'''
	::ps: tell George that I mentioned ] ] (although I don't like it so much) (you have to scroll, infobox discussions grow fast) --] (]) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
	*Interesting article, I enjoyed this, thank you.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]\|]</span></span> 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

	::did I say "grow fast"? - reached the ] again, look for "gang", that's probably me ;) - but ] (You shall weep and wail) is <s>almost</s> GA now, the other still open, --] (]) 14:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

	::Do you remember polishing the lead of several articles, including ]? If you have a few moments: 1) I started the ], improvement welcome. 2) I would like to see the writing of the pivotal "Das Urteil" (in one night, after meeting Felice Bauer) mentioned in the article lead. 3) Shouldn ''Kafkaesque'' perhaps be ''kafkaesque''? --] (]) 21:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::
	:::]: {(unblock)} I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked.. (snip)
	:::]: You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name.
	::: -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::By now ] seems also Kafkaesque, - at least the term "off topic" is mentioned eventually. --] (]) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Can't believe the infobox rubbish is still rumbling on when it would be so easy to solve by banning Andy Mabbett for another year. ] ] 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::That would not help at all, they would still have to deal with me ;) - . - Kafkaesque: he started "stalking", a few edits later it was "infobox" again, he was caught by emergency surgery, but - as you said - it's still "rumbling on", - thanks for a new phrase, --] (]) 21:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

	]esque: it's his birthday, you saw it on or the Main page, even without you improving the lead ;) --] (]) 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
	:That's good. Was I supposed to have improved the lead? ] ] 14:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
	:BTW, I saw on the BBC News web site yesterday that "shitstorm" is now an official German word, maybe in exchange for your very perceptive "schadenfreude". ] ] 15:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
	::{{tps}} I saw that too, but in a -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::"The French don’t even have a term for ‘bell end’, that’s how far behind they are." That's unbeatable. ] ] 15:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
	::(ec) Define "supposed". Read above for the expression of a certain hope in the matter. - If you read above about a kafkaesque thread, it was mercifully closed after three weeks ("the expectation of the community is the editors involved need to figure out how to get along") and , --] (]) 15:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
	::ps: While I never succeeded adding Hitler to a Bach cantata DYK for more clicks, I at least managed this little birthday gift: "DYK ... that translators of ''']''' must cope with ambiguous words like '']'', which refers both to traffic and sexual intercourse? --] (]) 15:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

	:::SCOMN! (Snorted coffee out my nose)! Hugs to all! Great accomplishment! ]<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

	== Hey (Hay?) ==

	Aha, caught you peeking into a WikIProject Equine-tagged article. If you are interested, would you care to turn your copyediting magic to a fun collaboration project amongst WikiProject Horse Racing? ]? I want to nominate it for GA, there is a group of 3-4 other editors working on it as well, and IMHO we are at that point were an outside eye would be welcomed. The ] is coming up on June 8 (BTW, have fun with your ] this weekend), and I anticipate this article and ] (which I have not worked on) will both get a lot of traffic due to the ] that is apt to occur between them. So even though I probably won't have the time to actually get the green plus by the Belmont, I want it that good by post time. Interested in a copyedit/review? Thanks! ]<sup>]</sup> 21:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

	:That's a red link. ] ] 22:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

	::Do you mean ]?--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]\|]</span></span> 22:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

	:::Yes, typo. But with horse names, a totally illogical spelling means nothing. (grin) We are already getting feedback that it's jargon-heavy, and though I've now taken several whacks and toning it down, I'm bleary-eyed. I figure you've helped with enough of Ealdgyth's horse articles that you should have a good sense of how much technical language is appropriate (I loathe the people who want us to say, "a stallion is a boy horse" -- bleech) and where we've gone over the top (which happened some in this article). ]<sup>]</sup> 21:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

	::::I hate the "a stallion is a boy horse" stuff too. I'll have a read through later. ] ] 22:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Thanks for your edits! ==

	<nowiki>:)</nowiki> <small>I'm sure you love this new feature.</small> ] (]) 15:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
	:It seems to cause no harm. ] ] 13:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I do appreciate your edits to the March article. ] (]) 17:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I dunno, in the larger scale of things here it doesn't seem to make much difference. But then what do I know, I've wasted a large part of my day working on a fucking car. ] ] 18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Police Protection Provisions ==

	Hello,

	Its me again! Due to the project pages never replying to me. Thought I would come and abuse your user page to get some of your watchers to read my article =P I can see that you are again super busy so I don't want to pester you too much for help; but I have listed some things on the talk page for ] as I am a bit stuck. Would really appreciate your advice if you get chance.

	Thanks very much, ツ] (]) 10:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Almost every project is moribund these days. But Stacey, what's your rationale for having this as a separate article instead of merging it with ]? ] ] 14:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	::Just replied to this on the talk page.. But in case you missed it =) I made it as a new article because the Children Act has over 100 sections and loads of Orders and parts to it so I have limited space in the Children Act 1989 article. I have many more sections of the act to cover and need to do an overview of the background/ reasons for the Act and the impact of it. Thanks very much for taking the time to read it ツ] (]) 14:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::You're welcome. What I'll say then is that you've got far too many short paragraphs in the Provisions sections that need to be merged in some way, and the lead needs to be expanded. ] ] 14:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	== I'm starting to like you ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''Comeback Barnstar'''
	\|-		\|-
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| . I will say no more. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 23:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
	\|}		\|}

	:That makes two then, you and me. ] ] 00:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	::On the other hand, I believe edits like that and several of your others are corrosive to the long-term success of the project. I've raised your recent edits in that thread ]. <span class='nounderlines' style="text-decoration:none">] <font color="#888888">]</font></span> 01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::Give me a clue as to why I should care what you believe. ] ] 01:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	::::I've always found it interesting that you're allowed to say whatever you wish if you're part of the mob with the pitchforks and torches, but instantly criticized, disparaged, and threatened if you're objecting to the actions of said mob. Mob action is far more corrosive to long-term success than any single comment...which some of the members may realize when the mob turns on them. ]] 13:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::::You're right. When someone becomes persona non grata you're allowed to be as offensive as you like about them, and tell whatever lies suit your purpose. Strange that. ] ] 13:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::And I note with some amusement that I've recently been accused of changing my user name in an effort to hide my block log. Doesn't seem to matter what you do here, there's always someone ready to assume the worst, even make things up if they have to. ] ] 13:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	::::::I tend to think it's part of the closed society group psychology here. They simply HAVE to have enemies..."enemies of the state" if you will. It allows OWN of policy to continue unabated and makes for a handy smokescreen when things go south and get noticed by people outside the system. That same psychology also prevents some who have good intentions from looking too closely at the system, seeing where it doesn't work, and then taking positive steps to fix it. Once they've been part of the baying mob (even if they come in late at the edges) I think they fear it being turned on them. ]] 13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::::::You may be right. I've always seen it as a manifestation of that all too common desire some people have to fit in, in this case by joining the mob in their kicking matches. The world in general and WP in particular needs more people like me, who just don't want to fit in. ] ] 14:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	::::::::It's just been my observation of the place, first brought on by watching the reactions to you and a handful of other editors who simply don't toe the line when it comes to policyOWN and other little things that seem so important to the inner circle. I'm not convinced that there's some sort of clique or cabal (and actually doubt that there is...at least in the traditional sense), but rather a collective mindset that attracts people of certain personality or behavior types. They get vested in the process (as far as I'm concerned OWN of policy is FAR more dangerous to this place than OWNing an article) and then it's all downhill. That circle of OWN, though it shifts from time to time, is really a sort of closed society that draws on the "we're doing something really great here" mantra. Suck them in while they're idealistic, convince them that any attempt to change is "evil" or "an attack on the greater good," and you get the mob reactions. That and it seems to be commonly triggered by non-article events. Civil POV pushers, baiters, or others of that ilk are rarely dragged through the streets or crucified for all to see. Someone who questions "policy" or "the way it's done," on the other hand, will be lit up for all to see. ]] 14:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	{{Userbox\|id=]\|info=Your proposition may be good, But let's have one thing understood: Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it!<br> --] in '']''
	\| border-c = black \| border-s = 2 \| id-c = white \| id-s = 14 \| id-fc = black \| info-c = white \| info-s = 8\| info-fc = black}}

	::::::::::::::Collective mindset is probably correct. That and another "there are two kinds of people" clash: People who want to join the mob/majority and people who, due to inherent morality and principle, deliberately refuse to go along with the mob and seem drawn to the underdog like a moth to a light bulb. Both factions exist on wiki. We are amongst the latter. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	== June 2013 ==

	] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment on the page ] that didn't seem very ], so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> ''Repeated sarcastic remarks at anyone who disagrees with him and favors a ban of KW.'' ] (]) 01:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Are you a fool or simply an idiot? ] ] 01:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Sometimes, the mix of both produces fascinating results... The best way to avoid being called an idiot is often to avoid acting like one. I'm sure Eric doesn't mind being called "abrasive", just like I don't mind being called a "smartass"; truth only hurts if you refuse to look at it. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 02:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Oh great, all the f----ng moronic assholes have followed Eric C here too. Eric, username changes aside, you just keep on being you, OK? (snorts coffee out my nose) ]<sup>]</sup> 18:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Always said he was a good asshole detector.... ]] 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Magnet. ] (]) 19:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::: I thought it read "he was a good asshole director" ... either way .. it's verifiable that Eric has dealt with enough of them that he should be able to ''detect'' and ''direct'' "assholes. Just sayin. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 05:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: I always called him a "detector" since he serves as something of a lightening rod for the asshole discharges around here. ]] 13:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::"]" or "]"??? Oh dear... ]<sup>]</sup> 17:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	== July 2013 ==

	You have been extremely uncivil, in the future, and there for you have been blocked for one week, in the future. Cheers. :D—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline</sub> 04:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech ==

	*]
	There is a ] about ], called ]. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
	#List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: ].
	#Add userbox {{tl\|User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
	#Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{tl\|WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
	#Join in discussion at ].
	#Notify others you think might be interested in ] to join the WikiProject.
	Thank you for your interest in ], — ''']''' (]) 00:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Seems bizarre to me to have a project on freedom of speech in a project that doesn't tolerate freedom of speech, so I won't be joining. ] ] 02:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Hi Malleus! (Perfect word for the occasion. You are a great writer, always choosing the right word. And I'm learning what that takes. ) You're refreshing to read, every time. Chases away my depression! (Thank you.) p.s. I've never had any direct w/ Kiefer, but respect his brilliance. But I understand him even less than I understand User:Penyulap! (I seem to have little problem understanding Peny.) What do you think about Peny's incarceration, anyway? Cheers, ] (]) 03:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::@Malleus, I'm sorry you feel that way, I respect your quality improvement efforts on Misplaced Pages, and it'd sure be fun to collaborate with you at some point in the future on articles related to ], if you ever change your mind. :) — ''']''' (]) 06:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::@Ihardlythinkso. It's hard to know what to think about Penyulap's indefinite block, as so much is hidden here. Suffice to say I think there's a great deal too much blocking goes on in general. ] ] 11:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::As a quick bit of background—I suggested you ] as someone who could help with Cirt's forthcoming work on ], based on your cunt-groping history. (], the only previous attempt I'm aware of to get an obscenity article up to less-than-crappy standard, was written by a certain Mr Andemu, who for obvious reasons is not going to be in a position to assist.) – ] 17:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::*Iridescent, admins are supposed to use clean language. I suggest you employ the word "queynte"--and see line 168 for the groping context. ] (]) 16:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::@Eric. I always thought this was an interesting concept as well...up there with all the jokes about "military intelligence." Sometimes unintended irony is the best irony. This isn't intended as a knock on Cirt, as freedom of speech is a very important concept and one that deserves significant coverage here. Good to see folks taking it on! ]] 17:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::::I get into enough trouble here as it is Iridescent. ] ] 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Good Judgement Barnstar -> * (convenient travel size). I did get a snicker from that comment, I admit. ] / ] / ] / ] 18:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Just to avoid cluttering Dennis' page...I used self-criticism there on purpose. It was more in line with old Communist (especially the Chinese and Southeast Asian flavors) doctrine/practice - confess your sins, swear to do better, and then turn on others who show the same sins (or get a break for those past sins and work equally hard for the new masters). Sins are, of course relative. In the case of hard-line dissenters (or those who are committed to quality article writing), though, your use of self-abasement is quite correct. ]] 21:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I understood what you meant, I was just adding my personal spin. The only effect this ongoing hate campaign has on me though is to make me more and more selfish, less inclined to help anyone with anything. Whether or not that's a good thing I'll leave for others to judge. Those such as ] ought to reflect on the example of ], another admin who came to grief on the rocks of trying to ban Malleus. ] ] 22:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	== You have been mentioned ==

	on ] and ]. ] (]) 09:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Presumably you're another Mattisse sock? ] ] 11:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::"Uninvolved" is one of the greatest fictions here...right up there with "community" and "consensus." Oh...and the ever-popular AGF. ]] 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Help please ==

	An interesting experiment. ] is a subpage I have created to solve a specific problem. I wish the same synch'ed list of mills to be used on ] and on ] then probably ], ]. The //no include// tag solves some of the first obvious problems-- but now the bots are unhappy- they appear not to recognise transclusion. So is this the way you would tackle the problem? Any tips for bot-popping! Any comments? -- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span> (])</span> 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:It is not a subpage; the software does not allow for sub-pages in the mainspace. What do you want the bots to do? Since it is classed as a normal article all the ant-vandal/formatting/general fix bots should be working.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]\|]</span></span> 17:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::That is why I ask. But the bots however are not recognising transclusion, and missing the need to write within the //noinclude// tags. That is understandable but does ignore a basic tenet of programming, that you test first before writing. If we investigate the other route of moving to mainspace- then transcluding, there is one bot that will still tag the article as an orphan.-- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span> (])</span> 01:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	:What's the problem you created that page to address? ] ] 18:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::The problem is we cannot transclude sub-sections, and unless told otherwise, the list in the subsection would not be notable enough for mainspace. To my mind this will clutter mainspace. If we do decide to make each sub-section a mainspace article what do we call it ] perhaps, ] or just ]?-- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span> (])</span> 01:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Wouldn't the sensible thing be to put it in the template space? ] or some such. That way it can be transcluded across and matches how we handle say, navigation templates. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::That seems to me to be the right way to go as well. ] ] 14:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::The deed is done! Do I '''need''' to include anything else in the template page- for example documentation- or remove anything that I have left in the noincludes? (Spelling mistakes and bad grammar excluded ) -- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span> (])</span> 10:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::It certainly transcludes OK now, but I'm not sure why you've got that <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> section at all, as presumably this template is designed to be transcluded into articles that will have their own References and External links sections? So why have them in this template? ] ] 11:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Thanks ==

	Many thanks for your very helpful and rapid review of ]. Very much appreciated.--<span style="font-family:Black Chancery;text:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">''']''' (]) 08:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Wow--excellent work from all involved. Thank you on behalf of our readers. Also, now I want to move to Scotland even more, and live in a ] kind of place. ] (]) 16:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
	**You could hire a local builder to duplicate ] there in Alabama. ] ] 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

	== WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre ==

	{\|{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Shell\|introduction=Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and '''are not''' part of ] (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

	So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

	*'''Recruiters:''' The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet ]. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre ''will not'' open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read ] and add your name to the ]. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the ] is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".

	*'''Co-Director:''' The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact ].

	*'' '''Nominators, please read this:''' '' If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of ]. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

	If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ]. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

	''A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.''--] (]

	<small>This message was sent out by --] (]) 15:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)</small>
	}}\|}
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0544 -->

	== Uruguayan War ==

	Malleus, you stopped copyediting ] on "Brazilian ultimatum" section. Do you plan to finish it? Or is it done already? --] (]) 22:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I got distracted. When are you hoping to take it back to FAC?
	::] --] (]) 22:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I don't think it would be proper for me to offer an opinion at FAC on the article now, but I think it deserves to be promoted and I wish you luck with it. Having said that, if the review stalls then I will offer my vote rather than see the article archived. ] ] 22:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Uruguay Avenger ==

	You removed the item about Uruguay built Hillman Avengers, marking it up as an "unlikely tale". Well however unlikely you might think it is, I'm afraid it is absolutely the case. I've been informed of this by writers from Uruguay, and this archived page also refers to it:
	http://web.archive.org/web/20091024015756/http://geocities.com/autosuruguayos/dodge1500pup.html
	"To make matters worse, its structure (freestanding), lost all the stiffness necessary to cut and modified the rear. Not having a chassis, which bear the burden, after a few days literally bent in half, earning him the nickname "honeymoon", and that lasted 15 days ..."
	The problem was that the Avenger (as per a few other vehicles of the time such as the MKi Ford Capri" gained part of the vehicle stiffness from the pre-stressed roof. Clearly this was lost in a pickup variant. So when loaded as a pickup truck, the vehicles literally collapsed.

	Can you therefore undo that change in isolation, other edits you have made I dare say are fine, I've not checked through them.

	Regards,

	Colin <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:If you want to restore that information, properly sourced, then please feel free. ] ] 16:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

	== GA reviews ==

	Goodness knows. Perhaps there's a feeling that all must have prizes, or that no article is unsalvegable, so reviews are dragged out as the horse is redesigned by a committee rather than have a clear, failing review at the outset. I haven't reviewed GAs for a while (heck, I've not done anything for a while, as I've ] keeping another part of the show on the road, but that's another story...) so I don't have a real feel for the current approach, and I've always tended to review in my comfort zone. I also tend to write well within my comfort zone, as my collection of Anglesey churches shows! Thanks for the review, of course. ]] 00:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I've sometimes thought that I ought to restrict myself to a narrow area such as Anglesey churches. There's a definite endpoint there, so I can see the attraction. ] ] 00:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

	::Speaking of which, I want to put up ] for GA, but I'd kill for a thorough review before doing so. We just added the stuff on the Belmont, so the Triple Crown rush is done and the article is apt to be stable now (pun intended) for a couple months until the summer handicaps, which will probably add relatively little until the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

	== V ==

	Dude, I'm watching ''V for Vendetta'', and I don't know if you ever noticed, but that's like totally happening on ]. You should, like, totally add that to the article. They even wear masks, man. ] (]) 02:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
	:What a good idea! ] ] 10:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Promotions ==

	Being rather preoccupied yesterday, I did not notice until today that the Sharpe and Paley list had made it; I had expected it would need more supports. Thanks for your help in getting it there. I see you have also done some work on E. G. Paley; thanks for that, too. Because of some impending family events, I shall not be nominating it before the end of the month. You asked if FLC is becoming more challenging. Maybe; I have noticed that if I nominate a list with a previously successful formula, often it is criticised and "improvements" are demanded. Indeed, looking back at some of my earlier successful nominations, the later ones are certainly "better" than the earlier ones. Maybe it's a sort of evolution. --] (]) 14:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
	:FA and FLC certainly evolve. If I look at my earliest nominations I'm rather ashamed at what I read, the standards were actually quite a bit lower than they are now. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

	== EC ==

	Fixing my edit conflict with you on Oxbow, will be done in a sec. Then feel free to dive back in, I also left talk page replies. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Phineas Gage "Good Article" review ==

	Having make ten or more edits to the article on Phineas Gage, or commented on its Talk in the last two years, perhaps you will be interested in the ] currently underway. I am particularly interested in gathering broader opinion on the following comment by the reviewer: "Many sentences are much too long for easy reading and to my mind overuse complicated constructions ... I will very strongly recommend a copy edit with ease of reading in mind, breaking up complex sentences and disentwining some of the flowery language."
	] (]) 22:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Ah yes, I remember, the guy with the steel bar through his head. I think your reviewer is right, particularly about the first two paragraphs of the lead; they do really need to be rewritten/broken up. Would you like me to have a go? ] ] 22:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
	:... I've gone ahead and done it anyway. ] ] 14:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Incorrect Bibliographic Information ==

	Please stop reverting the correction of references on the Repton Abbey article.

	As it is all the information is correctly referenced to the source from whence it has came. Removing referenced and incorrectly citing items as references, when they do not contain that information, is doing no one any favours.

	] (]) 00:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

	:You are clearly rather hard of understanding, and have no idea what you're talking about, or how to write a decent article. How many edits have I made to your rather poor article today? ] ] 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Anglesey churches (2) ==

	Thanks for your three recent GA reviews. At some point, would you mind casting your eye over ]? It's the longest I think of my Anglesey church series - ironic given that it was part-demolished in the 19th century - and I think it's worth taking a shot at FAC with it at some point. An EC copyedit would work wonders, I'm sure. No rush, and no obligation, of course. ]] 13:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Sure, but I'm probably not going to be around much now until Monday. ] ] 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
	::No problem - neither will I! ]] 14:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

	:OK, done now. Good luck at FAC. ] ] 18:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	== ]... ==

	Looks like John's done with it, you ready to take a twirl over it and whack a lot of commas? ] - ] 15:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Will do, but maybe not until tomorrow. Just got back from a weekend break. ] ] 20:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

	:: Hope you enjoyed your holiday! I need to address a comment or two that Iri left on my talk page, but it shouldn't affect much of the article. ] - ] 20:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Comma purging now done. ] ] 15:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	:: Think we're good now? If so, and if John's happy, I'm leaning towards FAC shortly. I'm sorry I don't have more to offer you on Mount Vernon... but I've never been a big student of American history. (I think it's the old "familiarity breeds contempt" thing... I got force-fed it so much in school that it never interested me...) ] - ] 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	: Okay, other than the brain fart of totally unciting one of the explanatory footnotes (Blargh, that was a big oversight!), I think we're ready. How's Mount Vernon looking? ] - ] 19:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

	::I think we're about as good as we're going to get with the conquest, so FAC sounds like a plan. I haven't looked at Mount Vernon again yet, been a little diverted with ''The Coral Island'' and a few other things, such as SandyGeorgia being blocked earlier today. ] ] 20:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

	::: Yeah, I saw that. I took a break this afternoon and went to see ] and bled off some stress. Back to the trenches tomorrow! ] - ] 02:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

	== One more short copyedit ==

	Added some stuff to ] and did some rephrasing. Can you verify that it's still in comprehensible English? Hey Ealdgyth-- you may want tolook at this too, you do more racehorse biographies than I do. I'm going to be putting this up for GA or FA in the next day or two, I think. Welcome comments. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Ping ping! Another reviewer has made some editing suggestions, I'm too bleary-eyed at the article to make some of the judgement calls, so could you pop over and look at what The Rambling Man has suggested at talk? The wordsmithing stuff is where I could use fresher eyes. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

	::Take my comments with a pinch of salt. I'm notable for not being able to contribute to prose. ] (]) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::No, I have comments from SOMEONE ELSE, who is acting in good faith with useful thoughts, but I'm too bleary-eyed at looking at the article to have any sense of what to fix or not. But to save you time, just read the lead and the "pedigree" sections and edit away or comment if I lapsed into gibberish. I also asked Ealdgyth to look at the pedigree stuff. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

	:I left a few comments for you on the article's talk page. ] ] 14:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

	::Got them. I think all are now addressed. Take a peek. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::Looks good. I think Oxbow is good to go now. ] ] 13:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Getting close, friend ==

	I was gone last week, and a bit afraid to mess with it as it is so close. Didn't want you to think I was being lazy, but I've been more afraid of screwing it up this late in the game. I did address a couple of issues, but off to bed now. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 02:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

	:No worries Dennis. Time will tell how close it is, but fingers crossed. ] ] 15:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	::You've had an odd effect on me, Eric. Every time I see a comment that has a lot of superfluous commas, I assume they are an American. I have reduced my comma usage by half since working with you. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 00:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::So it's not been all bad then. My assumption is that whenever anyone uses the word "gotten" they're either from America or Norfolk. It seems to me that American schools teach kids to slavishly insert commas after every clause, whereas I was taught "if in doubt, leave it out". ] ] 00:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::It is ironic that this is the exact rule I'm trying to work under without realizing it. See, I almost put a comma after "under". ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 00:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::And you made me go Google "gotten", as that is a new one for me. I learnt/ed a couple of new things today. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 00:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Who else... ==

	well, queens, emperors, empresses, czars, shahs, popes.... I think some ruling princes have been also. ] - ] 19:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	: Oh, the Sultan of Brunei also.] - ] 19:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Fair enough, but in this case I don't think there's any ambiguity? ] ] 19:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Ealdgyth, you beat me to it! (I was just logging on to say the same thing...) :) ] (]) 19:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::{{ec}} In the context of the Normans, it isn't as obvious as it seems to the modern eye. After Stephen and Matilda, Anglo-Norman/Angevin custom was to hold the coronation of a successor while the reigning monarch was still alive (to make it obvious to all who the chosen successor was, and prevent a repeat of the civil war that followed the death of Henry I with no confirmed successor). I can easily imagine someone aware of this practice, but not aware of when it started, taking it to mean that William's coronation was just to anoint him as the successor to Edgar the Aetheling as-and-when Edgar died, not to crown him king on the spot. – ] 19:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::That's me put in my place then. Whatever Ealdgyth thinks is fine with me; I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone I'd be less likely to edit war with than her. Apart from you maybe. ] ] 20:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Although the hypothetical reader who is aware of the (dare I say "obscure"?) Anglo-Norman/Angevin custom of crowning successors but who is ''not'' aware that William was crowned king rather than the Aethling's successor would be exceptionally well-read and exceptionally poorly read at the same time, surely? ]] 20:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: The Angevins (the Anglo-Normans sorta end with Stephen (The "Norman dynasty" is really a misnomer ... and no one is really sure what to do with Stephen .. .he gets lumped in with the Normans, but strictly speaking he should be his own dynasty. But then, Stephen's always been a problem child) so it's not good to say they had that custom - their custom on the succession was "sprint to Winchester to seize the treasury") borrowed the idea from the Capetians, who did it for a very long time - 200 or 300 years. The Angevins only did it once, and it didn't really work so well - see ]. (Richard I was on the outs with his dad, John had to get rid of Arthur, Henry III was too young to have been crowned, and by the time of Edward I, the Capetians had pretty much quit doing it, so there wasn't much point in it. And Edward had a very secure succession - he was actually on Crusade when he became king, and he was so unworried about it that he stayed a while longer...). But, some folks might not be clear if William wasn't crowned something else... better to be specific. ] - ] 20:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::{{ec}} You could dare say obscure, but you'd be wrong. This originated with the Anglo-Normans and Angevins, but so did the British monarchy; this is still the practice today. The difference is that since 1301 the heir is crowned Prince of Wales, not Crown Prince of England—they still ]. – ] 20:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

	:: I realize you've been busy terrorizing poor unsuspecting editors at GANs and stuff (my tongue is very FIRMLY in cheek - your GA reviews are excellent and I'm not sure why that article blew up in your face...) but surely I didn't do so well that you only had that few issues with the poor NC article. I really doubt that I didn't manage to strew commas liberally .... ] - ] 00:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::As you say, I've been busy terrorising unsuspecting GA nominators, allegedly, so I haven't yet finished with your opus. I'm amazed you even want me to continue with it given my reputation. I sense that my reviewing style is not the Misplaced Pages way, so I may restrict myself to commenting on FAs in the future. ] ] 00:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::: I'm not easy to scare off. I kinda like your crumudgeonly persona. I'm trying to summon energy to figure out what the big "push" is next. I should do Battle of Hastings, but I'm feeling like working on a bad boy cleric instead... just to pick the cleric... Do I wanna work on the first guy to escape from the Tower or the wanna-be abbot of Evesham that was accused of all those nasty crimes by his monks? ] - ] 00:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::::I don't understand this "curmudgeonly" thing. You ask me a question, I tell you what I think. What's curmudgeonly about that? If you might be offended by my reply then why ask me? ] ] 01:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::<small>{{TPS}} Poor uncle Eric. Weren't you a bit of a mod once? ] Who would have thunk it? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)</small>

	:::::Flambard’s definitely the way to go. He was a son of a bitch, but his life is an interesting story. He got his guards drunk so he could climb out of the window, but the rope which had been smuggled into the Tower was too short so Flambard had to jump the last bit and portly bishop nearly broke his ankles.
	:::::Speaking of which, the article describes the story as a "popular legend". Orderic Vitalis may be embellishing things, but the details that Flambard was held in a room where the window had a dividing pillar rings true. That would have been one of the high status rooms, befitting the bishop's status. It might be more neutral to say "According to Orderic Vitalis..." than "popular legend", a term which was in the of the article. What do you reckon? ] (]) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	== AWB ==

	I've updated the AWB checkpage with your current username. ] 22:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Thanks, but I'm running Ubuntu and I just can't get it to work under either Wine or Crossover for some reason, so I've given up on it. ] ] 22:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Quote from ]: ''"functions reasonably well under Wine on Linux"''. Sounds like your system and AWB have decided to be unreasonable. ] 22:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::It appeared to work ok in the various versions of Ubuntu that I have used ''but'' I couldn't make much sense of how to use the tool itself. If you are keen to try AWB then it is simple enough to set up a virtual clean install Ubuntu machine inside your workaday version and try it from there. Me? I wouldn't boher: I'm sure that it is great stuff but there are far more problematic issues with articles on this project than whether X should by removed from Y category or the interminable dash and date debates. - ] (]) 23:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I used AWB under Windows for quite a while, and it even worked OK under Ubuntu until relatively recently, so I know how it works and what you can do with it. I suspect the root problem lies somewhere in the different versions of .NET, but there's no way I'm going to go to the trouble of setting up another virtual machine just for AWB. As you say, a lot of trouble for what? ] ] 23:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hmmmm, now I am but I wonder if it is enough...I hate it when there is alot of trimming of redundancies to do as the more I read teh more I become familiar and hence miss some bits. Question is, with a couple of text buffers, is this ] of FA-level prose....] (] '''·''' ]) 08:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Within shouting distance certainly, but it obviously needs some more work on the prose. There's this in the second sentence of the lead for instance: "... it is has a population of 6.8 million in 2011 with a metropolitan population of 7.75 million". While local government seems to be pretty comprehensively covered I don't see anything about Hyderabad's relationship with national government. But with a little bit of work and attention to detail I could see this getting through FAC in the not too distant future. ] ] 13:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Whoops, that was partly me :P ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	===Update===
	I'd be intrigued if you scanned it and see how many prose issues I missed....] (] '''·''' ]) 08:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	== 3RR at Phineas Gage yada yada. ==

	Please selfrevert your 4th revert, or I will have to report you.] 21:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Go ahead and report me if that'll make you happy, I really couldn't care less. You and your tag-teaming friend are simply wrong. Live with it. ] ] 22:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I didn't think so. I am ok with being wrong. Could be worse. I could be a flaming asshole.] 22:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::For cases of ], I strongly recommend a good dose of ]. And Eric, correct or not, please try to avoid giving people ''valid'' reasons to block you, just in case an antipathic admin gets tempted. I don't think anyone wants to go through the inevitably ensuing drama. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 22:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I don't need to give admins reasons to block me, they invent their own when it suits them. ] ] 22:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Still, please try to force them to continue inventing reasons. Four reverts in a day isn't an "invented reason". There's a difference between not backing off and giving others ''valid'' (stress on valid, not good) reasons to block you. If you're blocked for a seemingly ''valid'' reason to ensuing drama will no doubt prove far more wasteful of everyone's time than if you're blocked for other stupid non-reasons; force others to be blatantly wrong by not giving them any chance to appear justified in their actions against you. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 22:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Well, on the basis that blocks are meant to preventative rather than punitive – which nobody in full possession of their faculties could ever believe – I've no intention of reverting the "et al" nonsense again. What I will promise though is that if certain editors don't get their arses in gear this article will find itself itself at GAR if it's listed in its current state. ] ] 22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I'll admit to basically knowing little of the actual dispute, but I think if a whole GAN hinges on whether "et al" is italicized or not, something's wrong. GAN ≠ FAC and minor MOS-related details aren't generally meant to be pass-or-fail criterias for GAs. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 22:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::And I'd agree with you, but it doesn't. This is just the latest kerfuffle. ] ] 22:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::And all of the kerfluffle has been about you and John trying to show off your superior MOS knowledge while pissing all over the expert editor who wrote the excellent article. ] 22:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::In your opinion, not in fact. ] ] 22:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Since when is it a bad thing to passionately try to use your "superior knowledge" to improve the work of another editor? Isn't that the whole point of the fucking project? Someone writes an article on a subject he enjoys and/or knows a lot about and does a pretty solid job of it; then other editors with other skills help out by ironing out minor details (like MOS-related issues). I sure know I'd love to have people like John or Eric use their MOS knowledge to improve an article I poured so much time into in order to make it even more perfect. <small>If I actually wrote articles.</small> <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Using superior knowledge is fine. Bludgeoning others with it is not.] 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::So you've got a problem with the "attitude"; why the hell were you reverting the edits? <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 23:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Because I happened to be reviewing the article in a collegial and collaborative way before John and Eric came along. And the reverts by Eric were based on flimsy reasoning and grand standing. And yes his antagonistic attitude pissed me off too.] 00:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::You're not welcome here Maunus, and I think you're a dishonest idiot. Now fuck off. ] ] 00:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Great minds think alike ==

	] Pesky edit conflicts. MoS is not something I would ever challenge you on; although didn't I once get you on something to do with date ranges? I forget which article it was on... It isn't worth edit-warring over though, even though you are totally right on this one. --] (]) 22:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Quite possibly you did, although it might have been image placement under section headings, I can't remember either. The MoS changes silently and is self-contradictory in many places, as it is in this case in fact. But I know I'm right, and when I know I'm right I don't back off. It's not the Misplaced Pages way I know, but then I've never been a Wikipedian, as you may recall. I simply don't understand the attitude on display here. Why would any editor not want their article to be the best it possibly could? ] ] 22:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	::It's a shame to say but this looks like ] to me. I have backed off to see what'll happen; it isn't the end of the world if that article doesn't make it. --] (]) 22:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::I don't really know what it is, but if the article is listed in its current state I'll likely be taking it to GAR. ] ] 22:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::You probably should stick to FA reviews, you are very clearly not able familiar with how GA is supposed to function. It is supposed to be a collegial experience in which the article is improved colloabioratively not the Spanish Inquisition. If you folks start turning GA which has hitherto fore been reasonable collegial and helpful review form for the most part into a minihell modeled on the FA process Misplaced Pages goes down the drain. No volunteer editors will be willing to be pissed on like that for a measly green plus sign.] 22:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Your opinion is of such supreme indifference to me that I wonder why you took the trouble to post it here. I've done more GA reviews than you've had hot dinners, and unlike you I'm quite familiar with the GA criteria. ] ] 22:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::(edit conflict) Yeh, Eric, what on earth do you know about GA standards after a mere 255 GA reviews and 321 GAs checked during the Sweeps, not to mention the dozens of articles you have improved to GA status? Oh... ]] 22:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Nothing at all, obviously. ] ] 22:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::That is 255 nominators I feel very sorry for. You may know something about MOS, but you know very little about how to keep editors contributing their volunteer work and time to this project.] 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Maunus, I have every confidence in Eric's ability to work with other people. On occasion I have asked if he would review the article of someone new to the GA process precisely for that reason. I have never once regretted doing so, and considered making the request again recently (in the end someone else made the review). ] (]) 17:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::{{edit conflict}} I think you ought to very seriously reconsider that comment Maunus. ''Very'' seriously. ] ] 23:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Oh? Why? Or you will take my GAs to GAR? Go ahead.] 23:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::You're behaving like a child, just stop it. ] ] 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I am pretty agitated I must admit. But I think I have a good reason. This is about the future of Misplaced Pages - if there isn't a way for editors to write articles and get them in reasonable shape and get some kind of collegial recognition for their time spent without first being dragged through your MOS fueled version of Chinese water torture then this project has none. I for one have certainly reviewed and written my last GA if this is the new standard of review.] 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I don't believe you're thinking at all, so let's continue this tomorrow when you've cooled down. ] ] 23:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::::::::As a nominator of about a dozen of those 255 articles, I couldn't disagree more with you. ]] 23:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Did you ever feel discouraged by my comments during those reviews? ] ] 23:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Not at all. When I spot that you've signed up to review one of my articles, I know that the article will be all the better for your editing and questions. ]] 23:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::Hell, I've been asking for assessment BEFORE a GA or FAC because once Corbett has reviewed it, I'm pretty much immunized from inept troll reviewers and usually attract folks who know what they are doing! ]<sup>]</sup> 16:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::Ditto. ]] 17:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Maunus, you can deduct me from the "That is 255 nominators I feel very sorry for" also, Eric has reviewed some of mine and it was a pleasant experience. In fact, I said as much on this talk page when one completed. <small>And it should be italicised.</small> - ] (]) 23:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::We live a time when criticism, especially here on Misplaced Pages, is considered to be a personal attack, which is at the root of this nonsense. Yet without criticism we can't improve. I've always found reviewing to be difficult and time consuming, yet I did it because I believed in GA/FA, not necessarily in Misplaced Pages if you get my drift. If the attitudes of those such as Maunus become prevalent here it will be no place for me. ] ] 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Criticism and egotistical grand standing are two different things. Most people can handle criticism just fine when offered in a collegial spirit. Most adults don't enjoy being lectured by a selfestablished schoolmaster. If your attitude weren't already prevalent here, we'd be gaining new editors, retaining expert editors and creating more high quality content at a much higher rate. Perhaps we'd have less perfect italics, but I'd be able to live with that.] 00:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::I think I've given you enough chances to demonstrate that you're a rational adult, so please don't post here again. ] ] 00:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}And again! I'm immortalizing that one! ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Glad you liked it. I'm occasionally reminded of the story of the football match played between two primary school teams. At half time one was losing 9-0, so the match was abandoned to avoid further humiliation to the losers. But if I'd been their coach I'd have tried to put some fire in their bellies and go out in the second half to win 10–9. I guess I'm just out of step with how things are supposed to work today. ] ] 16:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

	Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.

	You're supposed to be better than this. Kindly demonstrate it. ] (]) 23:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	:I don't see a discussion, just more of your demands to have me blocked. ] ] 23:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Hyperactive friar ==

	], since young he has always distinguished himself from his pears. I tried editing the trashpile, but it's too brain-mangeing. ] (]) 12:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	:"Trashpile" is about right. The whole thing needs rewriting, preferably in English next time. ] ] 13:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I tried a bit myself. Then I saw the notes. I'm not sure we have enough tags to cover this. ] (]) 17:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)<br /><br />

	::Hey guys. I'm a multilingual speaker and red some of the articles linked to this "personage". Undoubtedly his hyperactive life generates confusions but no doubt leaves an intriguing test above all for his campaigning against priests pedophilia. Absolutely brain-mangeing but if someone has time to go deep and through the articles about his life, may be something interesting could be made out of it by a competent English writing user. Yeah the problem seems only be the conversion of thoughts from Italian to English. You guys are great editors so you should find a way to tell the personage religious experience washed up as though poor online-sourced, his story is well recounted by the available sources linked to the article itself and all the information about it are there concentrated, above all on the link "Gabriele Bojano (September 25, 2011). "FROM MONKHOOD TO CRIMINOLOGY. THE THOUSAND FACES OF ANGELO A TORIELLO." (in Italian). Cronache del Mezzogiorno (Corriere della Sera group) (Italy)". If this said: "''Besides many life's experiences, Toriello is a former “showman”, having rubbed shoulders with some Italian and International artists, and a Franciscan Friar with the religious name of Friar Emanuel, who in late 1996 exposed catholic priests as paedophiles, marking the point of his social activism peregrination, although since he was young he has always been involved in volunteering activitie'''''Bold text'''s", you should also let be written the religious experience in more details and of course in cleaned up way and English language, but user Drmies should not just omit it, as if the source is valid for this introduction, the same source should be valid for a deeper content. Yes just the right way to be written has to be monitored.

	:::Just had a cursory read of ] which also exhibits (but not to the same degree) the defects of the Toriello article. For instance "On 9 May 1978 Moro's corpse was found...after 55 days of imprisonment, during which Moro was '''submitted to a political process''' and the Italian government was asked for an exchange of prisoners"- and the rest of the article gives an impression that Italian "political speak" is allusory and full of circumlocatory phrases. To paraphrase an English writer on the ] (can't remember his name) you've read three pages of the newspaper article and you still don't know what the fuck they're going on about. So Toriello is a former "showman"- what was he? A carnival barker, an Italian Bruce Forsyth, a flasher? ] (]) 08:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

	::::Hey again. Forget about what he is and what. As much he has been or he is a "news subject" which could be of some interest for the public and follows wikipedia guidelines what we care about. I think users and above all expert editors like you mission is to edit over the top contents to restrain them to wikipedia guidelines preserving form, tone, neutrality, grammar, rubbish and from vandalism as well. That's all!. Rest we should leave to the press and be neutral about the subjects as much as sources are verifiable and reliable. This guy may be hyperactive, eccentric or whatever...I think we are not his judges of what he does and how many things he does! We should just stick to our best motive to expand and edits contents in such a way to preserve Misplaced Pages from rubbish. I have seen user Ning-Ning doing a great editing job and in the end that is what matters, above all keeping in consideration the Italian format of writing which pumps up contents. though not expert I can try editing the content with the help of you guys after seen user DrKlain asking help. I would appreciate user Ning-Ning feed back. Thanks guys. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== A barnstar for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Teamwork Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Thank you for the help achieving my first FA, ]. You deserve the bulk of credit but I am grateful to have been ]. Working with you over the last few months has been very rewarding and educational, hopefully for both of us, and I want you to know I sincerely appreciate your efforts in showing me the ropes for GA and FA. I hope to use those lessons to be a better editor and more empathetic admin. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 16:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	\|}

	:You know, I'm feeling childishly pleased with that, and I probably wouldn't have been so bold as to go straight to FAC without you. So it's credit to both of us. ] ] 16:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Well, you aren't alone in the childish delight. I would not have gone to FA without you either, that is certain. This is why I thought the teamwork barnstar was apropos as it was well earned. I still have a long way to go, but this FA is a nice milestone. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 16:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Whoa, you guys/gals did it! Great work! Well done, Dennis. Now ] awaits you. ] (]) 17:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:We'll be up next Drmies. ] ] 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*::I notice someone move protected it, in anticipation for TFA. Guess I need to read up on submitting for that. I think it is a perfect candidate for the front page, which has always been lacking in automotive muscle. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 20:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:::It's going to appear on the main page on 12 July, no need for you to do anything. ] ] 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*::::Wow, how did that happen?? ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 20:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:::::Ask ]. ] ] 20:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*::::::That is beyond cool. We need to contemplate a new project to piddle with, not so much with a fixed end goal of GA or FA, just something fun to work on an let it take ''us'' for the ride, and see how far we can take it. Just like with the Tiger, we really had no idea if we could make it a GA when we started, but that worked out pretty well. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:::::::To be honest, when we started out with the Tiger I was dubious we could even get it to GA, sources seemed so thin on the ground. But I'm up for another ride. ] ] 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*::::::::Enjoy this ride and more! Feel free to share ] ;) --] (]) 21:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:::::::::Maybe you haven't been keeping up Gerda. Apparently I scare away new nominators at GA and I'm unable to collaborate. ] ] 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*::::::::::Define "apparently" ;) - You helped me with ] and us with ], and I would still like you to have a look at the ] GA nom, for the experience, --] (]) 22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:::::::::::OK, you asked for it! ] ] 22:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*::::::::::::Too late, taken, --] (]) 12:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}} Is that why we skipped GA and went to FA? I can dress you up, but I can't take you anywhere, Eric. ;-) I think a lot of people simply misunderstand you. You give direct, concise advice and some people some how take it offensive, then they react, which creates a spiral. I honestly think some of it starts off as good faith misunderstanding and is followed by everyone digging in. I'm usually pretty good at taking (or giving) criticism, so I don't have an issue with it. Not everyone is as comfortable with that. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 21:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	:GA would have taken ages, and I knew we were good enough for FA, give or take. I'm trying to encourage Montanabw to take her ] article straight to FAC as well, but she doesn't seem to have our courage. Ealdgyth is to my mind a model nominator; she never gets upset when her prose is "fixed", except if the meaning is altered or citations misplaced ... it really is my impression that WP's female editors tend to gravitate towards the higher quality end of the scale. If there really is a gender gap, that's a good enough reason to try and plug it, not some PC hand-waving. ] ] 22:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I completely believe that women are generally more cooperative and collaborative than men by nature, and that may very well lead to better articles. Misplaced Pages would undoubtedly be a better place with an even gender ratio. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 22:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::While I vote for an even gender ratio, I cannot enshrine my own gender, and as for collaboration, I have to say that in my quest for quality control, I have been accused of WP:OWN so many times that I've just, um, owned it. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

	::::I think there are a lot more women here than the headline stats suggest, as I recently said elsewhere. I completely understand anyone choosing not to reveal their gender, but my own experience is that in the editors I've worked with the gender ratio is about 50:50.

	:::::I also think that people will simply be people regardless of gender. Some of the nastiest, least collaborative people I've met have been women. It may also be worth considering what areas draw large clusters of articles, and then looking at what sort of people tend to follow or support those areas. If you follow the supposition that most video gamers, for example, are male, then it also stands to reason that most article writers in that area would be male. Same can be said for sports. Both areas seem to be fairly combative (at least that's my impression). Everyone's mileage will vary, of course, but I've found MilHist pretty agreeable, and most of them are male. It could simply be that the more academic or "high brow" topic areas attract editors that are more accustomed to working with others, and if those areas are in turn frequented by editors who happen to be female, it would tend to create the impression that Dennis commented on. So for the TL/DR version - I think topic rather than gender is the driver behind a collaborative atmosphere (or lack thereof). ]] 13:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::While I try to celebrate the differences in men and women, Brits and yanks, I try to not stereotype. This all reminded me of a story I heard a long time ago, and I finally put it on a page here just now. A little parable about bias that I've always enjoyed and found useful at cocktail parties. ] ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 14:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: (to Into) ... "It could simply be that the more academic or "high brow" topic areas attract editors that are more accustomed to working with others" ... ROFL. You obviously have never been seriously involved in actual academia. True academics (as in university profs) are so not amenable to actual collegiate working together (unless there is an obvious benefit to them...) that it's not even funny... sometimes I wonder if that's one reason so much of Misplaced Pages's original editors wanted to avoid attracting actual academics. (And Eric ... me? Model nominator??? (snickers) You just can't see what I do BEFORE I start typing replies to folks... ) ] - ] 23:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: Sorry I missed this earlier. I have actually been involved in academia. Still am, actually (as in the university prof variety). I also said "accustomed to," which doesn't necessarily mean "good at" working with other people. In fact they quite often are not especially good at it. Horrid in many cases, as you pointed out. It's a festering mess in its own way, but I'd also contend that you need at least some of them to catch the major content errors wandering around in the history stuff. ]] 20:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Main Page appearance: Sunbeam Tiger ==

	This is a note to let the main editors of ] know that the article will be appearing as ] on July 12, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director {{user\|Raul654}} or one of his delegates ({{user\|Dabomb87}}, {{user\|Gimmetoo}}, and {{user\|Bencherlite}}), or start a discussion at ]. You can view the TFA blurb at ]. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at ]. The blurb as it stands now is below:

	<blockquote>
	<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;">]</div>
	The ''']''' is a high-performance ] version of the British ]'s ] ], designed in part by American car designer and racing driver ]. Shelby had carried out a similar V8 conversion on the ], and hoped to win the contract to produce the Tiger at his facility in America. Rootes decided instead to contract the assembly work to ] at ] in England, and pay Shelby a ] on every car produced. Two major versions were built: the Series I (1964–67) was fitted with the {{convert\|260\|cuin\|L\|1\|abbr=on}} ]; the Series II, of which only 633 were built, was fitted with the larger Ford {{convert\|289\|cuin\|L\|1\|abbr=on}} engine. Two ] and extensively modified versions of the Series I competed in the ], fitted with the larger engine, but neither completed the race. For two years the Tiger was the ]'s national record holder over a quarter-mile ]. Production ended in 1967 soon after the Rootes Group was taken over by ], who did not have a suitable engine to replace the Ford V8. Owing to the ease and affordability of modifying the Tiger, there are few surviving cars in standard form. {{TFAFULL\|Sunbeam Tiger}}
	</blockquote>
	] (]) 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{clear}}

	*I'm grinning like an idiot. :D ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 23:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:Getting a car article through FAC, or indeed any article, is no mean achievement, so you're entitled to a grin or two. ] ] 23:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*To get an article through FAC and on to TFA in such short order, especially without a wait at GA, is quite something. I can't buy Dennis a beer but Eric will drink two in recompense when we next meet. - ] (]) 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*:Quite likely a few more than that, although not at your expense. I don't know why it is that some people don't trust my judgement when it comes to articles. I'd be the first to admit that I'd be a piss-poor diplomat, but I thought we were trying to build an encyclopedia, not some new-age utopia. ] ] 23:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*::I'll drink to that statement. Cheers! <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 00:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*::Maybe that is why we work well together Eric. I'm a better diplomat than author, and neither tries to pretend to be the other. Between the two of us, we make at least ONE fairly diplomatic author. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 00:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*:::What I don't understand are these continual allegations that I'm unable to collaborate, therefore not a Wikipedian and so on. Recent accusations that any nominator of an article I review is a poor unfortunate victim of my vengeance also puzzle me. I've always taken reviewing very seriously, and I've never used it as a weapon, yet others feel free to throw all the work I've done in my face as being worthless. But it's apparently OK to try and humiliate me because I'm Malevolent Fatuous, whereas I get blocked for using the word sycophantic. It's a strange world here in Wikiland. ] ] 05:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	== A photo for you ==

	], and a ].]]

	Hello Eric,

	I was thinking of your work on this article when I was at a classic and antique car show in ] with my wife and son the other day. This may not be the best photo, but I hope you like it.

	Congratulations on your upcoming TFA. ] ] 23:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

	:That's a nice pic, thanks. I'm beginning to wonder why so many Tigers seem to be red. ] ] 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::It makes 'em go faster...(at least that's what Orks in Warhammer 40,000 AD would say)... ]] 13:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I am honored that you chose to add my photo to the article. Thank you.] ] 06:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	See ] for rules regarding using commas in numbers with more than three digits, as well as parentheses. As for the ], "''use the size specified in preferences for logged in users, and use a size determined by resolution for anonymous users.''" I.e., do not force a different size thumbnail. If you have any other problems please reply here. <span style="background:#007FFF;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 06:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Also, I don't much care for your tone ("try educating yourself, then come back"). <span style="background:#007FFF;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 06:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	::My tone seems to be consistent with yours. Also, see my "I don't give a fuck for your so-called rules if they're against common sense" here. ] ] 06:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::Excuse me, but I am just trying to apply the consistent formatting decided upon by a multitude of WP users. I personally would never use a comma and a space rather than writing 4719cc, but "4,719 cc" is what WP has agreed to. This is not my preference, but the goal is to have everyone here using a unified style. I have not accused you of being uneducated but only provided links supporting my edit, so my tone is nothing like yours. <span style="background:#007FFF;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 06:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think you are being too rigid in how you view the idea of "rules". The "policy" you linked isn't a policy, it is a page on a WikiProject. While I'm a fan of Wikiprojects, they have no more authority than an essay in user space. Since you agree that the comma is superfluous (as do I) then perhaps we would focus on the fact that all 3 of us agree and just call that a consensus. As to the larger images, the templates have the ability to do so, so it much be ok to do when appropropriate. If it really were such a hard and fast rule, that capability would have been deleted. Some of these photos are begging to be a bit bigger and since the goal is to make the article more engaging, not just to follow "rules", enlarging makes sense. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 11:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::::I think consistency is better than each individual choosing his/her style preferences. As for the picture size, it is so that individuals can choose their thumbnail setting preference individually, but I agree that for a wide and low picture such as that one a little wider would be better. As for the parentheses in the infobox there is a rule: ]. I would love to have WP agree to let us write engine sizes and engine speeds without the comma. In some countries you only use a breaker when there are five or more digits (e.g. 5000 and 50 000) which seems best to me, but again, it is not for us to decide here. I would love to partake in a conversation about this in a place where some change could be engineered, btw. <span style="background:#007FFF;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 16:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	Reply to what Choppers is about to ask here, since I need to go to lunch :)

	*I would have to have a link to that discussion before I ignored it, well, not really but a link would be handy. If someone disagrees and wants to make an issue of it, a full blown RfC, then it can be looked at then, but I see no reason to insert the comma at this point. ] seems to be soundly in agreement with me. If we all agree, then the best thing to do is move forward with that agreement. I will be happy to deal with someone who disagrees at that time. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 16:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	::In line two of my link above is spelled out, as an example of the chosen style: {{xt\|the Mississippi River is {{convert\|2320\|mi\|km\|0}} long}}; {{xt\|the Murray River is {{convert\|2375\|km\|mi\|0}} long}} - commas and all. Enjoy your lunch, I am making an omelet with peas. <span style="background:#007FFF;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 16:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Using the comma with 4 digits is optional in all things. I'm not persuaded by other articles on Misplaced Pages, which are more often wrong than right. If I were working on that article, I would have deleted the commas. If I'm not working on that article, then I will leave it by. I'm not dogmatic about things I'm not involved with. With cars, it makes no sense. It is the very definition of "superfluous" since ALL auto engines are going to be less than 10,000 cc, thus never need the comma. It makes it harder to read. If consistency was the "rule" that we had to follow, then MOS would not allow for both uses. I don't go around and enforce my interpretations on other articles, that isn't my style, but I will use my interpretation on articles I'm working on. That some fellows some time ago decided it needed a comma doesn't influence me. Let those fellows start an RfC or approach me. Since you, Eric and I agree that the comma is superfluous, that is all that is needed here for this one article. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 16:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::Oh wow! I guess I shouldn't have listened to my automobile project brethren: ], {{xt\|Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250)}}. I am going to take away all those stupid commas right now. The only problem is that conversion templates automatically add commas, which will lead to a wild mix of styles in all articles. <span style="background:#007FFF;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 16:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::We can fix them in time. There is no ], which is why I'm more concerned about the article I'm working on ''today''. That guideline is what we were talking about. In places with a lot of 5 digit numbers, I might be more inclined to use them as they match up better. Cars are not one of those topics. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 16:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::::yes, let's fix Bora right now but I also started a conversation ], please drop in an state your support for a change to this silly policy. I've also started a conversation at ], which will hopefully lead to some better code, at least for engine sizes as that is where it is most likely to affect us. Cheers, <span style="background:#007FFF;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 17:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Tiger II ==

	Also pinging ]. First congratulations to you both on a ]. I was reading through it once more (my last read through was shortly before you started the FA process) and noticed something. It's nothing I'm complaining about, simply that I noticed it. First I'll preface my comment by saying that I do have a reference script installed in one of my .css or .js files which does cause me to see this, so it's nothing that the normal reader would ever notice. In reference item #15 I see:
	* ^ Shelby (1965), p. 218 '''Harv error: link from #CITEREFShelby1965 doesn't point to any citation.'''
	and in Bibliography:
	* Shelby, Carroll; Bentley, John (1965), The Cobra Story, Trident Press '''Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFShelbyBentley1965.'''
	I'm likely seeing that due to the script from:
	importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
	which I have in my monobook.js file. Which causes a big bold red "Harv error" to appear in references. While I've had a "poke and hope" go at {{tl\|sfn}} in the past, I'm by no means proficient in it or even familiar with {{tl\|sfnp}}; so even though I looked - I don't see what's causing it. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention. IIRC ] was able to find and fix a similar issue with the ] article a while back. As I said, a very minor issue, but I still thought I'd mention it. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 14:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Thanks Ched, fixed now. ] ] 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	:: Ahhh ... OK. Because there are two authors, ''both'' have to be in the sfnp .. got it. Sorry I wasn't able to catch it myself, but I'm teachable. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Harassment ==

	I'm taking an online mandatory training on harassment as we speak. In about half an hour I should be an expert on the matter, with a PDF diploma to prove it. ] (]) 15:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	*"You know, Sarah, those comments that you keep making about my disability, they really hurt my feelings". "Oh come on, you know all the girls think you're hot with those strong arms from pushing your wheel chair." ] (]) 15:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	* "Did you use to ride a dinosaur to work?" ] (]) 15:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	*That seems unnecessary. I've seen you in action here for years, no one harasses others better than you. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 15:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	**Thanks Dennis! Oh, we're not supposed to leave swastikas on other people's desks. Can I have mine back, please? ] (]) 15:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: There may be a few middle fingers that need to be returned to me. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 15:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::You know what's funny? ''All'' these people, including Dave, are so goddamn goodlooking. Especially the girl who dated her professor for a few weeks. Ah, one can always dream. ] (]) 15:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Is there a particular reason they are making you take this class, or anything else you want to confess? ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: Something about a "hot" 65 year old woman in a wheelchair perhaps? :P — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Mandatory, so we can feel good about ourselves and say we're actively promoting a happy work place. You should tell your boss to do the same thing, and maybe United Educators will give you a cut of the action. Dennis, I wouldn't mind, if it wasn't such trivial bullshit. A dude in a wheelchair gets harassed by a woman who says he's hot--really, when did that ever happen? A guy hugs too many people--sure, that can happen. But it's all so trivial compared to the shit that happens in real life, and it's all presented like it's solvable. "Harassment traning"--there's a section where you hear a bunch of examples and then you have to check the box, was it an employee being harassed, a bystander, was it via email: duh, too stupid for words. What's useful is helping people figure out what can be considered harassment, and what to do short of reporting to stop it. How does one stop a bunch of construction workers from whistling to women? You empower the woman to be convinced that it's wrong and that it's entirely acceptable for her to find the supervisor and rip him a new one, for instance. Saying "that's harassment by bystanders"--no shit. And that's what I'm getting a certificate for, for realizing that someone who gets demoted because they're always late for work is not a victim of harassment. Sheesh. ] (]) 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: ], although I have never figured out exactly how a woman does harass a man sexually. We are dogs, after all. If we men are honest with ourselves, when the news shows a male teacher having sex with a female 17 year old, we call him a monster. When we see the blonde female teacher having sex with a 17 year old male, we think "where the hell was she when ''I'' was going to school?". I suppose we are guilty of some double standard, pro or con. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 17:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Oh Dennis Brown, reread ] (I know, it's not a very good article right now). Not all men are dogs. Not all women are angels. Besides, where does that leave the ]? I was (I realize in hindsight) sexually harassed a few decades ago by a female coworker. ("How?" you ask? That's private. We'll discuss over beers.) It wasn't a big deal to me, but man it was uncomfortable. Eric! Sorry to take up so much of your allotted server space. ] (]) 17:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::*] never read '']'' now, did he? — ] (]) 14:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Disambiguation link notification for June 22 ==

	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ] (] \| ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	* Moved from Malleus talk page by Ched with<s>out</s> a PA on how stupid bots are. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 11:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	== More proof of double standards ==

	:. Admins do indeed get treated better, but you and I have long known that.] ] 12:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	::I think it's already pretty obvious how that's going to turn out. ] ] 12:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::And that'd be more proof of how continually lower wiki sinks.] ] 12:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::: When it takes an uninvolved user (i.e. me) about 30 seoonds to dismiss one of your claims (the "IP block without escalating blocks", when it actually had twelve) as complete fiction, it's hardly likely that people are going to waste their time reading through the rest, is it? Similarly the Fladrif stuff - you don't mention that Doc James actually '''un'''blocked Fladrif first, before reblocking him after further evidence turned up at ANI. It hardly makes me wish to plough through the rest. His block of you was wrong, and it was overturned. But I see nothing to suggest a continuing pattern of abuse of the tools; indeed, many of your diffs are purely of issues that ''don't'' involve tools. And there's been no RFCU. So good luck with that one. ] (]) 13:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Utter hogwash, BK, stop cherry picking info to defend your friend. ] ] 19:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: Well, there's your point, really. I've hardly interacted with Doc James in my 7 years here, and only saw the case because I have the page watchlisted. But you should know that evidence for a RFAR needs to be both clear and watertight. And it wasn't. ] (]) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes it is, sorry you can't see it for whatever reason. And people wonder why participation in wiki nose dives every year...abusive admins and bullies rule the place. ] ] 19:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Putting aside abusive admins ==

	Eric, do you think Mount Vernon is ready for GA yet? I've been away for the last few weeks, but am more or less around now. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Pretty much, although we've still got a problem with sources for the last paragraph of the Lawrence Washington (1718–1752) section. ] ] 21:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	:: What do you need sourced? Weirdly, I might have it in my genealogy files - first hubby was distantly related to that Washington family, so I have a few things on the Washingtons. ] - ] 21:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::The problem is that there are no sources at all in that final paragraph, and MONGO has been unable to come up with any. ] ] 21:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::: Well, my files were nothing useful, but do you have or or ? (Still looking deeper on JSTOR) ] - ] 21:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	: Emailed you the Wall article - it looks useful. Check your usual email for something from me. I will post any others I find useful. ] - ] 21:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	:: and look useful too. Let me know if you want them. ] - ] 21:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::Thanks Ealdgyth. That pdf has some interesting additional details – I just followed your link and downloaded it. The story of who built the first house at Mount Vernon seems more complicated than the article would lead one to believe, at least according to Wall. May to have to rewrite this paragraph to match the available sources. It's rather curious that the work of getting Mount Vernon up to GA spec has fallen to a Brit and an Italian don't you think? ] ] 22:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::: No odder than me doing most of the medieval English history articles (it sometimes feels like it's a one-woman research project (I know that it's not a one-woman polishing effort... you and John and everyone else do a LOT of work on my prose) but there is at least HC and Nev who are doing castles and kings... (Yes, Nev, I saw your comment about Flambard. I'm half-afraid that if I finish off Flambard I'll lose interest in editing Misplaced Pages....) ] - ] 23:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::::Aaaagh! don't give up just yet Ealdgyth - I've just ordered two books to use as reference material for a new article I'm planning on a Medieval English subject that hasn't been covered yet, and I'll be looking for your help on that. Intrigued? - I hope so. :) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 00:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::before we GA it, I am just playing arownd with some ideas here (which is far from finished) - I wonder if any one here knows where there are any plans on the internet - I can only find an old one allegedly drawn by Washington himself. I don't want to spend hours on it, only to have someone say that's not right. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I don't think we're quite ready for GA yet. I'm still trying to sort out who it was built the first house on the site. ] ] 14:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I know; for a national monument and shrine, it doesn't seem very well documented does it? If it's ever finished it looks like this will be the definitive work on the place. Perhaps we will get some sort of national recognition - a sort or republican Légion d'honneur or a life ticket to Disneyland or something like that. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::A ticket to Disneyland I could quite happily do without; I'd probably punch Mickey Mouse in the first few minutes there. ] ] 14:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::: Epcot is pretty cool. I enjoyed our Disney cruise also. But I'm not terribly into DIsney either. ] - ] 15:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::::::::::When you have it ready for GA, let me know. I owe BOTH you guys a review (actually, more than one), plus I've visited there and specialize in that era when I teach US History over at the local college. Thus, if you screw up, I should be able to spot it! (LOL) ]<sup>]</sup> 17:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Perhaps you know who it was who built the bloody place then? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::I have some biographies on the shelf, will look. No guarantees. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

	::::From what I've read I'm pretty sure it was Augustine, but I'm unclear about when it was renamed Mount Vernon. ] ] 23:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

	== For you... ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''Greatest Comma-Purger Ever'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| For all you do, in corralling wild commas, and herding them safely out of articles, we, thank you. ] - ] 17:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	\|}

	== Royal Philharmonic Orchestra ==

	Thank you very much for an expeditious and, to me, stimulating review. At your service if I can be of help with any of your articles at peer review, GAN or FAC. ] (]) 21:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Your very welcome Tim. As it happens I have '']'' up at FAC now if you're interested in boy's own adventure Victorian novels. ] ] 21:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Gosh! I haven't read it for 45 years! Shall be enchanted to renew acquaintance with it at FAC. ] (]) 23:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I loved that book, especially the first half, until the pirates arrive. I'm pleased to hear you're familiar with the book, as my co-nominator ] wasn't. ] ] 23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Drmies read the Dutch equivalent of said books; they always ended up in Indonesia. Hey Eric, I just made Peterkin a 13-year old boy, since that's what he is on p. 191 of my Penguin edition--I see now that on p. 13 Ralph refers to him as "about fourteen years old". We have a slight inconsistency, esp. since on p. 191 the boys have already spent months on the island. I leave the choice up to you, to either revert me or leave it be. BTW, rereading the book I'm enjoying it more than I did the first time around. That 19th-century English takes a bit of getting used to. ] (]) 01:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::It does. I'm struggling to get through Ainsworth's ''Lancashire Witches'' at present. It seems pretty obvious that authors in those days were paid by the word. ] ] 01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Not readers, though. I just lost a couple hundred bucks reading Irvine's "Separate Accounts: Class and Colonization in the Early Stories of R.M. Ballantyne" (one of Nikkimaria's suggestions), and found it not only a total drag to read but also of little use to us, unfortunately. On to the next one. ] (]) 02:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Back to the island ==

	I don't like the sentence I just added. It's from the Maher article, who'll find a better use elsewhere in the article. Can you add it to the Works Cited? I'm asking because it has DOI: 10.1353/chq.0.0620 and I don't know how to those DOIs, apparently... ] (]) 03:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Pardon the long quote: "The choices that Frederick Marryat and Robert Michael Ballantyne made in recasting Crusoe tell us much about the influence of ideology on children's fiction, as well as the complex interchange between history, myth, and text. Marryat and Ballantyne had to find means to simplify the Robinsonade, to make it a mouthpiece for celebrating God and country. Their adventures must necessarily lack the subtle colorings of the prototype, Robinson Crusoe, a book written for adults, though beloved by children. In simplifying the Robinsonade, they produced romances that express an ambivalence to romance, novels that present a pedestrian realism." So it is the two of them also, the "novels that" being in apposition to the "romances" they produced". ] (]) 16:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:I think we could make a decent sentence out of that. Later. ] ] 17:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*But the "unlike" is incorrect. The article says that Marryat and Ballantyine exemplify that shift. ] (]) 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*:I've never read the article, so how the Hell would I know? Better now? ] ] 17:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::*<small>Because I quoted it above? :) ] (]) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC) </small>
	*Added a bit more from one of the useful articles linked at the FAC. (Please copy edit for my usual infelicities, US spelling, hyphen/dash issues...) Can't comment there right now; housecleaning... ] (]) 21:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	*I'm reading "The Broken Telescope", which makes me want to add to the background section (not unlike what we did for TMitM)--a paragraph that discusses (briefly) the Robinsonade, Rousseau and the idea of the child, and (social and natural) Darwinism. She argues that the novel isn't simply a reflection of Victorian values imposed on the world and reflected in the novel, but that there is an instability. E.g., on Jack's "miniature Pacific", "it always remains evident that the exotic is viewed through a distorted western textual lens--a circumstance which ultimately undermines, and introduces irony to, the surface display of absolute authority" (139). Wait--that last note probably fits best in the Themes section. Anyway, I'm pondering this; don't know if I'll be able to take care of it today. There's fried chicken for lunch, with some luck a nap, and company tonight. I wish you and Dr. Malleus could come by for an evening, or two. ] (]) 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:There's almost certainly something in there that could be added, but I've tried to steer clear of getting too much into the Robinsonade stuff, which has its own article anyway. What's for drinks? ] ] 17:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*Yes, it's not so much the Robinsonade but the context of the genre in the early 18th century. Can you re-evaluate your "except for works such as..."? Drinks--well, it's not payday yet, so it's regular beers. I'm terrifically low on liquor, I'm afraid. Maybe you should come next week and I'll make Old Fashioneds. Or Sidecars! ] (]) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*:I've re-evaluated. I'm going to Wales next week I think, so maybe the week after? ] ] 17:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*::I hope you get a chance to enjoy yourself there. Me and Mrs. Bink were stunned by the beauty of ]. Cheers! ] (]) 17:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*:::I live in Manchester, so I've been to Wales loads of times as it's only about 45 miles away. I think we're going to somewhere around the bottom of Cardigan Bay, but I leave all the arrangements to my wife. What's the point in having a dog and barking yourself? ] ] 17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*::::Did I lose something in the translation, or does Dr. Corbett need to thump you? ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 17:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*:::::I didn't mean to imply that that she was a dog, in fact she's a very sexy lady, it was just an analogy. ] ] 17:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*::::::I was more worried about the aspects of how the dog must serve man, saying she was subservient to you. I still think she needs to thump you, for good measure. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 18:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	*I've always wanted to go to Wales. Green Knight country. Dylan Thomas country. Even W.G. Sebald country. ] (]) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Haven't found any 19th-century reviews yet. I did find (anonymous) comparable tale, and --neither book/author covered by our encyclopedia. And my searching confirmed the amazing popularity of the genre, if that needed confirmation. ] (]) 19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	**''Wrecked on the Bermudas'' is quite a yarn. I don't know what it is--it's totally predictable and formulaic, with totally unbelievable dialog, and yet I just read one chapter and find it difficult to put down. It's about three brothers going from New York to England on an old ship that their father commanded decades ago, and they even brought their dog with them. And the captain is a drunkard. ] (]) 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Commas ==

	...and can spot a tendentious troll reviewer at 50 paces. But I'm not saying that at the article talk page. I've also probably pissed off a person who usually haunts FAC recently, (for other reasons, so like "Voldemort" please don't say "infobox") and may need backup to address anything that person might raise -- or better yet, someone other than me to address it... ;-P ]<sup>]</sup> 22:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

	:It'll be fine, don't worry. ] ] 22:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

	::Person I've pissed off is, sure as shit, weighing in with comments on sourcing; may want to take a peek... ]<sup>]</sup> 18:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::It'll be fine, don't worry. ] ] 14:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

	::::And you are right, looks like she will support. Surprised me, but in a pleasant way. We have two support votes now, if you know a good third reviewer, maybe let them know it's out there?? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Navboxes on author pages' ==

	Since you have over 100 edits at ], you might want to participate in the discussion at ] regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

	:I don't think so Tony, the infobox wars have worn me out enough already. ] ] 17:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

	== And now for something completely different ==

	Do you and your English talk page stalkers still drink your tea and coffee from fine bone china? I'm particularly fond of which, to my surprise, is only a few decades old and has no article. Moreover, I am having great difficulty finding any reliable sources to write them up--I thought they were old and well-established. Any of you able to help out? Thanks, ] (]) 17:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
	::What a ridiculous question! Do Mr Corbett's close friends appear the type of people who would be drinking out of plastic beakers? While I'm sure Mr Corbett ownes a humerous mug or two, we are certainly not drinking out of Mr Kirkham's rather twee floral designs either. Personally, I always think it's only decent to drink one's coffee from ] post luncheon and from ] post dinner - I think you'll find most people will agree with me. ] (]) 18:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I suspect the only source would be a collector's guide to their Toby jugs. I've never seen any turn up at auction, only those bloody Royal Doulton things, which all seem to have the same smarmy expression. ] (]) 20:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Ha. Sevres is a formerly nice little town, and just a small step to '']''. I still don't have an article, though. ] (]) 20:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Not an RS but company has some info. ] \| ] \| ] \| ] 20:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::And has a brief history and a mission statement- they're perfectly willing to employ hothouse girls. ] (]) 20:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::The Kirkham stuff, as Lady Catherine says, does look rather twee. ] ] 00:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Lord, how did I land among such a group of macho men? Alright, Corbett, you can drink your coffee from a jam jar when you visit. I'm sure that Dr. Corbett has more sophisticated taste than you do. And I say this after looking up the word "twee". ] (]) 01:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
	(od) I prefer ] floral design- Kirkham's a bit derivative of book illustration. The sort of stuff that'll be stocked by Govier's of Sidmouth, alongside their range of porcelain statuettes of the ]. ] is worth an article. ] (]) 06:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Sure. But tell me, where the speaks of "Denby pottery", is that in reference to ]? Or is "Denby pottery" also a more generic term? I'll write it up with that assumption, but would appreciate help. ] (]) 23:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	::As far as I know, it's just the pottery at Denby. I have three pieces of what I assume is "Glyn ware"; I'll photograph them- might be useable for the article. Looking at examples of the same type (free-painted leaves in autumn colours) I wondered why the standard of painting was so variable (some are crap). The obit says there were 70 decorators employed- unlike Poole where the decorators signed their pieces, the Denby just has what I assume is his signature- he must have "signed off" on their work. ] (]) 07:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
	*One more British question: our supermarket sells some British stuff, but I can't decide if I should spend over $3 on a can of "Devon Custard". Is it any good? ] (]) 22:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	::For some reason they always use artificial sweeteners in the canned stuff. Much better to buy some ] and make it yourself with sugar and milk. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 23:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::There's a discussion on how to make a copy of the Devon custard . <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::That last link didn't open for me. I suppose I've made the Bird's stuff myself, following the cornstarch-inflected recipe in '']''. ] (]) 20:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::::For some reason it's not working for me either today, but it did last night. Maybe those Ambrosia people have sabotaged it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 21:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Maybe they also installed VisualEditor. ] (]) 01:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Is this really a GA? I found a few little things already, but I'm not soccer expert. ] (]) 18:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Another one of Buffbills7701's reviews I see. I certainly wouldn't have listed it, it needs an awful lot of work. ] ] 19:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	:... in fact it's pretty dreadful, so I've opened a GA reassessment ]. Buffbills clearly doesn't have much idea what he's doing. ] ] 21:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	:And the good faith smokescreen has been deployed. ] ] 21:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Yep, and the "personal attack" claim. ] (]) 22:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, that too. Any criticism is seen by kids as a personal attack these days it seems. I've found from experience though that you tend to make more enemies than friends when reviewing, especially at GAR for some reason. ] ] 22:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Well, Buffbills doesn't strike me as an asshole. He may well be nicer than us, and I think he's of good faith. Listening to criticism is hard; so many years of marriage and teaching writing have taught us that, I suppose. Oh, I've been looking at Cath Kidston's mugs, and there's some pretty ones, but so much of it is soft and pinkish. Prettiest mug I own is from Royal Kendal, and I broke the ear. ] (]) 22:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::If I ruled the (GA) world I'd institute one simple rule: every reviewer should have written at least two GAs themselves. When I was heavily into windsurfing the rule for instructors was that to assess anyone you had to be at least one grade higher than they were. ] ] 23:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I've now delisted the article. ] ] 13:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

	== I never knew... ==

	Err.. Oops? I've never thought of them as hard to do or (usually) hard to receive. Oops? ] - ] 00:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

	:I've always found them hard work. ] ] 00:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

	:: Maybe I'm just an anal retentive asshole editor at heart or something. I'll admit I find the pop culture topics such as music or tv shows to be more work than history articles, but reading for flow and clarity is something that I find reasonably easy. Why do you find them hard? Maybe I should do more GA reviews... pick up some of the slack. ] - ] 00:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::The reading part usually isn't the hard part! Hey Ealdgyth, thanks for linking my main man Ker. Too many Anglo-Saxonists still need to get written up. Or wrote up, if you like. ] (]) 01:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Doesn't everyone read and keep a running list of "oopsies" in what they are reading? ] - ] 01:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::If you find GA reviews easy Ealdgyth then you should do lots more of them. ;-) ] ] 13:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

	== C.A. Peñarol GA Reassessment ==

	I wanted to let you know I revised the article and copy-pasted the text to Word so as to check any typos and spanish words that could have remained. I corrected every mistake I saw. I reckon its prose is good enough to be GA, though I think those mistakes had to be corrected. I have also taken away unnecessary flag icons. I've replied saying this same thing, in ], but just wanted to make sure to inform you.—] (]) 03:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

	:What you really have to do Nuno93 is to get a native English-speaking copyeditor involved, and work with him or her to make the text presentable. Buffbills was wrong to list this as a GA, and I've now delisted it. ] ] 13:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

	== discussing a small change to Gunpowder Plot ==

	I see from the edit history that you've been vigilant about ]. It seems you've made a lot of reversions of both deliberate vandalism and ill-advised, if well-intentioned, edits. I want to thank you for your hard work and skilled editing, but I'd also like to discuss a change that I think the article needs. I fixed a grammatical error, and you reverted the fix. Do you want to discuss it on that article's talk page? Maybe we can come up with a fix that meets your high standards. ] (]) 15:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

	:What grammatical error are you talking about? ] ] 15:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
	*If I may, was fixed: there was no missing conjunction. However, there is something to be said for the change, since "unmarried, childless, and steadfastly refused" places three words in parallel that can also be seen as not grammatically parallel, since the first two are adjectives and the third is a past participle indicating an ongoing action/attitude. But that's style, not grammar. ] (]) 16:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:I don't like the "and ... and" construction. But as you say, this certainly isn't a matter of grammar. I can't help but wonder why it's taken TypoBoy seven months to bring this up though. Anything to do with my delisting of ] do you suppose? ] ] 16:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

	Let's discuss it at ]. There's already an explanation there of what's wrong with that sentence. ] (]) 18:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

	:There's nothing wrong with that sentence, therefore nothing to discuss. ] ] 18:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Uruguayan War ==

	Eric, unfortunately, the ] FAC ] (as I expected). It needs more reviews. Do you know any good (and respected) reviewer whom I could ask to take a look at the article? --] (]) 14:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	:While I'm not sure I fit the exact description of the type of reviewer you're after (!), I'll try and take a look at it tomorrow night Lecen. ] (]) 17:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Thanks. The review seems to be going pretty well to me Lecen, fingers crossed. ] ] 20:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	Thank you both. I really appreciate your help. --] (]) 14:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

	== Geography of Scotland in the Middle Ages ==

	Many thanks for a very helpful and rapid GA review. Much appreciated.--<span style="font-family:Black Chancery;text:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">''']''' (]) 12:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

	:It's very satisfying to be able to wrap them up so quickly, which is in no small part due to the excellence of your Scottish articles in the first place and your rapid response to any questions I raise. ] ] 12:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

	General articles back in time are extremely poorly covered on here so great to see quality work on a general subject back in time. Somebody has to create ] or. ] or something at some point!♦ ] 12:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

	== sometimes... ==

	] and - am I being stupid here? I don't see why a possible modern-day location of a small incident late in a battle should be described in such detail in the battle's article. Most of the scholarly treatments of Hastings don't go into where this incident might be located on the modern battlefield, so I feel like it's trivia best confined to battlefield guides. ] - ] 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

	:But, it also appears in version 2.0 of the video game and someone on a sitcom somewhere, about 10 years ago, mentioned it! :-P ]<sup>]</sup> 22:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

	:You're being stupid if you think that all those fans of version 2.0 of the Malfosse video game don't believe that's the single most important event in the Battle of Hastings. But to be serious, fighting the addition of trivia is an impossible task really. ] ] 22:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

	== Copy edit / peer review ==

	Thanks for your improvements at ]. I've put it up ], FYI, in case you (or any TPSs) had any comments on it before I take it to FAC. ]] 14:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
	:Good luck with that. I'll have another read through later. ] ] 14:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024

2007 archive

2008 archive

2009 archive

2010 archive

2011 archive

2012 archive

2013 archive

2014 archive

2015 archive

2016 archive

2017 archive

2018 archive

2019 archive

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for your share in Jersey Act, introduced (in 2010) by your conom: "I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom."! - I miss you. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)