User talk:Amuchmoreexotic

Welcome!

Hello, Amuchmoreexotic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Sunday Express Dunblane controversy, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t09:59z 09:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sunday Express Dunblane controversy

I have nominated Sunday Express Dunblane controversy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Express Dunblane controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t09:59z 09:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sunday Express Dunblane controversy has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bwordpress\.com (links: http://whythatsdelightful.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/apology-noted-now-what/).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Elkins!

Hello! It is I, expander of the Mau Mau page! I guard it against our (I'm English) nutty English nationalists and apologists for Empire, and against the occasional pro-Mau Mau loon who shows up.

Whilst agreeing with me that, "The release of the documents seems to vindicate Elkins", you added a citation request for my description of it as an otherwise flawed study.

The "otherwise flawed" description was applied because:

Her claims regarding the excess mortality rate during the rebellion were simply ridiculous and have been solidly rebutted
Her transparent pro-Mau-Mau bias throughout which, overall, meant the book suffered from a rather unscholarly lack of nuance
Her essentially non-existent analysis of the roots and nature of the rebellion (compare with studies like Anderson's)
Her reliance, at points, purely on interviews with participants and survivors forty or fifty years after the event—no one's memory is so good that it can be trusted as a sole source of information fifty years after an event

Many, many people were all too happy to draw the line there, however; that is to say, whilst there were some fair criticisms of the book, they were desperate to throw the baby out with the bath water. I've highlighted this myself, because I've not seen a single person who has rightly criticised parts of her book raising their voice against her outstanding analysis of our detention and interrogation systems. Most of that part of the book is relentlessly poured straight out of the archives and the mouths of the people responsible; there can be no basis for any complaint whatsoever with those parts of the book. Just to mention also that Elkins' PhD thesis was on the detention and interrogation systems, so the book has obviously been expanded around her doctorate.

See also my mention of Elkins' on the Mau Mau discussion page here Iloveandrea (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]