User talk:MarcusBritish/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MarcusBritish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A Class review

I got your request for an A-class review. I've submitted many articles, including many assessed as B-class, but so far I have no GA or A-Class articles (to my knowledge). The only article I ever submitted began the process, but only one editor ever looked at it and it "timed out". So, I'm going to decline your request on the grounds that I don't know how to do an A-class review, having never written an A-class article. I try to be a good sport and do a lot of B-Class reviews to "return the favor", so if you ever need a B-Class review please ask. I did look at the Wellington article and believe that the Second Siege of Badajoz was a defeat (see also Digby Smith or David Gates). Overall, your article is beautifully cited and well-written. Djmaschek (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi MarcusBritish, thanks for your message. You can count on me contributing to an A-Class Review. I am able to contribute on issues related to content mostly; I went through most of the article and I have 4-5 remarks. I have to say that I am not very good though at "procedure"; I only know my history, that's all. Do let me know if you proceed with an A-Class Review. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wellington ACR

I saw it was closed as no consensus, I think it was always going to suffer after the tête-à-tête that occurred early on. Hopefully this second review can pass this time. I think it is an excellent list but everyone has a different way of looking at things. I've headed on over there and re-offered my support.

On another note have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/Self-assessment‎? As someone new to the MILHIST project I think it would be great if you could offer your opinions and viewpoints on the MILHIST project. How do you see it at the moment? Thanks, Woody (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, if and when you feel up to commenting then please do so. You don't have to offer an opinion in all sections just the ones where you feel you have something to offer. Where to improve? seems a good place for a newbie to offer their opinions. I saw the peer review you gave and it was very thorough, just what is needed. Keep up the good work. Woody (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to say your responses on the ACR page haven't been particularly helpful. Eyeserene was simply doing what I had asked them to do which was to copy over what they saw as the outstanding issues. My reply to his comment should have sufficed. I have added {{CN}} (though I personally despise them) for clarity over where the text is missing a citation (or it might not be clear where the citation is for that bit of text).

Reviewers are offering their opinions on where the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's or their own standards. That is the idea of a review, to lambast reviewers for offering their opinions is to misunderstand the whole point of reviews. They are a collaborative exercise, ACR is a very tame one when compared to the featured content processes where you are far more likely to butt heads with established egos. I don't see Eyeserene or anyone else in that review "flashing their badges" in any sense, they are only offering their opinions which are informed by being involved with reviews for some years now. They will know what passes and what doesn't. They understand where reviews often fall down. The point of reviews is to highlight where the article doesn't meet the requisite standards and if they don't then of course they will oppose. These standards aren't avoidable or negotiable, they must be met to acquire A-Class or FA/FLC. As eyeserene explains below there are policies which are non-negotiable and guidelines which generally have to be followed. This review is becoming far more hard work than it needs to be. You have to give a bit and you will get a lot back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my eyes you seem to have become more pre-occupied with the reviewers rather than the review. There is an adage on Wikipedia that you should "comment on content not on contributors. I honestly believe that AR and Eyeserene have acted in good faith in these reviews and if you can believe that and acknowledge that, then the reviews will go through a lot more smoothly. Woody (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He also ordered countless other remote engagements, mostly whilst serving in the Napoleonic Wars during which Britain played a major role in securing Europe against French occupation between 1803 and 1815. This isn't backed up by the table or anything else that is in this article. It needs a reference and it isn't a case of WP:BLUE (which is an essay/advice and not a policy). Any material in the article that [is] challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be cited. That sentence is something that could easily be challenged by a reader of the article. Take someone who doesn't have any background knowledge of Wellington/Napoleonic era, they would read though and think to themselves, oh, really, who says that. You need to prove it. Basing it on your own conclusions is original research. You are coming with an original conclusion from the text that you have read. It might be true but unless you can verify it with a source that states the same, then it will have to be removed. Woody (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Woody (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Re your response to my comments on Battle record of Arthur Wellesley

I'm responding here to avoid detracting from the focus of the review. It appears that you've misunderstood the nature of my comments, so I'll expand on them here.

As I mentioned on the review page I was posting from the viewpoint of an ACR closer looking at the previous review, not as a reviewer reviewing the article. It's not the closer's job to review the article but merely to review the review, if that distinction makes sense. From that perspective there were a number of issues that appeared to be open; Woody asked me to list those and I did. You shouldn't take that as a review on my part because I haven't actually looked too hard at the article wrt the A-Class criteria.
To give you one example of an unaddressed comment, paragraph four of "Generalship" still lacks a citation. Your response to this point may be satisfactory or it may not, though generally any criterion-based objection is enough to prevent article promotion regardless of the number of 'support' comments, and verification to reliable sources is indeed an A-Class requirement.
It's not really correct to say that "Everything is negotiable. Wiki has standards, and guidelines, not iron-clad rules". WP:CIVIL is a site policy, and all policies are to all intents and purposes iron-clad rules. That doesn't mean they are immutable - when community consensus changes, the rules change - but don't be misled by the word "standards" into thinking that there is more flexibility in some areas than there actually is. Essentially anything that's marked as a policy can be viewed as non-negotiable and anything marked as a guideline generally has some wriggle-room but nevertheless reflects widely accepted community practice that will be enforced in most circumstances. Attempting to manoeuvre one's way around perceived gaps in phraseology while ignoring the spirit of policies and guidelines is seen as wikilawyering and tends to be viewed rather dimly.
Your assessment of "my personal opinion of you" has required you to leap to some rather large and unsafe conclusions based on a few snippets of text. For example, you assume I'm "disappointed" because you make the initial assumption that I'm out to get you in some way by adopting objections that weren't my own, which you further assume is evidence of "sycophantic" behaviour on my part. I've partly covered this in my first bullet point, but perhaps it's worth saying explicitly that you couldn't be further from the truth - I very much enjoyed reading your article and I hope it does pass the ACR. Much of my early work here related to the Peninsular War and it's great to see more quality articles being developed in that area. However, I do have general concerns over maintaining the collegial and collaborative atmosphere that milhist is known for. You can't really attribute your "frankness" (or incivility in Wikipedia-speak) towards me to any history of difficult interactions on our part as you did with Australian Rupert, so the unfortunate conclusion is that you may have difficulties operating within Wikipedia's rules. It's disappointing that you saw my comments as some sort of attempt to put you in your place. I was simply pointing out site policy, as I would to any editor who overstepped the mark and as I hope any other editor would to me. That has nothing to do with any meaningless positions I have here, other than that as an admin I have the means to enforce policy when the need arises (and for which actions I'll be rightly held to account).

I hope the above helps you to appreciate some of the problems with writing things like "I won't be rebuked by anyone based on their personal opinion of me so please, don't bother, you would only cause a fuss", both in the impression it gives of your approach to working here and in the mistaken idea that you might somehow be exempt from the expectations that apply to everyone else. The reason I'm spending some time over this is that I've seen many quality content writers end up leaving Wikipedia, voluntarily or otherwise, because they were ultimately unable to adapt to the way the site operates. What's perhaps more distressing is that in the process they took other good editors down with them due to the aggravation they caused. As you rightly say we're all volunteers and no-one in their right mind would choose to seek out an environment that's being made unpleasant for them. I believe you have made, and are making, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, and I sincerely hope that you can appreciate that in many ways being able to operate smoothly in a collaborative community environment is as important as producing quality content; the two can exist apart but in my experience the divorce is not a happy one and doesn't tend to last. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - replied on my talk. EyeSerene^talk 11:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires
Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wellington ACR

You're not listening to what I said. You do not request your own article to be closed. When the time is up or consensus seems apparent, it will be closed. And no, you did not say you had decided the article was finished being reviewed, but announcing that you will no longer be taking reviews differs only semantically. Reviews take a long time for everyone; the second Wellington ACR has been up for barely 2 weeks; that's half the prescribed time. My current ACR has been up since 4 July, with only three reviews. As you have said elsewhere, you can't force anyone to do anything here - we're all volunteers, and reviewers will come when they do. Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? Does that just apply to me, or everyone. I seem to notice that I placed my request under someone elses ACR-closure request heading, which was done. Did you rebuke them, or is is "do as I say, not as I do". Hypocrites. Your ACR instructions says they can be closed after a minimum of 5 days - if you're not going to honour requests made after 5 days, but before the 30, I suggest you get it edited and cease attacking people who do with your malicious bull. Barely 2 weeks, plus the 5 weeks before that due to pig-headed abuse of the ACR system. You speak of semantics - is that admittance that you're only willing to accept your interpretation of things? Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 17:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Coordinators are typically the only editors to list ACRs for closure; Ian is a coordinator, and he did in fact make clear that he was listing his own, without colorful commentary about how he would not consider further reviews. Do you honestly think your arrogant behavior does not rub people the wrong way and make them less likely to help you? Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrogance is subjective - and once again, you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill - I consider you arrogant and belligerent. As YOU reiterated, we're all volunteers, if I no longer wish to expand or edit the article, that is MY choice. ACR doesn't help me, if you want to get smart - the MH Project benefits from more high-level articles, than the editors who write them - except those aiming for cooord/admin status - sycophants mostly. Storm in a teacup - you keep riding it, if you wish, I prefer to sip. ;) Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wider discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking edits as vandalism

Please be careful when you're marking edits as vandalism, especially when using Twinkle to revert as vandalism. Your revert here probably should have been a regular rollback in Twinkle. Remember that Wikipedia has a very narrow definition of vandalism which specifically excludes "disruptive editing or stubbornness". I absolutely understand where you're coming from on this, and have been in the same position myself. Please though, refrain from the temptation to hit the rollback as vandalism button on TW unless it's really, really vandalism. You seem like a pretty good person and it would be foolish to risk losing Twinkle access over this. Just use the regular rollback button and put in a quick edit summary. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 23:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wellington 1

Hi Marcus; Thanks for the heads up to George SJ XXI's talk page, I have made a comment on there regarding his control claim, with an additional one on the 1st Dukes talk page section you created. I have also made a couple of changes to the article, re his origin. Do you have a copy of Jane Wellesley's book 'A Journey Through My Family, published in 2008, which I have used as a supportive reference? Also note some minor changes, with refs, to Wellington's military beginnings on the Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington article, which is something I have more knowledge of. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

George SJ

I went onto the 1st dukes talk page this morning to indent and space out the messages on your last George SJ XXI's contraversial edits section for readability, as it's was hard to work out where a message started and ended. Unfortunately George didn't like it so has created another sock to reverse it. I reverted that and noted it was a sock puppet in my Edit summary, but he simply reverted that as well. I assume it's so he can hide his replies. I've reported him on AIV and requested that they block all his current socks. I think this guy is heading for a permanent block. NB: I have since checked his editing on 8 August using both an Anon IP and his registered login. Accordingly I have placed a comment on the talk page to his claim of not hiding his identity, which stops him hiding his message. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake - give a guy an inch and he takes a mile - and to think I offered him a chance to prove one of his claims and redeem himself to everyone. Can't we bring back firing squads and put him before one - it beats a block any day, in my book. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 11:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington a certified "Good Article"! It's a very thorough and well-written piece, and your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan
Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocking sock puppeteers

Sometimes it takes weeks of hard work:- User_talk:George_SJ_XXI#Archiving_problems_reply But on occasions it just takes a few minutes:- User_talk:Beeblebrox#Suspect_sock_puppetry_editing and:- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chelsy_Davy_(3rd_nomination) :). Richard Harvey (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that action is based on which admin get, how they view in, and how they intend to deal with it. Seems like there is no fixed penalty per "offence" more guidelines, like the MOS.. which can be a good or bad thing depending on your POV, I don't think rules should be open to interpretation, it creates more issues than they aim to fix. A month is good though, as long as doesn't appeal and get lucky.. keeping an eye on that Gadamod account, to see if it becomes busy this month. George comes across as either extreme or just pig-headed, I don't think a block will stop him once it expires, he seems the the type happy to bide his time and sneak about like your cunning sock puppeteer with 3 accounts, good find though, one less idiot to worry about. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Feedback acknowledgment

Is this where you would like acknowledgment for feedback? I didn't find an edit button on the RfF page. Anyway, I appreciate your comments and will try to figure out a next step forward. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks - to leave further comments on the RFF page, select the date you made the request near the top of the RFF page, the [edit] options should then become available to each request on the right - I had trouble figuring that out too. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 19:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I realize now my "you" above was inappropriate. Thanks for your good grace, anyway. And I hope I haven't overreached with my next step over there re: the "how to respond" question. On we go. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, didn't even cross my mind that the RFF main page does not make it clear how to respond. Left a reply there, on your RFF, as to how you might deal with that, though. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet again thanks. I'd forgotten about the Talk page option. Reworked to a tighter presentation here, I think. We'll see. And Andy Reid? Well, maybe time to think about him somehow now. Swliv (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who he is, I'm afraid, so I can't offer support on the matter - I don't follow sport at all, so his name is completely unknown to me, moreso with it being an American sport. All I can say is that I briefly looked up the disputed title on Amazon, and notice that Mark Bowden didn't credit him as a co-author of the book, which unfortunately doesn't give Andy Reid any obvious immediate notability to include it in his biog. Perhaps if you post your concerns on WP:RFC someone with more knowledge of the sport, man and book might offer an opinion in favour of your challenged contribution. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 00:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback-Thankyou!

Just come to say thankyou for answering my request for feedback. I will look at the Manual of Style to improve it. Nominal (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help me correct the mistakes on User:Half price/Alex Day, I can't wait for this article to be moved! Nominal (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter Lamont

I'm not very used to Wiki, and I don't know where to talk to you, Marcus British. I'm Peter Lamont, Author of The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe, a paper recently deleted by you. As a 'scientist,' I'm kind of puzzled how a 'Historian' can delete my works. I don't think that's right. So now, where is my article? I would like to work on it some more. Unfortunately I am completely unable to raise it on my screene. You say the page has been Vandalised - the lines are too long. I have only recently found out how to correct this. Am I not to be given the chance? 72.2.54.36 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Black Holes are technically a theoretical science, not history. Either way, per Wiki rules, the article was deleted by an admin - I simply nominated it for deletion for breach of wiki policy. I did not not make any claims to the page being vandalised. The article was removed because it violated wiki terms, in that it was:

a personal essay, not an article
was unsourced original research
had a "copyright" where Wiki is public domain
advocated a theory from one point of view.

Wiki already has articles on 'black holes' and 'the big bang', on the universe, "God", Einstein, and anything you care to believe in. You are welcome to contribute to any as long as you follow Wiki policies. But you will not be given a chance to deal with the width of your essay because that was not the key issue, the key issues have been highlighted above.

If a man can claim to understand the "formation of the Universe", then understanding Wiki policies should be a breeze.

To oppose a deletion, you need to visit WP:UNDELETE and request it - as I'm not an admin, I cannot do this for you.

Thank you, Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 22:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: You have an account (Peter Lamont (talk · contribs)) - it is recommended that you login with it to make talk page posts, or you might get accused of sock-puppetry.

Feedback on User:JCRules/Prescription bottle

Well, I tried citing on Colors, but the link was in the Spam-blacklist. I am requesting the whitelisting of the link, but there isn't any reply yet. But thanks anyway. sorry about forgeting to sign it, my bad.--JC Rules! (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

George

Note the last edit to his talkpage, made an hour or so ago. Have a happy Bank Holiday Monday! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Bahahaha! Made my day! :D I cannot understand how a man who uses the words "duumvirate" and "triumvirate" in one sentence (words I've never even seen before, admittedly) can fail to understand how to appeal a block, it's a simple matter of "I'm sorry, I won't do it again", really.. he just lacks the pride to face up to his mistakes. Fool on him. Lucky for us.

Some prat changed Wellington's nationality to "English" last night - just goes to show I'm not as one-sided as Georgey claims, given than I reverted it back to Anglo-Irish as soon as I saw it.

Another Bank Hol? I wasn't aware.. we have too many, these bankers should be made to work Mon-Sun every week until they get the economy back on track, IMO, they screwed it up, they should fix it.

Thanks! Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 10:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

NB: He is still using his own talkpage to push his point, but don't reply to anything he writes on there. Only he will see it and eventually he will either tire of it or get abusive and an admin will protect the page from him editing that as well. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this morning.. personally, I think he's nuts! Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 11:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Half price/Alex Day

Do you think that User:Half price/Alex Day is ready to be moved? Nominal (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, looks pretty thorough to me.. have to admit I don't watch Alex all that much, I love our boy Charlie best, he's great - but from what I've read on Alex's there, it looks detailed and well cited. Might as well get it moved into the main article area, asap. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 12:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The page Alex Day is protected. Therefore it won't let me move it. Could you please move the page? Nominal (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been unable to move it also, due to the protection (I am not an admin). I have submitted a request, as an uninvolved editor from previous revisions of the article, to unprotect it and move the draft into its place. All you do now is wait and see if they will. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 14:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Response

Hi Marcus,

Sorry, I can't work out how to reply to feedback on the actual page, I'll have a read of the Wikihelp pages. Worked it out now, will reply there. Thank you. Movieboffin (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(I have posted it as a feedback reply but can't, for the life of me, see it when I click on the page. If you can't see it, let me know and I'll try again. Apologies, trying to do it right here and being a bit slow learning. Movieboffin (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping!

Thanks for helping. Now I will have 7 articles! Thanks! JC Rules! (talk)

No problem - if you manage to get the "Color" section cited, as mentioned in the RFF, let me know and I'll verify it and remove the "unreviewed" banner, if you like. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 04:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token bf99be236f70770feadee8444716ec14

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

RE:Help Pages

Hi Marcus, nope, there are no permissions or requirements to create your own essay. You should add {{Essay}} at the top of the page to clarify that it is your own personal essay and not an official guideline/policy page. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Guidance Essay" on your page looks good. It is not unusual for activity to severely decline during the (northern hemisphere) summer months. It is the school/college/university holidays, people are on holiday. Things at MILHIST tend to warm up again in September, particularly when the COORD elections start. That tends to bring a few editors back to the project pages. Woody (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, usually a note goes round on every talkpage requesting nominations and then the voting is opened, usually for two weeks. It isn't an adversarial process though when compared to almost all other elections on Wikipedia. As for rollback, see below. Woody (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi MarcusBritish, I've now added the rollback feature to your account. Rollback should only be used in certain limited circumstances. Please make sure you read Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When to use rollback carefully. Essentially, only use rollback for clear instances of vandalism, if in any doubt about whether the edit has been made in good faith, then don't use rollback. If you have any questions then please leave them on my talkpage. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

requesting feedback, pls

Hello, may i get a feedback on my article ? i requested a feed back on aug.24 but no one replied yet . its about a college i graduated from. i tried to flow other similar articles. hope its good. one more thing, will my name: Reem Attar, appear on the title of the article? i got confused! i want the articles name to be only RIYADH COLLEGES FOR DENTISTRY & PHARMACY.. i dont want my name to appear in it.

User:Reem attar/Riyadh Colleges Of Dentistry & Pharmacy

many thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reem attar (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Done [1] Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 06:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

William B. Caldwell, III review

Thank you for your review of William_B._Caldwell,_III and suggestion to submit for the Military Wiki. Derekreveron (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Dylan Inserra

Hi, there-

Thanks so much for your review and feedback of the entry on Dylan Inserra.Seandalytx (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)seandalytx

No problem! Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 23:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Glossary of Gymnastics Terms

Hi, there- Thanks for the information you provided about headers and wikifying terms, re: the glossary entry on gymnastics termsSeandalytx (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)seandalytx

Parker French feedback

Thank you for the comments. I will respond to each in time. The first was regarding hyperlinks. What I was wondering about was the choosing of them; I wasn't sure if there were guidelines. I'll just go ahead and pick a few. I'll study headings and such and "talk" again. Mgblakes (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks - really it's a matter of link what is relevant, but don't overdo it. Link what relates to the article, not general terms or well known things.

Headers - again, depends on content. In a biography you might have "Background" as a level 2 with "Birth", "Early years", "Education" as level 3 sub-headers, then "Career" as a level 2 again because it's more important. Use your own judgement, though, section into what feels right. In in doubt, ask someone with experience to copy-edit it a little.

I have cleaned up the lead, but made it two paragraphs, not one. I have added Headers. I have made some other edits. I put in a few links. confidence man leads to disambiguation. I don't know how to force it to confidence_trick. I don't know how to go back to your first comments. You mentioned the sources and recommended I look at something, I don't know what, now. I hope I have fixed things. I am grateful for your help. And your patience.

Hi Marcus: most of your feedback has come from myself only, giving little in the way of a wide-range of opinions and suggestions

All of it has! You have been a terrific help. The great improvement in my piece is mostly your doing. When I think I have stopped tinkering with the article I plan to request a peer review. Any little pat on the back is most welcome, should I get one. I will look into the Projects as well. On a related note, I noticed that you have added Categories at the end. There's another matter (like where to post this) I haven't worked my head around. I'll keep at it and I hope I'll eventually catch on to these things. I read your feedback article and that was a help.

I corrected the "see note # problem." I guess I never thought anyone would dare mess with my article! Again, thank you.

A question about "Verify:" On the one hand, I perhaps should drop the "see also" reference to Stiles, as the mss. is not published (therefore hard to "see") and I do not quote from it. My goal in listing it is simply to let some future researcher (however unlikely it is that one should emerge) know that this material exists. I do quote from Rounds and that material was supplied by the owner of the manuscript: again, not readily verifiable. Cooper is easier as Dan Cooper finally published an article about the gunfight and instead of quoting from the unpublished journal I can quote from the article (so I fixed that. I had been quoting from our email correspondence.). I do mention the journal though, for the same reason I mentioned Stiles, although with Dan's article in print I guess I could skip that. Mgblakes (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I know you can't keep holding my hand, but I will be happy to hear from you, of course. I am writing another (small) article which I hope qualifies for inclusion. It is about a minor figure in regional history named Ambrose B. Ernst. Mgblakes (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'll take a look once you're ready - don't worry, some people are immediately comfortable using Wiki, some take 2 or 3 articles to get used to it (I did copy-editing before committing to creating one) so don't feel there's any pressure. As long as your new article follows a similar style and tone to French's, and has a similar wide-range if references, it should be good. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 21:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And thanks again!

Thank you, Marcus British, for moving the doc for me -- it looks great, I really appreciate the help and FYI wiki is correct, those long list of links that are in danger of linkrot ARE ugly! Much, much better now. KellieFlan (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, glad to have helped - and yes, the URLs not only look better with a more pro referencing style, the info they convey now means if a website closes or changes its links, as happens all too often as sites are redesigned and coded by new developers, the info cited: title, author, date, etc can be used to find it again from their archives, or mirror sites, etc online, so it can be re-verified. Personally, I'd just ask Google for their backups - they virtually own the internet and everything on it. ;) Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 23:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Feedback

Hello MarcusBritish and thanks for the clear and excellent feedback for the page I'm attempting to move, on Colm Howard-Lloyd. I will do as you suggest on all counts. Certainly appreciate your time. KellieFlan (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you need further feedback, or help moving it later on, please let me know. Regards, Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 02:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Big thank you

Thank you so much for reviewing/assisting me on my articles, I do appreciate your help. Lots of love! :) Rovheel (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on User:TZ-MIG-FHJ/DiVa Project

Thank you for your feedback and the time invested, it is much appreciated. I tried to react on it. TZ-MIG-FHJ (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem - have already followed up on it, few copy-edits. You still need to account for notability though - very important that you do for wiki to accept it. Being a project, therefore under organisational management, WP:CORP might be your best guide. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 09:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Gone Batty and Baseball Bugs

IMDB credits Robert C. Bruce as in the movie, and was indeed uncredited due to Mel Blanc's contract. NoseNuggets (talk) 11:14 AM US EDT Aug 31 2011

Okay - but you need to prove that in the article, not to me - as it's a claim that could be challenged it should be cited. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 15:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Article on United Coffee

Thanks again, MarcusBritish. Do you see anything preventing this article to go live, apart from the need to maybe add additional references? Also, do you keep comments on the RFF page or here, on your personal talk page? Thanks, DiagramBeFun (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wiki's foremost rule is that articles have to account for notability, to even get a spot - 9/10 articles nominated for deletion are usually non-notable people, companies, etc. If the articles you have cited are non-English, then most editors on en.wiki are not going to recognise whether the article is providing notability or not.. for all we know it could be saying the coffee tastes like mud. ;) So that's why you either need an English reliable source, preferably, or a very good translation. Until notability is covered, nothing else matters, even if the article is 10,000 words long.. that's just the way it goes.

All RFF comments remain on the RFF pages and become archived after a few days, but accessible to everyone. Anything on my talk page has been brought to my attention by the editors, usually because they can't find out how to reply to their RFF, as the 'edit' option is a bit tricky to get back to for some people - you have to go back through the Date it was requested to see the [edit] links, as you probably know.

I see. I am sure I will find a relevant source in English; good thing I came here first though! Thanks again! DiagramBeFun (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Thank you!

Thank you for the review & the great feedback on Alexander Goldstein. I am currently working on adding the inline citations (ugh) & the various other suggestions that you made & I will get back to you as soon as I have them complete. Thanks again! On the same wavelength (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No problems, will gladly review it again when you get a chance to "ugh" it up. :) Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The corrections & additions were definitely great advice! Thank you. The article is all corrected, please review again & let me know you thoughts! On the same wavelength (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it again over the weekend, and definitely let you know - cheers! Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Resourceful Humans

Thanks for your feedback. Will get onto it tomorrow to remedy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhf2 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)