This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Thank u for your recent review on the above article. Pse refer to my reply on your earlier comments here . -- Aldwinteo 07:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I don't understand if you mean,
this diff and the talk page responses, that is certainly not what I believe. I thank you for all the effort you've put into Didsbury, and I would not want it to stop until GA. In fact, I'd prefer it to be the opposite. I'd love you to carry on editing Didsbury, because you're not only improving the article but giving me new tips on copyediting and grammarfixing all the time. Please carry on. Regards,
Onnaghar
talk !
ctrb !
er 14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Always good to have a second pair of eyes. I've responded to your suggestions on Talk:Edward Low, I've done all bar two of them. Neil ム 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've responded here. Maralia 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, [1], pls see instructions at {{ ArticleHistory}}. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course I don't mind your edits & responding to the FA reviews. I was off line for 36 hrs - but you've done a better job than I would have anyway. Re: Old Market - the source just says "the area directly outside the castle where the troops mustered" - would the "troops from the castle" help at all? I would presume what sort of troops would vary with the centuries!— Rod talk 19:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your involvement with the article on Sir John Brunner, 1st Baronet – and not least for promoting it as a GA. I much appreciated the reasonable and sympathetic way in which you made your comments; it has not always been my experience in Wikipedia to be dealt with kindly – on some occasions reviewers have been not much removed from rude. As you will have realised, my career was not involved with writing articles so my prose is not the best and your copyediting is much appreciated; the sections you have amended now read much better. Getting a full copyedit is not easy. When Runcorn was peer reviewed, it was recommended that it should be copyedited; someone referred to its "strange prose". I took someone's suggestion I that I should choose someone low down on the list of members of the league of copywriters, who should be new and keen. So I selected a retired American professor of English. He split the article into short sentences and when the article was submitted as a FAC it was criticised for its "choppy prose". The article is now sitting patiently waiting for someone else to pick it up (it at number 40). Still there's no rush; I do not intend to submit it as a FAC again – too much aggro!
Regarding your query about Brunner's world trip in 1886, I don't really know. I have returned the Koss book to its owner and I don't remember any motive being stated. To guess, as his business was going well with his managers doing the day-to-day work, and having lost his parliamentary seat, he saw what might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to travel, and took it. Does that make sense? Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 11:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the speed at which you're racking up barnstars from all corners — and the fact that you've demonstrated a clear understanding of WP policy, an ability to reach consensus with some of Wikipedia's more colourful characters, an ability to cool down Heated Debates (if the thread a few above this is any guide) and an unmatched ability to clean up other peoples' messes — it seems to me that you're ideal material for a Wikipedia admin if you wanted. If you're ever interested, let me know and I'll be glad to nominate you. If you don't feel you're ready/able yet but might be in future, consider this a standing offer. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your immensely constructive and helpful approach to Good Article reviewing, and not just because the eventual outcome was a pass. If you're Cheshire born, can we tempt you into the Cheshire project? (Or perhaps we shouldn't as then you might not be able to review Cheshire GA candidates!) Regards, Espresso Addict 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Malleus Fatuarum. I see you immediately reverted the edits I made to the article on ferrets in an attempt to reduce some of its redundacy and disorganization, as well as attempt to reword portions that appear too much like a "How to..." manual, qualities you complained of on the talk page. You stated that even if those opinions were sourced, which they aren't, they hardly read like an encyclopedia article. If you don't like the edits I've made, I'd appreciate you discussing the issue or making appropriate changes as you see fit rather than simply reverting all my efforts. When another person invests time, effort, and energy in trying to improve an article, it is unreasonable to summarily revert something without any explanation. I think the article was improved by the changes and if you think otherwise, we should discuss it; the speed with which you acted leads me to believe you barely examined it. I will wait for you to have a chance to reply and discuss the items before I proceed further. -- AzureCitizen 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Have it your own way, believe whatever you like. This is clearly not a productive way for either of us to be spending our time, so please stop wasting mine. -- Malleus Fatuarum 14:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. Having passed Shaw and Crompton at FA level now for a while, amongst other things, I've been trying to bring the Oldham article upto (at very least) a B or A class standard. As it currently stands, I believe there is some real high quality content, particularly the earlier Lead, Early history, Industrial Revolution and cotton, Governance and Geography sections. However, there is some really bad, and down-right ugly content towards the latter end of the article!
My reason for sharing this? - Just wondered if, rather than a full on copy-edit, you could give it a quick interim read through and let me know you're thoughts so far, and see if you spot anything too horrible to keep any longer. You may also have some pointers which I'd be more than happy to hear. If I can return any kind of support back to you to facilitate your ideas, please do let me know. If you can help, please do note there's no rush. Jza84 21:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
MF, have you revealed your personal information of your own voliation here in Wikipedia, or is Flydb5 trying to out you? Shot info 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my initial user page said that my real name was Eric, which it is. That, and the area I live in, which can be seen on my talk page and on Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester, is the only personal information I've given out on wikipedia. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, I changed my user page as a direct result of Flybd5 using my first name on the ITIL v3 talk pages, as I found it to be patronising. I'd really prefer that he didn't use my name, as I don't use his, even though I know what his full name is, as he's advertised it often enough on wikipedia. I'm with you on the wackos front, so I'll ask Flybd5 not to use my name again. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I dropped you an email this morning - thought I'd leave you a note here, in case you don't check it regularly. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralia ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It gets sent to whatever external email address you set in the 'my preferences' tab. Hope that helps! Maralia 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Maralia 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've responded. Thanks again. Maralia 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ping again! Email incoming. Maralia 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Iridescent suggested to contact you about my recent nomination of the article Golden Film as a featured article candidate. If you are interested, maybe you could help copyediting or commenting to it. – Ilse @ 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not upset. – Ilse @ 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In the sentence: "The audience for Dutch films as a percentage of the total cinema audience in the Netherlands increased from 5.5% (ca. 1.0 million visitors) in 1999, to 5.9% (ca. 1.3 million visitors) in 2000 and to 9.5% in 2001 (ca. 2.3 million visitors) and 10.5% (ca. 2.5 million visitors) in 2002." the data from 1999 and 2000 are before the award, and 2001 and 2002 are after the introduction of the award. Do you know a way of adding this info without further complicating the already long sentence? – Ilse @ 09:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for improving many of the article's sections by copyediting them. In the section Response to the award you made only one minor change. Do you think this section, that consists of several quotes, still needs more copyediting? – Ilse @ 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've looked at that section again and I've made a few changes. There are still a few areas I'm not happy with, and I've left a message on the article's talk page explaining what they are. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've now done as much as I'm prepared to do on that article. You have now more than once reverted what I considered to be substantial improvements to the prose. No matter, and no hard feelings. Good luck with your FA review. -- Malleus Fatuarum 00:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comments on the talk. Other editors have made a fair number of edits since it was first reviewed, and I replied to your feedback as well. I'm interested in any further comments or suggestions you might have, if you have the time. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If you get the chance could you have a look at The Mall Wood Green? I've sent this up to GAC; I suspect it'll fail as too short, but I'd be interested in any comments, as in light of your cleanup work on Trafford Centre you presumably don't have the "every article about a shopping mall is always spam" mentality that the - er - "character" who nominated this for AfD last month has. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, if you get a chance, pls review the instructions at {{ ArticleHistory}}; I've been fixing these at the rate of several a day on GA passes. Only completed processes are added to articlehistory; adding blank events causes them to populate the error category. [4] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You went WAY beyond the call of duty on this one, thanks!! ++ Lar: t/ c 23:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your post on User talk:Phaedriel and came to see your page. I have just made a few syntax changes to it — and presumably they should be made to whatever page you based it on… The specific changes I made, removing four instances of 'px' from html attributes, are correct; the 'px' unit is only appropriate on CSS values. -- Jack Merridew 13:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed this article before you placed your 'GAReview' tag on it, and my comments are on the talk page. It is currently on hold pending some minor revisions. Feel free to add additional comments as you see fit. Dr. Cash 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have undertaken the relevant changes you have suggested, and look forward to any further comments. Thank-you.-- Bulleid Pacific 13:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, After all your great copyediting work I wonder if I could ask another favour. Folks at WikiProject Somerset have been doing some major edits to get the Somerset article ready to be nominated for GA (& hopefully later FA). I think the content, referencing etc is all there but the prose will let it down. If you had time to take a look that would be great - but if you are likely to be the GA reviewer please ignore this message, as I wouldn't want you to look too closely before we are ready to nominate it.— Rod talk 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Impressive work with that article. All that will hold it back from going on to reaching FA now is the prose I think. -- Malleus Fatuarum 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Malleus Fatarum! I hope all is well.
Firstly, having just revamped my userpage, I'm a little jealous that yours is much more uber than mine! It looks great!.... I wanted to share a few thoughts and bring your attention to a couple of things. Blyth, Northumberland is up for FA nomination, and as your a strong reviewer, thought you may want to take a look at it (I think it's quite good). Also, I'm a sucker for consistency, but I'm trying to persuade editors of Peterborough of using a standard layout (they have Geography last!). I've produced a lovely WP:UKCITIES version in my sandbox (which is only a tiny reshuffle), but it's being opposed. I'm I being too brutal with this standard?? What do you think?
I think WP:MANC is good at gathering pace, and we've got some great editors, but I'm still concerned that we aren't furthering Manchester fast enough (it's missing alot of content!). I'm thinking we should aim to complete Manchester (which I'm hoping to make a local map for the article like that in Oldham) before moving onto Greater Manchester as a project, wouldn't you agree? Finally, just wondered where you were upto with thinking about adminship?? -- Jza84 · ( talk) 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have undertaken the relevant changes you have suggested, and look forward to any further comments. Thank-you.-- Bulleid Pacific 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Taken them on-board, and think I have explained things a bit better. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I believe I have undertaken the relevant changes you have suggested, and look forward to any further comments. Unfortunately, the write-off of a single locomotive in terms of Princess Anne did leave a gap in the 8P roster, as the demand for 8P locomotives on the route was high. Thank-you.-- Bulleid Pacific 23:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuaraum, I just wanted to drop a note here to ask you to reconsider your decision to leave the workshop. I think you have made valuable contributions, and I would be sorry to have the workshop lose a productive member. An additional reason is that the workshop was formed with the hope of building trust among groups of people with experience in different content review processes, in order to enable us to work together on new ideas. I would like us to find ways to move from disagreements to more collegial behaviour, rather than see participants take offence and leave. One of the problem statements on the front page directly addresses the acrimony that so easily flares up in these discussions; I want to see us fix that problem. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Just an note to say thank you for reviewing three articles on the trot, you have done a great job. Keep it up, and I hope you enjoy reading other steam/railway-related articles. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific 18:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ever so much for the Barnstar! I didn't expect to get a barnstar... well... at least until I'd finished all the maps for counties if I'm totally sincere! But I am really greatful for your kind gesture! I still have some way before catching up to you yet though! hehe!
I'm sure it won't be long before you yourself recieve one of the new Greater Manchester barnstars! -- Jza84 · ( talk) 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As recommended, I'm practising the art of "political niceties". Here's a cookie for you too. Cookie. Leranedo 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is done. I've found a GA candidate to start with, and gotten his/her okay for a joint review. The article is Mayslake Peabody Estate; I'll be starting on it shortly. Maralia 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I've had the chance to spend some time looking over the article now, and I'll very interested to know what your initial thoughts are. I've sent you an email. :) -- Malleus Fatuarum 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed your GA comments by expanding the article and explaining the changes at Talk:Airborne_Real-time_Cueing_Hyperspectral_Enhanced_Reconnaissance#GA_review. Please have a look, and add any follow-up comments. Thanks. Dhaluza 10:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Thank u for your recent review on the above article. Pse refer to my reply on your earlier comments here . -- Aldwinteo 07:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I don't understand if you mean,
this diff and the talk page responses, that is certainly not what I believe. I thank you for all the effort you've put into Didsbury, and I would not want it to stop until GA. In fact, I'd prefer it to be the opposite. I'd love you to carry on editing Didsbury, because you're not only improving the article but giving me new tips on copyediting and grammarfixing all the time. Please carry on. Regards,
Onnaghar
talk !
ctrb !
er 14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Always good to have a second pair of eyes. I've responded to your suggestions on Talk:Edward Low, I've done all bar two of them. Neil ム 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've responded here. Maralia 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, [1], pls see instructions at {{ ArticleHistory}}. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course I don't mind your edits & responding to the FA reviews. I was off line for 36 hrs - but you've done a better job than I would have anyway. Re: Old Market - the source just says "the area directly outside the castle where the troops mustered" - would the "troops from the castle" help at all? I would presume what sort of troops would vary with the centuries!— Rod talk 19:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your involvement with the article on Sir John Brunner, 1st Baronet – and not least for promoting it as a GA. I much appreciated the reasonable and sympathetic way in which you made your comments; it has not always been my experience in Wikipedia to be dealt with kindly – on some occasions reviewers have been not much removed from rude. As you will have realised, my career was not involved with writing articles so my prose is not the best and your copyediting is much appreciated; the sections you have amended now read much better. Getting a full copyedit is not easy. When Runcorn was peer reviewed, it was recommended that it should be copyedited; someone referred to its "strange prose". I took someone's suggestion I that I should choose someone low down on the list of members of the league of copywriters, who should be new and keen. So I selected a retired American professor of English. He split the article into short sentences and when the article was submitted as a FAC it was criticised for its "choppy prose". The article is now sitting patiently waiting for someone else to pick it up (it at number 40). Still there's no rush; I do not intend to submit it as a FAC again – too much aggro!
Regarding your query about Brunner's world trip in 1886, I don't really know. I have returned the Koss book to its owner and I don't remember any motive being stated. To guess, as his business was going well with his managers doing the day-to-day work, and having lost his parliamentary seat, he saw what might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to travel, and took it. Does that make sense? Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 11:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the speed at which you're racking up barnstars from all corners — and the fact that you've demonstrated a clear understanding of WP policy, an ability to reach consensus with some of Wikipedia's more colourful characters, an ability to cool down Heated Debates (if the thread a few above this is any guide) and an unmatched ability to clean up other peoples' messes — it seems to me that you're ideal material for a Wikipedia admin if you wanted. If you're ever interested, let me know and I'll be glad to nominate you. If you don't feel you're ready/able yet but might be in future, consider this a standing offer. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your immensely constructive and helpful approach to Good Article reviewing, and not just because the eventual outcome was a pass. If you're Cheshire born, can we tempt you into the Cheshire project? (Or perhaps we shouldn't as then you might not be able to review Cheshire GA candidates!) Regards, Espresso Addict 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Malleus Fatuarum. I see you immediately reverted the edits I made to the article on ferrets in an attempt to reduce some of its redundacy and disorganization, as well as attempt to reword portions that appear too much like a "How to..." manual, qualities you complained of on the talk page. You stated that even if those opinions were sourced, which they aren't, they hardly read like an encyclopedia article. If you don't like the edits I've made, I'd appreciate you discussing the issue or making appropriate changes as you see fit rather than simply reverting all my efforts. When another person invests time, effort, and energy in trying to improve an article, it is unreasonable to summarily revert something without any explanation. I think the article was improved by the changes and if you think otherwise, we should discuss it; the speed with which you acted leads me to believe you barely examined it. I will wait for you to have a chance to reply and discuss the items before I proceed further. -- AzureCitizen 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Have it your own way, believe whatever you like. This is clearly not a productive way for either of us to be spending our time, so please stop wasting mine. -- Malleus Fatuarum 14:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. Having passed Shaw and Crompton at FA level now for a while, amongst other things, I've been trying to bring the Oldham article upto (at very least) a B or A class standard. As it currently stands, I believe there is some real high quality content, particularly the earlier Lead, Early history, Industrial Revolution and cotton, Governance and Geography sections. However, there is some really bad, and down-right ugly content towards the latter end of the article!
My reason for sharing this? - Just wondered if, rather than a full on copy-edit, you could give it a quick interim read through and let me know you're thoughts so far, and see if you spot anything too horrible to keep any longer. You may also have some pointers which I'd be more than happy to hear. If I can return any kind of support back to you to facilitate your ideas, please do let me know. If you can help, please do note there's no rush. Jza84 21:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
MF, have you revealed your personal information of your own voliation here in Wikipedia, or is Flydb5 trying to out you? Shot info 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my initial user page said that my real name was Eric, which it is. That, and the area I live in, which can be seen on my talk page and on Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester, is the only personal information I've given out on wikipedia. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, I changed my user page as a direct result of Flybd5 using my first name on the ITIL v3 talk pages, as I found it to be patronising. I'd really prefer that he didn't use my name, as I don't use his, even though I know what his full name is, as he's advertised it often enough on wikipedia. I'm with you on the wackos front, so I'll ask Flybd5 not to use my name again. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I dropped you an email this morning - thought I'd leave you a note here, in case you don't check it regularly. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralia ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It gets sent to whatever external email address you set in the 'my preferences' tab. Hope that helps! Maralia 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Maralia 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've responded. Thanks again. Maralia 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ping again! Email incoming. Maralia 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Iridescent suggested to contact you about my recent nomination of the article Golden Film as a featured article candidate. If you are interested, maybe you could help copyediting or commenting to it. – Ilse @ 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not upset. – Ilse @ 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In the sentence: "The audience for Dutch films as a percentage of the total cinema audience in the Netherlands increased from 5.5% (ca. 1.0 million visitors) in 1999, to 5.9% (ca. 1.3 million visitors) in 2000 and to 9.5% in 2001 (ca. 2.3 million visitors) and 10.5% (ca. 2.5 million visitors) in 2002." the data from 1999 and 2000 are before the award, and 2001 and 2002 are after the introduction of the award. Do you know a way of adding this info without further complicating the already long sentence? – Ilse @ 09:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for improving many of the article's sections by copyediting them. In the section Response to the award you made only one minor change. Do you think this section, that consists of several quotes, still needs more copyediting? – Ilse @ 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've looked at that section again and I've made a few changes. There are still a few areas I'm not happy with, and I've left a message on the article's talk page explaining what they are. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've now done as much as I'm prepared to do on that article. You have now more than once reverted what I considered to be substantial improvements to the prose. No matter, and no hard feelings. Good luck with your FA review. -- Malleus Fatuarum 00:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comments on the talk. Other editors have made a fair number of edits since it was first reviewed, and I replied to your feedback as well. I'm interested in any further comments or suggestions you might have, if you have the time. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If you get the chance could you have a look at The Mall Wood Green? I've sent this up to GAC; I suspect it'll fail as too short, but I'd be interested in any comments, as in light of your cleanup work on Trafford Centre you presumably don't have the "every article about a shopping mall is always spam" mentality that the - er - "character" who nominated this for AfD last month has. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, if you get a chance, pls review the instructions at {{ ArticleHistory}}; I've been fixing these at the rate of several a day on GA passes. Only completed processes are added to articlehistory; adding blank events causes them to populate the error category. [4] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You went WAY beyond the call of duty on this one, thanks!! ++ Lar: t/ c 23:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your post on User talk:Phaedriel and came to see your page. I have just made a few syntax changes to it — and presumably they should be made to whatever page you based it on… The specific changes I made, removing four instances of 'px' from html attributes, are correct; the 'px' unit is only appropriate on CSS values. -- Jack Merridew 13:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed this article before you placed your 'GAReview' tag on it, and my comments are on the talk page. It is currently on hold pending some minor revisions. Feel free to add additional comments as you see fit. Dr. Cash 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have undertaken the relevant changes you have suggested, and look forward to any further comments. Thank-you.-- Bulleid Pacific 13:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, After all your great copyediting work I wonder if I could ask another favour. Folks at WikiProject Somerset have been doing some major edits to get the Somerset article ready to be nominated for GA (& hopefully later FA). I think the content, referencing etc is all there but the prose will let it down. If you had time to take a look that would be great - but if you are likely to be the GA reviewer please ignore this message, as I wouldn't want you to look too closely before we are ready to nominate it.— Rod talk 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Impressive work with that article. All that will hold it back from going on to reaching FA now is the prose I think. -- Malleus Fatuarum 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Malleus Fatarum! I hope all is well.
Firstly, having just revamped my userpage, I'm a little jealous that yours is much more uber than mine! It looks great!.... I wanted to share a few thoughts and bring your attention to a couple of things. Blyth, Northumberland is up for FA nomination, and as your a strong reviewer, thought you may want to take a look at it (I think it's quite good). Also, I'm a sucker for consistency, but I'm trying to persuade editors of Peterborough of using a standard layout (they have Geography last!). I've produced a lovely WP:UKCITIES version in my sandbox (which is only a tiny reshuffle), but it's being opposed. I'm I being too brutal with this standard?? What do you think?
I think WP:MANC is good at gathering pace, and we've got some great editors, but I'm still concerned that we aren't furthering Manchester fast enough (it's missing alot of content!). I'm thinking we should aim to complete Manchester (which I'm hoping to make a local map for the article like that in Oldham) before moving onto Greater Manchester as a project, wouldn't you agree? Finally, just wondered where you were upto with thinking about adminship?? -- Jza84 · ( talk) 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have undertaken the relevant changes you have suggested, and look forward to any further comments. Thank-you.-- Bulleid Pacific 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Taken them on-board, and think I have explained things a bit better. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I believe I have undertaken the relevant changes you have suggested, and look forward to any further comments. Unfortunately, the write-off of a single locomotive in terms of Princess Anne did leave a gap in the 8P roster, as the demand for 8P locomotives on the route was high. Thank-you.-- Bulleid Pacific 23:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuaraum, I just wanted to drop a note here to ask you to reconsider your decision to leave the workshop. I think you have made valuable contributions, and I would be sorry to have the workshop lose a productive member. An additional reason is that the workshop was formed with the hope of building trust among groups of people with experience in different content review processes, in order to enable us to work together on new ideas. I would like us to find ways to move from disagreements to more collegial behaviour, rather than see participants take offence and leave. One of the problem statements on the front page directly addresses the acrimony that so easily flares up in these discussions; I want to see us fix that problem. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Just an note to say thank you for reviewing three articles on the trot, you have done a great job. Keep it up, and I hope you enjoy reading other steam/railway-related articles. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific 18:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ever so much for the Barnstar! I didn't expect to get a barnstar... well... at least until I'd finished all the maps for counties if I'm totally sincere! But I am really greatful for your kind gesture! I still have some way before catching up to you yet though! hehe!
I'm sure it won't be long before you yourself recieve one of the new Greater Manchester barnstars! -- Jza84 · ( talk) 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As recommended, I'm practising the art of "political niceties". Here's a cookie for you too. Cookie. Leranedo 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is done. I've found a GA candidate to start with, and gotten his/her okay for a joint review. The article is Mayslake Peabody Estate; I'll be starting on it shortly. Maralia 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I've had the chance to spend some time looking over the article now, and I'll very interested to know what your initial thoughts are. I've sent you an email. :) -- Malleus Fatuarum 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed your GA comments by expanding the article and explaining the changes at Talk:Airborne_Real-time_Cueing_Hyperspectral_Enhanced_Reconnaissance#GA_review. Please have a look, and add any follow-up comments. Thanks. Dhaluza 10:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)