User talk:Renamed user df576567etesddf/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Mind Meld

Hi John,

Sorry to take a few days to respond to your most recent comments at the Mind Meld FAC. I spent the weekend out of town at a conference, and therefore had little downtime and internet access. I would be glad to engage with any further concerns you have with respect to the article.

Neelix (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the head up David. I have a few minutes now and will be happy to have another look. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

A couple of points

First, I notice that you had a brief dabble with Jarrow March. I have now opened a peer review for the article, and would be very pleased to have your comments there.

Secondly, re the Mutiny: I have begun listing source books and articles here. Do you have any further suggestions? I have all the books, from my Heywood researches, and am familiar with some of the other material. Of the books, Alexander is I think I think essential, the others perhaps less so (the Greg Dening book is very odd and hard to read). Let me know what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Brian. Re: Jarrow, I will be delighted to look through and try to lend a hand at the review. I don't know so much about this and I look forward to another enlightening read. Re: Mutiny, I have started transferring sources from your list to the draft page here and will continue doing so over the next week or so. I do not have any of the books and it is hard for me to get hold of them in the Middle East, so I'm working from online sources for the most part—the links you have provided will be very helpful for me. One thing I feel I must confess before we get too deeply into things is that while I am fairly well-versed military-wise I am a dreadful landlubber and am not so well acquainted with the naval vocabulary. So please forgive me if I make some schoolboyish blunder. Hope all is well. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have quite a lot of experience with "ship" articles so that won't be a problem. As a general way of proceeding, I suggest you continue with your draft using the sources available to you. I will follow you up, expanding and adding depth on the basis of the book sources I have – I don't think you need to buy the books, unless you particularly want to. If there are any sections that you don't feel you want to tackle, even in draft form, let me know. I also suggest that at a fairly early stage we transfer your draft into mainspace, along with a "construction" banner, as I am a bit uneasy with working in other editors' sandboxes. One point: do you have JSTOR access? The related jstor articles will be useful but not perhaps central to the article's development. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have access to JSTOR. Your plan sounds good. I'll carry on working in userspace until we get a basic outline, then transfer to mainspace as you suggest. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Regarding the dating of the mutiny, it is always recorded as 28 April though it actually took place in the early hours of what would regularly be considered 29 April. Now my understanding is that this is because the Navy then started the new day at 12:00 noon rather than midnight. Is this correct? —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is so, not just in the Royal Navy but generally at sea – it was known as "sea time" (see note 5 in my recent Mary Celeste article. A similar explanatory note might be helpful here. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have found a reference to it ("nautical", "navy" or "sea" time, apparently) in the McKinney book and implemented. According to other stuff found through Google books the Royal Navy abandoned said system in 1805, instructing the keeping of logs in civil time. Worth mentioning, do you think, or do you think it's just enough to say the system was "then used by the Royal Navy"? Regarding the dates, I had misunderstood above—since P.M. precedes A.M. under nautical time it was actually the morning of 28 April according to regular time, following the evening of 27 April (28 April under sea time). (This is incidentally the reverse of a system I myself used as a soldier, where the days were logged 12 hours behind the regular calendar.) —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I'm sorry to be taking some time to get this into mainspace, but I'd rather at least have a skeleton article mentioning all the major aspects before I do this. I will devote some hours to the draft tonight and tomorrow to try to get it ready and hopefully will be able to get it into mainspace in a day or two. Thank you again for your willingness to co-ordinate our efforts and for being patient with me. I hope you're well—a belated Happy St George's Day. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no hurry; I have quite a bit of refamiliarisation reading on the topic to do, and am also busy on a few other fronts. I am thinking that we should aim as rough target to have the article in a reviewable state by mid-May if possible. Does that sound feasible to you? Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why not. I will keep you updated. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: the article is now in mainspace at Mutiny on the Bounty with the "under construction" banner on it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgot I left that

That was not for press, I was getting punchy after hours of editing, thanks for the correction. talk→ WPPilot  00:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It's really all right, don't worry. I'm sorry I came off a bit crusty in how I phrased my edit summary—I felt bad after pressing the enter button. Hope you're well, and thanks for all your work on this. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Kruger as a train
No worries at all, things are good. Cheers! --talk→ WPPilot  00:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Cheers to you too. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
…and thanks for your correction of Kruger's deathplace! GWR 2602 Class might amuse you. You could link to it in a "Kruger in Popular Culture" section. Or maybe not… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I must say it does look rather like how I imagine Oom Paul might have looked had he ever taken locomotive form! (see right) —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

Jarrow March

This is to advise contributors to the recent peer review that this article is now at WP:FAC. further comments etc much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 10, 2015

Cliftonian, yet another summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Is there anything else you'd like to see in the TFA text? I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dan, how are you? I have just looked it over and it looks fine to me. Thanks for the note. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm good thanks. Just made a couple of tweaks. Who called it an "irresistible fairy story" ... I probably want to say who it was. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The link is here. From the Oxford Dictionary of Sports Studies (Fourth ed., 2010) by Alan Tomlinson. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that's hefty enough to be worth including in the article; I'll pull in something else for TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Lekker. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda! I'm sorry, I didn't see this until just now. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bounty

I've just been looking at the article in mainspace – more developed than I thought it would be, and a most creditable effort. I currently have a small backlog of reviewing work, as well as TFA chores etc, and am still "reading up" my sources, but I intend to begin polishing etc within a few days. If there are any sections to which you would particularly like to direct my attention, please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thank you for your kind words, but I feel most of the praise should be directed towards you as so much of the article is borrowed from your biography of Peter Heywood. Just to make sure you know, User:Howcheng has the article tomorrow (28 April) in the "on this day" section, so presumably the "under construction" banner will have to come down temporarily. Or not? I don't really know much about how "on this day" works, but I do know you aren't supposed to have banners on there regarding citations etc. Regarding directions:
  • I have not got far on the last section (presently titled "Cultural impact", but that might not be right)
  • The "settlement" subsection under "Pitcairn" needs better referencing and a bit of checking as it is basically just a cleaned up version of what was there before.
  • I intend to flesh out the section on the voyage in the launch (the argument where Purcell said he was "just as much a man" as Bligh, etc)
  • Perhaps the section on the mutiny itself could be fleshed out a bit from what we have in the main sources. As you can see I leaned mostly on the account given in Guttridge's history of mutinies in general.
  • Perhaps more information on the earlier arguments and tensions on the way out and on Tahiti.
  • Finally I think the lead needs some work, but I think we should leave this for last.
I hope this helps. I will go on working on this over the next few days as well. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As you will see, I have tinkered a bit with the Background section and am continuing through the article, fleshing out where necessary Give me a shout if anything confuses or alarms you, and by all means continue with your own amendemnts. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Aye aye sir —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I'm sorry if I'm being stupid, but what is this reference to "Hodge" in the "Bligh" subsection? —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it's me that's been stupid, by transposing the wrong name – should be Frost (Bligh's ODNB biographer). Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: We need a notepad through which we can pass comments and run suggestions, raise queries etc. Your talkpage or mine are not suitable. I suggest we use this page, which I originally opened to list sources. We can signal comments through the ping system. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The Breadfruit Barnstar...

 The Breadfruit Barnstar 
For great work improving the Mutiny on the Bounty's article! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Hchc2009! What a nice surprise. I assure you this breadfruit will not be thrown overboard. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Barnstar

The Mediator Barnstar
For your exemplary efforts to mediate the discussion regarding 2007 Shinwar shooting, I would like to present to you this barnstar. While WP:STRAIGHT appears to be what is occurring, having an unbiased editor helps steer the discussion in a constructive direction. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, this is a nice surprise. Thank you RightCowLeftCoast. I'm glad you like my contribution to the discussion. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

MOS

Hi. Can you point me to the MOS provision you refer to here? Many thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIRTHPLACE. "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability." (stress added, not in original) —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. We really should change the other part of that. It is incomprehensible that we split the birth day and the place of birth. They really do belong together -- they are inextricably and closely connected. And other encyclopedias refer to them in the same breath. WP format guideline at its worst, IMHO. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This is, in my view, a positive of having infoboxes in biographies—it allows us to put the full name, birth date and place of birth, death date and place of death all together in full without unattractively clogging up the prose in the opening paragraph. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I would view them separately. I like infoboxes. Some don't. Some view them as "clogging up" the intro. I think that just as we have the place and date of birth in the ibox, common sense -- and years of tradition in other encyclopedias -- point to having both (if you are going to "clog up the lede with one" together in the first sentence. Bother or neither. Splitting the two, inextricably connected, is nonsensical. And the location of birth is likely more important for that matter ... though this isn't the main point ... than, for example, which day of the month, and which month, person x was born in. We would never split -- say -- where a person graduated from and then, in another section, what year they graduated ... we would call any suggestion to do so stupid. Same here. Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
My problem is more regarding the usage "Ruritanian-born Azanian" or similar, which is a pet hate of mine. Let's say X person was born in Ruritania but is a citizen of Azania from birth by jus sanguinis, is raised in Azania from the age of 2 and is entirely notable as a person from Azania. This person is clearly Azanian and not Ruritanian, right? But you'll still often see such a person defined in the opening sentence of their Wikipedia entry as a "Ruritanian-born Azanian". Not just arbitrary but misleading and potentially a BLP issue as well. Then you have the never-ending issue of how to define international footballers... —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand your view there. I could perhaps propose another way to view it, but it's less significant to me than this other point I'm raising. With the issue I'm focused on (and you are less focused on), the WP guideline is both: 1) strikingly non-logical; 2) at odds with how other encyclopedias such as Britannica handle it; and 3) at odds with how we handle it in infoboxes and how we handle parallel date/event mentions. Plus -- even worse -- a cadre of thoughtless editors, relying on that language, delete the place of birth from the lede ... without reinserting it in the text below. They would never just delete a word with a typo. But somehow, OCD at work?, they think this is an improvement of the Project. I think it would be good to change this aspect of the guideline. Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Labuan FAC

Hi Cliftonian, If you have time, would you mind looking in on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Labuan/archive1 (my nomination) and leaving a review - negative, or positive - of course. It's been open for three weeks now, and needs a few extra reviews. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem - later today or tomorrow my friend. Hope all's well with you. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Article: Simón Bolivar (Introduction)

Hello,

The article is right, but there is a aspect that yet not is clear; is about to setting title "Political ", to Simón Bolivar, in the history, he never accepted political jobs such as President of Venezuela. In others words, yet he was involve with moving of independence not would enter in the pure Political.

Then is not well to say that he was a political person.

I must say you about the spanish version of this article; why not admit edit?. I do not understand it.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancolx (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand. You seem to say Bolivar should not be described as a politician, but then seem to refer me to the Spanish-language article on Bolivar, which so far as I can see describes him as a military and political leader. Was he not president of four or five different polities? Please tell me if I'm wrong; I'm not an expert on South American history. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


Sorry, I explained wrong. Simón Bolivar according several books was militar and liberator but not a Political.

About the spanish article is wrong too, but I can not edit. Do you know; why not? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancolx (talk • contribs) 03:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you can't edit the Spanish article. I admit I am no expert on the subject but it seems odd to me to say Bolivar was not a political figure when he was President of half of South America. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


To be more explicit with the information presented; the main performance of Simon Bolivar was to liberdator therefore for the introduction of the article; use the "political" is very subjective term.


Consequently some encyclopedias no such term used in the prologue.

Let me show you the equivalent article in the Encyclopedia Britannica; — http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/72067/Simon-Bolivar

Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancolx (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That Britannica article refers to Bolivar as a "statesman", which basically means a very capable and important politician like Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Disraeli. So I'm not sure it really proves your point. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Falstaff

Hello, Cliftonian. I wonder if I can interest you in the FAC for Verdi's Falstaff? I had been working on the article on and off in collaboration with Viva-Verdi (John Webber), who died in March. This FAC is by way of being my personal tribute to him, and any suggestions for polishing it further will be particularly gladly received. – Tim riley talk 11:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

A touching tribute indeed, and I would be delighted to help in any way I can. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Mutiny

Do you mind dealing with the basic PR comments, as I have a few distractions at the moment? Obviously if you need my input I'll give it, but otherwise I'm happy to accept your judgements on the straightforward issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. I've already handled the first batch from Tim and Cassianto. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I altered the "other" mutineers in the nav box from 17 to 12, but the 17 is still showing. Can you fix this? Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It's showing 12 for me. I think you just need to bypass your cache. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

FAC comments

Hey Cliftonian, if you have time these days, please check my FA nominee Master of Puppets. The review page is here, any feedback is welcomed.--Retrohead (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls

Hi John,

Might you be willing to contribute comments to another FAC? My past FACs have greatly benefited from your input, so I thought that I would invite you to participate in another. I currently have the JC's Girls article up for an FAC here, and one editor has argued that the subject should not be eligible for featured status because the sources that exist don't provide enough critical assessment and commentary on the organization. Your thoughts on this and any other related matters would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to have a look. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, John! I have located a documentary film about the organization that I hope will help with the lacking critical assessment and commentary, and have responded to your comments at the FAC. Neelix (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
That's great. I'll have another look at the FAC over the next few days—in the meantime have a look at the documentary and try to expand along the lines you describe. Hopefully there will be a lot of new information there. Hope all's well with you. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, John. I have watched the documentary from beginning to end and pulled out as much as I think wise. The only things I haven't pulled out that might be somewhat relevant are opinion points from James DiGiorgio, an anonymous Riverside Church council member, and a university professor. DiGiorgio mainly talks about his belief that Veitch is addicted to sex and will eventually revert back into a more sexually overt lifestyle. The Riverside Church council member derides JC's Girls for various reasons. The university professor talks about reasons why some Christians might oppose JC's Girls. I didn't find anything that seemed particularly noteworthy in their comments, but please let me know if either of these commentaries sounds like it would address any of your concerns. Neelix (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort David, and well done again on building this solid article. If you are interested, Brianboulton and I now have Mutiny on the Bounty up for featured article candidacy. The nomination seems well on the way, but any thoughts you may have would be appreciated—we are also lacking source and image reviews, so if you feel up to tackling either of those we would be thankful. Cheers and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe the source review is now complete for the Mutiny on the Bounty. You've written another great article, John! I've responded to your most recent comments at the JC's Girls FAC. I understand that you don't feel the existing sources are sufficient for the article to attain featured status, but I would appreciate any time you can provide in tying up the loose ends in our discussion at the FAC. Neelix (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help at Bounty, David. You were very helpful. I'm glad you like the article, but I must clarify that Brian and I made this one together—indeed I think he contributed more than I did. Just to be clear. I'll have another look at JC's Girls either tonight or over the next couple of days. I'm flattered you value my opinion so highly. Cheers, keep well and have a great rest of the weekend. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I really appreciate you continuing to engage with the JC's Girls FAC. I think I my have found the critical assessment you are looking for! I have added some more sources to the article and responded to your most recent comments at the FAC. Let me know what you think! Neelix (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Bounty stone image

This image is misplaced in the Pitcairn section; most logically it belongs in the Tahiti section, as a replacement for the Matavai Bay painting (which is not directly related to the mutiny). I am also particularly anxious not to lose the Bounty rudder, which I have restored to the Pitcairn section while we decide where best to place the stone. Can we discuss? Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies—I misunderstood your intention regarding the picture. I had presumed because it was a modern commemoration stone your intention was for it to go near the end. Regarding the Tahiti section, I would personally be happier to keep the Matavai Bay painting, which gives the reader a nice vivid picture of the exotic place where Bounty dropped anchor. The stone is interesting but as a visual complement to the text doesn't add as much in my opinion. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I have relocated the stone image in the "Mutineers divided" section, which is reasonably justifiable as that section is all about Tahiti, and placing it there doesn't create image clutter. I think it's interesting enough to include – we can always rethink before FAC, but let's not be hasty. On which point, I suggest we wait for further PR comments for a couple more days, but we should be looking to go ahead with the FAC on Monday (the Glorious First of June). Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I like the stone image where you put it. Regarding FAC, would you like me to handle the paperwork again as at the start of the PR, or would you prefer to write your own FAC intro? I was thinking just to use the same one. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind you doing handling the actual FAC nom. Try and vary your PR intro a bit, just to show our versalitity – and I usually add a word of gratitude to our staunch peer reviewers. I'll leave the wording to you, if you're happy to do it. I intend to be a bit more active in the FAC process than I was in the peer review and will watching the page closely (although I generally wait 24 hours after nomination to allow a few comments to accumulate). Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
When I said "the same one" I meant the first paragraph—I also always thank prior reviewers at the FAC stage. But I think you're right it would be good to mix the intro up a bit. So I will do so on the 1st. I'm flattered you give me the privilege as I think you did the bulk of the work here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Yours was the initiative that engineered the thing, so equal credit I think. Could you drop me a line when the FAC is up and running? Brianboulton (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
That's very kind of you. Will do. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Emily Ratajkowski

Hi Cliftonian, it seems that IP 71.47.14.145 is edit-warring in the article of Emily Ratajkowski. He doesn't provide any arguments whatsoever (my reasons can be seen in the edit history). Anyhow he seems to be persistent. (N0n3up (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC))

If he doesn't bring any supporting sources to the argument there is nothing to discuss. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

TFA

9 June 2015
Carl Nielsen made
Main Page history
and you were part of
working for his works!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

P. G. Wodehouse

What ho! SchroCat and I have been working on this article with FAC in mind, and we now have it up for peer review. Your suggestions are hereby shamelessly canvassed. Tim riley talk 15:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Right-ho sir. Will be there. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_df576567etesddf/Archive_14&oldid=999017574"