Jump to content

User talk:MarcusBritish/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Help to IGD-Immobiliare_Grande_Distribuzione_SIIQ_SPA-MOVE

hello, thank you for the help but unfortunately I did not understand. referring to his response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_August_31#User:ODigitali.2FIGD_-_Immobiliare_Grande_Distribuzione_SIIQ_SPA_-_MOVE, I understand that it takes 10 publications, then I insert citations of which I do not understand what it takes, I tried to insert notes, but I do not know if they go well. Then I just do not understand I'm missing to get the 10 + needed to reach the political wiki.

More thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ODigitali (talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Ma®©usBritish [talk]

Thanks again

Thank you Ma®©usBritish for the feedback on my Template:Regine Velasquez, I'm so in love with your right now hahaha :D
again thanks! ;) Rovheel (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol! No problem, your articles look usually good and meet quality standards, you don't really need much help from RFF as far as I can tell! Ma®©usBritish [talk]

Amateur Radio Software

Thank you for the feedback. I understand and agree with your comments. I will do as you suggest and rewrite the section with the questions. --W9kfb (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad you understand what I meant, I was unsure how to explain it clearly. Make sure to reference your rewrite to verify any claims to compatibility, etc - but avoid making it sound promotion. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 12:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Another review?

Thank you for your help with my recent article for Magicana. Do you think you could also help review and polish up my article for David Ben

Many thanks in advance!!!

Wikicontribute17 (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Aye, would be glad to - give me a little time work through it, as it's a lengthy one. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 14:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you in advance! Appreciate all your time and help on learning how to post/submit. Wikicontribute17 (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've copy-edited it fully - however, I think a few more citations would be helpful, as some of the sections lack any citations at all. Articles reviewed at A-class normally require a minimum of 1 citation per paragraph. For non-promoted articles there should be at least a couple in a section, especially for biographies. "Early life and education", "Charity, outreach and education", "Producer" and "Keynote speaker" have none, whilst there are only a couple in "Magic Consultant" and "Writer and biographer" combined. The "Theatre" section has quite a few, which looks about right but appears the main focus period of his career to cite.
I would recommend adding more referencing and in-line citing throughout the whole article, particularly uncited sections, to bolster Ben's notability as well as to make the article verifiable - as there are open comments and claims which could be challenged - and when that happens articles end up getting tagged for cleanup, or lots of ugly [citation needed] tags slapped over them by frustrated readers wanting to follow up or read more about the article.
Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for the detailed review. I will work on these references - especially in the areas you have flagged to bolster his notability. Again, I very much appreciate your patience as I learn how to build articles. It has been quite a process and I appreciate the coaching. Warmest regards, Wikicontribute17 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback Please

Hello, I am trying to create a page for a new cloud computing technology company I work with and did my best to make the page as objective as possible. The Cloud is so new and I know people will find it helpful to read an article about what exactly this technology does. Can you please take a look at this draft before I move it to a live article and let me know if it is objective? Thank you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mjd77 (Mjd77 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC))

Reviewed here: Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 August 30#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Mjd77 - unable to post an RFF-reply notice on your talk page, due to the article being developed there - it's usually better to develop articles in a sandbox/sub-userpage, so you can still communicate with editors by keeping your talk page free. Hope the RFF helps. Regards, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Clampco Sistemi

Hi, many thanks for your feedback! I'll try and find out more references.
Gmenta (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

e-mail

It is always a good idea to set up an e-mail address in your preferences and tick "enable e-mail from other users". OK, with the majority of e-mails I receive via that route, I reply on a user talk page but sometimes people wish to communicate confidentially. It is not very important but I have one such you may care to see. If you don't want to enable your e-mail facility, use my e-mail option to send me a trivial message so I know your address. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have it activated as I was worried about spam abuse, given that wiki is an "open" site - but go ahead, I've activated it and will give it a trial run, to see if it works out. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting feedback

Hello,

I've been working on this page Rob Eastman

to update, correct and expand citations. Also have added links to other Wiki articles, reformatted and re-vamped the piece so it's more neutral. Are you willing to take a look, give me your thoughts (I'm still working on further citations) and see if perhaps any of those "disclaimer" notices can be removed at this time? Thank you, sir, in advance and hope you have a pleasant weekend. I also hope I'm contacting you in the correct way! KellieFlan (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ma®©usBritish [talk]

Thank you for your feedback.

Heya MarcusBritish,

Thank you so much for the help you have given me regarding the British soldier in the eighteenth century page. I really appreciate all you have done to improve the article and help me on my way!

I have gone through the MOS bullet points you gave me and marked off each point as I have completed the changes so I think the style of the article should be just about ready. The only problem I did have was citing the websites but I've filled in as much information as possible. The references section looks so much tidier! Brilliant.

Looking at the non-style section, I understand exactly what you are saying and your advice is invaluable. The only problem I'm having is that the conclusions haven't come from any books - they are what I've gathered from general reading; would it be best if I referenced the general books that I used to gather a conclusion from? This would mean a lot more links to the Holmes 'Redcoat' book and also some references to some very general 18th century military books. Would that be acceptable and make the conclusions more valid?

I think that the referencing of the conclusions may take me a little while (trying to find the books I read again) but if that's what I need to do I shall start ASAP.

I'd love to join the MilHist project! Do you think I should join now and then get the article reviewed once I have completed all of the referencing? How do I go about getting it reviewed by the project?

I'm sorry that there are so many questions but I really want to make the article the best it can possibly be. Once again thank you for all your help and suggestions. I appreciate everything you're doing for me.

GemmaHist (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Hey Marcus,

Thanks once again for all your help and the time you've put into helping me with my article. I've redone the fractions so hopefully they are formatted in the correct style now and thanks to you the references look even better (thanks for editing for me—it would have taken me forever). I hadn't realised that I could format the references without having to put the ref name every time so that will come in very useful when I'm putting in more citations (which I'm hoping to do this week - I've got a pile of books sat by me which I need to go through!)

I shall take on board the comments you gave me regarding the citations and in-line citations - having looked at your Battle_record_of_Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington page I can see exactly what's required and I'm going to attempt to get my article to the same standards. (It really is a fantastic article by the way - I hope I can get mine to be as good as yours is!)

I have also joined the MilHist project and am looking forward to getting stuck in (if I have any spare time once I get back to uni!) I really would like to get my article peer reviewed but I think that maybe that's something to do over the christmas or the next summer holidays when I can put all my time and effort into editing the article. Would that be ok?

Thanks again for all your help :)

GemmaHist (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Western Military Academy

Thank you for your time. My info is solid but some of it comes from old WMA school papers. I will keep at it and work on my editing and tech skills.

Thanks again.Cbjack68 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No problems. Best of luck, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A question. The figures in the Robt Scott book indicate the numbers of military decorations issued. I have discovered,thru wiki,a few additional awardees. If I cite the Scott book on those numbers they will not show the more accurate number I have found. I hope you can understand a poorly phrased question.

Thanks. Cbjack68 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would advise you cite the Rob Scott book for now if it is the only source material available at hand - that at least moves the article into safer ground - there's always room to replace it later with a new up-to-date source, by yourself or another editor. In addition you could go through the other wiki articles you know of, and see what references they use as evidence - and then either get hold of a copy and verify them, or ask the contributors who cited them for specific page numbers/quotes if they have a copy and would be willing to help, and then use the same references in your article. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to your help I have the Western Military Academy article up and accepted. It does come with a note indicateing that my citations are "bare URL's". From what I read that applies to the external link I provided. Is that correct? I am not sure how to fix the proble..or if, given my sources, I can. Any advice? Thanks.Cbjack68 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Cbjack68Cbjack68 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It refers to fully citing websites as you would a book - the title of the web page, author, date it was written, etc - any reliable source, written with an academic view, should usually provide this info. Look at {{cite web}} - it's very similar to the {{cite book}} template used in your References section (I think I did that when copy-editing it, click "edit" by the References heading to see how it's done), in that you simply put the info where it goes, i.e url=|title=|accessdate= etc, and it formats it for you in the References section automatically. The template can either be used inline between <ref> tags, or stand-alone in the Refs section, depending how you cite websites. For more on bare urls, and why they are discouraged, see this info on link rot. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 18:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.I think the web site I gave as a reference is not really relevant. Would it improve my chances if I just eliminate it? If I need to speak to someone else now that it has been approved and we are dealing with their critiques just let me know and you can be rid of this. Much appreciated. Cbjack68 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's not relevant, you can remove it, yes - just be sure not to leave the article void of any citations from reliable sources - whether they are book or websites is not important as long as there are some references to support the material. I have no problems answering any questions you have - am happy to help where I can. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I assume the problem is with the one external site I listed. In your opinion would I be able to be rid of the "bare URL' template on the article if I when without the external site. My thiking is that it is not significant and not sited in the article.
Thanks Marcus. Cbjack68 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC) cbjack68Cbjack68 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, if you delete the external link, you may also delete the {{barelinks}} template, at the top, as it will no longer be relevant. On a side note, you need to avoid putting a space before starting new lines in the wiki edit box, for some reason it puts the text in a box.
like this

Ma®©usBritish [talk] 23:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Cbjack68 (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)cbjack68Cbjack68 (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for

Hi, MarcusBritish-

Thanks so much for your help with eliminating the typo in the entry name for the hospital ship MV Africa Mercy.

I also have a question about this page--or more globally, about the etiquette of replacing one photo in an entry with another.

A week or two ago, I seem to recall that this entry had a contemporary picture of the MV Africa Mercy in its infobox. That picture has since been replaced with an older (and less representative) photo of the ship before it became a Mercy Ship, when it was in its previous incarnation as the Dronning Ingrid.

Is it appropriate to re/place a contemporary photo of the ship in the place of the outdated one, or would this be against proper form?

Thanks again for your help.

Best wishes,

Seandalytx (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)seandalytx

Hello. No problem. Are you sure about that photo? I took a look through the edit history, and the article simply went from having no infobox/image to having both, and has kept the same one since 21 April 2011 [1]. Either way, there's nothing to stop you replacing the image, or replacing it and moving the other into either a gallery at the bottom or into the Sisterships section to one side. For an article that size, two images might look a bit cluttered, whilst a gallery would be less imposing and could encourage people to add a few more. It's your choice really, there are no rules on the matter as long as no one starts warring over the main photo, that is - otherwise, be bold! Ma®©usBritish [talk] 13:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again

Thank you again for taking your time to review my article. And also for the kinds words, I owe you one (actually a lot right now teehee) ;)

(off-topic) blimey! you read/have a lot of History books, you must like it a lot? :D

--Rovheel (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yeah I love it.. can't help myself, always buying new books - can't move round the house for all the books lying round! And you're doing a very good job almost single-handedly creating and updating articles on Regine Velasquez - well done. :) Ma®©usBritish [talk] 09:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
So I guess now I have an idea of what will I be giving you this holiday hehehe ;) and thank you for the barnstar, I will hang it on the front yard :D enjoy the rest of your day! --Rovheel (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercy Ships photo, etc.

Hi there-

Thanks for your feedback on my photo question--and for pointing out the availability of 'Edit History' to check out an entry's past.

I may look around for photos of all four past and present Mercy Ships, to create a gallery that would also represent the current Africa Mercy, rather than the predecessor depicted in the inbox.

I noticed that you removed the formatting of several bullet-style passages in the entry. Am I correct in assuming that this is because paragraph form is considered encyclopedic but a bulleted style is not?

Thanks again for your help.

Best-

Seandalytx (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)seandalytx

Ummmm - I don't know what happened here [2] I removed the top "primary sources" tag, as noted in my edit summary, but all that stuff below that moved everything up, into a big jumble causing loss of bullets, etc was not my doing.. at least not intentionally.. I may have clicked something without realising. There are only 2 mins between that edit and the one before.. but enough time to have removed every line break on purpose. Very odd.. Sorry.. bullets are fine, though - feel free to re-add them if you like. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 12:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercy Ships entry

Hi, there-

Thanks for letting me know the scoop about the unexplained changes to the bullets in the Mercy Ships article.

Since the bullet points were transformed into one long and unduly dense paragraph, I turned the bullet items into sentences in several paragraphs so that they'd be more readable.

Thanks again for your help and input.

Best-

Seandalytx (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)seandalytx

Okay, cheers - apologies for leaving a mess for you to fix, if I had noticed at the time I would have undone it immediately, but I didn't scroll down, as I was only concerned the banner was gone. Am still baffled by what happened though.. really weird. glad all's okay now. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Granta (river)

Thank you very much indeed for providing feedback about Granta (river) and for the motivating words regarding adding references.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No problems, you're welcome. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you so much for your help and I apologize that I didn't see your original feedback. Much appreciated! (Mjd77 (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

No probs.. good luck. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 19:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you assist me in moving the article over to the "public" space? Also, is it possible to just name the page iSpaces and not have my user name attached to it? When I tried clicking "move" at the top right of the page it said that a page called iSpaces already exists, although I don't see it? (Mjd77 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

ISpaces exists, you managed okay? Ma®©usBritish [talk] 03:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep figured it out! One last question....I promise! Could you advise me how to make the "i" in iSpaces lowercase? At first I didn't think it was possible, but I see that on all of the Apple pages the iPad, iPhone, etc. have the lowercase "i". Thank you so much. You have made this process much easier for me! (174.51.124.60 (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

 Done - go into Edit and look at the very top line - you'll see:

<!-- Do not remove -->{{lowercase}}<!-- Do not remove -->

That makes the initial character lowercase, for such as that, iPad, etc.

Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, you are a blessing. Thanks again! (Mjd77 (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

No probs! Ma®©usBritish [talk] 16:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest

I have started doing some work on the List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London, and in some cases the categorisation whether they are biological or geological look wrong. It looks to me as if they are categorised on the editor's judgment on the citation, but I cannot ask the main editor as he has since been blocked for vandalism. I see you have worked on the List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in North Yorkshire, so do you know whether there is a specific source for the categorisations or whether they are editor's assessments? Thanks for any help. Dudley Miles 20:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. A lot of the citations themselves will say "this area is of <biological or/and geological> interest" - if not, you need to look carefully at the information given. If there are a bunch of names of fauna in Latin, or indication or wildlife it's usually biological. If there is a lot on info on the rocks, or the sites are caves, cliffs, etc, probably geological - though be careful, sometimes they talk about Jurassic sediments, marshlands, and rock formations which sounds geological but is just background info to explain how the soil/swamp conditions formed that produce unique biological specimens. There is some degree of editor's assessment, for some of the SSSIs in each county. If you're unsure, make your best guest based on the citation. Quarries can be the most tricky ones, in my experience, being man made features - some are of geological interest because of materials exposed, some are biological because they have sprouted fauna after being abandoned for to nature overgrow. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 20:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very helpful. Dudley Miles 22:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I would suggest, though, that you check the article's Archives for its FLR notes, first - I would have thought that anyone reviewing a list for FL quality might have cross-checked some or all of the citations for source verification before supporting its promotion. You might be able to save yourself quite a bit of time if someone has confirmed them all, already. FL reviews should not be based on the look of the article alone, but the quality of the sources. If they haven't been looked at closely, its FL rating is questionable. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have looked at the FL discussion and it is not clear whether this was checked on the review. Denham Lock is shown as both biological & geological, but I cannot see anything geological at [3], and Downe Bank and High Elms is shown as geological, but [4] is biological. The article is probably not quite FL at present, but I can easily fix the problems.

BTW, I first looked at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London because I wanted to find SSSIs near me, but this is not simple with the present format, so I have created an extra column for location. Dudley Miles 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Denham Lock Wood sounds both geo and bio to me - flood plains are a geo feature, with resulting bio features.
Downe Bank and High Elms is probably bio, going from the citation.
I would have thought Grid Refs provide a near pin-point accurate location, compared to larger districts names which only give a rough idea of location depending on the size of a district? You have a disabig link, also - Charlton, needs a more accurate link.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help and for pointing out the disambig, which I have fixed.

I am not sure about Denham Lock Wood. There is far more about geo features for other sites which are shown as just bio, but as you disagree I will not alter it.

The idea of the location column is that someone who lives near - say - Harefield can see that there are three local SSSIs, and then use the grid ref to check exactly where they are, and if I want to visit one in Harefield and write a Wikipedia article about it, I can check the grid refs of the other Harefield sites to see whether I could visit another at the same time. It is much more of a pain if you have to check every grid ref to get any idea of where each site is. Dudley Miles 19:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Just so you know, there is a list here: User:MarcusBritish/SSSIs, which I complied a while back, for all SSSI pages, mainly to help editors see which are in need of work and which are more or less complete, but also with a uniform appearance as they were quite mis-matched and in need of bringing in line in terms of appearance. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 19:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've been adding some citations to the Cornwall list and I've somehow managed to move the citations to the top of the page rather than under the references. Can you fix it please? Can't work out how to do so. Jowaninpensans (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC) List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cornwall
 Done - Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course, I didn't realise it was so obvious. lol Jowaninpensans (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha, no worries. I'd advise you pick a photo from one of the SSSIs off the list - a nice hill, or forest, or some site pretty enough to brighten the page up a bit, when you're done - those lists are pretty drab otherwise. Also see my last post on User talk:MarcusBritish/SSSIs. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 19:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Batons of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

FYI given our previous conversation on Talk:Arms, titles, honours and styles of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington I used the leads we found there to modify article and created a new article called Batons of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. --PBS (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Great, that's a nice concise article - the other article requires too much work, and has too many trivial things in it that need verifying. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 09:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Alex Day for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

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. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your personal attacks

Seriously, please stop. I don't care what you think of me, so you're just being disruptive and making yourself look bad. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what you're talking about - and clearly nor do you. If you "don't care", don't waste your time, and mine, posting rubbish here, you're only contradicting yourself and being a hypocrite. And stop trying to take advantage of Wiki guidelines, I see right through you. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about this. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Cor, really? Funny, I don't see your, or indeed any, name mentioned in there - unless you imply yourself a "fan" or "hater", in which case you're speaking for yourself. Plus the fact it's in reply to Eternities hardly makes your accusation credible, does it? Run along, there's a good chap.. go stir up a storm in someone else's British teacup. I have zero interest in your whiney frivolous comments. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 16:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As always, thank you...

Thank you again for the reviews and copy editing. I know you're super busy but I really do appreciate it. Till next article ;)
(ot) Hmm wow it's a little grumpy up there, hope you're okay :D Rovheel (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yeah I'm good - takes a lot more than that to upset me. Ma®©usBritish [talk]

Putting your idea to the vote or not

I've turned your last comment into a fairly straightforward proposal to try and learn where consensus lies. Didn't feel I could put your name under Support - thought you'd like to have the first go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by the format you've used there.. what do you need us to do, put our sigs under the headings? Ma®©usBritish [talk] 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
That was my intention - clearer in my head than it turned out on the page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, seems straight-forward. Let's see how it goes. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

I am working on correcting my quotes section on my Lewis M. Eisenberg article. I placed my references for each quote in the external link section, clearly this must be wrong. I have made some minor edits to tone down my language. I will continue to perfect this article before I submit any of the new articles that I have queued. Thanks again. R Suximei (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

Hello - yes, your sources for any quotes need to be cited between in-line <ref> tags, so that they automatically appear under References, just as with any other citation. When you're done, either let me know, if you want a second review, or make a new request for feedback entry, and someone (though probably me), will hopefully respond. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 19:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again MarcusBritish, I have been working on my article, although I won't say I have concluded yet. One funny thing I couldn't figure out. I checked out my External Links and made certain that I had used the correct editing format but couldn't figure out why they appeared the way they did. For the time being I have removed them all together until further notice. Thanks again. If you have time to look at my Lewis M. Eisenberg article I would welcome it (remember I'm not done). R Suximei (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

The Shining

Burton can't really have "misidentified" them since they are presented as twins in the film the general public gets to see. The script states that they are sisters, but that's not mutually exclusive with the twins possibility. I don't think that statement is correct in its current form. Reanimated X (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

—Say wha? I think you have the wrong number.. I don't recall ever editing anything about The Shining.. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Dang, sorry, must have misclicked. Reanimated X (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete my article?

there was no reason to delete my article, it says that the article was about myself not something else. I find this vandalism and if nothing is done i will report this. Messy Turkey (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:CSD#A7. Wiki is not a place to "write about yourself", it is an encyclopedia, not MySpace. If you want to make a page about yourself, keep it in your own userspace, do not move it to mainspace - articles in main space are subject to Wiki Guidelines, and may be deleted. You'll also find you'll fit in the community if you do not try to threaten people with experience in such matters. I also suggest you remove "i used to have a wiki article until a sad !@#$%^&* came along and deleted it" as it is against the WP:NPA rule and you can be blocked for such content. Learn the way Wiki works before attempting to abuse it or other editors. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 11:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup!

Again thank you so much for always reviewing & copy-editing my simple articles. Have a great day! 'Till next time :D Rovheel (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Ma®©usBritish [talk]

Thank you for your time!

And great suggestions! I have much more to learn, but I appreciate all of your help and suggestions. Keep up the good work, and I enjoyed your article on the Battle Record of Arthur Wellesley. I wish I had more knowledge so that I could return the favor. For now, thanks again. Loudhouse (talk 07:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. No worries, stick with it, you'll get there sooner than you think - thanks for reading my first article, glad you enjoyed it! If you need more feedback at a later date, drop me a message, or go via WP:RFF again. Regards, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 14:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for your feedback on my new article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sherryhome/RAJPUTE_GANPAL_FOUNDATION

Respected Marcus, may i please have your attention to give me feedback on my article [5] written on 20th Sept,2011. i will apprecaite your time and care.

thanks. Hussain (talk 14:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes I'll look at it sometime soon, probably during this evening once I get onto doing some feedback reviews, and I will drop you a message when done. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 14:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 Done – Ma®©usBritish [talk] 22:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Davina - assistance please

Hi MarcusBritish,

I edited a few things in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman like having periods in the wrong place, editing the summary introduction and giving a section a heading - please give it the "ok" and I promise I will not edit it again in the near future.

Thank you so much.

Domenico.y (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Hi, I've reviewed it as best I can, given my lack of knowledge in the subject. Any concerns from other editors regarding tone or neutrality will have be dealt with as detailed in the banners they've added. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 07:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
MarcusBritish, you are in depth of my heart because of your brilliant work for wikipedia. i loveyou. Godissupreme (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear MarcusBritish, you are my ideal indeed for your best help towards Wikipedians. i suspended my last account "sherryhome" since despite a correction work from your side on my article Rajput Ganpal Foundation, it was unfortunately deleted by one other editor. so i created this new account and re-wrote two articles which need your soft attention enabling them be approved on wikipedia. please be kind to improve/correct these articles [6] and [7] . Love your help always. Thanks Godissupreme (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the relayed reply, I was awaiting a reviewer to complete the AFC review, as you have taken the article through a process I am not familiar with. Per what he said, you need to write the article with a more neutral tone. I only copy-edited the version which was deleted, but did not adjust the wording too much, as I am not familiar with the company or its goals to be able to do a major rewrite. If you have a read of WP:CORP and WP:NPOV they have information on organisations and neutrality which may help, however. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 19:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show and Adam Schuck deletion assistance

Hi MarcusBritish,

I have re-written the whole of Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show. It reads very differently now. I have referenced thoroughly and cited all sources (deleted the references which had nothing to do with the show) citing "do not delete" please. Please could you read through the article and comment: Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Schuck's article is up for deletion. I would like another few people to moderate and edit the page of Adam Schuck, other than Jasper Deng or ConcernedVancouverite. DGG is correct when they say "Engineers, even in Google, do not get the press attention of, say, professional wrestlers." and he says "weak keep". "Schuck co-founded Google Wave "Adam was the Technical Lead of the Google Wave client, having co-founded Google Wave." Schuck worked on Google Maps, having co-created Mapplets in 2007 Schuck received the Google EMG award (2nd highest award given at Google) for work on Google Maps API Julpan mentions the 5 people out of 12. These 5 are co-founders with Allon -http://www.julpan.com/about.html. Julpan got acquired by Twitter. Schuck was one of the co-founding entrepreneurs of "SnappSchool", an educational technology company (I had to delve deep to find that information as well and didn't mention it / couldn't find it till very early in the morning 05:34, 25 September 2011. How many engineers have this much press about them, when they keep a low profile - not many. Adam_Schuck For this reason, Schuck is notable.

Davina_Reichman - any comments that would assist the article's non-deletion?

Please assist.

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

I have no opinion on any of them, as determining "notability" of modern people/places/events, etc, is not my strong point; I deal mostly in historical articles where notability is more certain, and modern standards less applicable. All I can advise is that you read the links I posted in the last reply on your talk page to you and Jasper, and get a stronger understanding of the guidelines applicable to articles dealing with modern material. Notability is about using reliable, independent sources - quality - not quality. A person may be mentioned a million times on Twitter, MySpace and Facebook accounts, but not once in newspapers and other such media, which makes them not notable, by wiki standards - you have to get the balance right. Adam Schuck is not notable just because he has more press than others. It is the context of that press coverage which establishes notability, not the amount of times he is covered. As for the AfDs - you can vote on them, as keep, if you have good reason - don't just comment and appeal to the delete people, or it will not be taken as a !vote to retain the article, and perhaps even scrap the AfD in the case of a rewrite. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 19:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate all the time and effort you have gone to to assist me. Domenico.y (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

P.S. My first language is not English or any form of English, so that is why I have difficulty. Thank you once again for being patient in explaining. Domenico.y (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Jasper

MarcusBritish, I'd like for you to not assume ConcernedVancouverite and I are biting Dominico.y. Yes, it's true - when I submit an article for deletion, there's something wrong with it and that is supposed to be a signal to whomever I give the deletion nomination to. Domenico.y just fails to understand certain Wikipedia policies, and it's necessary to inform him on that. Please do not accuse us of bullying Dominco.y - there is no basis for that accusation. I know that you may not agree with the way CV and I have been interacting with Dominco.y, but please do not make comments that accuse me and CV of "bullying" Domenico. (In short, don't accuse us of WP:HOUND'ing Domenico when we aren't really doing so).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No basis? You must be joking! I perceive the matter somewhat differently, but I really can't be arsed going through all that palaver again, so go read the discussion between myself and CV on Domenico's talkpage, if you really feel it that important. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 01:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
[8] - 2 minutes between post and revert - bit trigger happy aren't you - ever read WP:AGF? - that was another accusation to chalk up on your record, what kind of moron would self-award a barnstar and refer to their self in the third-person? I mean, geezus.. wake up. You should remove his talk page from your watch list to discourage further attacks on his efforts, as it's clearly becoming a habit of yours. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 11:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
If I wasn't AGFing I would've immediately asked for a block and/or used a template. I'm not trigger-happy on good faith cases. If you want to discuss this further, please contact my mentor.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
AGF would be assuming they made a mistake in the first place and politely discussing it, not jumping on their talk page with "revert" - using worst-case scenario does not make it any less incriminating - no admin on Wiki would take you seriously if you requested a block for self-awarding a barnstar, on the contrary, it'd be a waste of their time. As for your "mentor", you are responsible for your own actions as an individual with an account, they are not answerable for your mistakes. Would you say "go see my mummy" if someone said you were bullying in a playground, or defend your own behaviour? Your reaction was unsuitable for the situation and could have been handled better. PS: I just noted you have been registered for over 3 years with 10,000+ edits, and have been granted reviewer (defunc) and rollback rights.. so you are in no need of a mentor to defend you, there is ample experience there to know better from! Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 17:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not appreciating you accusing me of BITE and HOUNDING everywhere you see me nominate an AfD. The AfD you just commented on is older than this thread if I'm right. No, I am responsible for my actions, and when I said I would ask for a block, it would be for COI-related promotion, not that. Please refrain from making these kinds of comments on me, since they're now bordering on personal attacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My word, you're a jumped up little upstart, aren't you - don't let all that !admin "responsibility" go your head - people who claim NPA are quite often guilty of it themselves. I have noted no less than 4 actions taken by you against him over the past few days, all equal BITE, none AGF, and my next stop is going to be giving him them in a form he can go use on ANI as a solid case of harassment. And you know he will... Grow up, you meandering bully, I couldn't giving a flying fox what you appreciate or not, and I don't answer to the likes of you either. And seeing as I put "you are responsible for your own actions" 2 days ago, why did you reply "No, I am responsible for my actions" just now - is this some admin tool based on stupidity that I'm not familiar with, or are you having so much trouble defending your true intentions that you forgot how to pay attention? Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 06:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
MarcusBritish, please don't call me a bully. AGF means giving kind notices to the editor; whether you care or not, don't call me these. I'll leave Domenico alone, but please don't make these comments any more, since they really are demeaning and make me think you aren't assuming good faith with my actions.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
As I said on ANI, I think there was some form of campaign against him, and that there was no good faith whatsoever. I suggest you take more care who you provoke next time, as you seem to give the false impression that you are an admin - scare tactics - in your attitude towards new editors, and your bot-like method of handling issues leaves a distinct lack of compassion for the efforts and good faith of genuine editors - in short, you are not going to be making many friends by judging people improperly, and your inability to apologise and accept that you made a mistake is pitiful - quite the little dictator. Hope, for your sake, that I have forgotten this manner when next you make an RfA or I may use this, and probably other examples of harsh non-AGF treatment, as an example to oppose your request. One editors said "there are no such things as 'black marks' on Wiki" - I beg to differ - for RfA candidates, every incident you make a cock-up of is a potential reason for people to oppose you - try taking a "quality over quantity" over your approach to !admin-tools, and start working on your manners - there are no prizes for doing more than anyone else and not extending a personal touch. I'm sure your mentors would agree. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 14:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Your comments were the problem that made me comment here, and I have no more to say.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Your behaviour was the epoch that caused me to comment, and you to reply. Cause and effect. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 17:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you very much for your dedication, hard work and patience. You don't know what it truly means to me. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated! — Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 03:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit

I will be making those changes and adding more, hopefully you can check it again soon!

Cheers! DaveHansonboston (talk)

Sure, drop me a message and link to the article whenever you're ready. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 11:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with Eric Thal article

Hello Marcus British,

Thank you for your help with the article Eric Thal. I will locate several articles, published by reliable sources. Some of these articles are not currently available online, but I believe that's okay as long as they're referenced properly. I also understand your notes regarding expanding the peronal life section. And thank you for removing the "notes" column which was blank.

Thank you again very much for your help. Timber 57 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Offline sources are fine - books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Just be sure there is no COI in terms of the coverage, i.e. a review from their record label represents COI because they want to make sales, naturally. Same with any press releases or self-published material. There are plenty of music sites and books that independently review albums, new and old, though, so likely you will find something. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 15:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Most welcome, I'm sure you'll do a good job! Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 15:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarcusBritish/Archive_3&oldid=1151013293"