User talk:Edmund Patrick/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

GA review of Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy

Thanks for your GA review of Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy. I have left my responses on the article's talk page. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA pass. I will, of course, keep my eyes open for additional info to add to the article. I'd like to one day be able to get a FT from this article and its related articles. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman constitution

I have completed my modifications to Constitution of the Roman Republic. Do you want to take a look at it and see if it is ready for GA status? (added to correct archive for record only). Edmund Patrick – confer 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

GA

No problem, interesting article about the good old days :) I write mainly bird articles, and it's easy to miss odd bits when you are too close to the subject. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices GA

Thanks for offering to review this. If there's anything that needs to be changed, let me know. Thanks again, Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question, what do you mean here? This edit is just plain confusing. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 01:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was just a bit confused by it. I am going to have it be BC/AD, rather than BCE/CE. I've seen years' articles using this system, so I'll keep it at that. I think it's all uniform now. And I agree, statements that are not common knowledge (unfortunately there is very little statements that are common knowledge in the article) should be sourced. Thanks for giving me that source, and adding a few on your own. Also, it's nice to know that I can pass for being "more knowledgeable about this subject". I have no background in timekeeping devices (I don't even wear a watch), much less their history. I picked it from a category of short articles as part of an admin coaching task :) Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading the website you gave, and while I appreciate it, the history of it is not very well covered. It goes in depth, but its reliability is questionable, with statements like "Sometime in 1946 or 1947 the RAF most likely decided it wanted a new pilot's watch", and "G&S almost certainly then approached all their major contributors". It would be a good source for an article on the watch, especially one that needed help writing about the design. So I'll leave that ref out. I'll look for some good refs later, but if I don't find any I'll probably just merge that section with its 3rd-level-heading, and salvage any material I can. As you can see, the ref you gave me differs significantly from the current information, so it will be difficult to judge which account is accurate. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply untrue fabrications

How O how can someone who had been dead over ten years have had any input into the Salem witch-trials??? What utter nonsense man!!!! I really do question your motive for wanting to sling mud at someone who I doubt very much you've ever read or even understand. It's all too easy to deride what we don't understand and come from on high with negative judgements. Every major writer on Browne in the 20th century recognises that Browne's involvement was a slight but unfortunate one. This whole PC nonsense stems from Edmund Gosse's vitriolic attack in 1905, every major writer on Browne, J.S.Finch, Huntley, Nathanson all state quite the opposite to you. Just what is to be achieved by an agenda based on prejudice?? I strongly recommend that you read Malcolm Letts Notes and Queries article which long , long ago dismissed such prejudiced notions upon a great man of science and literature.Norwikian (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You deseve some..

		Cookies!
		All your help with the GA-review of Ring of Pietroassa has earned you some tasty cookies. Enjoy! —Aryaman (Enlist!) 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for informing me about putting GA reviews on subpages. Anonymous101 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Open Review proposal

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion on GA process reform at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform. Based on the suggestions made, a proposal has been set out (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#Open review proposal). Your further input would be very welcome, as there are a number of areas that may need more discussion before this proposal is put to the wider community. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 10:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

Hi, I have made some changes you pointed. I have explained these in the GA review. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Hi, Thanks for your quick review. Due to the fact that I'm not a native speaker I can't review the lingual aspects correctly. May I ask your help with the other articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, though my English is sometimes doubtful, I will assist when and where I can. Edmund Patrick – confer 14:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RE James Nesbitt

That's fine, it's been a while since I reviewed any GA candidates and so I assumed it was still the same as when I last performed one (although I did check the newer criteria), so not problem at all. BigHairRef | Talk 18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm on a wikibreak. You might want to post your request at WT:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

did i do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.178.182 (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lafayette GA Review

Hello and thanks for your thorough review of Lafayette's article. I, and the other editors on the page have responded to your points below the official review. I think they all have been addressed. As well, the article has been edited according to suggestion. Please let us know if there is anything else errant that you notice. On behalf of SPOTLIGHT, Lazulilasher (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've revisited the points which you raised in your review. Hopefully you would be able to return and let us know if we're on the right track. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette

Lazulilasher and I, along with others, have copy-edited the article and addressed your issues. We thank you for the GA review. Could you take another look at it and, if warranted, promote it to GA? Thanks. On behalf of Spotlight,  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  18:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We have look at your third review and all your changes seem to be good. If you could look over the article one final time and perhaps promote it, it would be greatly appreciated. I, on behalf of Spotlight, thank you for your review. Also, sorry for posting twice last time.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania

Dear EP,
I see you in Oxonian bid list and wholly correct remark re C.U., whither I go for collegiate noshup shortly. (Damn black ties! make one look like waiter or first violin.) User:Addbot wants me to assist bid, but (a) won't give my details to facebook and (b) can't see what I can do, though would like to attend a wikimania. Can you suggest any courses of action? Hope your gnomons are o.k. and not too much wikirage at St Ed: I am in petroglyphs just now, best wishes to you & co from,
yrs truly, Eebahgum (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Rest utterly assured that said sap has screw loose in re Iohannis, tristis est quia crassitudinem indicat illi qui falsam identificationem adtribuit. If not, indeed, prompting ridicule by mocking and humiliation P.-Eye-style, raising shoulders, flapping of hands at face-height and making bibbling noises - by leading experts. I recently witnessed an explosive reassurance vis-a-vis this from eminent irreproachable source. Also advice from patriarchal archaeo (ad Occidentem intendens): "If you don't know, don't pretend that you do, as you will be found out." Eebahgum (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bury St. Edmunds witch trials

Good luck with working up the Bury St. Edmunds witch trials, it's a subject that deserves a proper article. Hopefully the Pendle witch trials has given you some ideas about how to get it to at least GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Olmec GA review responses

Edmund, others and I have addressed (I hope) the concerns raised by your first review of the Olmec article. See Talk:Olmec/GA1 for further details. Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The second round suggestions have been addressed. We'll talk to you when you return. Madman (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't call me a noob. I've done a lot more GA reviews than you seem to know. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Mr. Patrick, to renominate Olmec for GA. After finally just now closing out the last of the 46 {{fact}} tags that Wandalstouring added, I find that I myself no longer have the time or at present the patience to devote to trying to get this thru Good Article. This last go-round with Wandalstouring has soured me on the whole GA process: there seems to be a great deal of downside - nasty discussions, complaining, twisting prose into knots to satisfy a random person's viewpoint - and there is no upside that I can see. I'm not complaining about you, Edmund -- I thought our journey was going along well and we were nearing the end of the road. But I myself don't have the energy to go through this a third time with a third person. Sorry, Madman (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly understandable. I'm sorry that your experience was so negative, but I can assure you that it wasn't typical. GAN is much more often a collaborative process than it is an adversarial one. Your second reviewer has either never read or has forgotten the good article criteria, and clearly fails to appreciate the difference between GA and FA, noob or not. I wasn't suggesting a third person though, just that Edmund Patrick pick up the review where he left off. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Edmund again, eh? That's certainly enticing. But I wasn't kidding about the lack of time at the present. There're also a couple of fixes I would like to make to Olmec and a DYK I'm working on, but if I can still take you all up on this offer in a week's time, I'm in. Madman (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God / Goddess what have I let myself in for! Edmund Patrick – confer 07:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Edmund, my chap, I have decided to let sleeping dogs lie and not renominate Olmec for GA status. There are some outstanding issues that I just don't have the time to tackle. I appreciate your insight and help and your great attitude. I'm sure we'll meet again. Thanks, Madman (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

GA reform redux

I've recently had a chat with a couple of the contributors, and we think it may be worth revisiting the GA reform proposal put together by the working party during the Summer. Since you contributed to the proposal's development, I was wondering if you'd care to comment? I've left a brief recap at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#GA reform redux; your input would be much appreciated. Thank you, EyeSerene^talk 13:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

Hey mate!

I was just visiting your UP and it seems that I could not view any of the userboxes in the collapsible boxes other than those on the left. Maybe it's a prob with my FF3, or simply malformatting. Just thought I'd give you a nudge about it.

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Open reviews update

I've now posted the working group proposal to WT:GAN - your eyes (and input) on its progress would be most welcome. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 13:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Merry Christmas EP and a Happy/Prosperous New Year if possible Eebahgum (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Glengoyne Distillery possible GA review

Hey, I looked the article over and changed any US english terms I found to British English but I didn't find that many.. maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, cheers for taking a wee look at it and I hope you decide to give it a review

Thanks -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 02:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bury St Edmunds education

I think your edit to Bury St Edmunds is mistaken. I'm pretty certain that all of Suffolk, bar Ipswich, uses the three-tier schooling system. Dancarney (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikimania Oxford bid

Some time ago you indicated your support of the Oxford 2010 Wikimania Bid, and it was recieved with much gratitude. I now ask if you could could help support our bid by contributing to the bid page that is located at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2010/Bids/Oxford. Now is the critical period for work to continue on the bid as the official bidding period has now started and the jury has been formed.

I do not ask for huge swathes of time, just enough that with eveyrone working on this, it can be completed in time to the high standard required in a bid. For the bid page, an excellent source of information is the travel wiki article on the City of Oxford which is found at: http://wikitravel.org/en/Oxford. The chance of bringing Wikimania to the UK is the best so far and i expect the best chance for many years. With a fresh and stong UK chapter we have an amazing opportunity to put ourselves on the map. If you have any questions, please mail them to the Wikimedia UK mailing list, email me or post a message on my talk page and i will answer as quickly as possible.

I look forward to working with you on the bid page. Many Thanks. Seddσn ^talk 15:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5