User:Grandiose/archive2

DYK for Spanish general election, 1936
Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War/GA1
Review posted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 17:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note
Thanks for your reviewing work at A-class. I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to get back to Livonian War ... with the time I have available, and given some static I'm getting on some of the non-AmEng articles, I've decided to stick with what I know best and give full reviews for AmEng articles only. We have a lot of good British, Australian and Canadian editors ... I expect one or more of them will be happy to help with any BritEng articles you're working on, either during A-class or before FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review of Reading, Berkshire
Hi. In your latest comment on this, you wrote:


 * I do not yet believe the lead represents a suitably summary

I know you previously commented on the presence of new ideas about 'the bs' accent and demonym, but those were long gone by the time you made the above comment. At the same time you also requested The space then can be used for a better summary of other sections, with a more systematic treatment of the history, culture, religion and sports sections, but I'm not sure if that is still the nub of your later comment.

If you could give some examples of what you think is still missing (or present when it shouldn't be), it would certainly help us improve the lead. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review for German involvement in the Spanish Civil War
Hello Grandiose. I have started the review and added my comments here: Talk:German involvement in the Spanish Civil War/GA1. When you get a chance please have a look and we can work through the points. Just a few minor issues to get through before it can be promoted IMO. I will be away for a couple of weeks with work starting 20 July, so I had hoped to complete this review before I left but I don't think that will be possible now. As such if you are happy I will just leave it open with a view to finalising it when I return (on or around 4 August). Apologies for any inconvience this may cause. Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
Thanks for the message. I know the article is long. If you feel the edits just add to that, feel free to delete them. I'm not wedded to them and they don't seem in any way to be essential to the article. Mamalujo (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Spanish general election map, 1936.svg
Hi Grandiose, I've been checking out your contributions about the Spanish Civil War and I found this map File:Spanish general election map, 1936.svg. I think that you have forgotten the Canary Islands. Could you fix it? Great job! Best Rastrojo (D•ES) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949
Thank you for your message.

My involvement in this article is minimal. All that I have done, as far as I can remember, is to insert the correct collective title, and merge a small amount of information that was contained in the articles Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949, including their infoboxes (which, I have just discovered, someone has altered in a way that makes it factually inaccurate), when it became apparent that another editor was determined to turn those articles into redirects, and do some consequential regrouping. I am not responsible for the bulk of the text.

For what it is worth, I still think that the best way to deal with this article is probably to split it in two.James500 (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Grandiose, as Bencherlite pointed out, the talk page discussion step is mandatory, not optional. Because of this, I have placed the review on hold. Discussion should be taken to the talk page. Spend at least a week there; if nothing has moved forward on the article at that point, then I will reopen the review. Dana boomer (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I fail to see what it is that you are objecting to, much less why. James500 (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Cross
The German law governing the Spanish Cross can be found here Reichsgesetzblatt Nr. 139 page 1359 dated from 10 August 1939. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources would be Veit Scherzer and/or Walther-Peer Fellgiebel, the former president of the AKCR. You will find the respective books listed in the Reference section of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

German involvement in the Spanish Civil War
Great job. Can I interest you in expanding any of my new Spanish civil war battle stubs?♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've most certainly impressed with the German involvement article!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * you use westwell the whole sodding time don't you - is that a good idea to use one book about the Condor Legion at every point, from the vast literature on the SCW, - the refs -westwell-westwell-westwell-westwell- i dunno, hardly inspires one that the article is the fruit of wide reading. Sayerslle (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1933 Spanish election
Grandiose, I have started work on the copy edit you requested at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page. All my questions and editing proposals will be posted in the article talk page. Regards, Peter S Strempel &#124; Talk   10:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seemed appropriate to post here rather than the article page.


 * Grandiose, the following words may seem blunt, but they are not intended to be disrespectful.


 * My objectives in occasionally editing articles from the Guild of Copy Editors requests list are threefold –


 * To engage with Wikipedia articles in which I have no particular interest or stake.
 * To assist in the matter of grammar, spelling and style.
 * To do nothing to undermine the goals of the Guild of Copy Editors.


 * In pursuing these objectives, if I don’t understand something said in an article, chances are neither will many others, and that this needs to be fixed. The editing decision then becomes about clarifying the ambiguous part or cutting it.  That’s why I will always consult before making any edit.


 * But I also have to ensure that my fellow Guild members don’t get pissed off with me for saying I edited something when I haven’t, or when it is difficult to see how I've done that. For that reason I must actually make some of the edits myself (so that it shows up in the diffs that way).


 * And finally, I don’t want to engage in an endlessly iterative process. That means we should agree to a moratorium on your own edits until our collaborative copy edit is complete.  My concern is that I will be keelhauled by the Guild for claiming I edited something that no longer resembles what I looked at five minutes after I looked at it.  If you think you need to tinker more before a copy edit, I am happy to postpone.


 * I also don’t much care for ownership. If the article is too precious to you to allow anyone else to touch it, I am wasting my time here.  That said, I acknowledge your stewardship, subject matter expertise and Wikipedia bragging rights.  I want none of these for myself.


 * However, if we cannot work together in a way that accommodates my objectives here, it would be better that I withdraw and you find an editor you feel more comfortable with. I would not take such a decision as an insult or a rejection.


 * In case your decision is to part company, I think your synthesis of suggestions and facts in the lead looks fine to me, except I still think we need to give the full name of the CEDA before the acronym’s first use.


 * Let me know your thoughts on the matters raised. Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124; Talk   00:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, Peter, if that is the implication you have. In real life, I talk too much; here, it would seem, I talk too little. If the point in question is the lead, well, this is the explanation that should have (but didn't) precede my edits.
 * I took all the changes you recommended. I linked some things and emboldened the first few words. However, there were two things wrong with your version, which I then attempted to correct. I didn't want to write about that in length, because I make no requirement of copyeditors to know everything about the topic in question. However, in restrospect this may have looked like reverting your suggestion. Sorry.
 * Those two things: CEDA was not the coalition the right formed, but the political party formed to fight the election (the coalition was them and others); "Anarchists favoured abstention from the vote, which led to a significant victory for the right over the left" gives an unnecessary weight in implication. There were many things which lead to the right's victory, which are weighted differently by different author/historians etc.
 * Earlier editing was the same, but in those instances my changes were smaller.
 * Consider a moratorium started. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Grandiose, no implication you were doing anything wrong, just my somewhat blunt of explaining what I'm about and how I like to do things.


 * Had to take time out from Wikipedia for the weekend, but am back at it tonight (my time). Talk soon on article talk page.  Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124; Talk   06:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Juan Larrea GA review
Hi, just to mention that Cambalachero replied to your points at Talk:Juan Larrea/GA1 a few days ago - you may wish to have another look when you have a moment. Many thanks --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War Review
Hello!

I'm reviewing this article. Any progress to report? I'll check GA review every day, so I can see updates. Take your time. --Wusten fuchs 00:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you make any progress at Spanish Civil War, please inform me at my talk page, I have alot of work so I can't visit the article every day. Keep up with good work. --Wusten fuchs 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Abt review, I'll see that with admins, I have topic ban, if they give ma approval to finish the review I'll do it, if not I'll inform you. --Wusten fuchs 12:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unwatch script
Thanks for the link, I plumped for the AJAX one Egg Centric 16:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for directing me to the resource exchange; it is precisely what I had in mind when I made that suggestion. I will remove the proposal from the pump, and sorry to bother you. Robert 00:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert the Devil (talk • contribs)

Talk:Hurricane Paul (1982)/GA1

 * Are you finished with the review of my article. I think I've addressed all your concerns. You have not touched it in about two weeks. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * ...including Spanish general election, 1933, which was newly goodified. Way to go! – Quadell (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You've earned one of these:

Thank you for your fine article work, and long may it continue! Best, EyeSerene talk 16:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Paul (1982) GA nomination
Good evening! I was requested to copy-edit the Hurricane Paul (1982) article for it to comply with the GA criteria, and I have done so. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any other concerns; I'd be happy to address them. Cheers, ★ Auree  talk 03:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Spanish general election, 1933 on Hold
please address the issues-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Franchise, EEF and Catalan are dablinks, fix these too please-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

okay, it's a pass-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Background of the Spanish Civil War/archive1
It came as a surprise to me that this was archived, and I've asked about that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also asked if it could be brought back in 10 days ... no answer, so I'm assuming the usual 2 week delay after archiving is applicable. I'll give it a look soon. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're in any hurry, but Ucucha just okayed this one; it can come back to FAC any time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

James Cook
Thank you for your message. I agree that the best course of action at this time would be to withdraw the article from ACR. I investigated the sources more thoroughly last night and realised that some of the books cited were less than scholarly. Also, the topic of James Cook, his voyages and legacy needs more consideration. I have ordered (yet more!) books, second hand, of course, and I shall pursue Cook at a more appropriate pace.--Harkey (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)