User talk:Allens/Archives/2012/March

Counting Astatine
Hi Allen, I saw the question in your edit summary about counting Astatine. It's an interesting question I haven't seen before, but would you mind terribly if you didn't count it, as you've been on it for some time now? I know you wouldn't abuse the precendent, but some might ;) Thanks for the great work you're doing. Simon. --Stfg (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, and quite welcome... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 11:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Doon School help
Hi Allens, I need your help on the Doon School page. In the (Notable alumni) section, I want to utilise the white space between the Rajiv Gandhi photo and individual names by putting more photos of the alumni. How do I do that? Making a gallery is not working as the photos are being pasted below the Rajiv Gandhi pic. I just want to put 2-3 photos in the White space between without altering the overall size of the section? Please take a look and teach me trick or two :) Thanks! &#91;&#91;User:Merlaysamuel&#124;Merlaysamuel&#93;&#93; (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I've given a try at filling the white space with the list via the use of the Div col template. One could theoretically use the Col-begin template to do what you're talking about (by putting the list in the first column and the pictures in the remaining columns), but there would be a problem if someone was viewing it on a narrow browser (like for a cell phone) or with the text width turned up (such as because they've got vision problems) - there wouldn't be enough space for the pictures but the browser would still try to shove them in. What I've done will fill up the whitespace if someone has a relatively wide browser width, but should still be OK even if they don't. I don't know of any way to have it automatically put pictures into the whitespace beside the list that will work for all browsers and browser width settings; even what I've done won't actually be seen (but should still look OK) on some browsers. It's possible that such exists - I am not a very visual person (I do text much better) so haven't really looked into it previously. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 21:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarifications regarding the referendum article
Hi! Thank you for copyediting another article - the Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012. I tried to explain the items tagged for clarification on the article talk page, but I did not make any changes to the article itself yet. That is mainly because I'm not sure on how to proceed on a couple of those, so could you please take a look at the talk page when possible?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite welcome, and will do... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Gloucester County College
Hi Allen. I took a quick look because you've raised the question of splitting it. To me it doesn't look as if it needs splitting -- at around 3000 words it's not excessively long -- and it's not obvious how one would do so anyway. But I think this question ought to be decided before a copy editor goes to work. It would be a pity if someone spends time on it now and then the work gets superseded in the course of a split. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure on splitting, so that helps me decide - thanks! Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 11:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Steven Rubenstein
How did you confirm? Just the fact that there is currently no source documenting his decease, or do you have information?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked at his page on the University's website; I would assume they would know, unless he's been missing or something. Even if it is truly unknown, a policy of "assume living unless known otherwise" is generally best, since that helps protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I hoped you might have information to the contrary. According to reliable (but unpublished) sources it appears that unfortunately he is not living anymoreUser Talk: Slrubenstein. I guess its fine to update the page when published reports come.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for copyediting!
Hi! I'd like to thank you not only for copyediting but also substantially improving the Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012 lending it much more clarity - I really appreciate your work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are quite welcome; I always enjoy working with you, and thanks very much for the compliment! Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 00:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Article copyedit
Hi Allens, hope things are going well with you. I'm wondering if you would be willing to help with a copyedit of Ahalya? It was unsuccessful in its most recent FAC and has just undergone a significant peer review. The article's creator asked me to help out, so in addition to going over the article myself I thought I'd mention it to a couple skilled copyeditors I knew as well. It is a kind of long article, so if you don't have time/interest enough to go over the whole thing doing a section or too that would still be much appreciated. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pretty well, thanks; hope the same is true of you... I'll find the time to take a look over it. It might be in about a week - that's when spring break starts for some of my students. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 23:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, take your time, it's good to think of spring break coming up--it sure doesn't look like Spring where I live! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for taking a look. If there is any issue you find, please leave a note on Talk:Ahalya. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting a change to International Fair Trade Mark
Hello! I got a message that you'd reverted a change I made. I know it must have looked like vandalism, since I deleted 2500 odd words from an unregistered account, but I was wondering if you read the talk page for the International Fair Trade Mark, since there was no reply to my explanation for the deletion. The section was the entire contents of another article (Fair Trade Debate) copy/pasted with no formatting. Also, while it was relevant to fair trade in general, it is not relevant to the topic of the article, the fair trade mark itself. If you read and stand by the reverting of my change then i'll defer to your greater knowledge of wiki-policy, ut if it was just because it looked like vandalism, I'd like to re-remove that section. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.250.206 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It was because it looked like vandalism - wholescale removals tend to be; was there an edit summary that I missed seeing? Feel free to re-remove it, and I'll remove the warning from your IP talk page. Sorry about that! Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No problems :) I thought I'd left an edit summary. I certainly tried to, though I'd not be surprised if i stuffed it up. :)

Borders of Croatia
Hi! I just posted several clarifications to the Geography of Croatia talk page, and I'll add some more directly to the article tomorrow to avoid edit conflicts.


 * Thanks! Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

As a side note: You may find those borders twisting around rivers funny, but there's a "better one" - there's a single mile of road (fairly straight at that) crossing Croatia-Slovenia border five times.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's got to be one of the most inconvenient to use roads in existence, unless some arrangement has been made... at least the situation isn't quite as bad on these borders as with, say, West Berlin prior to the wall coming down! You may find of interest:
 * The gerrymandering article.
 * I know of disputes between states (going to the US Supreme Court) as to jurisdiction over pieces of land thanks to rivers (used as state boundaries) shifting (formerly they were islands, belonging to state A, now they're joined onto the mainland of state B, which wants them).
 * Canada is north of the US, right? In general... but the border in places follows various rivers, lakes, etc. In one location, it actually loops south of the rather significant city of Detroit. Due south of most of Detroit is Canada...
 * Near Middlesboro, Kentucky where I grew up is what used to be a highway going to Tennessee through a gap in the mountains. As it happens, the road passed through Virginia briefly before going into Tennessee. There was a store set up right there along the road, sitting what always looked to me to be entirely too close to the edge. Why was this store there? The taxes on cigarettes were lower in Virginia, so people came there to get cigarettes cheaper than they would in Kentucky or Tennessee.
 * Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:DTTR
Allens, I don't appreciate the vandalism template. It's OK if you disagree with my edit and revert, but I'm trying to help the editor in question understand that pumping up articles about himself with his list of publications is not the same as providing the citations needed at Push–pull technology and Zeyaur Khan. I left him a message at User talk:Jaramogiphil. Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize; I misunderstood the situation. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 15:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Richelieu class battleship
Hi Allens. I am impressed by the precision of your coediting work, and the number of needed citations and clarifications. You saw I began to fulfill your wishes.

But I have a problem with unit conversions specially concerning ship displacement.

I found in Jordan and Dumas's book, «French battleships 1922-1956» (p.22 and 38) that the French Navy used the long tons for the Standard Washington displacement, as defined by the 1922 Naval Treaty of Washington, and metric tons for another displacements, (trials, normal, or full load displacement). So it's incorrect to use the conversion unit from metric-ton to long-ton, as «35000-tonne (34447-long-ton)standard displacement», as in the second line of the «Background». I think it would be better to indicate the Standard displacement of 35,000 tons, without any conversion, or with the inverse conversion, as «35,000 tons (35,562 metric-ton)». Samething for any indication of a Standard deplacement concerning a French warship, as 70,000 tons for the global displacement for the battleship building authorized to France and Italy during the battleship building holiday, or 23,333-ton, or 17,500-ton for the French battleship projects.

But
 * first, I dont know the formula for the conversion of long-ton in metric-ton,


 * second, I am less sure how to proceed with German ships, and specially for the limitations from Treaty of Versailles. 10,000 tons, but which unit ? Metric tons or lon-tons? No matter for the Deutscland class, as the Deutchland is reported to have 11,700 tons displacement, in Breyer's book «Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970», as in H.T. Lenton's «German surface vessels» in the «Warships of World War II» collection, both English written books, so largely in excess to the Treaty of Versailles limitations, that the difference between long-tons and metric-tons changes nearly nothing. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are reported to have a 31,750 tons or 31,800 tons displacement, following the same sources.


 * third, it would be necessary to mention the different use of long-tons and metric-tons, by a foot note. But I dont know to write it in Wiki markup, I am not the author of the foot notes, though I appreciated their creation, as I know only how to write a reference. I suppose that this foot note would have to be placed in the infobox for General Characteristics, to explicit the mention «35,000 tons (standard) and 48,950 tonnes (48,180 long tons) full load».

I submitted this question of unit conversion to User: The ed17, as responsible of Operation Majestic Titans, and I wait for his answer.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (Thank you for your praise, and also thank you for your work on the citations and clarifications.) The French did what? I... see. This begins to explain some contradictions between the ship displacements in various articles (I went with whatever was best referenced). I know that it was specified as "tonne" in at least one part of the discussion on the two treaties, and possibly at some points thereafter - we'll need to take a look at the prior version of the article and do a search on "tonne". Oh, dear; I had been assuming that when not specified when discussing the French vessels that it was metric tons, given the association between the metric system and France (this is what I get for not simply putting a "clarify" tag by the first mention of "tons" without specification - I wasn't thinking... sorry!). I'm guessing the Washington Treaty specified limits in long tons, and since it's what a standard displacement is taken from, long tons are being used for standard displacements.
 * The formula to get the wiki system to automatically do the conversion from long tons into metric tons is, for example, 1111 LT, which yields "1111 LT"; adding "|disp=flip", as in 1111 LT , "flips" which is put in parentheses, yielding "1111 LT". The basic sequence is "convert|#|unit-from|unit-to" in double brackets, with "LT" being the abbreviation for long tons, and "t" for metric tons.
 * The way to do a footnote is by, which would yield a footnote reading "footnote goes here". You can even stick a reference inside the footnote, which I find impressive.
 * Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 19:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Allens. User: The ed17 answered to my question on unit conversions, in talk. I am not sure to have well understood it. I consider that every Standard displacement, and every indication of displacement given in tons, in an English written book, is in long-tons, and only an indication of another kind of displacement (normal, full-load) given in tonnes is given in metric tonnes. It's why I so edit many displacement unit conversions in File: Richelieu class battleship.


 * Thanks very much for doing that! I feel guilty for not having helped on that... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

But my question to day is different : what do you exactly mean by «Full citation needed», as : « The Richelieu refitted at Durban from 18 July to 10 August, and arrived via Diego Suarez at Trincomalee on 18 August, learning of the Japanese surrender on 15 August. She left Trincomalee on 5 September to participate in the liberation of Singapore, Operation Tiderace. While she was passing down the Straits of Malacca on 9 September, at 07:44 a magnetic mine detonated 17 m to starboard. She eventually limped into Singapore at noon on 11 September.» Is the citation of Sarnet; Le Vaillant incorrect, and why ? Thanks.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the citation of "Sarnet; Le Vaillant" is that there's no corresponding book in the Bibliography - thus no title to look up the book by, nor edition or ISBN, all of which would be needed to make use of the page numbers. (There's also that it should be, but that's minor.) Any idea what book is meant? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The reference of the book of "Sarnet; Le Vaillant" (*) is in the Bibliography of French battleship Richelieu, but not in Richelieu class battleship. I added it. But "Sarnet;Le Vaillant" is not in my Library, so I could not verify the exactitude of the pages of the citation (these edits are not mine), but I am sure, from Lepotier, or Jordan and Dumas's books that the dates of refitting in Durban or Operation Tinderace are correct.

Another question : Why the inline citations of the file French battleship Richelieu are not properly formatted? Thanks.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding the Sarnet reference! I'm not sure of what you're meaning by "the file French battleship Richelieu". Are you meaning that article, or other citations (like "Dumas, Richelieu|2001", which should be "Dumas|2001b")? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 11:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Above the Bibliography of the article French battleship Richelieu, there is a tag «This article includes inline citations, but they are not properly formatted. Please improve this article by correcting them.» What does it mean exactly ?Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. That's an excellent question. I'll take a look and see if I can figure it out. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 23:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OHH. That message. That message comes from the tag format footnotes. It was put on there because:
 * The citations are not consistently formatted:
 * There are things like "Henri Le Masson 1969, p. 69" - the other notes don't include the first name
 * "jordan & Dumas 2009, pp. 109–111" - first letter needs capitalizing
 * "Giorgerini et Nani 1973, p. 319" - all the other notes use "&" between multiple authors
 * The citations are generally not done in such a way that the links from the notes take one to the appropriate bibliographic entry. For this to work:
 * The citations need to be done in the format.
 * If there are multiple books by the same author(s) with the same year of publication, you put a, b, c... behind the year, like 2001b for Dumas|2001b. This will also need to be changed in the corresponding Bibliography entry - like for the Richelieu class article I changed the Dumas 2001 Richelieu book's year to 2001b.
 * The code "|ref=harv" needs to be added to each book in the bibliography's code.
 * Once those things are taken care of, the tag can be removed and the message will go away. Is the above comprehensible? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Social determinants of health
Hi. I noticed your comments at Talk:Social determinants of health. A new editor has proposed writing Social determinants of health in poverty at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. They've been pointed to Social determinants of health. I wonder if you'd be interested in offering them advice and support if they decide to have a crack at a rewrite? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I can try, but I don't know if I'd advise a new editor getting into that mess, at least not directly - this User talk:Dennisraphael guy is rather jealous of any changes to the page, and a new editor should probably not get into a quarrel with him directly (for one thing, as far as I can tell he's a (bad-tempered) moderately-influential professor in the field, and I don't want anyone's career ruined IRL). Perhaps Inequality in disease and/or Health equity would be better places to start, unless a merger is to be done with Social determinants of health? I also have my political biases on these subjects (although I like to think I do a better job of controlling them than Dennisraphael), which is largely why I haven't done more about rewriting the article myself - I don't quite trust myself to keep NPOV. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 13:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Allens. I'm a newbie at Wikipedia editing but I am interested in how to improve the page given that I work at WHO in Social Determinants of Health and this is an important portal of information on the area. Sounds like there are major difficulties involved. Wonder if there's anything we can do? Haejelee (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, in Dennisraphael's last few postings, he seems to have calmed down quite a bit (no longer using all-caps - aka shouting - not using personal insults, etc). His argument the last time he reverted (one of my) changes was even cogent by Wikipedia standards - that I wasn't properly representing what the source said; I then attempted to write a compromise viewpoint, plus including the full quote I was trying to represent in the footnote. One of the tenets of Wikipedia is Assume Good Faith; as long as he behaves correctly (including not attempting to pull an argument by authority, which is what he tried last time), he should be assumed to have good interests at heart. So I think we may be able to try modifying the article without his trying to revert whatever we do all the time, which would be rather frustrating.
 * Incidentally, one reason that his behavior was counterproductive is that it spurred me to reply somewhat more extremely than is my actual viewpoint (see the talk page for Social determinants of health). While I am in favor of a difference between rich and poor - capitalism doesn't work otherwise - I'm not in favor of the poor lacking access to basic care or, worse yet, having things like lack of neighborhood safety (and thus no exercise) forcing them into bad health.
 * One thing that I'll need to caution you on - as an employee of the WHO, you would be considered to have a conflict of interest (abbreviated COI) if you promote the WHO too much (or edit the WHO's article pretty much at all). (I am similarly limited from editing the Kaplan University article, since they pay me a large part of my income, and have to be cautious with the Gloucester County College article, since I do get some income from them. Dennis Raphael needs to be similarly cautious about sticking in his publications, particularly any books that he gets money from.) Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and for the information. I will keep the COI point in mind and read more on Wikipedia's guidelines. It would be nice to contribute to making the Social determinants of health page better. Haejelee (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite welcome; happy to have you! Feel free to ask on any needed advice, etc. - I'll do my best to help or point you to someone who can. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, there's someone else interested in trying to come up with a revised version of the page - see User talk:Lbockhorn - although it looks like she/he is doing it due to some class project or another. One result of said discussion is that someone's put up a poverty section in the Social determinants of health page. Allens (User_talk:Allenstalk &#124; contribs) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a good starting point would be to move "Inequalities among Canadians" to Health equity, which I've written on Talk:Social determinants of health. The material doesn't logically flow where it is right now. What is the process for doing this? A general question - if I want to suggest new text, what do I do after creating it in sandbox? Thx in advance! Haejelee (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In regard to the first question, sounds good - I'll take a more detailed look shortly (I'm doing copyediting on Geography of Croatia, which is interestingly enough involving the Demographics of Croatia and its Demographic transition). Ways to suggest new text after you've created it in your sandbox: I can think of a couple of ways. The first is to copy and paste it onto the talk page with an appropriate header, although that may require some alterations in order for it not to mess up the talk page formatting (section headers, for instance). The second is to give a summary of the text and a link to your copy of the full thing on the talk page. These are both assuming it's a large block of new text; if it's a small one, then one of Wikipedia's principles is Be Bold - just go ahead and make the change, unless you're needing help on reference formatting or something (understandable if so!). Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 15:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for copyediting Geography of Croatia! Your work was thorough and top-notch!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are quite welcome, and thank you for your praise. Very interesting article, as are your others! Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity
Hi! I saw you started copyediting the Adriatic Sea article - thanks for volunteering! Just out of curiosity - I noticed the "Serbo-Croatian" tag next to "jugo" - is that out of convenience to avoid tagging multiple languages?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite welcome; I figured I was already familiar with at least some aspects of it from the Geography of Croatia article. Your guess is correct regarding convenience on "Serbo-Croatian" (and, as I commented in the edit, according to the Sirocco article that's actually not enough to encompass the Slavic languages with that word); I'm not taking a side in the disputes over Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian being separate languages, incidentally. (Actually, an alternative idea is to use South Slavic languages as the tag. Would that be better?) Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 13:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm not about to go into that dispute... Nearly all South Slavic call sirocco "jugo" - I'm positive on Bosnian, Croatian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Slovene and Serbian and that type of solution would surely forestall any edit warring on the issue. Unfortunately no quick fix is available here because it seems that Bulgarian uses various forms from descriptive "southeasterly wind" (Югоизточен вятър) to сироко which is pronounced the same as in English and широко which is pronounced with initial "sh" instead of "s". Incidentally the last one is also used in Croatia as "široko" although less often than "jugo". Macedonian aside (because Macedonia has little to do with the Adriatic Sea), Slovene language is never encompassed by the um, whatever one calls language/languages/group of languages spoken in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia - and sirocco is called "jugo" in Slovene as well. So how about using a less edit-war-inviting: "The predominant winter winds are the bora and sirocco (called jugo locally along the eastern coast)." or something to that effect? Incidentally, name of the wind in Albanian appears to be "shirok". The issue can, no doubt, be discussed in detail in sirocco article if necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, well. I've altered it according to your suggestion; thanks! There is a redirect from jugo to sirocco, incidentally, which is good. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 17:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help out at the Paid Editor Help page
While not a huge backlog yet, we're getting to it on the Paid Editor Help page. The sections that need replies include Colin Digiaro, Guy Bavli, Strayer University, Stevens Institute of Technology, and a general backlog in the Request Edits category. If you could help in any of these sections (primarily the first four), I would be really grateful. This notification is going out to a number of Wikiproject Cooperation members in the hopes that we can clear out all of the noted sections. And feel free to respond to a section and help out even if someone else had already responded there. The more eyes we get on a specific request, the more sure we can be on the neutrality of implementing it. Thanks! Silver seren C 03:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit by Ryleeew2012
I'd hate to be a bother or anything, just wanted to thank you for warning that user about editing that page again, I undid his/her edit after I realized he/she kept messing with that page. Click...If you dare! o,0` (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite welcome, and no bother... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 17:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Edit
Hello. This is about the edit on the Just Dance 3 article. As you saw, I tried to revert it back. I was trying to revert it back because the following songs: Hot N Cold,Spice Up Your Life,Firework & Come On Eileen are not available as downloadable content for Just Dance 3. There is no proof or source that indicates that those are available as downloadable content for the said game. After I reverted it, I realized I did the wrong one so I decided to just delete it but after I did that, I got an Edit Conflict so i did it again and still got an Edit Conflict and then after doing it again it worked. And then you reverted it back saying that I vandalized the page but I just wanted to say that I wasn't trying to vandalize the page and that the songs mentioned in this comment are not available as downloadable content for Just Dance 3. --70.131.102.34 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh no its okay. (Talking about the post you put on my talk page) --70.131.102.34 (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Adriatic Sea
Hi, thanks for your great copyedit. I only want to ask you why you added STA as work in the references: STA is only the acronym of Slovenian Press Agency (Slovenska tiskovna agencija) - the publisher. It seems strange to have the publisher's name listed twice in a single reference. Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 08:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Quite welcome, and thanks for the compliment!) Hrm. Then what's the name of the publication itself? The "work" field is much more important than the "publisher" field for "cite news". I'll go back through and put in STA (Slovenian Press Agency) as the work, if there's not anything else, and delete the publisher field. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ahalya/archive2
Thanks for your comments. If you have time, can you please go over the article once more. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am having difficulty finding much - the current writing is rather similar to how I would write it in many respects, making it unlikely for me to be able to help very much. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 12:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope more people who read the article feel the same. :) Replied on Talk:Ahalya. One more thing. IMO, the 1st para (now a liner) needs to be expanded. How can the three primary events: the seduction by Indra -> the curse by Gautama -> the liberation by Rama be put in that para? Ahalya is primarily known due to this incident, also taking into account Fowler&fowler's comments. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite welcome; I'll take a look... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 17:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Talk:Ahalya: I have temporarily moved the sentence to the article considering the ongoing FAC. I don't reviewers complaining about a short 1st para :) -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem; I'd be personally happy with it staying there, unless we want to expand it into 3 separate sentences. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We have a winner now. Thanks for the initial draft. Please let me if your keen eye notices any more problems with the article. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of The Doon School alumni/archive1
Hi Allens sir,

May I request you to look at the above nomination? An editor named Fowler is letting his emotions in and spoiling the whole review of the list. He is not objectively reviewing the list which, I believe, is very unhealthy for Wiki editing. I have given my explanation there being a Dosco and am hugely looking forward to your comments there. Thank you! DoscoinDoon (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)