User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday/Archive 1

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.

It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it, to see if your idea has already been discussed. Even then, it is often helpful to suggest a major change before making it, to see if anyone objects or wants to discuss it. Do not delete materials on other people's talk pages or on the talk

pages of articles.

When you contribute to a talk page, please sign your name using four tildes: ~ ~ ~ ~ but without the spaces.

Again, welcome! -- Ssilvers 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Moon nomination
Hi, Shoemaker's Holiday, May I please ask you to take a look at this image and tell me, if it is what you had in mind ? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Masque at Kenilworth
Hello, Ms. Holiday. Can you figure out who were the original soloists and add them to the article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Spoonbill
Ah, now I see what you're talking about. I hadn't noticed them before (well I had, but hadn't noticed them as an issue), but I can see where they could be offputting. The grey object in the background is just some bark/twigs/dirt on the nearby bank. I'm not entirely sure what the blobs are, I think they are just drops of water on the stuff at the water's edge that are reflecting light, as they pretty much follow the bank right along (not just at the grey stuff). They could be edited out, but I'm not sure whether I should do so now that the image has been promoted. --jjron (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries. Thanks for the feedback. --jjron (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pisa
Hi. You recently posted a picture on the Graphics Lab for improving but then crossed out your request. Would you still like the item listed or can it be removed? Mangwanani (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps
I created an account at commons the other day with intent to upload my maps, I'll probably do it in the next 16 hours. I'm just confused if I will be able to use my transclusions that I currently use on the en wiki for the image info? Thanks for your support! Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 06:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I uploaded them, Arches and Antelope. They should probably be deleted and relinked on Wikipedia?  Not sure how to do that. Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bunch of nonsense too. Convinced me not to contribute my 3-6 hrs per map to wikipedia anymore. Oh well. Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 05:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kenilworth
If you think that Chorley's recollection in The Athenium is more reliable than Kate Field's description in the The Scribner, then that's fine. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working on the article. I think it's a pretty respectable article now.  You ought to sign up as a participant at WP:G&S.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove "neutrality disputed" tags
Hi Shoemaker's Holiday. With this edit you deleted the tag from Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Your action was contrary to WP:NPOVD's guidance, which says:
 * "if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

Please restore the tag. Thanks. NCdave (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More relevantly: "For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough." Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Burma
Thanks for your help! Sometimes I don't watch when I copy licensing info from a similar image on a sililar topic, good catch! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Water memory
In answer to your question, because the CAM promoters have nothing else to support their stealing money from people who require real modern health care. So they cherry pick the one poorly written article to support their lies. It's kind of simple and very straightforward. I hope I was able to provide you with some accurate information. :) Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

reporting of incidents
LOL, man your version is *so* much better than mine :D --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman chastized me for an unbased comment (that I stroke after reading his message), and because he thought that we were just socks of a sockpupeteer that he had blocked just the day before here: Suspected_sock_puppets/NotThatJamesBrown. Unfortunately, after realizing his mistake he hasn't still asked Dana about all the evidence, and has decided to have patience with Dana.


 * P.D.: So, Jehochman accepted at face value the statement that we were two more socks because DAna had been harassed by real socks. Then he noticed me statement, warned me for it, and then went to WP:CIVILITY to make some additions like "Trolls may employ polite provocation until the target of abuse loses composure." and "Baiting, pestering and other trolling tactics, no matter how politely phrased.". Well, doh. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry much, thought, since other editors have seen the evidence and have taken good note of it for the next times when Dana pushes a study, and Dana is *still* doing the same stuff *again*, like I comment on his talk page. Seriously, I don't know what to do to change his behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, whatever, I already adviced him, and so did Jenochman. If he keeps on his behaviour, he'll just make a bigger pile of evidence that will be used against him when the whole thing blows up on his face. Sad to see an user going down like this for his own actions --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When using the cquote template, you won't be able to add ectern links unless you use it like this "cquote|1=blablabla", the "1=" part helps the template to parse the argument --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sweeeet. Lots of heavily rehearsed evidence backed with diffs. This is evidence for a RfC, if one gets finally done. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dana got blocked by edit warring after that edit warring that you described, so it will considered water under the bridge by the admins. I think that Dana has actually learned not to edit war, mind you. He needs to work on the good faith thing, thought. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok, I see what you mean. Lets see if Dana learns to actually show more AGF towards other users, instead of making a bad faith assumption, followed by "(of course, I don't want to break AGF)". Well, doh, you already did, Dana :P Admins don't usually consider this alone to be a reason to block. Next time, you can just point to him that saying that you assume AGF is not the same as saying that you are assuming it, and refuse to comment on the accussation, and then report him if he repeats the same accussations. After all, Jehochman says himself that "The best way to stop attacks made in bad faith is to not respond" :D --Enric Naval (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See this for a simple explanation of why admins are not blocking users like Dana --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this correction right? It means that he is capable to learn to apply WP:FRINGE on the future, for example, right? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow.....well.... I'm not sure that the admins will accept that evidence enough for a banning. Well, when you change it back, use a different wording since the one I corrected was ambiguous and gave the wrong idea --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * lol, ok, you are right, your argument is sound. Still not enough to convince an admin for a ban to homeopathy pages IMHO, let alone for a block, but if he makes any other blatant policy violation, then this will be a sound argument for requesting a long block to see if he finally gets what is wrong with his actions --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker, there's something on Dana's complaint that is actually true, you need to use the edit summary more. You have a long string of edits with no edit summary at all. You should attempt to at least make a short note of the change, like "added more quote" or "moved ref". You are also hitting the "edit page" link at the top of the page instead of the "edit" button at the title of the section that you want to edit, so we can't even see what section the article is at. I suggest that you try more to use that "edit" button so the section title is automatically filled at the edit summary, and that you make an effort to labe "every" edit, since it's an article under probation, after all --Enric Naval (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

P.D.: lol, I just untentionally implied that all the other things on his comment are false :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine
Hi there, thanks for helping with this, to get an idea of what the article was like before I started to push for a more balanced view have a look at this version. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "bad writing"? You created a run-on sentence with a very minor, POVish reference that is based on *zero* relevant experimental data. I suggest that we work on trial edits at the  workpage--TheNautilus (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the advice about Portal:Warriors. I had actually built the portal in userspace, so I don't need to save it. Thanks for the concern. Shrewpelt (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD for Talk:Homeopathy/Selection of studies
Hi there, I've tried to resolve this by copying the page to Peter's talkspace and deleting the original. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
4 adding the caption --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Billionaire lists
The following articles are also possible copyright violations:
 * Canada
 * China (PRC)
 * Denmark
 * France
 * Germany
 * India
 * Indonesia
 * Japan
 * Korea
 * Malaysia
 * Netherlands
 * Pakistan
 * Russia
 * Singapore
 * Sweden
 * Turkey
 * South East Asia
 * 2004
 * 2005
 * 2006 (* more)
 * 2007 (* more)
 * present
 * Families
 * Historical figures (* without inflation)
 * Black
 * Female
 * Heads of state
 * Countries by number of billionaires
 * List of billionaires compiled from different sources

Gary King (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, just giving a heads up because I'm busy on other things. Gary King (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (Gilbert)
I added this article. Please take a look when you have a chance. Any additions, comments, etc. welcome. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled
BOMojo was not my source, as someone else added that info; I just restored it after someone deleted it without an Edit Summary explanation. Thanks for pointing out to me that it only dates back to '99, but how then does it have Fahrenheit 9/11 info, given that that film came out later? As for those earlier documentaries, I have no knowledge of them, as they were before my time (I'm only 35). Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant it was only updated until 1999. And, no, it wasn't obvious, but it's one reason why I'm positive that there's money to be made in creating a new emoticon for just that state. You should contact some computer geek and asser---er, I mean tell him to make one. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

several newspapers
How come sveral news papers can get expelled labled as propaganda while several newpapers can't even get An Inconvienient Truth labled as controversial? Saksjn (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if you agree with me that AIT is controversial I need your help there. If you don't think so I just screwed myself by bringing it up. Saksjn (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The POINT-maker on the ID talkpage
Can one be in violation of the three revert rule on a talkpage? I'm not sure of the code on that... I would assume so, the same aggravations and sense of going nowhere comes into play. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...and he just erased my warnings to him. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And also vandalised Silly Rabbit's talkpage. To block, don't you have to be a mod? Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanation
Thanks. Though, as should be clear from the Fletcher quote I posted to the talk page and Lewis' summary, Abu Ishaq's essential appeal, directed at the mob, was to a concept of specifically Islamic import (dhimma -- according to which the Jews had no right to the perks they were enjoying, esp at Muslim expense -- something that would make no sense to anyone except Muslims). There is a historiographical perspective of some influence that downplays "religious" causes like this, mainly because the political element is thought to be sufficient explanation. And so it goes. rudra (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the offer!
Um, why the offer? :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, on the Japanese Scout image, you said "Also, the image is obviously not in copyright, either in America or Japan, so the information on the page should reflect this." I had just thrown on anything I could think of to keep the image-deletionists at bay, please help me correct the licensing. Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence in Homeopathy
Hello,

I'm going to ask you to summarize your evidence on the case page, because it currently stands much over the 1000 word limit; unless you do so shortly, I'll have no choice but to summarize it myself. &mdash; Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee 23:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...
I've added this, so you might consider reducing some of the coverage of that particular event in your ArbCom evidence, particularly if you're worried about the size of your statement. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why
Why didn't you ask ScienceApologist not to edit CIV? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Because he isn't eiting WP:CIV and you are, in a manner that makes it more prejudicial to him, after having a full arbcom case about your battle that put him under civility sanctions. Good faith or not, it gives strong appearance of impropriety, and you shouldn't do it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your section in RfArb
If you don't care, no worries, but I mentioned to Martinphi that he should rethink editing within your section on the RfArb page. His response was hostile, so I thought I'd let you know directly. I thought you might want to keep your own section for your own comments, seeing as how that page is "not a page for discussion" according to the big red box at the top. Regards, Antelan talk  23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apology. I appreciate it. (olive (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

An invitation to the NotTheWikipediaWeekly
Greetings! You have expressed an interest in joining in with the next NotTheWikipediaWeekly episode. We now have a confirmed date and time: the episode will take place at Friday, 9 May 2008, at 00.30 (UTC). For that episode in various local times, see here. If you'd like to attend, please "enroll" at NotTheWikipediaWeekly. Please also feel free to browse the suggested topics for this epsiode. We look forward to seeing you on Friday at 00.30!

All the best, Anthøny  22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian Martyress swap
Good call, thanks. I'd always wanted to change that, but was reluctant to remove without an adequate & appropriate replacement depiction. - CheshireKatz (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Check the history
It's not. It's been SPOV free since at least June 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ&oldid=140780530#Pseudoscience

-- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And then edited to be in accordance with policy. Seriously, calm down. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll get back with you when you've calmed down. In the meantime, you might want to discuss rather than freaking out. I posted some comments on the talk page not about the specific version. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The version I had reverted to (though copied from Feb. 2008) dates back to at least July 2007:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ&oldid=144810654#Pseudoscience
 * It follows a discussion of the wording in that month, and has remained more or less the same since then. From July 2007 to Jan 2008, there were no changes to that section. Following some editing in Jan, it again ended up more or less what I installed. So I really don't know where you're coming from. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's OK, I misread it too : ) See my comments on the talk page. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 13:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Creatures
Nice work. Do you want to add a note or link to this 1878 production? It might not be that notable: http://library.kent.ac.uk/library/special/icons/playbills/bristololdtheatreroyal.htm All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. This is not ready for GA.  It has no critical response section, little analysis and relies very heavily on Ian Bond's introduction.  There is no discussion of the controversy about the villain being played as a Jewish charicature.  I suggest that you withdraw the GA nomination and go for a DYK nomination instead.  If you wish to take it further, you can get a peer review, and a library visit will be needed.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think this article shows very obviously the lack of library research. Stedman isn't the only reference out there. What about Contradiction Contradicted and other Gilbert sources? Obviously, you're free to do what you like, but I think it looks bad to nominate an article prematurely and get a rejection in the article history, when waiting a little while and going to the library would be beneficial. You don't need to respond, just do as you think best. You might be right, and I might be wrong. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop yelling at me. I first tried to give you a compliment, and then I disagreed with you on the best next step for the article.  Fine, you will do it your way, no problem.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo
The stats concerning overall gross and status thereof from Box Office Mojo (BOM) are used everywhere on Wiki. Please see the discussion on the Expelled talk page for more about this. Thanks. Supertheman ( talk  ) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said before, stats from Box Office Mojo are used throughout Wiki to make statements about box office status. The fact that they haven't kept records before 1982 is clearly stated on BOM. The source is listed as BOM, and until anyone can debunk the stats, I see no reason to uproot every stat concerning documentaries on Wiki. Supertheman  ( talk  ) 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks but no thanks am done with all that stuff. It's now off my watchlist; will retire to the placid and more civilised waters of topography fuck it. You're welcome to the morons let's see what you lot can do with the article. It is way too anti and cuz none of you know the first thing about the subject nobody even sees it. Am gone. Peter morrell 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankenstein
If you feel like taking part or all of Frankenstein on, I have posted a list of books here. If the whole project seems overwhelming, I would suggest working on an obvious subsection such as "Frankenstein film adaptations". Whatever you decide, I hope you enjoy the novel! Awadewit (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to the NotTheWikipediaWeekly
G'day NotTheWikipediaWeeklian (p'raps we need a catchier nom de plume?) - it's terribly short notice but I'm going to be hosting a discussion tomorrow, Thursday 15th May at 23.00 UTC (head to the 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' page for full info, and a date and time convertor) - that's about 21 hours from now....... There could well be an additional conversation 24 hours later - so take your pick! - I will likely cover the topics which I nominated, and am aiming for a snappy 40minute conversation - do come along if you can! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AN edit
Hi, I've just made an edit to your last statement at AN here, and added a closing square bracket - I think you left it out and it was breaking all the links further down in the page. I'm pretty sure I got it right, but can you check to be sure I haven't changed your thread somehow? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why administrator refusal to look at problems in pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles is hurting wikipedia thread
Hi, I just wanted to clarify that by no means do I consider all pro-science editors (of whom I consider myself one) to be "grossly uncivil", and apologize if it seemed that I did. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience of one admin in particular who is prominent in the area is that he will be rude to anyone who questions any of his actions, regardless of their previous contributions, even to the point of misrepresenting their edits. Another prominent editor in this area has been dishonest to me when I was trying to support him, so I hope you will forgive me if I am a little cynical about the "when the rudeness only happened after they discovered X was misrepresenting sources" excuse. This is not a comment on the specific case with which you opened the thread at AN, merely my experience of a couple of editors who seem to have appointed themselves as banner-carriers for science, but who are in fact doing an excellent job of undermining efforts to limit the spread of pseudoscience on the Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Creatures of Impulse
Er, now the access/retrieval information is repeated in most of the refs. Can you look again, please? Also, I left a few comments on the talk page for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, look again. It's there twice in each footnote.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. You still need to footnote a page number for the other quote in the synopsis that begins "this show of affection...." It's lower down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the promotion to GA class. There are still a couple of minor loose ends.  See the most recent discussion on the talk page.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry, but I just don't have the time to do a copyedit right now. You might try . Good luck! – Scartol  •  Tok  18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Review
I'm so glad you think so; it's an interesting subject and one that I know little about, but I enjoy the learning process. I've worked with Ssilvers before, so apparently I'm now the G&S reviewer of choice. :) If you need a review in the future, let me know and I'll try my best to help.  Take care,  María ( habla  con migo ) 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker, I replied to you on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not use cite templates
FYI: Straight from the horse's mouth - Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Hi.21__Ref._Q  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Natural Hygiene
Hello, I see you did an excellent job with the Natural_health article. An anonymous IP user from Italy has been spamming the English, French, Italian and Spanish Wikipedias with this Natural Hygiene bullshit. Even the Spanish Wikibooks has an article on this subject, which claims you can treat just about every illness with garlic and lemon, even cancer and AIDS. There was an article here on Natural Hygiene that also made such claims, and it was deleted. I'm sure you'd be interested in improving this piece of crap and other related articles. I'd do it but I'm not a native speaker. Regards, 190.20.196.229 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your new friend
Saw the case on AN/I. Wow. Between the RFC and his rather strange posting on the Cla RFAR, I really don't know what this guy is up to. Guettarda (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

G&S Template
Hi, Shoemaker. We only put the template on the core articles. The others just get the category and the internal links to G&S, etc. E-mail me if you want to discuss, but I the project members had all agreed firmly on this a long time ago, and Marc was more clear on the rationale than I am. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Yes, there is a fair amount of convolution in this article/ policy page but I didn't write it. In actual fact, I attempted to undo much of it without undoing the work of the other editors involved. There are a lot of corrections I wanted to make but felt it better to leave some of the material in place for now out of respect for whoever did the writing. As for grammatical errors I don't believe I added any. For example: " Lies, that includes for example, deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page so as to mislead one or more editors." is appropriate grammatically. "Lies" here is being used as a category and singular rather than the more general, and plural, "lies". In this case then the singular verb "includes" is appropriate. Your change is also grammatically correct but is a passive voice verb and in six years in a literature department passive voice is beaten out of one's writing. I do believe your change is fine, but note that the changes you make are possibly more syntactic changes rather than grammar. I did not finish copy editing the article so you may be making changes on someone else's writing. Copy editing is an ongoing process so I'm sure there is much that can be done there ... However, because this is a policy page, I personally am being hyper careful to not change meaning even if it means leaving in place what I might consider weaker syntax. Those kinds of deeper changes should, I would think, require consensus and or discussion Thanks for your comments.(olive (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)) Having been trained in a more British system I have a tendency to over-comma or at least use more traditional use of commas. That's a finer level of editing for me. So if you see they need to be there just add them .... I will go back in again and again more and more micro editing, but I never catch everything on the first pass.(olive (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC))