I have clarified the comment about IRC. I will not however be withdrawing my comment about the terms negro or 'nigger'. It was a fair comment. You are apparently unwilling to accept that the term homosexual is offensive in the context, whereas gay is relatively neutral. It is your right to feel however you feel about the terminilogy, but that is as irrelevant as the people who try to argue that negro or 'nigger' are equivalent to black or African-American. We stick with what the sources say and use, and the sources say and use that homosexual is likely to be considered offensive and that gay is preferred. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Language Template Indicates
Re your change of the section heading on the "Ottawa language" page, what the Language Template uses as a heading is in fact "Sounds/Phonology" and that's what I put. There's no direction to use one or other but not both, and I don't see how such an interpretation could be construed from the template. "Sounds/Phonology" is of course just another way of saying "Phonology and phonetics," the heading I had before.
I will put this on the discussion page of the Ottawa language article, so all information concerning the latter is in one place. John Jomeara421 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch><>°°03:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the budget in SEK or ......
Let's keep the budget in SEK or it... what :)? Was your point that keeping the budget in USD is less accurate because the amount in SEK will fluctuate based on the exchange rate? This is certainly true, but isn't it pretty standard that the budget is listed in USD even for foreign films? decltype12:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point, yes. I think I accidently hit enter while typing the edit comment. I just didn't see the point of listing the budget in dollars since it's bound to fluctuate, especially with a small currency like the Swedish krona.
Hats off to you for the nice job you did writing the article. I think it really deserves it's featured article star. I met some troubles only for some single words: for example dishes like "porridge" or "gruel" don't exist in italian cuisine so I had to translate them with something similar. I thank you for your help offer but in truth I'm not an expert in this subject. I asked to another italian user, who is fond in cuisine, to be my editor for the article, looking for typos and similar mistakes. Maybe, when the job will be done, she should have some questions for you. Bye and thanks again. --Cotton10 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Peter! Long time, no see - I've been taking a rather long break off Wikipedia, but I'm back and fully refreshed. I've been working on this article for a while, and wonder if you have the time and inclination to cast a fresh set of eyes on it? I'd like someone with a sharp set of eyes to point out as many mistakes, stylistic or otherwise, as possible.
Even after Vasa I'm not completely bored by the 1600's in Sweden. It's an interesting period in Swedish history, which is quite badly covered. My eventual goal is to cover all constituent conflicts of the Northern Wars in similar detail, and perhaps eventually work toward an FA or two :) henrik•talk08:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Henrik! I'm currently finishing my kandidatuppsats in history, so I don't have time for any extensive wikiwork until early June. But I'll take a look at the war article. I think it would be nice to collaborate with you again since the last project was a very pleasant experience.
Ah, best of luck with your kandidatuppsats! (Wild guess: Medieval cuisine related by any chance?) Yes, it was a good collaboration - I'd very much be up for a repeat. I'll throw out the earlier mentioned Northern Wars as a proposal, but if you have any better ideas for another area to improve let me know. henrik•talk19:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've seen you have been improving this article. I will thnak you if you could tell me how to do a Good Article, what do you believe it needs. Thank you very much.--Auslli (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I see you have reverted the constractive comparisions, that almost all languages have. Can you tell me wht's the reason?Thank you.--Auslli (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of translated words don't belong in Wikipedia and are expressly recommended against by WP:LANG. You need to explain the presence of seemingly random tables properly. A heading called "Contrastive linguistic" (which is incorrect English) doesn't explain anything. I know various lists and tables common in many language articles, but that's because they haven't gone through too many quality controls. Compare with GA and WP:FA language articles if you want to see what is considered good-quality articles. None of them have unexplained tables or lists of words. If you want to see how to properly use extensive tables, see Ottawa language.
If you wish to have more assistance in improving the article, I recommend that we continue the discussion over at talk:Leonese language rather than here.
I am happy to announce that all of the multiple citations in Han Dynasty are now located in single footnotes, as you suggested they should be. And you're right! The article looks much less cluttered now. I'm curious: since this was the only issue you had qualms with, would you support the article in its current state?--Pericles of AthensTalk03:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your work, and I understand that it must mean a considerable effort to expand an article to such an extent. However, I'm against really large articles. I'm generally not in favor of anything over 80k for FA, and by that I mean total size, not just the more or less contrived methods for calculating prose size. All in all, I think article of this size are too unwieldy and wholly unmerited in an encyclopedia which has infinite room for sub-articles. I've tried to oppose FA status for mammoth articles like Byzantine Empire on occasion without success, and in my opinion without even any proper discussion. I don't bother opposing on account of size these days. I occasionally go in and suggest improvement for very large articles, but I don't actively support them. I hope you will understand my choice in this matter.
The point is that leaving off the diphthong diacritic renders the two consecutive vowels as belonging to two different syllables. This is not how the word is pronounced — this is a phonemic feature of German. Same goes for the bar above the t͡s affricate, although there it doesn't make much difference in German (in other languages it does). I do not understand why you prefer false transcriptions over exact ones, just because they look simpler to you. You're oversimplifying things in my opinion. — N-true (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked for a kind of reference rule that explains how to transcribe names in the English Wikipedia and didn't find anything. Could you please be so kind to indicate the one you are (as I assume) referring to? If there's no such thing, it's clear that foreign words should rather be transcribed they way they're pronounced rather than how you think is simple enough (though wrong) for the general IPA-illiterate public. — N-true (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're insisting on some very narrow phonetic transcription of German which doesn't benefit legibility in the least. The difference between [ts] and [t͡s] in this context will simply not produce any problems, because the objective is to give a reasonable approximation rather than an exact reproduction. Neither will diacritics to specify diphthongs be a problem. Consider, for example, that English has diphthongs that are always transcribed as two vowels without any diacritics.
All transcription is a compromise between accuracy and what the context actually requires because it's a rendition of sound with text. If you look at the IPA used for English and several other languages In this case the "IPA-illiterate public", which is probably 99% of our readers, is not going be any wiser by inserting these type of specifics.
That's your opinion, I see. Are you referring to any standard written out anywhere on Wikipedia? Because otherwise, I don't agree with preferring simplicity over correctness, when this is about phonemic difference. If there's no Wikipedia policy on this (yet), my opinion on this is as good as yours. — N-true (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you understand the meaning of "phonemic difference" properly? None of the diacritics you're insisting have to do with phonemic differences, but are . What you're insisting on is is a narrow, descriptive, phonetic transcription. There are no minimal pairs in German where [ts] and [t͡s] or [aɪ] an [aɪ̯] signify different meaning. I suppose you might find some rare exceptions in odd words or word combinations where it would be meaningful to use the tie bar, but then we'de be talking about transcription of running speech, and that's quite different from transcribing single words.
You also seem to refuse to even comment that that the objective of a pronunciation guide here is not to describe highly specific aspects of German pronunciation, but to give a rough estimate of what German sounds like to readers who don't speak German.
As for written guidelines, please see Wikipedia:IPA for German. Nothing there suggests that diacritics should be used, and this is something supported by User:Angr, who is a trained linguist. I'm obviously not the only one disagreeing with you on this issue.
This is not a content dispute, it's a policy issue. All information added to articles must be supported by reliable sources cited in the text. That's not an opinion, it's a fundamental Wikipedia policy. I'd be more than happy to lift the protection when I can be assured that those who insist on reinserting that information stop doing so. Whether this is "vandalism" or "illicit disruption" is irrelevant. Wikipedia has policies that must be followed, and protecting articles after repeated violations of such policies is a valid recourse. Nightscream (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the edit in question was "not illicit", and I'd appreciate it if you did not attribute words to me that I did not express. Whether the edit is "illicit" is irrelevant, as is whether it's "major" or "minor" (since those things are to some degree, subjective), and whether a multitude of other editors re-added it, especially when you consider that some of those editors may be anonymous IP editors or newbies who may be unfamiliar with WP's policies. If you insist on that information being in the article, why not do the right thing and follow Wikipedia policy by finding a reliable source for it? Do you dispute that WP:V requires this? Even if you do, the question remains: How do you know that that info is correct? Where did you come by it? Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You stated, "The intent is, as you say, not illicit,". I did not say that intent was not illicit. By implying I did, you attributed words or ideas to me that I did not express. In addition to this, your statement that I am "claiming that everyone who has disagreed with [me] so far are ignorant newbies" is a bald-faced lie on your part. You also continue to labor under the belief that WP:V pertains only to "slander" or "sensitive" material, when in fact, information must be sourced. I asked you point-blank, "How do you know that that info is correct? Where did you come by it?" You chose to evade that question. If this is the sort of standard to which "discussions" with you are kept, I think discussions with you will be pointless. But feel free to prove me wrong about you, and I may reconsider. Nightscream (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC is being conducted at Talk:Health effects of tobacco, I thought you might be interested. 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Homelessness in Asia
Hi Peter,
I understand your desire for navboxes to be functional, but I really feel that the continental navboxes should be applied early, before too many of the pertinent articles are created. In this way, when the articles for other countries are created, they are more likely to use a consistent title format. Also, use of the navbox encourages users to create the missing articles. Red links are signs that the project still has room to grow; this is a good thing! If you feel strongly that 10% of a continental navbox should be filled with blue links before employed, you might want to recommend it as a new guideline here.
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/To-do, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
This to do list is not transcluded or linked and was only edited twice by a single user in 2007.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/To-do|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
Based on your recent participation in several Food and Drink related merge discussions, I would like to point out several open discussions that might interest you:
Hi Peter. Fomr our colaboration on nahuatl I know that you are a good and thorough reviewer and I would ask for your assistance at Otomi language which I have drastically expanded - would appreciate any comments on how I can improve it even more. You can comment on the talk page. Or if you wish I have also listed the article for peer review and if you are interested in making a full review you can do so here. Thanks in advance for any help you can give.·Maunus·ƛ·18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the confidence. It's nice to see that you're still making sizeable language articles, Maunus. You're a boon to WP:LANG, and I'm sure you'll be able to make Otomi another sorely-needed language FA.
I have a rather major project in the works at the moment, so I don't think I want to do a formal review (I don't really like doing them anyhew), but I'll do a good round of proofreading and copyediting. If I come across something anything that might need detailed discussion, I'll use the talkpage.
Hi again. There are two copyeditors working on Otomi language already so don't feel pressured into working on it - probably just looking over the article and making minor changes when you get time would be good.·Maunus·ƛ·16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One small question: do you know why their flag was displayed with white coming first top to bottom during that show? When I look at their article, the flag is different :) Mallerd (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The flag bit was actually new to me. Maybe it's not official enough to have standardized properly.
Hello, Peter Isotalo. Since you have experiences with FA, and GAs on cuisine related articles, I'm writing this to ask you a favor to review Korean cuisine which was nominated for GA a couple of months ago. However, none would take a review it yet. I know this would be a great engagement due to the article's length, but I think you're a qualified editor for the job. Would you consider my suggestion? Thanks.--Caspian blue14:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have pretty major ongoing projects, but I would very much like to help out. Considering that you've not been able to find GA reviewers, I feel somewhat obliged to help out. Do you think you could wait a while, though? I've promised to do a thorough copyediting of Otomi language, and I'd like to deal with that first.
If you don't hear anything from me in a week or two, give me a holler and I promise to get cracking.
Thank you for the kind reply! The article was actually nominated by Jeremy, and of course I can wait for the time. I also have another obligation to expand Gyeongju to prevent from delisting, so I guess we are in similar positions. :) --Caspian blue14:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds dandy. And thank you for entrusting me with the article. Good luck with the FAR.
Peter, I re-listed this on the GAN page, (It was listed originally, I do not know why it was removed). The Food and drink section is newer, We always used to list these things under Culture and society. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your bit for Lara Croft, tried accessing it to see if there were any other articles on video game characters and got basically "access denied" from it, even when trying to make a new account. Do you know of any other way to access it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to have a subscription to JSTOR. The most common way to access one is through group subscriptions payed for by universities or university libraries. Then you can log in through the campus network as either faculty or employee. Stockholm University Library even let's you do it from your home computer if you have a student account. If there's a college near where you live, try askomg them. If not, try your local library.
Re your move of the article, the title was in accordance with consensus at WP:MILLS for article names. There were other windmills named "De Heidebloem" at Beugen, Noord Holland; Diesen, Noord Brabant; and Koekange, Drenthe. I will move the article back to its correct title. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that seems okay assuming that there are actually going to be other articles on other Heidebloemen, but in general disambiguation is not supposed to be done pre-emptively. No matter what specific projects decide to have as general guidelines, there's no need to disambiguate when there are no other articles to disambiguate from. It's simply unnecessary.
I wonder if you could provide a peer review for the above article, because I'd like to make it a featured article. Thank you in advance, Adam78 (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to help out, but I'm just too busy right now, both with real life and other wikidealings. From a brief glance at the article, though, I strongly recommend that you reconsider the inclusion of the disclaimer given in the lead. It's obviously self-referential and as far as I can tell it's an attempt to argue a certain way of writing the article. This should never be done in article space, only on talkpages. Also, if you feel the current article requires such a lengthy explanation, it might be a good idea to think of a way to write it more efficiently.
On September 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dalarö wreck, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On September 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bartmann jug, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I worked my way through some of the backlog of WP:RM and this was in the list. As it had been open since the 27th of last month it had been open more than seven days. I did not see any particular reason to keep it open any longer, as the majority were opposes and it was unlikely that the consensus would have shifted to a move in a short time. If it had been a procedural move supported by policy and guidelines, then there would have been a case for either moving it or leaving it longer, but in this case it is not and it is a subject (football) which can generate a lot of heat, so in this case I think it better you follow the strategy I have suggested above. --PBS (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User page
It looks like you have an extra BA degree in your bio if you read it. I´m sure it wasn´t where you wanted it, but I am loathe to alter another´s page.---Flaquito (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I personally don't mind people correcting my stuff, though.
I was lsistening to the files that you uploaded for the variousn plosives, and was wondering if there were vowels attached to some. I think I hear two separate sound on the second one of each file. It seems that thee is the phone, and then it it done again , perhaps with vocalic context. Any help understanding what I´m hearing would be appreciated.---Flaquito (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All my recordings of consonants were done according to the following formula: [CA: ACA:]. C stands for the consonant that I'm illustrating and A is always an open front unrounded vowel (or at least a fairly standard [a]). The two vocalic context is there because the consonants can never really be presented out of a syllabic context. I hope this helps. If not, just rephrase your query and I'll see if I can be clearer.
I reverted your claims about blangmange being spawned from tavuk göğsü. The article that you cited says nothing explicit about tavuk göğsü inspiring the "white dish". As a general news article about modern cuisine, it would also be a somewhat dubious source for statements about culinary history. I don't know if Claudia Roden or the Coes have anything to say about this, but if they do, it should be sourced to them, rather than a tertiary source.
I appreciate your attempt at solving the problem, but the problem clearly remains. Neither Humes nor Coe make any claims about how the whitedish and tavuk göğsü are related. They simply state that they are identical and that one has changed while the other is still eaten. Nothing else. I think it's undeniable that the two dishes share a common origin, and this may in turn go back far into the mists of culinary history, but that's not what these writers say. If you write that they suggest this type of specific relation between the two dishes you're making an interpretations, which is clearly original research. (Add to that you also added an unreferenced claimed of tavuk göğsü being of Roman origin.) All of this also pretty much contradicts Hieatt, the one source that actually discusses this issue in depth based on analysis of primary sources.
Okay, I looked closer at the tavuk göğsü article and I saw the reference to Basan concerning the Roman origins. However, this is a cookbook, which is often a rather unreliable source for historical information. The statement about Roman origins is not just unreferenced, but intentionally vaguely worded ("Probably originally a dish of the Romans"). The book does have a bibliography, but even if it did show up in Google Books, it would be very difficult to trace the claim.
So, Coe may not make any specific claims about "how" they are related but clearly states that they are one and the same. Without explaining the history of their relationship I don't think Coe could have been more clear (granted I wish the book did). Are you trying to suggest that Coe accidentally said they were the same when she really meant to say that, apropos of nothing, she just happened to notice that the two societies came up with the same recipe?
Anyway, I took out the Roman mention since it really doesn't have that much value in the blancmange article anyway (it would if more could be said about it). If you want to take out all these edits I honestly don't care to debate further so do as you like.
Thanks for being so diplomatic. The effort is appreciated.
I moved the mention of tavuk göğsü to the lead, but I just don't see the point of attaching references when they don't actually clarify anything. The problem is that Coe doesn't really say anything except the already perfectly obvious: that they're virtually identical dishes. And it is actually an apropros-statement made in the context of cattle husbandry in a work on American cuisines.
My concern here is really about appropriate, relevant sources, not any particular statements.
Thank you for the thoughtful review with the time and effort. The concerns raised are valid, so I will try to fix them in the 2 weeks (I don't think I can make it in one week). However, right now, I think I need some "fresh air" as editing outside of a FAR that has demanded me heavy workload or the GA review...just a couple of days...Thanks you for the help.--Caspian blue17:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Dirty Diaries
On September 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dirty Diaries, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
{{User0|Cmadler 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
On correct pronounciation
Dear Peter, I will be thankful, if you answer, how your name is pronounced correctly:
Петер or Питер. I prepare an article in Russian on some research of a scientist, and his name is Peter like yours. Thank you in advance for your assistance.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Swedish, my name would be correctly pronounced [pe:ter]. That is, with an "e" similar to the Russian one. So I guess "Петер" would be the best approximation in Russian.
No, I only know of the book in print. However, there's nothing in there that isn't already in the article. The only difference between Lewenhaupt and Anrep is that there are years to go with the assignments, which Anrep doesn't have, and Lewenhaupt says that he died in Neumünde. However, Lewenhaupts cites Anrep as one of his sources, and Anrep does not say anything about where he died.
Neither of them say anything about when he was born, not even speculatively. From what source did the estimate in the article come from?
I don't believe there's enough information on Joachim Cronman to merit an article, I'd say no. Whether it'd hold up at an AfD seems to be dependent on who votes and who gets to be closing admin.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Joachim Cronman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel I have made uncivil remarks about you on an article talk page, you should immediately refer me to an administrator. I simply pointed out that an admin had mentioned in on your own talk page, in case you felt I was stating something unnecessary. Alastairward (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there is no dispute. Wikipedia asks that all information added is verified. This wasn't done in the article in question. Uncited claims can be challeneged and removed, that is what I did. If there's a resolution needed, it's simply to provide a cite by way of a third party reliable source.
As for "personal" issues, I pointed out appropriate policies and guidelines. If it was pointed out to you, it can't be anything but personal. I don't see what the problem is. And I don't see what the problem is in bring this to the attention of an admin, if there is a genuine problem that is. Alastairward (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel I am singling you out for unwarranted behaviour, I suggest that you make a request for comment or ask an administrator to get involved. I know that I have done nothing on the article we both edited that is wrong or uncivil, if you disagree then you should definitely have someone in authority take action against me. Until, then I will continue to edit as I have. Alastairward (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now you want me to report myself for what you deem unacceptable behaviour, I think we're done now!
As for the third opinion, yes, it states what was already evident in the policies I provided links to. These are the same links that you didn't want me to rely upon by way of discussion. I have read them already, I am aware of the issue of fact tagging vs deletion. All I have to ask is, couldn't you have spent that time seeking a source to back you up? That's all I wanted all along. Alastairward (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vasa ship conservation: Wood deterioration is mainly caused by sulfide oxidation
Hi Peter,
Thank you very much for your kind remark on the Vasa ship. I have a background in geochemistry developed in another field and everything was quite clear when reading your summary making already a good description of the deterioration mechanisms affecting Vasa. That is the remarkable side of open collaboration I enjoy the must when contributing to Wikipedia. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's an impressive expansion. I realise you've put out a lot of messages to help with the DYK drive, but have you considered nominating the article for GA status? If you leave a note on when nominating the article at WP:GAN that you want it to be improved by 3 January you might get a quick review (quick in the sense that someone might prioritise it as opposed to the review not being thorough). I notice Malleus has had a go at some of the prose, but an extra pair of eyes might help. Keep up the good work. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's been quite an obsession for the last six months...
A GAN has occured to me, but I don't really feel that I have the time to do it. It would be neat, but I don't think it's all that important in this case. And I have actually been thinking of going straight for an FAC after the press release is done with. But first I need a proper wikivacation. You have no idea how much time I've spent on this and related issues.
Oh, I can understand obsession when it comes to some articles and how much effort and energy it drains ;-) It's a fine effort and after 4 January you're break will be well earned (I assume you won't be resting until then!). Is there scope for an article on the Mary Rose Trust to be created? I was looking online for sources the other day with half an eye to starting one for the DYK, but have since got side-tracked to other articles (although I hope to return to it in the next few days). Nev1 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I recognized that nick.... Yes, and in the middle of that wonderful obsession you get all kinds of nosy scoundrels having the nerve to tell you how to run your project. :-)
I do agree that an article on the Trust would be good, but I don't feel I have the time to cook one up now. However, if you're game, you should get in touch with Durova. She's helping out with preparations for this and she told me she's soliciting assistance. A collaborative effort would probably result in a decent article in no time. I can help out with tweaks and perhaps even the occasional print reference (borrowed from this article).
