User talk:Tpbradbury/Archive 1

Assessment on William Rawson

Hi. I was actually surprised to see the article classed Start initially - it's short (at the moment) so it's obviously Stub - correct call in the end. Thanks for your efforts. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for finding time to assess Atif Aslam. Appreciate it. Anshuk (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidance on assessing

Hi. I have been assessing articles for a little while now. I have always refrained from uprating very poorly sourced articles, as I believe it is a core issue. I have been discussing this with another editor, who believes that addition of information, sourced or otherwise, means he should rate upward from, say, stub to start. I won't budge an unreferenced article from stub, as I don't trust the integrity of the information without sources. What are your thoughts?

Also, is there a nailed-down guideline or decent essay related to assessment, particularly BLPs? I would be grateful for guidance to ensure I do the correct thing within the assessment department. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I have since had a good look at some Project talk page postings regarding this issue, and have to agree that my parameters are somewhat restrictive. I will happily loosen off up to Start, but I would expect to see some decent verification after that. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token b05a8e540a322c012e5b4fec0729ab76

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

I have noticed your large amount of work on the article and thought I would let you now I'm going to be doing some major editing to the article, most importantly adding references! I would welcome your edits and opinions on any of my additions in the coming weeks. Thank you. LordHarris 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Sorry about that link! I must of been using the template and forgot to copy the correct web address. Silly mistake, thank you for spotting and correcting it. What would we wikidragons do without the wikignomes and wikifairys ;-). As far as the article goes I keep meaning to resume adding references as I only got to her early political career. I will make another go once I'm finished with Wellington. Happy editing and Best regards, LordHarris 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback given

I have 1 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Napoleon peer review

It is no problem - I do not watch peer reviews I do as there are a lot of them. I do go through the PR list every few days and try and respond to comments or questions, but my comments look unchanged now, so I doubt I would have even noticed the changes. I am not an expert on Napoleon by any means, but I have been to Les Invalides and seen his tomb, and know a little about him and was surprised there was not more his tomb or on his meeting and marrying Josephine. I was trying to say there will be a lot of people who might pop up at FAC and say "But what about the crucial role of Napoleon at X?", so get it as good as possible before FAC and be ready there. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Prepping for Napoleon FAC

I suspect that the frequent use of "whilst" and "though" might get the attention of Tony1 who would ask what is wrong with "while" and "although". So, you might wish to get a copyeditor to go over the article first. I can suggest EyeSerene, AnnaFrance, Dabomb87, GrahamColm among several that volunteer for such work. Note that with an article this big, they would need quite some time and may not individually catch every issue that could warrant attention at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is fantastic! I'm just curious, was it for realism you choose Bonaparte Crossing the Alps over Napoleon Crossing the Alps? Another image inquiry I must make is whether you felt Image:16 Napoleons exole St Helena June1970.jpg was out of place in an article full of paintings. I reckon this photo really makes history come alive for the reader, but I do like the image in the Saint Helena section of a man clearly withering away. Alientraveller (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The image of him looking like he's stumbled out of bed will need a new home though, so it could be uploaded to Commons under a better name. If we need to cut down on images, the Death section could benefit from this spectacular painting replacing the ship. The sarcophogus image is better than the one currently in Les Invalides so it could be moved there, unless you want to keep it and move it to the left. Alientraveller (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, what alternative would we have to this? Should the ship image move to the left? Or considering it was the tomb image that was recommended, shall the ship go? Alientraveller (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage you to keep up the quality work. People like you are the reason people like me get involved with Wikipedia! You clearly have a better command of both wiki-policies and the English language than I, but I'd be glad to assist in any way I can in the future. (Starting with reading the rest of Napoleon, of course.) Natural Cut (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Daily Show FA

Sorry for not responding to you sooner; I've only just finished with exams and they've been taking up a fair bit of my time lately. Thanks so much for the advice, though, and for your corrections in the article. I'm going to try to and give it a thorough going-over tonight and over the next few days to make sure everything's up to scratch. If you've got any more suggestions, I'd love to hear them. :) Cheers, -Shoemoney2night (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Corunna - Thank you

You've done some really nice work tidying up Battle of Corunna; it looks a great deal better, quite attractive in fact. Thanks, Maglone (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Layout

Thank you for giving me that link. I was unsure of the ordering and was only attempting to remove ref list errors. I will attempt to correct my previous actions. --Chrismiceli (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reassessing Biddy Early. I appreciate the time you took to do it. Have a great weekend! -- edi(talk) 17:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

David Edgar

Thank you for taking the time to rate the article David Edgar, that I have been working on. I will admit to being disappointed that it didn't merit more than a Start, but I note that you are much more experienced at this than I so I wondered if you would care sharing with me your thoughts on how to improve the article. Clearly the section, A Professional Playwright needs to be completed, and we need some critical response, either as a section or interwoven in to what we have. Anything else? What about style, prose, POV? Anything constructive would be welcome. Cottonshirtτ 18:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I just wanted to say thanks for all the fine work you're doing at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Sandy beat me to it, by weeks! Just came here to thank you for the same thing. Really appreciate the cleanup! Maralia (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Napoleon article

Thanks for your comment. From my (limited) experience with Napoleonic scholarly literature, Bainville's Napoléon isn't seen particularly as an ideologically coloured or motivated monograph (by Action Française standards or even by 1920s standards) — frankly, I'd say Victor Davis Hanson has a much poorer reputation among historians than Jacques Bainville. While Bainville was ... selectively Germanophobic, as a traditionalist monarchist he was also ambivalent (not to say hostile) to the legacy of Napoleonic period and certainly not interested in whitewashing or rehabilitating Napoleon. I suppose "drawing on research by" is problematic, though, because while Bainville was the first (to my knowledge) to make the argument, I imagine it's been more or less independently confirmed. To put it this way, the previous version specified no one; I figured it was at least a start to plug a name. Maybe we ought to revert until we find a citation outright. I have no doubt it's the commonly accepted version.

All the same, I think you're being unfair in the first paragraph. "There are those who admire his accomplishments" is the kind of carefully-guarded phrase one might use for Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, or Saddam Hussein. I think it's reasonably fair to say that "many" — from a Hungarian philosopher like Tomas Molnar to a French prime minister like Dominique de Villepin to Oxbridge academicians to the seemingly endless market for Ludwig's biography and his scores of imitators — admire Napoleon. (Having said that, his critics include names commanding far more respect than Victor Davis Hanson — Georges Bernanos, A.J.P. Taylor, John Ralston Saul, etc. I think it's imperative over the long term to develop this section into a sub-article.) Albrecht (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks. on the 'many' point, I agree that many do admire his accomplishments, though using many and some appears to be generally frowned on as vague terms. people could accurately use the term many in relation to Stalin and Hitler. 'there are those' does sound guarded, it maybe better to simply remove it. Tom B (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)