Hello, Shoebox2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((help me)) before the question. Again, welcome! --Coco Lacoste (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((unblock | reason=I've been editing Wikipedia for a few months now with no problem, however this evening I was notified that my IP address has been blocked until 2015 due to an open proxy. I've got no knowledge of what might've happened here (not entirely sure what an open proxy even is, frankly) so would appreciate the chance to edit again if at all possible. Thanks [[User:Shoebox2|Shoebox2]] ([[User talk:Shoebox2#top|talk]]) 00:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)))

What message are you seeing when you try to edit? Without knowing the IP or range, we can't help you. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, sorry, I'm very new at this. The relevant bit of the message is as follows:

"Editing from 199.255.208.0/21 has been blocked (disabled) by DeltaQuad for the following reason(s): Banned proxys.svg

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This block has been set to expire: 20:32, 3 January 2015."

Shoebox2 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the IP you're using is allocated to AnchorFree. To edit, you just need to disable your VPN. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, right, it all becomes clear now. Thank you very much indeed for the assistance. Shoebox2 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your defence of The WotWots; I'm currently trawling through the contribution history of that IP and another associated with it, there seems to have been a lot of subtle vandalism happening in the world of children's television. In the future, please warn unconstructive editors on their talk pages; if you use WP:Twinkle it's as easy as can be. A history of warnings would have gotten the editor blocked and other protective measures could have been taken. Josh Parris 23:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much in turn for your advice. I'm still fairly new to the project, and the editing process in particular, so am still feeling my way re: consensus -- in particular what types of escalation are appropriate when. I had actually been thinking seriously about making an admin aware of the situation and/or requesting protection for the article, but wasn't sure if the article was important enough, or for that matter (as per my talkpage note) if I was plausibly dealing with vandalism. Valuable lessons learned. :) Shoebox2 (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Shoebox. I've just read your draft and it's really, really good (even the Proms info's been pulled out of the Spin-offs section!) Well done you. I've jotted down a few points – call it nitpicking, cause I'm just an annoying smellfungus. As your version is sooo different from the "mainspace" one and I don't like fiddling with other people's sandboxes, I thought it'd be better to post my comments here. Please take them as what they are (simply my opinion, and I may be wrong) and bear in mind that my memories of what the different press articles say are a tad hazy.

Lead

• I wouldn't go as far as to label the programme "edutainment". Even though a couple of critics have certainly done so, they seem to be in a minority – the emphasis being laid on its elements of comedy (if memory serves me well). Also, it sort of contradicts the 3rd para in Content.
• "contemporary continental Europe"→ "modern", perhaps?
• The fact that it was the 1st kid's TV show to win a Brit Com Award would be worth mentioning – 'tis unsourced at the moment, but it's inThe Indy. Also possible source for one of the knockoff sketches (Henry VIII-This Is Your Life).
• Per MOS:LEAD, cast members and spinoffs (Fry version and GG) should be included.
• While I totally agree that scholars' reaction/criticism is important, don't know if it's received enough media coverage to be mentioned in the intro. I'd move it down to Reception. I have a History Today article, which isn't particularly revealing, but will rummage about my papers to see if it can be of use. By the way, the "one scholar" you mention (How very dare you!) is no less a person than Dan Snow. Btw II, the "historical accuracy" is just a remnant of the old version, is it? If so, that Spectator article by Simon Hoggart could be rescued.

´ Process

• "Baynton told BBC News that "Everything is true... however ridiculous things may seem, it's all based on fact,"[13]and Howick agrees"→ this doesn't add owt significant.
• "several signature roles, notably..."→ add in Queen Victoria and Grim Reaper?

Format

• "long-debunked nonsense"→ true dat, but I think "myths" (or similar) would be better. Also, this: by a dung beetle
• Write (surname) next to the characters mentioned?

Music

• I'd be careful w/ the word "viral": I'm no internet phenomena expert and our article on Viral isn't much help, but seems like HH songs are 1m hits away from being viral.
• "The English Kings and Queens"→ it's got to be written somewhere that it's a parody of Chas'n'Dave. Will try to find it.

Cast¨

• Now you've lost me at "de facto" cast. I'm not questioning your word choice – I simply haven't the foggiest what it means! What does it mean?
• Finally... the only thing I'd edit war over. I'm not being funny but the reference to the physical attributes of the male cast members is naff. They get letched over by myriads of fans, yes, and there's a source and all but... but... To be honest w/ you, this isn't the least bit encyclopedic!

[Something I found while browsing the articles: Grauniad for 2nd series viewing figures (if we're going to spin that section out) and Bradley's son being a fan of the books (unreffed at the moment).]

Well, this is all for now. Once again, take all this just as my audible thoughts or ignore it completely!

Bottom line, the draft is infinitely superior to the present article and is ready to be copied over. If you'd rather keep working in your concealed cave until it's fully baked, fine too. If you'd like more input before going live – which would be just wonderful – perhaps you could ask Spanglej? I've only ever seen her editing HH last July and I'm not sure what's she's up to these days, but she's a top-notch contributor and way more experienced than me. Congrats again. Cheers, --Coco Lacoste (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm so pleased you like it. Have taken your suggestions, as they all make good sense. (Was actually a little surprised that the historical accuracy thing didn't get more press, going in I seemed to remember hearing a lot more about it.) Was a little sorry to lose the note about the cast, but you're right of course, and anyway it's been sneakily bugging me all along that "physical attractiveness" isn't verifiable.

Basically I just need now to make the 'Reception' section coherent, add the new stuff to the header, and I'll be done from my POV. Thinking to ask Spanglej to review if possible over the weekend, then if all's OK have it live by Sunday night/Monday morn. Cheers, and thanks again, Shoebox2 talk 13:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Span thoughts

Hi Shoebox, thank for your message. I would echo Coco - well done for taking it on. The article hasn't been on my watchlist for several months, so I am pretty out of the loop with it (I gave up and went mountain climbing instead). I offer a few thoughts here (just opinion), most of which comment on hangovers from the old article. I don't know the sources.

You have a great and fluent writing style. I agree that this draft is oodlingly better than the last and there is skill at work here. One of my bugbears with the old article was the massive overuse of direct quotes. See WP:QUOTEFARM. In getting articles ready for GA I have had lots of feedback about quotes getting in the way of easy reading. As a new editor I relied on quoting lots out of lack of confidence. Editors have full permission to paraphrase and state the facts succinctly so I would encourage boldness with this. Direct quotes are also primary sources. Encyclopaedia style aims for a tone of formal summation not direct relation of every detail. Most GA and FAs you'll find hardly use quotation at all. I would say to cut the direct quotes by 3/4 in the draft.

• Production - I would cut the specific dates. I don't think we need all that much detail - eight full dates. "May 2010" is fine. Also, perhaps mention these are UK airing dates as the programmes are shown internationally.
• Background "The initial impetus behind the TV series". Reads better. "Overall, to ensure the show would be recognizably respectful of the Horrible Histories 'brand' -- then in its second decade -- it was determined to maintain the franchise's already-familiar visual style and content." Not sure who "it" is here, the show's creators? The background section has lots of direct quotes in it. I'm not sure any add much as quotes.
• Process Again, I think it gets a bit too close up to the crew, perhaps due to the over-reliance on interview sources and the BBC's History magazine. There's a lot of "According to Baynton", "Rickard confirmed that", "Howick claims". To me it still reads like a crew interview on the CBBC website. "Casting being partially dependent on the "logistics" of moving a performer from one character to another". Not sure why scare quotes are regularly used around single words and phrases. Reads rather like a school essay.
• Reception I'd say that quotes in this section are fine.

I hesitate to say it (I really do) but it might be worth thinking of GA criteria in the drafting, given you are almost there and have the sources currently at your finger tips. Everything would need to be sourced for GA, which is extra work, but it would be good to see your effort rewarded and I would be happy to give input. I'd recommend keeping the article in the sandbox till you have it as you want it. In my experience it's waaaaay easier than tracking changes from other editors while the piece is still a work in progress.

In summation: you have an excellent writing style, and have done a sterling job. If it went up without any of the changes recommended by Coco and I, it'd still be an enriched asset for WP. Feel free to note my talk page with comments, thoughts, questions or technical queries if you have them. I'll help if I can. Best wishes Span (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your sterling work on Horrible Histories. Thanks Span (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awwww, this is so lovely! Thank you! *pins award proudly to her metaphorical chest* Shoebox2 talk 18:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should indeed to proud. Happy Solstice /Christmas/ Winter festivities to you and a happy new year. All best wishes Span (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the same to you, with my thanks again. Shoebox2 talk 21:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While you are waiting to receive confirmation on going ahead with the List of songs / List of episodes articles, (if you were thinking of a project to keep you occupied), you could always take a crack at the Horrible Histories (book series) page. It's still quite a mess with many content gaps and huge book lists stuck at the bottom - a remnant of its fancruft days around 5 years ago. Please note I am not trying to coerce you into a project, and am instead simply saying that if you were looking for something presumably along the same lines as you've been working on at the moment (regarding the HH troupes' various work), then that article might be a very fulfilling one to pursue. In case you were wondering, my role would be limited to researcher of sources and perhaps the odd suggestion here and there (depending on how familiar with the book series you are). So, yeah, just a suggestion, informed by your previous work and what I imagine you might enjoy working on. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I had thought of it myself; the problem is, I'm not at all sure I'm the person for the project. Not to harp on it, but even given my intense familiarity with and affection for all aspects of the TV series, cleaning up that article took a solid week of intensive work. Even granted the problems don't seem to be as severe here, they look similar, and I just don't have enough current familiarity with the book series -- nor for that matter interest in learning more about it -- to risk making that commitment.

I have an alternate suggestion: why don't you try cleaning the book article up yourself? You clearly do care enough, and it might give you some valuable insight into the process of actually creating an encyclopedic article. It appears the earlier cleanup Spanglej attempted worked out well in your opinion; why not continue to ask for her help as needed? I could offer suggestions as well, if you like, though I'm nowhere near experienced enough to mentor. It might also give you some experience in developing a genuinely collaborative relationship for the benefit of an article.Shoebox2 talk 14:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy holidays and all the very best for you and yours. --Coco Lacoste (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And to you. Thank you so much for the kind welcome and all your help. Shoebox2 talk 02:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belated Merry Christmas Shoe Box and a Happy New Year!
Good work on The Wrong Mans over recent days.
All the best for 2014!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's very kind! Thanks and best wishes to you as well. Shoebox2 talk 14:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!
Thanks for all the good work. Span (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's appreciated more than I can say. Happy New Year to you as well. Shoebox2 talk 23:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Shoe, sorry about not getting back to you earlier, but things have been a little busy. I just ended a mentorship, so if you're still interested, I'm open for a new mentee now. We can even use the article you have up for GAC as an example, after we get past the first few steps. Just let me know! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, thanks very much for keeping me--and my article!--in mind. I'd definitely still be interested, just let me know when you'd like to begin. At the moment I'm *ahem* between jobs, so my time is fairly flexible. Shoebox2 talk 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did see this, but I just started back at work this week, so thanks for your patience. I'll go ahead and create a page for us at the Centre now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As promised; see here: [1] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! Will hopefully be able to get through Step One this weekend. Shoebox2 talk 20:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I just added more here. Now I will go and re-watch the "English Kings and Queens" clip! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Horrible Histories cast at the 2010 British Comedy Awards.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image was accidentally uploaded -- it wasn't until I saw the metadata on the file page here that I realised it wasn't free -- and has accordingly been speedily deleted at my request. Shoebox2 talk 13:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yonderland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in the long term, [[Monty Python|Python]] comparisons might not be out of place." ''[Total Film]]'' magazine placed it at #25 in their Top 25 year-end list, agreeing that "It’s basically ''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big congrats on getting the article to GA. My deep apologies for not helping out with the review, especially as I had earlier suggested I would be around for it. No excuses from me. You are a great asset to the community. May your time here be a long and happy one. All best wishes Span (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much, Span, that means a lot. And no worries, the GA process was a bit rough-and-tumble but I feel like I've come out of it at least a bit more polished. :) This whole adventure with this article has actually turned into the best possible Wikipedia tutorial, and while I can't say I'm finding all of it perfectly logical or reasonable, it's become much more of an interesting challenge than I initially thought. And, of course, I've met some really interesting, kind and helpful people (present company definitely included). So yeah, I'm planning on sticking around for awhile and seeing what happens next. :) Shoebox2 talk 02:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 15 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Horrible Histories (2009 TV series), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the core concept behind Horrible Histories is "history with the nasty bits left in"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Horrible Histories (2009 TV series). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Thanks from the DYK project and me Victuallers (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How completely awesome! Thank you for the honour, and for a lovely surprise. Shoebox2 talk 00:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shoe, I got your message on your talk page, but I thought that this discussion belongs better over here. I think that you should submit the article for FAC. I think that you'd get some good input and that folks over there would be impressed with how much work you've done to make it the high-quality article it is. I have two suggestions, though, which I missed during the GAC. (1)I think that you should combine the last two sub-sections, about the spin-offs, and then link the articles in your text. Currently, it's redundant and the paragraphs are too short. (2)It's my practice, when there are three or more notes in an article, to create a "Notes" section. I can show you how to do it if you want me to. Other than those two things, you're good to go! Good luck. I have looked at your GA review; just be patient and give him a little while to respond to your comments, and then go to his talk page and encourage him to respond. You were very thorough, which of course I like. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[phew] Thank you much! For both. Great relief all round.

I combined the Spinoff section as suggested, figured out the notes with the help of the templates on your Blue's Clues page (I'm really starting to enjoy templates, did I mention that?) and with all due fear and trembling--quite seriously, in the latter case--have submitted the FAC review.

Meantime, my GA review editor in question has responded to say they're working on the article, so I guess that's all right, and it's comforting to know I, hence he, is on the right track. Should be an interesting next little while on several fronts... Shoebox2 talk 02:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I see that all is well. Ha ha, I remember having the same feelings when I submitted my first FAC, The Wiggles, which took 5 noms 'cause I was so green! I used to like templates, but I eventually decided that I hate 'em, so I write them by hand now. I'm glad that it looks like you're having fun, 'cause that's what it's all about, right? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh, yeah--that and sourcing, which I don't think I'll ever learn to enjoy. Extended hoop-jumping at its finest. :) But rather to my surprise I am still having a lot of fun, possibly because constantly being challenged.

Speaking of which, thanks also for the reassurance re: newbie-ness... suffice it to say that after dealing with the first FA review I really needed that, and that's before anyone's checked the sources. Although it's also reassuring, the ongoing discovery that veteran editors in charge of administering officious, bureaucratic Wikipolicy can actually be pretty nice, reasonable people. (Oh, and your Wiggles article was fascinating, by the way--just casually watching them on TV you'd have no idea there was such a complex business or creative model behind it.) Shoebox2 talk 05:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We all have our strengths, and there's a place for those anal-retentive folks. They keep things running, too, and yes, they can be sweet. I've learned that despite our differences, most of the most dedicated editors are caring people, who believe in the cause and genuinely want to help others in achieving it. The Wiggles are awesome. Not only is Anthony Field super-hot, he's actually a very smart man. And they're all so talented. Even my husband is impressed with them, especially when we saw them in concert, when Murray Cook, who's actually an incredible guitarist, perform a solo. BTW, it took me a while to figure out sourcing, too, but once I did, I learned that it's one of my strengths. I should've looked at your sources more closely before I passed the article to GA, but it's good that they're being so picky about them at FAC because you can only learn how to do them better. Nikkimarie is the sourcing queen, and the stuff she's able to catch! I really do find just writing them by hand easier than dealing with the templates, but I only suggest it if you're comfortable with how they're supposed to be formatted. You might want to try using VisualEditor. There are lots of bugs that need to be worked out, but I've found that adding sources is actually easier, once you figure out how to use it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tips. I've got 'ProveIt' on the go at the moment (in conjunction with WikiEd), but I think with this much practice I'll probably have the hang of how to do it freehand pretty shortly. :)

One thing I wanted to ask... how long does the FAC process take, usually? I know I get impatient, but it's been about a week now, and no-one's mentioned supporting or opposing, just offered tips for improvement -- and even after I've made the improvements, no followup to indicate anything's changed. Is this usual, or should I go 'round and ask for more opinions myself, or...? Shoebox2 talk 17:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The FAC process tends to take awhile, sometimes up to 1-2 months. The coordinators are usually pretty good at giving them enough time, but if it goes on too long, they're fail a nomination based on "lack of support". It's been my experience that once there are five supports, they're pass it, but I've seen FACs pass with as little as three supports. My advice to give it about three weeks, and if there isn't the kind of activity you need, to ask other editors to review your FAC. I actually have a list of folks I know will go over there and give my nom a look. That's not gaming the system as I've been worried about in the past, but an appropriate way to move things forward. BTW, I've been keeping an eye on things, but I wanted to wait until things were further along before I chimed in because of my past involvement with the article. I promise to include my input at some point, before it closes or passes. Just be patient! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes ma'am, will try. :) Thanks for the reassurance anyway. I figured you wouldn't be actively participating due to the COI, but it's nice to know you're keeping an eye out. Shoebox2 talk 17:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just went and looked at the GAC you're reviewing; since there's been no movement from the nominator for over a week, I suggest that you ping him and remind him that he still has comments to address. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much -- I did check in on his talkpage over the weekend, and he assured me he's been busy but he'd be able to work on the article if I gave it another week. Am frankly a bit sceptical, but he has made a good start and appears to be a pretty responsible editor overall, so am willing to give him one last benefit of the doubt. Shoebox2 talk 17:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reverting vandalism at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. However, you reverted multiple incidents of vandalism from an IP without issuing warnings. Often the only way to bring a halt to vandalism is blocking the IP, and that can only be accomplished by an admin, and an admin will only step in if the correct series of warnings had been given. Not providing those warnings lets the individual keep using that IP. Since that individual is less likely to tire of committing vandalism than you are reverting it, handing out user warnings helps the community protect itself. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood, and thank you for the heads-up. I had been considering the situation from the standpoint of the futility of warning a determined vandal -- hadn't looked at it in terms of leaving a record, which was obviously an oversight on my part. Will know better what to do in future. Shoebox2 talk 00:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Shoebox, first off, huge congrats on getting the article through GA.

Sorry I didn't reply before – real life got in the way and I had to take a wikibreak (of sorts). I saw chez Ceoil that you're planning on taking it up to FA, so let me know if I can be of any help. --Coco Lacoste (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much! Also, don't worry about it, it's just nice to hear from you again. (Conversely, I don't have much of a real life at the moment, that's how I managed to get through the GA.)

Re: the article, I've listed it at FAC, but at the moment things are a bit slow. From the feedback I have gotten, as I mentioned to Ceoil, the text is I think OK for now, the major need is buffing up the sourcing. Have found a bunch of interesting stuff on Google Books/Scholar re: the book series, but none of them seem to cover the TV series past a mention. Shoebox2 talk 15:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally got round to reading the article – it has benefited enormously from all the trimming. Being overly nitpicking, I'd say the prose could be tighten up a bit further. As for the sources, most of them are strong ones and two or three seem a tad iffy, but then I've never read a TV/pop culture FAC so don't really know what counts as "high-quality" stuff. In other words, don't mind me.

Don't worry about the review getting stalled, it's not that uncommon. I don't do FACs but I can a) perform a couple of spotchecks (in only to shake things up a bit) and b) go through the article and make some tweaks if you're OK with that. Cheers, --Coco Lacoste (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS, For "real life" read "working three jobs. All of them as a freelancer, none of them steady and they may overlap... BOOM. So don't envy me. Last time I went out was... oh, when was it?

Check, will cease envying forthwith and start hoping things get a bit less complicated soon. :) Saw your further tweaks to the article, just wanted to add that you're always welcome to improve as you see fit. Have had so many copy-editing types go over the article by now it's genuinely difficult for me to see where anything else can be done, but I trust your judgement. Thanks again, Shoebox2 talk 22:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answered your question about what article to review next at the Centre. Sorry for the delay! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Shoe, nice to talk to you again, even if it's to ask you a favor. So I have this FAC [2] that I'm a little concerned will fail because of lack of support. I just looked at your FAC, and see that it's stalled a bit, too. I suggest that you ask some folks to go look at it, like I'm doing here. I wanted to wait for at least two more supports before I chimed in, but once that happens, I promise that I will. Thanks, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, have taken a look at your article and would be pleased to support it. Just wrapping up my GA review this evening, I'll hopefully have time to get my comments up at FAC by tomorrow morning my time (EST). Meantime, is there anybody in particular I should be asking for help with mine, do you think? Shoebox2 talk 01:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ETA": Never mind, I see it's now been promoted regardless. Congratulations! It's a lovely bit of writing. (And, just incidentally, I agree with many of Angelou's critics; reading her poetry and listening to her perform it are two very different things, creatively speaking, and I much prefer the latter.) Shoebox2 talk 14:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your support. Wow, was it you who I told that I like it when an article passes with very little fanfare? Three supports, that's all it took! I think that asking User:TLSuda was a good choice; he's also one of my mentees and very solid. As for others, ask editors you know, and with whom you worked in the past. Offer your assistance with their needs as well, of course. Good luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for all your help with Liliaceae. One thing I have learned now having prepared several articles for GA, is that the bar for GA in the English language Wikipedia is much higher than other languages, since in each case I looked to existing GA pages in other languages as starting points for the English version. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I really enjoyed the experience myself; botany is something I've always wanted to learn more about. Re: the disparity in GA standards, that's interesting too. Not being familiar with the other projects, I can only surmise that it has to do with the English-language version being generally much the more developed, so-to-speak. Whether that's in terms of quality or bureaucracy -- or some combination of both -- I really couldn't say. ;) Shoebox2 talk 14:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 24 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Liliaceae, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when the tulip trade reached Antwerp in Belgium in 1562, they were mistaken as vegetables? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liliaceae. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks for this Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Just for the record, though, this is really Mgoodyear's sole honour. He did all the work to bring the article up to GA standard; I just made a few tweaks here-and-there. Shoebox2 talk 13:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well as always - many people's efforts - it generated 2,500 hits a day though --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, looking back at the 'Sally Kellerman' article, would you say that it is appropriate to nominate it as a "good article"?

@Avario87: Hello! Nice to hear from you. I do think you've done a lot of good work on the article in a short time; it's much more complete and informative--not to say interesting--than it was. On the other hand, I can still see some serious issues with the prose, and the references for same, that you'll probably want to address prior to nomination. I'm not an expert in media biography articles by any means, but based on my own experiences as a novice article editor/creator, do have a few ideas to keep your efforts on track.

Essentially, now that you've got all your information in place, I'd find either an editor-mentor on the Entertainment biography Wikiproject, as I earlier suggested, or some similar GA or Featured articles to use as templates. With their help, go over the entire SK article and decide what info there is in fact really useful and what's not. (Hint: randomly listing the entire cast of a single production Kellerman was associated with really isn't useful.) Remember too that you need to justify your statements, first within your text (saying that 'The 2000s were another busy time for Kellerman' doesn't work when you then list only three roles, six years apart) and secondly with references backing up any claims made in your text (particularly extraordinary ones, as for instance the claim that her Star Trek role is "perhaps her best known role on television", or any time you refer to a production as 'poorly received' or 'offbeat' etc.).

Then I'd give the prose one last unifying polish, referring to the Manual of Style as needed, and concentrating on how well the information flows from an encyclopedic standpoint -- I know it sounds odd, but think the best, most interesting textbooks you've ever read. :) In particular have a look at WP:QUOTEFARM and see what you think. Shoebox2 talk 13:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your awesome scrutiny and copyediting in Impala. No doubt, you have made a marvel out of it! You really went to the depths of the article! Your lessons will be a profound help to me later on. Congrats, and Good luck for your "WikiJourney"! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is lovely! I really appreciate it, thank you. And the same to you as well. Shoebox2 talk 16:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For all the great work on Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) and getting it to FA level. Fantastic job! Victoria (tk) 16:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Your help was a big part of it -- can't tell you how much that's appreciated. Let me know if I can ever reciprocate in any way. Shoebox2 talk 22:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding my congrats, Shoe! Hey, have you been watching Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey? Last week's episode made me think of you, because they told the story of Halley, Newton, and the publication of the Principia, and I remembered seeing a clip about it on HH! [3] How cool is it that the show was educating kids way before Cosmos. Anyway, I'm proud of you and keep up the good work! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much [hugs]. This has an awful lot to do with you too, and rest assured I remember that. (And I did see that clip of Cosmos -- it made me very happy, especially inasmuch as that HH skit is one of my very favourites. Education rules!) Shoebox2 talk 23:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats on the FA promotion--it came about two weeks earlier than I expected. I was about to add comments in support this morning, and noticed it was promoted yesterday. Good work--please consider giving it the much-deserved spotlight by proposing it for a main page appearance at WP:TFA/R.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Colonel! Having now had a chance to look over your own beautifully-written articles, I consider this a real honour. Shoebox2 talk 23:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your detailed review, we are working on the comments you made. With regard to the referencing, although FA requires the references to be precisely formatted, GA does not, see this page. In the review, you state "Citation list is just very, very messy, with no standardised formatting evident and significant missing info in most individual cites." but I think this demand is contrary to the GA criteria. We'll do our best to improve the references, but I don't think their formatting should be fatal to the GA. In particular, things like page numbers in books, perhaps added ages ago by an unknown editor, are difficult to add unless one happens to have a copy of the book in question. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for your note. Will respond on the GA review page to ensure all involved can follow the discussion, and that the 'paper trail' for the review is kept conveniently together. For these reasons, can I also ask that any future discussions of this type be similarly confined to the review page? Many thanks, Shoebox2 talk 13:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I hadn't seen the above until this moment. I have independently responded along the same lines, mentioning the GA criteria for references, which are significantly lower than for FA, in the preliminary GA review. I shall be on holiday the next few days, so thought it important to state my position now. Many thanks for the detailed review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, well, I'm back and have tidied up a lot of refs, added weights and lengths with refs, and tidied up the images too. Hope you like the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for improving the article. Are we almost done? LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LittleJerry:@Chiswick Chap:@Cwmhiraeth:@BigCat82: Yes, we are. :) There are just a few more statements (noted over on the GA review page) that I'd like to see verified/sourced prior to passing--along with your OK on my changes, of course--and I'll be pleased to pass what I consider a greatly improved article. (Freudian slip: initially typed that as 'grrreatly...'). Thanks everyone for putting up with the novice reviewer thus far, it's appreciated more than I can tell you. Shoebox2 talk 18:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done those. And your changes seem fine to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 16, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 16, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Horrible Histories is a children's sketch-comedy adaptation of Terry Deary's long-running book series, produced by Lion Television with Citrus Television, that ran for five 13-episode series on Britain's CBBC from 2009 to 2013. Like the books, it was intended to foster childrens' interest in British and other Western world history through factual anecdotes chosen with a focus on "gross-out"-style humour and comic violence – "history with the nasty bits left in". The producers of the TV series recruited writers and performers with roots in the adult British comedy community. These in turn took a deliberately non-condescending approach, relying instead on such influences as Blackadder and the Monty Python films. A focus on historical accuracy was combined with a comedy style relying heavily on parodies of current UK pop-culture to make those facts more accessible, leading to takeoffs of Masterchef, The Apprentice and Wife Swap among others. The result won numerous domestic and international awards, including two British Comedy Awards and four consecutive Children's BAFTAs, and eventually garnered respect as a classic from viewers of all ages. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yah, Shoe! Isn't this your first TFA? Whoo-hoo! Now dear, don't panic; just keep an eye on it on the 16th for vandalism and other unwanted edits. I'll help out, of course. I'm so proud! <wipes tear> ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I'm... sort of dizzy, honestly. I mean, I'm hugely excited and honoured of course; it's just, y'know, I made the submission purely on a whim--I was so flattered by ColonelHenry's suggestion and noticed the date coming up--so didn't really bother to think through what was clearly never going to actually happen, or anything. Reality (accompanied by a nice healthy helping of self-doubt) started to kick in right about when I noticed they'd put the protection template on... So yeah, also grateful for any help you can provide. :) Shoebox2 talk 17:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on getting Horrible Histories to TFA! Hopefully this'll be but one in a long line of FAs from you! Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope so too! Thank you so much, and know that your contributions to improving this article are greatly appreciated. Shoebox2 talk 01:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might be interested to know that after hovering arounf the 700 mark for a while, after appearing on the main page Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) was viewed by 26035 people, yesterday alone [4]. Significant increases occurred in the other HH articles you edited, such as the episode list and the Stephen Fry version. --Coin945 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Coin, that's very nice indeed of you. Shoebox2 talk 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cats' horrible histories
Thank you, editor adoring cats, chocolate and comedy, for quality articles such as Horrible Histories, for copy-editing (smaller and bigger cats) and reviewing, for your "solemn vow to seek out and destroy bad prose wherever it may lurk" and putting things in place, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, my, this is so sweet of you! Thank you so much--I'll do my best to live up to it. :)Shoebox2 talk 01:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I just second (or third, or whatever) the congratulations for Horrible Histories. A great article, thoroughly deserved. I look forward to what you may bring to FAC in the future! J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had a lot to do with making it great! I appreciate all you've done so much, thank you. Shoebox2 talk 01:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 827 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your very first TFA, Horrible Histories (2009 TV series), and for surviving the day with most of the article and your dignity in tact. Good work! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And thank you for everything you've done to help with both! [hugs] Shoebox2 talk 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're very welcome. Although I'm not sure I helped all that much on the main page, other than sending happy-positive thoughts your way. ;) Hey, I have a favor to ask of you! My most recent FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mom & Me & Mom/archive1, is languishing. Would you mind going over to take a look? I'd muchly appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That, and your comments on dealing with difficult editors did a whole lot to shore up my confidence ahead of time. :) As for the article, no worries. I should be able to get to it by tomorrow (Fri) night. Shoebox2 talk 17:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I've been able to address your comments, which I appreciate. Thanks! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Shoebox2. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Shoe, hope all is well. I sympathesize that you're continuing to deal with attacks on the HH article, but some are like that, especially kids' TV at the beginning of summer. Anyway, I came here to ask if you wouldn't mind looking at my most recent FAC [5], which is languishing and in danger of being failed for lack of support. For some reason, most of the FACs I submit have that problem, but the solution is to solicit assistance. I'd appreciate it, as always, and know that I'm here for anything you need. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! All's great, I'm on semi-Wikibreak at the moment to work on another writing project... but unfortunately, yeah, keeping up with the HH article is cutting into that time more than I'd like. (What kills me is when people add info obviously without even having read the article...)

Anyway, no worries, I'll definitely be able to take a look by Monday -- am looking forward to it in fact, esp. since I feel much more qualified to comment on this subject than your Angelou articles. (Speaking of which, incidentally, it must be a very good feeling indeed to have all her autobiography articles in such good shape given the inevitable upsurge in interest after her death.) Shoebox2 talk 22:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey no problem; I actually worked for money this weekend, so I won't be able to address anything until Monday, anyway. Plus, my laptop is in for repairs, so I have to be more creative about my computer use. And hey, I totally feel you about maintaining articles. That's been my basic mode with the Angelou articles ever since she passed. I must say, it's been a bit overwhelming. It holds no cards to what the editors of Michael Jackson went through, with 6 1/2 million views the week he died, but almost 1 1/2 million views is mind-blowing to me. It actually hasn't been as difficult as I anticipated. I've also been honestly mourning the past week and a half--not like I would if I actually knew her, but it's still profoundly sad. I also feel so grateful that I was so instrumental in ensuring WP was ready for the world to get solid, well-researched, and well-written information about her, the kind she deserved. Of course, that's also due to the support I've gotten from my fellow editors, like you. At any rate, when you have the time, of course. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

==BALINESE, TONKINESE AND OTHER CAT BREED ARTICLES==:

I AM A LOVER OF CATS, AND ORIENTAL CAT BREEDS AND IT HURTS ME TO SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO THEIR ARTICLES. HOW DARE YOU REMOVE INFORMATION THAT IS ESSENTIAL OF THE BREEDS, SPECIFICALLY OF THE BALINESE BREED. YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE DOING THE GENERAL PUBLIC A SERVICE BUT YOU ARE NOW BY REMOVING INFORMATION THAT IS FACTUAL OF THE BREED. IF YOU READ OTHER ARTICLES ONLINE OF THE BALINESE BREED YOU CAN SEE MUCH OF THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE REMOVED, AND THIS IS NOT JUST CONSIDERING OTHER BREED ARTICLES HAVE THEIR BREED'S INFORMATION. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE SOMETHING THAT WILL IN FACT CAUSE HARM TO THE PUBLIC'S GENERAL VIEWING OF AN ARTICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.194 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.194 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, ah, hello to you too...?

First of all, I've taken the liberty of removing what I believe is a duplicate of the above message; if that was an error please do let me know.

I'm not sure what exactly I've done to earn such ire, but please be assured that (as actually noted on the talkpage for the Balinese article) I too am a lover of all cat breeds in general and the oriental breeds in particular. I am also a firm believer in improving Wikipedia articles, and that of course includes gathering and maintaining all essential information. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by RANDOMLY YELLING DRAMATIC ACCUSATIONS AT ME, but I would be more than willing to discuss any of my changes in a rational manner, preferably on the article talkpage--on the Balinese article, again, I did in fact leave a talkpage note indicating my goodwill.

Please also note that I am demonstrably no vandal; I am a respected editor with extensive experience in writing/copy-editing both on Wiki and in the real world. I have raised at least one article to Featured status and have successfully shepherded at least four-five others through the Good Article review process (one of which, incidentally, was Tiger). If you take a look on my main page you'll see an award given for, among other things, my work to that date on the feline articles, including Birman. This is actually what inspired me to begin my breed article cleanup project.

I won't go any further here, except to note that what you see as 'removing information that is essential of the breeds', I see as removing chatty, anecdotal stuff that sounds much more like an informal conversation between breeders than anything encyclopedic--the extensive gushing about each cat's temperament and the cute things some people say they do, for instance. This sort of thing may well have a place on many, many articles across the Internet--and as far as I can tell it certainly does, which makes the accusation that I'm 'causing harm' to the public POV of the breed by editing one article frankly rather silly--but the point of a Wikipedia article is to objectively present the important facts, as confirmed by authoritative sources.

I firmly believe that any changes I have made (and will continue to make) are in line with that mandate. In fact in many cases it has actually led me to add helpful information, particularly as regards the breeds' appearance and characteristics. If you disagree, as noted I'm happy to discuss rationally; I'm also happy for an independent editor from WikiProject Cats to review and arbitrate where needed. But I will not revert what I believe are beneficial changes based on wild unfounded accusations. Thanks in (hopeful) advance for your understanding, Shoebox2 talk 19:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see you're very concerned about the state of the Balinese breed article. So, please be assured, am I. I'm not entirely sure what your connection is if any to the other anonymous IP editor who left a very, ah, passionate message on my talkpage, but the rationales appear to be similar, so I'd like to suggest you read my response there as well.

What you both seem to be labouring under is the misapprehension that this article is meant to be some sort of promotional copy for the breed, in the chatty, informal style of the websites I've seen--up to and including small, subjective details that are literally only of interest to other breeders and besides everything else aren't sourced properly, a huge Wikipedia no-no (hence the 'this article has issues' banner at the top of the article, which I notice also gets removed when you both revert). I can appreciate your enthusiasm, and indeed, if you read the article as I've rewritten it, you'll see I have in fact made a genuine effort to retain as much of the info as I could. Most of it's there, really, and more I've added besides. If I have accidentally left something out via not recognizing its actual general importance, please do let me know.

But with all due respect, this is an encyclopedia. And we're all here to write an encyclopedia article, meaning the important, verifiable info crisply and succinctly presented. Anonymous people yelling melodramatically isn't going to impress me enough to make changes; people who explain their interest/expertise and then give me careful, reasoned, detailed discussion of the relative importance of specific points are, absolutely. As noted, if you like I'd be more than willing to take it to a neutral arbiter, perhaps a veteran editor from WikiProject Cats. But I will not devalue an article merely on random anons' say-so. Thanks for understanding, Shoebox2 talk 12:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

good day!

Hello, I did read your newly edited version and you are right the information is there but with all due respect I do not see it "well organized". Though the previous version was maybe more chatty but the topics were well established and organized. I have been a follower of the Balinese and Siamese articles for quite sometime but have never wanted to edit anything because I do not feel empowered to do so but recently someone a couple of months ago started adding very essential information that was very much missing in the article, since it's creation.

I have to say it was much of a big improvement, before there used to be no mention on Sylvia Holland or the hypoallergenic quality renowned by the breed.

Though I wouldn't mind you keeping your version live, can you please do the public and the breed a favor in re- organizing it the way it was before or similar as it was much more appealing with topics such as hypoallergenic claims, standards and other information you in fact did delete out that is cited and sourced information.

I am sure I am not the only person who thinks this way so please do not see it as a surprise if someone changes it again and I apologize if you feel I misintruded your article.

Thank you.

No worries, thank you for taking the time to respond indepth. It's really appreciated.

As for the info you mention, as far as I know the bits re: Sylvia Holland were untouched. (I actually think the pic of the original kittens is amazing.) I summarised the rest of the info re: the various breeders involved as it didn't seem to be particularly important that they all be named--it was a bit unclear as to who did what for the breed when, so I went with spotlighting Ms. Holland as apparently the most important. I would be open to putting the other names back in, with maybe a bit more info re: what they did specifically?

The hypoallergenic section I did cut way down, because most of it seemed entirely anecdotal, but can see its importance and would again have no problem re-expanding that section with some solid info. Perhaps you could suggest a good source for same?

As for the organization issue, the setup I introduced has its origins in the Abyssinian article. In particular, the idea of sorting the breed standard first by a general overview, then by coat/colour, then by temperament, struck me as a neat and efficient way of getting the key information across, and the various breed standard articles I looked up elsewhere online seemed to reflect that. Many Wiki article groups have a formatting standard that the individual articles follow, that's similarly based around the key shared attributes of each subject. However I freely acknowledge that I'm not the expert here, and would be grateful for the input of same. Is there a particular way those in the cat breeding/showing world compile the info?

Many thanks again,Shoebox2 talk 22:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Shoe, I just learned that you like cats! Very cool; I do too, but haven't been able to own one for 20 years because I chose to marry a guy who's allergic. Plus, he hates 'em. I always say that if I owned a cat back when we met, we wouldn't have hooked up, and then our beautiful children wouldn't have been born, so it was all for the best, I suppose. Anyway, I have another FAC that's languishing and in danger of failing due to lack of response, so would you mind taking a look? [6] Thanks, I appreciate it, as always. Have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! And yeah, I can see where you've got a pretty acceptable compromise going there (also fun bonus Calvin & Hobbes-esque material when the kids misbehave: "Look, all I know is I wanted a cat, but nooooo...") I'm currently owned by a feisty little tortoiseshell of no particular lineage, but have always been fascinated by the purebreds. The articles are pretty uncomplicated, but most are written very 'in-universe', so to speak, so there's good and satisfying copyediting work to be done--good ongoing editing practice, really.

As for your latest SS FAC, no problem, will try to get to it by tonight. Always a pleasure to help you out with this particular project... speaking of editing practice, when/if you get 'round to The Monster at the End of This Book please be gentle with one of my early attempts. :) Best, Shoebox2 talk 16:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha ha, yes beautiful children trump cats, although they're much more work. My favorite cat breed is the Siamese, mostly because I owned a very beautiful and cool one as a child. She was so cool, she traumatized the mean dogs in the neighborhood. One time, I saw three of these dogs cross the street when they saw her coming, I kid you not! If you need to me to take a look at your cat articles, just ask. And Monster is one of my favorite children's books! Written by the great Jon Stone. I've had so many other SS articles to deal with, that one slipped me by. I bet it could be expanded, so I'll take a look in the next couple of weeks. I'm curious: why did you call it "a post-modern children's picture book"? It strikes me as kinda funny. Oh, and thanks for promising to look at the FAC. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh. That actually wasn't me, it was in the article prior to my arrival, and being relatively new to the Wikisphere at the time I was duly impressed by what sounded like a plausible bit of literary criticism. Thinking about it now, I agree, it's a tad pretentious to say the least.

As for your offer re: the cat articles... well, that's very kind of you. If you have a spare moment, they're listed on my main page and they're not that long. :) I'm sticking with simple copy-editing for the moment, not so much with content or sourcing--trying very hard not to come off as too much of a bull in a china shop, with varying success as you see above--but in light of this recent kerfuffle might ask you to take a look just to ensure I'm not actually messing irretrievably with their 'organization'.

Meantime, I've just got back from re-offering firm support on your FAC, thank you again for so carefully considering my suggestions. Very much looking forward to your further Street/CTW adventures. Shoebox2 talk 01:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in the middle of some other things now, but when I'm sufficiently finished, I'll copyedit some cat articles. And I'll look at Monster, since I suspect that there's more info about it out there. And thanks for the review. Working on the co-productions articles have so much potential, and they're very fun. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I notice that you have HighBeam access and you seem to have a few topicons. That being said, if you are interested, I've created ((Wikipedia:HighBeam/Topicon)). No reply to this message is necessary (and I won't see it unless you ping me), just wanted to let you know it was available. Happy editing! — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 23:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We clearly both care about the Balinese cat article, so why on earth can't we work together to improve it? I have explained my position to you as a respected Wikieditor whose motivation is solely to see the cat breed articles get the improvements they need and deserve. I have also demonstrated an absolute willingness to discuss my changes, as is clearly visible on my talkpage. This type of civil collaboration between interested editors is what Wikipedia is all about.

But you have to understand my position here. You show up anonymously, without so much as explaining your credentials, and wholesale revert my well-intentioned edits. In doing so you belittle me, make threats if you don't get your own way and just generally use a rude, hostile, dismissive tone wholly without provocation... and then accuse me of attempting to take ownership of the article! I'm at a complete loss to understand what's going on here, if it isn't an attempt to outright bully me into accepting your version.

Once again: I stand ready, willing and able to discuss any proposed changes with you. At the moment, as far as I can tell, the information in the article is substantially the same, the argument is about the wording and organization. This should represent an easy compromise; at the least, if you have adjustments to make, there's no reason they can't be made to the existing article. I do not claim to be an expert in the Balinese breed, and would welcome any guidance you might provide. What I will not do, and what I think you'll find most 'higher authorities' you contact here will not do, is give in to anonymous bullying. Shoebox2 talk 18:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? I just saw the Balinese article after not seeing it for quite sometime and I do not like how it has been edited. I apologize for my deep opinion of not liking your newly added edits. I liked the previous way it looked where it has more information and it is more categorized. I have to apologize but if I am seeing that you are editing the information on this article constantly and changing it to a form that does not represent the full potential then it must be that are attached to the article and this article like all wikipedia article's are a public domain and do not belong to one user which is why there is a clear edit tab for people to notch in their opinions. I dont know where you are from but here in America we are able to do this without fear of someone misconstruing information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.194 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @161.185.151.194: "but here in America we are able to do this without fear" Here in America we expect civil servants to be working, not editing articles about cats on the taxpayers' dime.

I recommend the both of you discuss proposed changes on Talk:Balinese cat before one or both of you are stopped for edit warring. I think both of you want to improve the article but I see a lot of pointless wordsmithing going on, not to mention removal of sourced content. Help the Wikipedia movement by discussing these things first. If there's a specifc point of contention, either ask for help from WikiProject Cats or start a request for comment to get other editors involved. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Chris, civil discussion is exactly what I'm trying to accomplish here, and to that end have already asked WP: Cats for third-party assistance/perspective. I have no idea why this needs to be so ridiculously hostile. Shoebox2 talk 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chris, if I were you I would learn how to use your "judgement" and ask before you talk which is the most basic method of understanding people.. has it ever applied to you that your city or State pays for public services such as libraries, commentaries and media sources? Here in America we have the right and liberty to speak out which includes sources like Wikipedia where people can speak out their opinions as well as create, edit and improve articles.

Secondly, in regards to this Balinese article. Why are you supporting the removal of information from the article and compacting it? You say that this is being done to all articles, why is it not being done with the Siamese breed article? The majority of all wikipedia articles reference "pop-culture" and other information that can pertain as a source of understanding for the public.

If this is so, why is this shoebox person removing this information and other "relevant sources" as you claim? She has removed so much information from this article, and from the looks of it, other articles. If this is supposed to be a public domain I do not understand why this article is being controlled by one or two people rather then letting the public take hold and add information that is pertaining to the topic and non-construing.

Shoebox, you say you have not removed information. Though you have compacted the information on the article. you have indeed removed information, you have to understand that. I am done with reverting your edits. It is foolish to have to continue doing this as I see this as something controling by someone that clearly wants to be in control. I always thought this was no place for people of this sort. I am no longer going to be touching the article but do not be surprised if your edits continue to be reverted. By the looks of it people already have tried reverting your edits before me...I believe I am not the only person who disagrees with your edits, nor the last person who is disatisfied with the new look of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.194 (talk • contribs)

Wow, you're... really not getting it, are you? Yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. In fact, it's one of the things I love most about editing here, that I can expand my knowledge and worldview while working towards creating something meaningful. And I have repeatedly offered to thus collaborate with you (and the people who we will assume aren't you, despite somehow having in at least one case the same IP address, the same objections and the same unprovoked hostility). In return, I have been met with a complete refusal to discuss any actual details of your problems with my edits beyond wholesale reverting because (almost literally) "my version is better, yours sucks!" You'll excuse me if I'm not entirely convinced it's me that's overtly controlling, here.

The thing is, Wikipedia is not about simply adding information, of interest or otherwise; it's about creating an encyclopedia article. There are certain stylistic choices that go into that--not my decision, but by the consensus of Wikipedia's creators--and they are very different from simply creating an article on a random cat-lovers' website. Information presented on Wikipedia must be factual, notable and sourced. The language must be neutral and simple. I made the changes I did, and I will admit that I am stubborn about them, because I quite sincerely and--as far as in me lies--dispassionately believe they are in the best interest of both the Wiki and the Balinese breed's representation on same. In this, as I have also repeatedly tried to explain, I am backed up by both knowledge and experience.

However, again, I consider myself still very much learning the ropes, and welcome sincere, well-reasoned input from those who might know more than me on any give subject (see my contributions at the bottom of Talk:Tonkinese cat for a sample of just how "anti"-adding information I am...) A few well-chosen sentences on the article talkpage could've resolved this to everyone's satisfaction. Instead, you've spent all of what's clearly your passion for the subject trying to bully me into submission to your POV, or else. I find that kind of sad, frankly. Please let me know if you change your mind. Shoebox2 talk 18:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you take a look at Disappearance of Beverly Potts‎ ? Paul Austin (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see why not--I've coincidentally just come off a short Wikibreak, so have both the time and motivation. :) Will hopefully be able to get to it sometime in the next couple days. Shoebox2 talk 02:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully this is not pushing my luck but could you take a look at Murder of Kylie Maybury? I think she deserves better than the relatively meagre article she has currently. archived newspapers at http://trove.nla.gov.au might help? Paul Austin (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible to expand on the listing of the "Crooked King John and Magna Carta" special, plz? Visokor (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely, but not by me I'm afraid. :) I haven't seen it and frankly am not all that interested in doing so. We're still in the process of sorting out what to do with the new series altogether; right at the moment there seems to be consensus to treat it as a reboot of the HH concept, rather than a continuation of the original show, and thus give it its own article. Given your long interest in the HH TV articles I'd be more than happy to have your input on the subject--the discussion is on the parent show's talkpage, near the bottom. Meantime, it seems reasonable to deal with the special via its own entry on the List of Episodes page. Thanks, Shoebox2 talk 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Billposter.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Billposter.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Shoe, hope all is well. Would you mind looking at this FLC: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sesame Street Muppets/archive1? Thanks, muchly appreciated, and please let me know how I can reciprocate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, things are a bit crazy at the moment but I'll absolutely see what I can do in the next day or so. :) Shoebox2 talk 23:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shoe, I didn't consider your comments at the Muppet Character list review grouchy at all! I mean, I did ask you to review it. I think your comments were appropriate and helpful. I'm sorry to hear that you're grouchy, though; I know you've been through the ringer with the Horrible Histories articles. I do relate and commiserate. However, I have the best cure for grouchiness: spending time with my children, but since you obviously can't do that, I give you my second-best choice: watching Sesame Street clips. Here's a doozy; I almost fell off my chair onto the floor the first time I watched it: [7] I also direct you to watch HH clips, especially my favorite, the Monarchs of England one, which I won't bother providing the URL here, since I'm certain you can find it yourself easily enough. Buck up, mate! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awww, how nice of you! I would love to spend time with your kids, whom I'm sure must be awesome given such a mom, but will very happily accept Muppet Cabbage DeNiro as consolation. Actually, participating in this review--at least, after your little mini-lecture on not losing sight of the fun--has already cheered me up quite a lot; so many awesome memories of SS wit and wisdom (must haul Borgenicht down from the shelf this weekend...) And of course there's the HH clips, which, well, you know. It's all making me feel very much like writing again--which is good, because it appears I'll finally have some time for it, after a long while spent concentrating on getting RL in order. First of all, will finish off the latest round of review Q&A hopefully by EOD tomorrow. :) --Thanks again, Shoebox2 talk 03:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, Just a quick note in response to your revert of my tag edits. But first thanks for the great work you have done on this article.

I am not just a lazy drive by tagger :) I really would fix the article instead of just tagging the weasel words and citations needed, if I had any kind of reliable source for them. I have never been able to find any reliable sources for this material. I sincerely wish I had. If you have any I shall heartily salute your efforts to improve this article so we can remove these tags. But in the mean time they shall sadly have to stay. There are quite a few places where tags are needed so perhaps we should just tag the article instead of each instance - what do you think? Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, first off, thanks much for taking the time to explain your position a bit further, it's very much appreciated. I apologise in turn for reacting so hastily, and unjustifiably. :)

Thing is, you're absolutely right, the passages in question are rather vaguely written/sourced and I've known it since I wrote them--which was long enough ago now that I don't have much of a claim to be 'working on it'. On the other hand, even when they're not my fault I'm not a fan of individual tags in such profusion, inasmuch as if nothing else they make the situation worse by interfering with the reading experience even further. Tell you what: if you'll consent to swopping out the individual tags for an article banner for the time being, I'll pledge to get going on those fixes ASAP. What say? Shoebox2 talk 02:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh thank the gods, a real human. Not one of those frothing at the mouth megalomaniacal editors. Seriously wikipedia is way less fun to edit these days. Yay! Let's put a tag at the top! I can't do it right now, but I'll do it tomorrow. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Let the hunt for sources begin! Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks! And a great pleasure to meet a fellow real human such as yourself. :) Shoebox2 talk 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is it possible to expand on the Awesome Alfred the Great special on the HH 2015 page? Visokor (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not able to, no -- I haven't gotten around to watching the new series and it's frankly a bit doubtful if I ever will. But with so many other, interested editors hovering round, it'll surely get done eventually. :) Shoebox2 talk 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've created this which you might be interested. If you have any additional questions/answers to add, please feel free to do so. I hope to make a centralised FAQ with more questions and perhaps multiple answers from experienced editors. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, could you take a gander at Murder of Kylie Maybury and Murder of Sheree Beasley to make sure they are in OK shape? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning Shoebox2,

I've been reflecting on the experience of the Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) article being completed, and I remembered that in my sense of urgency and comprehensiveness I would find myself doing something as silly as going to your sandbox where you were working on the draft, and editing it while it was incubating.

I remember our conversation on my talk page about this, and I just wanted to send you a message, extending my hand for a handshake and apologising for any undue stress or unhappiness I put upon you during that time. It was wrong of me.

I wish you all the best for the future!--Coin945 (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Shoebox2. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]