This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Will review. Hope to start tomorrow. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I have some suggestions about the wording here and there (nothing major). Would you prefer me to list them here or on the article talk page? Tim riley (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Here will be OK unless of course you feel up to fixing them yourself out of the kindness of your heart :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not sure about getting involved before doing the GA review. Rather undermines one's impartiality. I'll list the main things here and then dive into residual editing afterwards if that's OK with you. Tim riley (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I was kidding...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
A few minor comments for your consideration:
Early life and education
"in the nearby town of Beckenham" – the WP article on the place says it was a village and is now a suburb
Should I change to village and add a foot note that it is now a suburb?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that I'd add the footnote. The blue link will surely suffice, as long as you change town to village. Tim riley (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
"educating Enid on nature" – does one educate on? "about" seems more natural
Quite right!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"In 1910 Blyton was baptised at Elm Road Baptist Church, and was devastated when her father left the family to live with another woman." – The two halves of this sentence don't seem to have anything to do with each other
True, changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"a small independent boys school" – theoretically ambiguous (though probably not in practice); still, perhaps better to say "a small independent school for boys".
"In 1920 Blyton moved to Southernhay" – "she" would suffice for "Blyton" here, and help the flow of your prose
Early writing career
"she lived on Hook Road" – Americanism wanted here? "she lived in Hook Road" is the traditional British form (same in caption of picture alongside). I see you use the British form later on, for "in Ondine Street".
Nightmare in Elm Street :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"she met up with" – she met?
"Teacher's World" – I see from the Times archives that the possessive is plural: "Teachers' World"
Well-spotted!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"children's page in Teachers World" – missing the apostrophe altogether this time
"Blyton was asked to provide the text…" – and did she?
"her first contribution to the Sunday Graphic" – you are inconsistent about the definite articles in the titles of magazines/papers: earlier you have The Morning Post (with cap) but here the Post and the Mail aren't capped. Your blue link to The Mail on Sunday is incorrect, by the way. The Mail on Sunday wasn't launched till 1982. I think there was a Scottish paper called The Sunday Mail, but I don't vouch for it.
Removed mention of them to avoid confusion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"and it wasn't until 10 years" – "wasn't" is hardly encyclopedic language
"the Evening Standard, which lasted until December 1953" – The Evening Standard lasted long after Dec 1953, and indeed is still being published. "…which she did until December 1953" would be better.
Could someone tell me where automatic writing is linked and cited in the article (see edit summary)? I don't see it. Maybe it was reverted at some point in the history. If the article is saying Enid Blyton wrote using this method, it's a startling enough claim that it should be made explicit in the lede. Thanks. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It now looks like there is a misunderstanding and the article doesn't make any allegations about automatic writing (it says Blyton used a typewriter). So the use of "automatic" in that sentence is IMHO an unfortunate turn of phrase, that tripped me up while reading the paragraph. I don't want to get in an edit conflict by re-reverting (I'll leave it up to Eric or whoever) but I still think the sentence should be re-worded because of this issue. It's confusing enough that I'd flag it in a review. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
So who's is the misunderstanding? Yours? EricCorbett 23:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I wrote in my edit summary that a claim that Enid Blyton used automatic writing should be linked and cited, if such a claim was being made. You reverted, with your edit summary saying "it is linked and cited". So I looked through the rest of the article for where the link and citation might be, didn't find it, and asked for specifics. Checking even further, it became clear that we weren't referring to the same thing. I still don't know even now what referent you had in mind, when you wrote "it is linked and cited". Anyway I know that you are a good writer who values clarity and smooth writing. Confusion over edit summaries is inconsequential, but the article itself has a malapropism as mentioned, which I'd have thought you'd want fixed. I think the change I made was an improvement. If you didn't like my edit, then fine, but in that case I think you ought to fix it some different way. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll spare you from telling you what I think. EricCorbett 00:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
As I'm certain you know, WP makes it impossible for me to say what I really think, as you're an anonymous IP who can't be punished no matter what you say or do. EricCorbett 01:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed Eric. He's now editing as an editor, I reverted him. I don't want to see an edit war.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
"Him?" Can you be careful with your accusations, please? I've been watching this page since last year at least. Vashti (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I presumed you were the same person as the ip. Wrong or not, there was no "per talk" to justify changing it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, changes don't require justification or prior discussion; the "per talk" purely referred to the discussion here. Also, one edit is not an edit war, more than one other editor exists, and honestly, I don't see anything the anon editor said that required being met with such venom. I am genuinely shocked to see a polite bugrep treated that way on Wikipedia - "punished" for politely raising a problem with the article? It is outrageous that anyone should be treated that way. WP:DONTBITE
You've done sterling work on this article since I last checked in, and gained GA status for it, but you do not own it, and you shouldn't be shouting down people who raise questions. Automatic writing refers to a pseudoreligious concept. That sentence in the lede is not good. Two editors have now told you here that it could use revision. You're at liberty to disagree, of course. /hattip Vashti (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that sentence in the lead was referring to automatic writing at all, but for the sake of a quiet life I've rewritten it. EricCorbett 13:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Vashti (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
These character names have indeed been changed in modern editions, see here which mentions the change from Jill and Mary to Zoe and Pippa and here which mentions the changes from Fanny and Dick to Frannie and Rick. Paul Austin (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The body of the article is correct; she was educated at St Christopher's School in Beckenham, but taught at Ipswich High School, so I've removed that parameter. This duplication of information, sometimes done inconsistently, is one of the problems with infoboxes, which I'm beginning to hate. Or at least hate the brain-dead way they're currently implemented. EricCorbett 13:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just been looking at the Telegraph story given as a citation, and from this it is clear the article has poorly represented the material there (e.g. it was not Pollock, but Crowe who was nearly killed in an air raid). I will attempt a rewrite of this section checking other sources. (I know it's in progress as an FA candidate, but I haven't the time to go through the entire article and it seems simpler to deal with it directly.) Alfietucker (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The article states that her books were banned from libraries, and even that she enjoys the dubious distinction of being the author with the greatest number of banned books. Can anyone explain WHY the books were banned? Was it simply because the books were considered to have been poorly written, or was this the result of the percieved racism/sexism, etc? This does not appear to be made very clear in the article. It is one thing for an institution like the BBC to decide not to give air time to an author whose works it does not consider good -- that is fair game -- but it does seem surprising for libraries to take the positive step of actually banning a popular author's works on the grounds that they do not feel they are "good enough", particularly given some of the drivel that makes its way into libraries. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I expect that different libraries had different reasons, including pressure on their budgets resulting from the sheer volume of Blyton's work. But the article already gives the generally accepted answer: "Some librarians felt that Blyton's restricted use of language, a conscious product of her teaching background, was prejudicial to an appreciation of more literary qualities." EricCorbett 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The lede says " ... selling more than 600 million copies." But I can't this fact in the article body, nor any source. This source says "Since their publication over half a century ago, her books sold more than 500m copies worldwide in 40 languages." Which is correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
This is done. The Verdict of The Court of Public Opinion is that Rationalobserver's commas are correct. The attendant commentary, brought to you for free, is that the stress level in general must be at an all-time high for a few measly commas to raise the temperature to this extent. This particular observer also wants to offend both sides almost equally (feel free to think your side was offended most): on the one side we appear to have a bit of an OWNy response to an issue where they were not completely right; on the other I detect some bad faith, as if one someone was glad to find an error in an FA brought up to that level by another someone. Now, I doubt that y'all are going to kiss and make up, but please, let's take it easy. Unfortunately we live in a world where a. we are not perfect and b. we're not all friends and thus c. it is possible that our slips (if that's even what this was) are pointed out by those who are not our friends. If that is so, let's suck it up and move along. Rationalobserver, thank you for your sharp reading skills. Eric et al (and I do believe Eric's role in all this was less than minor), thank you for bringing this article to this high level in the first place. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There have also been several adaptations of her books for stage, screen and television.
The last sentence in the lead avoids the serial comma that might be placed before and television, so why would we include it here:
She wrote on a wide range of topics including education, natural history, fantasy, mystery stories and biblical narratives, and is best remembered today for her Noddy, Famous Five, and Secret Seven series. before and Secret Seven series? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree - and please note the article has been through an FA nomination so has been checked by several very experienced editors, so let's wait and see if any of them wish to comment. By the way, "pings" only work if the comment is signed at the same time, so this did not trigger a notification to me .... SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Blyton's work became increasingly controversial among literary critics, teachers and parents from the 1950s onwards, because of the alleged unchallenging nature of her writing and the themes of her books, particularly the Noddy series. Some libraries and schools banned her works, which the BBC had refused to broadcast from the 1930s until the 1950s because they were perceived to lack literary merit. Her books have been criticised as being elitist, sexist, racist, xenophobic and at odds with the more liberal environment emerging in post-war Britain,
There are two instances in that excerpt which do not use the serial comma: literary critics, teachers and parents and elitist, sexist, racist, xenophobic and at odds with the more liberal environment emerging in post-war Britain. Why would we also have Noddy, Famous Five, and Secret Seven series? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sagaciousphil, can you at least clarify what exactly you disagree with? Is it your position that a few oxford/serial commas are fine even though the article as a whole does not use them, or is it your position that the commas I removed are not in fact oxford commas? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry guys. Phil doesn't edit on Mondays so you will have to wait for a response. There are no time limits on Wikipedia so you having to wait 24 hours is not big deal and not unusual. Not everyone is in the same time zones and she might be sleeping. Hafspajen (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Hafspajen. I see RationalObserver has initiated an RfC, which can last up to 30 days, so I will just repeat my initial comment - let's wait to see what the experienced editors who took this through to FA may wish to say. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with SP on this, although I'm one of the chief writers of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you elaborate a bit, since I'm not sure exactly what your position is, except that you support the revert. Am I wrong that the majority of this article does not use oxford commas, but they are present in some sentences? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's suspicious that you waited until Eric was blocked to begin this discussion...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you should re-check the timestamps, because I started this discussion at least 24 hours before EC was blocked. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You should AGF, but do you really think EC will somehow be able to justify using oxford commas in some sentences in the lead but not others? Anyway, his block was only for 48 hours, and there is no hurry, right? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Then I am mistaken, and you are assuming bad-faith. I only heard of his block yesterday, a full 24 hours after I started this thread. But really, "stick to the facts"? You don't even seem to know what an oxford comma is, else we wouldn't be having this infantile debate. This is basically a WP:OWN issue, as you won't allow the slightest improvement to the punctuation if it's made by "an outsider". What will you say when EC confirms my assertion that there are some oxford commas in this article that generally avoids them? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's another example from New series: 1934–48: and the characters of Julian, Dick, Anne, George (Georgina) and Timmy the dog became household names in Britain.
This sentence does not use the oxford comma that would appear before and Timmy.
From Peak output: 1949–59: and their friends Colin, George, Jack, Pam and Barbara
Again, the oxford comma that would appear before and Barbara has been omitted.
However, this bit from New series: 1934–48: featuring the characters of Jack, Mike, Peggy, Nora, and Prince Paul of Baronia. includes the oxford comma before and Prince Paul of Baronia.
And this fragment from Note a: including the strip books Noddy and the Runaway Wheel, Noddy's Bag of Money, and Noddy's Car Gets into Trouble. includes it before and Noddy's Car Gets into Trouble.
As far as I'm concerned, and speaking only for myself, you may do whatever you please with this article. In light of recent events I'm removing all articles on female subjects from my watchlist, so hopefully there will be no reason for our paths to cross again in the future. EricCorbett 18:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
But you won't bother confirming or denying that the use of oxford commas in the article is currently inconsistent? No worries, it's as obvious as can be to anyone who actually knows what an oxford comma is. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I really couldn't care less. But your lazy "oxford comma" is more than a little irritating. Oxford is a place don't cha know? EricCorbett 18:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That's hilarious! I removed the lazy Oxford commas; I didn't add any, and you would know that if you read the first line of this section. I.e., SagaciousPhil reverted to the version that included them, not the opposite. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
If by lazy you mean that I shouldn't call them that, I am only using an accepted term per our MOS. Anyway, that's quite pedantic to make a fuss that they should be called serial commas, not oxford commas, especially in the context of refusing to acknowledge that the article's use of them is currently inconsistent. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm unwatching now, so bye-bye. EricCorbett 18:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, if I was wrong about the serial commas you would have made that clear, so you're silence speaks volumes. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
In the interests of clarification (since Eric is wisely refraining from further interaction): if I had used the word "lazy" and mentioned that Oxford is a place, it would have been in reference to the unconventional lowercase "o" in "oxford".--Boson (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. This article has inconsistent usage of the Oxford comma. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
So this is what all the recent fuss is about! @Rationalobserver: You excel yourself. Outstanding! Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
So I'm the fool for correcting the inconsistency, and Sagaphil is the hero for returning the page to a version that contains punctuation errors? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Though I can imagine reasons why one might sometimes prefer the extra comma (to do with pauses and tone groups in speech), I would support removal of the Oxford commas in these two [struck after following comment] cases. I wouldn't go so far as to call use of the comma a punctuation error. --Boson (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Would you retain any of the commas I removed in my edit? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
No. Sorry, I am obviously having problems counting to more than 2. An alternative would be to use serial Oxford commas consistently, of course. Since your edit was challenged and this in now being discussed on the talk page, I suppose the right thing to do would be to agree on whether to use Oxford commas (consistently) or not. If there is no immediate consensus, that might involve application of WP:RETAIN, counting commas, and ascertaining which version was established first. Personally, I would tend to the view that consistent use of -ise rather than -ize implies that the Oxford comma should not be used (except where necessary to prevent ambiguity).--Boson (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point about the use of -ise rather than -ize. I don't see any of the latter, which is what we would expect when using Oxford style. All my edit did was remove five Oxford commas so that the article was internally consistent, and I think the best solution here is to revert Sagaphil's revert so that the article can be returned to a version with consistent punctuation. However, looking at the first version, it appears that the author used Oxford commas, though that version is a stub, so I'm not sure that matters. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you used the word "author", WP:TIES does say "In an article about a modern writer, it is often a good choice to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote ...", so I suppose that should also be considered. Perhaps someone has access to some of the original books (published by Dean, I believe). --Boson (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. I only looked at one book, and it appears that it uses the Oxford comma, but I don't see any instances of Oxford-style suffixes. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Even Eric's bored to tears with this and can't be bothered. I personally don't think it's worth all this discussion either.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
FAs ought to be MoS compliant, and this one currently isn't, since MOS:OXFORD says that they are neither required nor forbidden as long as the article is internally consistent. Right now we have a couple of Oxford commas in the lead, but not everywhere they should be if they were being used. Do you realize the effort you are putting into retaining five commas that do not belong? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Searching desperately for scholarly advice about unnecessary Blyton commas, I unearthed a very detailed critique of The Famous Five Books by Peter Cash: , which might even be a good source for the article. Maybe you can find the unnecessary comma, boys and girls? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This should have been an easy fix, but the owners writers of this article cannot admit that the commas usage is currently inconsistent. You would think that adults could put aside their egos for the sake of an article, but that's not the case, obviously. No matter, as I am sure by the time this RfC concludes we will decide to either include them or omit them, but at least we will make a decision either way, versus leaving some in the lead and omitting others. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
For God's sake, man! I'd never put my ego aside for a comma, I can assure you. It's just not British!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I think a healthy ego would want the commas to be correct, because right now it looks like the writers of this article don't know how to apply Oxford commas, which I would find embarrassing. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The only embarrassing thing here Rationalobserver is that you continue to harp on about trivial issues. And you're quite wrong, I remain very proud of what we've achieved with the article and I believe that most people would agree. Personally I don't mind "oxford commas" or not and probably wouldn't have reverted you, trivial as it is, but it's your WP:BATTLE approach here and obnoxious comments which I find most irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll never know, alas. I got as far as first Oxford comma, and then trashed the laptop, in disgust. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ MOS is a guideline, not a policy. There is no need to obsess over it, although I think the comma issue may be one of Rationalobserver's pet peeves as I've seen this raised by them in a recent GA review somewhere. As a native writer of British English, I see nothing wrong with the pre-discussion version of this article. Even in an article where the Oxford comma is deprecated, there may be occasions when it is required for clarity, rhythm etc. This is a recognised issue.
We should probably all just go do something more useful somewhere, I guess, because this seems to be just another of the many recent waste-of-time threads that are simply pissing people off for no particularly useful purpose. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It is indeed a very minor issue, certainly not one for the main editors to feel guilty or embarrassed about, and yes, not worth the heartache and attacks over. My personal preference is to use the serial comma, but other editors don't. It should really be consistent, one way or the other, I'd argue to use them in every instance, but I don't think it's worth objecting to or worth all this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I was not implying that the writers of this article should be in any way embarrassed of it; it's an exceptional piece of work. I meant it was embarrassing that your egos and ownership issues prevented you from admitting that the punctuation should follow a consistent style, especially in an FA. I'll bet that if I dug through some reviews I'd find a couple of instances where these same people gave similar advice to others. Lastly, I would be embarrassed that you turned this into a personal attack on me, which is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, let me put this in context. Bandying around words like "ownership" and "egos", and implying things like personal inconsistencies and personal attacks, are not conducive to furthering your position. FA is a pretty rarified place and if you get involved with FA stuff then you are almost certain to meet very experienced Wikipedians with pretty firm opinions about what is or is not acceptable; as I said recently on your talk page, it helps to choose your battles wisely and not waste your time and that of everyone else on things that you almost certainly will not change and which, even if you did, make bugger-all difference. It is because of pettiness like this that the entire set of MOS pages are themselves under discretionary sanctions.
As an example of one of my pet peeves, consider the constructs "passed away" and "breathed his/her/their last". I dislike them, they are poor phrasing for an encyclopaedia, and I do copyedit when I see them. What I don't do is get into an edit war, open a RfC or even start a discussion in any other form if someone insists on reverting my edit. There are at least three million other articles with bigger problems on en-WP alone, so I just let it drop. Why should I paint a target on my back over something like that? - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you implying that now I am a target because I removed a couple of commas that were inconsistently applied? Did you notice that Dr. Blofeld agreed that they should be consistent? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I think Sitush is right that in some circumstances the comma can help for clarity, but I do think that where possible we should try to be consistent, it's something I always try to do anyway. There's far more important things to be doing anyway, like getting C. S. Lewis or somebody up to FA status instead of dwelling on this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not implying anything, nor am I particularly concerned about Blofeld's opinion because he himself was not particularly concerned and I know that he is sensible enough to see the big picture. Being paranoid about the comments of others is something else that is not advisable. Linking to BATTLE, as you did in your edit summary is a boomerang thing: you are the one who is making a battle out of this. - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Quite right, I really do not give a rat's ass about something as trivial as this, I can't believe this has been allowed to continue. It's just daft.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I linked BATTLE because you seemed to imply that I now have a target on my back because I made the mistake of editing an article you and your buds own. As far as I can tell it's now resolved, so I'm not dwelling on anything. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I've made a single edit to the article, nor had I involved myself on this talk page until I saw some comments at the talk page of Drmies re: Oxford commas. I vaguely recall the thing getting a lot of praise from a lot of people around the time it was promoted to FA but that is the limit of my knowledge. So, please rein in the accusations before I send your behaviour for review at ANI: you should avoid repeatedly testing these limits because, yes, many of the faults of which you accuse others are often to be found in yourself also. Your mistake lies not in editing this article but rather in your lack of good faith and a sometimes tendentious/vexatious manner. We are all guilty of such transgressions from time to time but you need to learn when to stop. - Sitush (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, as far as I can tell the Oxford commas are now consistently applied throughout, so I'm not dwelling on anything. It is interesting though, that you've followed me here to "teach" me about putting targets on my back. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Rationobserver is now edit warring to hide the inadequacies of her GA review of Henry Fownes Luttrell. Her choice I suppose. EricCorbett 22:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't care if you're a female, a male, or a dog. That was a poor review. If I were to look at all your other reviews do you think I might find similar problems? EricCorbett 23:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘*Actually, the only reason I self reverted was to put an end to the continual goading/passive aggressive comments by Rationalobserver who has continually claimed to be the victim of personal attacks when in fact the main perpetrator of PAs from the very start of this discussion has been Rationalobserver and the battleground/nasty attitude they have conveyed is why I have thus far tried to avoid making further comment here. And, yes, there do appear to be a number of problems with the GA review undertaken by Rationalobserver. SagaciousPhil - Chat 23:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted. Regardless of your sagaciousness, Ms. Phil, the issue is now subject to this RfC and was a WP:BRD situation. In the process, it seems that I may have reverted some other stuff. I doubt that it is major but, well, apologies and feel free to fix if there is no issue with consensus. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Responding to the RFC... It seems pretty clear to me that Rationalobserver is right: the use of commas in the article is inconsistent. This is a pretty minor point, but worth fixing. Why everything has since blown up, I'm not quite sure. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.