User talk:Tpbradbury

Assessment on William Rawson

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

Thank You

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

Guidance on assessing

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

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

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

TUSC token b05a8e540a322c012e5b4fec0729ab76

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

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

Margaret Thatcher

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

Rollback given

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

Re: Napoleon peer review

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

Prepping for Napoleon FAC

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Show FA

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

Battle of Corunna - Thank you

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

Re: Layout

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

Thanks!

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

David Edgar

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

Cleanup

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

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

Re: Napoleon article

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

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

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

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs 3rd Massachusetts Regiment Silvassa Eugene Jolas Amphibian 6th Massachusetts Regiment 3rd Pennsylvania Regiment Indian Certificate of Secondary Education 2nd Massachusetts Regiment Cool (aesthetic) Cama (animal) Second Battle of Artois Low culture Kavaratti Stephen Dedalus Randall Wallace 12th Massachusetts Regiment Aizawl List of solar system objects by mass Naval battles of the American Civil War

Cleanup Timeline of the Polish Army Placenta Cold case Merge Occultation White Rhinoceros Yeast Add Sources Battle of Pondicherry Battle of Cassano (1799) Panaji Wikify 2nd New Jersey Regiment Nadiad G-suit Expand Music theory Battle of Pindus Allotropy

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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

(talk) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 13:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Stateless (band)

Hello, I saw you assesed the Stateless (band) article from Stub class to Start class. I am aware of the criteria being used to asses certain articles, but I would like to know what in particular made you choose for Start class for this article. I actually want to know where I should work on harder or if I'm doing something wrong, or what is needed for this to be a better article. I read all the wikipedia guides and all, but you know, it's not always that easy. My only goal is to contribute to the article and try to only use verifiable sources and facts. I just need to know a little better how to improve this, to let's say a C-class article (1 step at the time!). Thanks! Hans (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(in response to your answer on my talk) Ok, thanks alot. I'll try to add more content, and when their new album will be released I'm sure lots of new sources to cite will pop up. I'll try to add how they formed (found an article about that) and make a "musical style" section, which seems common for most band articles. And I'm thinking of asking a native English speaker to rewrite most of the text, my English is too average to really make this a better article. But I'll do my best the next couple of months and I'll ask for a new assessment when I think it might be ready for a C-class article. But having a good base structure and already having all the facts (verifiably) sourced is a good start for a better article, I believe. Thanks for your time! Hans (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

David Hunter McAlpin assessment

Hi Tom, I wanted to thank you for assessing the article on David Hunter McAlpin. Best to you! pmcyclist (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Layout of Neanderthal references

Mr. Bradbury, I see that you have just done a major cleanup of the markup structures in the Neanderthal article. The Neanderthal article is the kind of article that I love to read in Wikipedia, and so I really appreciate your work. I have a question regarding the ordering of the References section citations. In all other wikipedia articles I have read (maybe 50), references (as opposed to notes) are sorted in alphabetical order. I find no rhyme or reason in the current References order in the article. What am I missing? (I am a new editor, and seeing that your work displays mastery of wikipedia rules and processes, I feel good about asking you.) Thanks in advance for your answer.Middle Fork (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Got your note, checked the Neanderthal article. Great!! Thanks. Had I been more secure, I would have done it myself when I first noticed the problem. I will be more bold in the future. By the way, I wish the initial editors had not embedded the vast majority of full references in the notes field. Makes it very difficult to quickly scan to make sure the key players in various sub-controversies are being recognized in the article. But when I made that suggestion, it was rejected by someone who, I felt, had developed uncomfortable "ownership" vibes.Middle Fork (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Shama's quote in French Revolution

Tom, the flame of Reason quote you give from Shama's book Citizens (I presume) is on p. 778 in my 1989 publ. book: yours is on p. 658. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean that 1989 & 2004 editions have that much page difference, my 778 is your 658? Total pages in my book, incl. sources/bibliography/index, is 950. FW/ Frania W. (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Well my (counted) 950 page book is the one given as 948: the 1989 edition. So everything's in order. I was just reading what had been done to the French Revolution today & am glad you do not make mistakes! Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of David Berkeley

Hi Tom. Thank you for your assessment on the David Berkeley article and for the formatting of the reflist. If you have time, do you have any advice on how I could further improve the article? Thank you. McMarcoP (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Tom, thank you for your suggestions. The point is, I am not able to find any negative review of Berkeley's work, at least online. I am sure that there are some, though, and I will keep looking. Also - I will try to add some image, maybe a scan of an album cover. I am constantly expanding it, every time that there is some update anyway (the ATL group is yesterday's news - literally) and will keep doing so. Thank you very much! McMarcoP (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sharon Kay Penman

Hi. Yesterday you rated the Sharon Kay Penman article that I took from a stub. Today the rating was changed to a C because of the skimpy lead. I've reworked the lead. If you get a chance, do you mind swinging by and having a look? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the very speedy reaction and the extra set of eyes to fix the mistakes. I'm fairly certain it is Richard the Lionheart but will spend some time verifying. Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Bronze Barnstar
		For taking third place in the Batchwork contest for Biographical pages with several incompatible dates of birth, I hereby award you this bronze barnstar! Your diligence to clear out 86 entries from one batch is greatly appreciated. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rian Malan

I thought I had thanked you here for correcting duplicate links on Rian Malan - but my post seems to have gone missing. So, thanks again! Did you rate the article as a "start" class? If you have any specific tips or criticism, I'd like to hear about it; I thought I had done most of it to a higher standard, but I am new to this, so I appreciate any advice you may have. --SkaraB 08:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite format in Planetary Nebula

I see what looks to me a good way to handle multiple cites to the same source in an article. See Cat's Eye Nebula where the footnotes can call out specific page numbers and use harvard ref to the citation which is only given once. I like how each part is a link and the cite is page specific.

What do you think of doing likewise in Planetary nebula?

Also, why not link to Sun Kwok in the cites? He is considered an expert on the topic, what is harm in links?

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Carpenter sisters

Any other comments or suggestions to get this article to B-class or better? I do really appreciate your help! Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the article tweaks! Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI Carpenter Sisters was deleted. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Town Clerk of London

Thank you for the rating. Any suggestions to go to B-Class? Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Crepyn

Thank you for the rating. Any suggestions to go to B-Class? As always, all suggestions are appreciated! Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for re-classifying Michael Scott for me today, could you suggest areas for me to improve the article? many thanks!User talk:Zephfya 15:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Randy Meisner

Thank you very much for cleaning the citations and improving the article! Very much appreciated, and I'll always work on "Meis"'s page to get the rating up. Again, thanks... Doc9871 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for assessing the Baron Byron biographies!

I know that was a lot to plough through all at once, and I greatly appreciate that you did it so soon! Mille gratias tibi ago!

Nicholas Mayall FAC

Hello Tpbradbury,

I'd love to get your copy edit help on the FAC for the astronomer Nicholas Mayall. If you have some time, please come take a look and make any improvements you can.

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you support. WilliamKF (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Your diligence in improving and working on articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing‎ is much appreciated! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo Ho ho

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hi Tom, see you at the Oak in Jan? ϢereSpielChequers 18:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

coffee

I am very glad to hear it. It sounds like you have everything under control, but let me know if you'd like a hand; I am on break from school and finally have a little time to edit Wikipedia. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Treachery Castro (city) East Siberian Sea Moldova Lever McLellan Galleries People Thomas Nefertiti Akrotiri and Dhekelia Targum Onkelos Boy Fart Duke of Zhou Santo Domingo Sea Java Eric Havana

Cleanup List of countries by Human Development Index Black people Purchasing power parity Merge Nuclear energy policy Breakdance Brethren of the Free Spirit Add Sources Zénaïde Laetitia Julie Bonaparte Mayotte Jérôme Napoleon Bonaparte Wikify Pyramid of the Moon Just Lose It Danny Williams (boxer) Expand Yuen Wah Cool (aesthetic) Idris Muhammad

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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Many thanks for your helfpul improvements to and rating of Anwar al-Awlaki. A couple of points. The use of reflinks (which I'll have to figure out how to work one day ... can't seem to do so, and it generally looks like a great tool) resulted in changing a uniform date format in the regs to a non-uniform format. I've fixed that, but wanted to bring it to your attention. Second, you moved some pix that were on the left side of the page to the right side. Their being on the left was consistent w/the MOS for pictures. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Jones assessments

I appreciate the assessments. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Omeish assessment

Tx! Just in the event it might bring it up to a B, wanted to point out to you that I've just added a good deal of comment. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ENIAC grade downgrade

Just out of curiosity, what resulted in the re-evaluation of the ENIAC article from A to B? Are you involved with both the computing and the Philadelphia wikiprojects? Does an article necessarily have to have the same grade for all projects, or do different wikiprojects use different ratings scales? Robert K S (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the reliability section, but the patent portion is unreferenced because it is merely a summary of a longer article (with the link provided at the top of that section). This is basically the same rule as the one that states that citations are inappropriate in the lead of an article if the material is covered more thoroughly and referenced later in the article. Robert K S (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bling

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		I hereby award this GA Medal of Merit to Tpbradbury for his valiant work at Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing. • Ling.Nut 14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AutoRun article downgrade

I think I know what prompted the downgrade from A to B - the non encylopedic tag added by someone to the AutoRun#Attack mitigation section. I did disagree with the tag but rewrote the section anyway, following the style of some featured articles that have also used lists. I rewrote the thing about 3 times actually but think I have it right at this point. It would be nice if the article got its A rating back and if you could advise how to achieve FA rating on this article I'd appreciate it. Carveone (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)