User talk:Dwab3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Symbol declined.svg

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronald Skirth was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to request article creation again once the issues have been addressed. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! avs5221 (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Crystal Clear action edit add.png

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Ronald Skirth was created.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!  Chzz  ►  22:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ronald Skirth[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ronald Skirth (1897-1977) seated.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Ronald Skirth (1897-1977) seated.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Great work[edit]

You have been doing very well in bring the Ronald Skirth article up to speed, surprising me with the quick results.

One of my concerns was the 1939 year introduced early in the "Character and beliefs" section. I think the section, about WWI and Skirth's personal development, should not introduce a later year until the end of the section. The section should develop in a chronological order. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful suggestions. I have, as you say, made a number of changes, which I think now cover all the points you mentioned in your review. Could you have a quick look and see if you agree that all those issues have been addressed? If you think it is ready, I will renominate the article for GA status. Dwab3 (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I will look closely at it in the next day or so. First impression is that the top two photos squeeze text between them, a practice recommended against at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images. I would also swap the two photos, for two reasons. First, in that image guideline, there is a recommendation to put photos on the right which are perceived as left facing, and photos on the left which seem to be facing right. The shoulders of Skirth aim outside of the article in your layout, but if you swap the photos, the shoulders turn in toward the text. Second, the large bust portrait is the better one to see what Skirth looked like; better for the infobox in my opinion. The other photos look good where they are.
Rather than putting the positive reviews of the book in curly quotes, I would put them in an indented section of text, using the 'quote' template, not the 'cquote' template. As discussed at Template:Cquote, a curly "pull quote" should be very short. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this feedback. I've swapped the pics around and resized a bit which I think looks better, but they do still face each other somewhat. I could remove the smaller pic altogether, though I think it does add to the article. Have changed the quotes as you suggested. Look forward to further feedback when you have a chance to take a detailed look at it. Thanks again. Dwab3 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I played with the second image placement and size a little bit. If you don't like it, change it back. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - I think it looks much better now. Dwab3 (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
GA-type critique
  • The article should have more details of Skirth's death, such as date and cause. If cause of death is added, an appropriate category should be added along with it. The location of death, Ealing, should be made a bit more clear in prose. The result would appear as "he died there on dd mmmm 1977" instead of "he died in 1977".
  • What do you think about writing "French church" or "(some faith) church" rather than just "church" for target practice? Did Skirth care about what church it was?
  • Why is the word epiphany in quotes? He had one, so write it plain.
  • Speaking of quotes, if quotation marks are used to show a word or more taken straight from a source, the sentence containing this quote ought to have a reference directly following some subsequent punctuation such as a full stop, comma or semi-colon. The word "boy" in quotes is missing this cite, as is "compulsion".
  • The pipe link to lions led by donkeys should be made more plain to the reader. As it appears, Snow looks to be talking about donkeys alone. One possibility is to have Skirth use the phrase as taken from the book (if indeed he used it.) Was Snow angry about the view Skirth would have held regarding grandfather Snow? Does Snow say anything else worth quoting?
  • The sentence "Skirth was knocked out by a shell during the Battle of Passchendaele which killed another friend, Jock Shiels, with whom he had deserted his post" gives me two problems. It can be reworded to fix one: "During the Battle of Passchendaele, Skirth was knocked out by a shell which killed another friend, Jock Shiels, with whom he had deserted his post." The second problem is this: what were the two doing away from their post? This is an unanswered teaser, not a good thing in encyclopedic writing.
  • Was he sent to the Italian Front to continue recuperating or was he well by that time? Unclear.
  • I think the "future wife" and "small acts of sabotage" sentence should be split between those two thoughts, to make two sentences.
  • "Intentionally, anyway." This makes the reader wonder how many times his battery fired and hit people on the first salvo, the one that he had control over.
  • The "expected a boy" parenthesis could stand as its own sentence.
  • The repetition of their names in the phrase "Ronald and Ella Skirth lived together" need not be required. Some kind of rewording could fix this.
  • There is one instance of two disillusion-rooted words very close together. Perhaps they could be separated, or one turned into a synonym: "...he became disillusioned with the war and the army. He attributed his disenchantment to a combination..." or just "...he became disillusioned with the war and the army. He attributed this..."
  • Foreword and Introduction are capitalized in prose, when the concepts are under discussion, not the titles of book sections. I would not have capitalized them, but I am an only an American, with funny writing habits. :D
  • One other instance of 'Ronald' should be stricken from the prose, the bits rewritten to adjust. One way could be to replace "Jean Skirth, Ronald's daughter" with "Skirth's daughter Jean". The idea is that 'Skirth' by itself is always the subject of the bio article: Ronald Skirth. Another way is to simply write "Skirth's daughter", as she is named directly above.

I switched a few stray references from preceding punctuation to following it, to preserve article style. If I were you I would fix the problems you think worth fixing, and resubmit the article to WP:GAN. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these helpful suggestions. I will work through them and then resubmit to GA. Dwab3 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Skirth FAC[edit]

Hi there Dwab3, I noticed your impressive work on Ronald Skirth and noticed you nominated it at WP:FAR. Unfortunately you nominated it at the wrong place, Featured article review is for articles that are already Featured articles and is a process that has another look at featured articles to see whether they still meet the featured article criteria. The process for nominating featured articles is at featured article candidates. I have moved the current nomination and transcluded it on FAC for you, you can find it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Skirth/archive1. I will hopefully be able to take a look at it soon but it looks good on first glance: I think the lead could do with expanding at first glance, it should be a couple of paragraphs that do a quick representation of the article. I will take a deeper look for you soon. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate in asking me. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Woody - I did find the whole nomination process very confusing! Would love to hear your thoughts on the article. Dwab3 (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Ach! I missed out on my chance to take part in your FAC of Skirth. The process ended earlier than I expected... I wanted to put in some observations after most people had done so, but I thought I had at least one week, not two days to do so. I check in at the Peer Review. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

This is just a friendly request to use a descriptive edit summary whenever possible. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your work on Tom Quinn article[edit]

Hi, Dwab--

I'm a real newcomer to participating in Wikipedia, and a relative newcomer to the show Spooks/MI5. I have a question I hope you can answer. I've been making edits to some articles on former Spooks characters, like Zafar Younis and Danny Hunter, trying to move them away from "in-universe" style and add references. But once this is done, who decides when or if the tags (?) at the top of an article--I mean those banners that name its problems--get removed? Likewise with categorizing an article as a stub, which seems pretty inconsistent (the articles on Zafar Younis and Danny Hunter are called stubs, but not the one on Helen Flynn, which is shorter).

There doesn't seem to be much activity around articles on these older characters (not surprising, I guess). I noticed that you made improvements in the article on Tom Quinn this past fall, which is why I'm getting in touch with this question. I'm trying a couple other folks who have done work on Spooks character articles in the past year. I hope somebody can satisfy my curiosity!

Thanks, Anmilgan (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Call the Midwife (book)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]

Hello Dwab. Please have a read of Wikipedia:YOURSELF#Creating_an_article_about_yourself. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this. Sorry I didn't read it before - I was not aware of it. What would be the best thing to do now? Dwab3 (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
In that link above it states, "The proper way to get your own writing about yourself in if you really think you can meet the inclusion criteria and are willing to accept having a neutral, non-promotional article is to make a proposal at articles for creation containing the text you want, instead of just putting it up directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Wikipedia first instead of standing in a position of conflict of interest." I think the time for this is long past, so perhaps you could add the template that can be found at Template:Connected contributor to the talk page of the article about you. To my mind the article is pretty neutral (you even had the grace to include criticism of The Reluctant Tommy, so that's a great plus). Just so you know, I've made a note of your possible COI at the DYK nomination for the article. I'm no great policy wonk, but I thought we should be alerted to this. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thanks for the advice. Dwab3 (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe ditto with The Sugar Girls? Ericoides (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I already did. Dwab3 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, so you did. I didn't see it; better get some new glasses. Ericoides (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/DUNCAN BARRETT at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Sugar Girls[edit]

I have reviewed The Sugar Girls for DYK, see the review template - Template:Did you know nominations/The Sugar Girls. Although not your article, you made a comment on the nomination and I thought you might be interested to see what I found when I reviewed it. There is a fine distinction between sticking to the facts and close paraphrasing the source article. It is quite difficult to do the first while avoiding the second. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The article seems good now. Actually, when the "Duplicate Detector" picked up the similarities, I didn't realise how many were direct, attributed quotes. I apologise if I was over zealous. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Duncan Barrett[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joe Thomas (actor) 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:
  • Barrett]].<ref>{{cite web|url= |title=Association of Cambridge Theatre Societies | |date=2004-08-21 |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for GI Brides[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Men of letters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macmillan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Men of Letters[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)