Talk:Spiked (magazine)

• "Spiked is edited by Brendan O'Neill,[1] following Mick Hume's departure" is a grammatically incorrect sentence.
• "by the state or otherwise" is very poor English
• "They have criticised laws" does not agree in tense with "The magazine"
• "They have criticised laws" does not agree in tense with "and regularly features"

I could go on and on with further examples from the article.

My question is, if the article is written in such poor English, do you really believe that an intelligent and educated reader will give the article much credence, given the number of gramatical errors within the article, simply because it contains a large number of "citations"?

Maybe you should concern yourself more with assuring that articles are written in good English and less with whether an article contains (so-called) "correct citations"?

And maybe you should defer more to the opinions of one who copy-edits well, and who can write "good English," as that person is very likely to be well-educated (even highly educated) and intelligent as well? What do you think? User4 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if you write stuff like this to try to antagonize me and we all know how well that worked out for you with Melf and the cogs. On the other hand, unlike them, I feel you have much to contribute and have many admirable qualities (even when I feel you are being quite disagreeable) As I did not write the majority of this entry as it was a cut and paste job from Wikipedia, I have nothing personally invested in it so if you wish to correct the language, feel free.--Etenne 20:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if you arbitrarily demand citations in articles to try to antagonize me.

You do not require some statements in articles--statements which you just happen to agree with--to have citations, while you do require other statements--equally "controversial statements, but statements which you just happen to disagree with--to have citations.

Sometimes I wonder whether you understand that antagonizing a worthwhile contributor is not in your best interest, especially when there are so few active, worthwhile contributors here at BoyWiki.

And your comment "about Melf and the cogs" is what is called "a red herring" (I suggest that you read the linked-to article). Your comment is an--in this case, vain--attempt to deflect the valid criticisms which I have made, and to avoid addressing the concerns that I mentioned above. User4 (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask another question--is BoyWiki going to explode, or self-destruct, or experience some kind of "nuclear meltdown" if an editor puts something in a category that you do not agree that it should be in? User4 (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)