Have just reverted the good faith revert by Hohenloh to the previous edit by Les woodland. The newer version is more in keeping with an encyclopaedic style of writing. If there are serious differences in meaning between the two versions that I haven't spotted, how about solving them piecemeal, as opposed to a blanket revert? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Just by way of example, the expression "but failed to take off" in the lead doesn't really make for a serious, authoritative article, does it? --Technopat (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I've nothing against improving the original version (it needed improving!), I just didn't think, IMHO, the update was done particularly well, firstly from a stylistic point of view, and as I mentioned, appeared to change the original meaning a few times (and this newspaper topic is something I have taken an interest in for some time). Had I had the time I would indeed have done a copy-edit, but am too busy with other articles at the moment. So I simply did the rv to at least bring attention to this. If I get the chance later on I'll take a look at it, if not, all the best! Hohenloh + 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
My own recollection is that a lot of people who were basically sympathetic to the idea of a left-wing national newspaper gave up on it after a few weeks. One example of the reasons why they might have was that in publicity before they gave "Sex mad colonel spanked my privates" as an example of the sort of headline they would not be printing, in an early issue they printed the headline "Spanker Proctor Quits". PatGallacher (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
