h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: stuff - A2161504
Author: Number Six - *still* rather cut up about Paul Sturrock leaving Plymouth Argyle - U115522

Submitted for a test, by Old Hairy. We are just finding out if the submitter can remove the entry from peer review, when the entry is not one that they own.

Sorry to have annoyed any peerers by this. It will not happen again on my account.

Traveller in Time on his head
", it is perfect for the edited, Guide. It has all an entry should have.
A decent factual subject, it will not be hard to find any links as half of Peer Review could be the subject (, links should be edited, not be uneditable).
Perfect styling, I am completely lyrical about this entry. It is of a brilliance hardly seen."

Welcome to h2g2!

Interesting thoughts... but this isn't the right forum for them

PeerReview is designed for submissions for factual rather than opinion-based pieces, entries that meet the Writing-Guidelines for Edited Guide entries. Have a look at the Writing-Guidelines and you'll hopefully see what I mean!

The Alternative Writing Workshop (<./>Writing-Alternative</.&gt would be a better place, or you could try submitting it as an article for h2g2's own newspaper, <./>ThePost</.> or post it as a conversation to one of the many forums, <./>askh2g2</.> being the best-known one we have here.

All the best for your future time on h2g2, and I hope that you come back and submit something else suitable for the Edited Guide.

Cheers,

(Gosh I'm hilarious ain't I?)

But really. I could've told you that the submitter can remove the entry. Some people have certainly gotten in hot water for testing in PR before

Oh, and Six, very fine and fluffy message. I generally do mine on a case by case basis, but I suppose I might have to look into doing something like this...

To be honest, I'd forgotten about this until Old Hairy submitted it - the intention was to collect messages similar to this one as I wrote them over time, and recycle them when appropriate...

We *do* apologise for any inconvenience, though!

Traveller in Time doing circles in the text
"Hmm, as posting it is much less brilliant, kind of obvious.
However if, can anybody give a reason why it should not fit in the Writing-Guidelines I can not find it!"

Point 13 - do not write in the first person - for starters...

Traveller in Time on his head
"So? Change I to we and it is done (Ok, you should also remove your signature)

On the other hand I know more entries with first person 'point of views'. The use of 'I', or 'we' as you like, as who gives the advice makes the entry. "

I am sorry to anyone, including Jodan, who may have been annoyed by our little test.

I would be surprised if we get into 'hot water' over this - an apology appeared when the entry was submitted (by me), and the entry was deliberately chosen so that, if read, it would be obvious that it was not supposed to be in PR. The test was made with the full knowledge of the entry's author, and was taken back out of PR in less than 10 minutes.

As the object of the test was to see if anyone submitting someone else's article to PR could remove it from PR, the test could only be conducted in PR. The test was also justifiable, I think, as it seems that some aspects of removal of entries from PR are a mystery, to researchers, Scouts, Aces and Subeditors alike.

This thread and others I have participated in recently (for example F1719850?thread=390891&post=4969850#p4970850 and F47997?thread=394127) illustrate perfectly that the confusion is widespread. My characteristic grumble - that the help pages give no clues on the matter - applies as usual.

Apologies again.

Oh, I don't think you will either. Around this time last year, the bugfinders put an entry for testing into PR for a while, and it was not a pleasant thread. I am just reminded of that.