The Malvern Water cure For what it s worth I concur that the Malvern Water article benefitted from the exercise To me the best indicator that User Jerem43 was acting in good faith on 12 November 2009 with the Talk Malvern Water Advertising tag was that it was Jerem43 who removed it following Gyro s efforts I came to that article late so wasn t caught up in the earlier argy bargy so to speak But I see that since the efforts surrounding that period both the article and its discussion page have settled down completely There certainly was quite a bit of reference to the Malvern Water article in our discussions Mostly this was to contrast two referencing styles and layouts One exemplified by Malvern Water and one exemplified by Shakespeare Mind you the William Penn article might benefit from the latter style but not necessarily I counted 74 individual page citations for Hans Fantel s 1974 book nearly double that of Schoenbaum 1987 in Shakespeare The above discussions highlight another thing which the Malvern Water article exemplifies How one can sometimes find the solution in the problem The problem being the criticism and the solution in this case being to take it in good faith and see what transpires in this case an improvement Of course this might not always be the outcome But assuming criticism as being in good faith generally raises the chances of a favourable outcome Not everyone knows how to constructively criticise we typically learn that through experience if we re lucky in my own life I d have handled many past situations differently in light of what I now know And by acting as if the criticism or editing changes are in good faith if perchance they are maliciously based that will become so self evident that it s impossible for any reasonable person to miss Even then what may have started out as malicious may resolve favourably if the other editor gets a kind response A funny old world indeed what with that and the irony that the Malvern Water cure still seems to be working its magic Wotnow