The Malvern Water cure For what its worth I concur that the Malvern Water article benefitted from the exercise To me the best indicator that  was acting in good faith on  November  with the TalkMalvern WaterAdvertising tag was that it was Jerem who removed it following Gyros efforts I came to that article late so wasnt caught up in the earlier argybargy 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  individual page citations for Hans Fantels  book  nearly double that of Schoenbaum  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 were lucky in my own life Id 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 selfevident that its 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