The King of Rome: a heart-warming article about a long-dead racing pigeon.

From Twitter:
By no means am I suggested that anyone mess with it, but I was struck by the phrase "my Wikipedia article". Perhaps Mabbett is unaware that anyone can edit WP, redirect his article to "Pigeon", and reduce it to a fragment in the much-needed "Pigeons in popular culture" section alongside some Simpsons and Pokemon references.

I use possessive words like that for my own articles too, everyone does. Everyone is protective of the articles they spent time in making and, while I don't bother using something like Twitter, I also announce to my friends otherwise whenever I finish writing a new article.

You're kinda stretching this one, aren't you?


Edit: Wait...why were you watching their Twitter? O_o

I wasn't watching their Twitter, it was "re-Tweeted" in someone else's Twitter feed, but is there some reason why I shouldn't follow Mabbett?

I have to agree with Silver Seren. After all, I always refer to the Arch Coal article as "Guy Chapman's ab initio article about Arch Coal".

And yet there is this:
A note on the history of this article.

I had not previously seen the Arch Coal article. As originally written, it is a masterpiece of selective information favouring the company and I commend the author. But it has now become more NPOV, meaning that it has deteriorated (from Arch Coal's point of view). Obviously, such articles need to be monitored to try to stop this happening.