Ah. Yesterday another editor suggested that my area of editing interest would cause harm to my eyesight. Might I politely suggest that a stronger-strength lens is in order for you too, Malleus? :-) No, actually the RfC that has been immortalized in print belongs to a current Admin whose username begins with an E and ends with a 3. The page that is printed representing said RfC lists my and your statements. Fame at last! :-( Dekkappai (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd-- I was at another computer when I saw page 208. Now here at home, it is indeed not part of the book preview... Anyway, take my word for it, we're there... Dekkappai (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see if it I search for "Dekkappai" in Google Book Search (the surrounding pages aren't included). If I just follow your link through to that particular book, the page isn't there. My guess is Google is trying to cut down on the material it's offering for free. 04:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malleus Fatuorom. I've recently done quite a bit of work on the Blackburn article, inspired by Jza84's GA review in which he provided some invaluable advice about how the article might be developed.
I think it would be useful for someone who hasn't been involved with the Blackburn article to cast a fresh eye over it at this stage. Jza84 recommended you as someone who might be able to do that. If you have time, would you mind having a look at it to see what you think? Beejaypii (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a quick look through the Blackburn article, and my first impression was "Wow". You've done a great job in developing it. Give me an hour or two to look at it in more detail. Later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them? I'm gutted. :-( Seriously though, I really can't see this article having too many problems at its next GA nomination, in which I wish you luck. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, trout aside, I've always felt that if there's an opportunity for malfeasance, then someone, sometime, will take advantage of it. But your interpretation was right. I simply meant how do you know you're talking to the person you think you are, the person who logged on? Trout pax? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems that will be a problem that will inevitably have to be flagged up under this proposal. Trout pax? Nimirum! Rudget (logs) 20:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously getting slow Rudget. I was racking my brains to think of wtf nimirum meant in text-speak ... until I realised that it wasn't text speak at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus. I've been referred to you by another user who advised me you might be willing to do a copyedit for me? The article I'm trying to get to FA is Hylton Castle. If you could give it the once (or twice) over, I'd be very grateful. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs more than just a quick copyedit or two before it's a plausible GA candidate, never mind FA. If you're prepared to listen to my suggestions, then I'm prepared to help. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this notice here and took a look at the article. At the moment, I'm streamlining the references, it should take quite a bit out of the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've rather neglected GAR of late I know. My only excuse is that I've been focusing my GA reviewing efforts on GA Sweeps recently. I've just about finished the first section I committed to do there, so you can expect to see my words of wisdom (or complete bullshit, depending on your view) at GAR any time soon. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked your diffs at History of timekeeping devices and was very happy with them, but I have a question about "since", which you changed to "as". Was this because you always make that change, or because you always make that change in British English, or because the sense of it was more in the nature of "taking into account the fact" than "because"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My view—one that I'm quite happy to corrected on—is that "since" implies a temporal relationship rather than a causal one. It certainly wasn't a British English vs American English thing anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reversion needed, there's an argument that "as" was better, and it's certainly not worse, I'm just asking for my own enlightenment. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CIV, dude. CIV. And stop drama-mongering, or God help you... I don't really know what you meant by that... thus, CIV, dude. LaraLove|Talk04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. It is difficult to express in mere words my view on a policy that has become so abused and distorted in the situations to which it is applied and in the hypocrisy of its selective application. In truth, I find your defence of an editor altering the words of another to be a gross offence against common sense and common morality. That is all I have to say on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with you about the gross misapplication of the civility policy, which is why I rarely cite it, and even here did so in more of a joking way. I did it with humor because of how utterly ridiculous you're being. I mean, really dramatic. Stop making over-the-top negative comments about SynergeticMaggot over this instance. HeadBomb moved a misplaced t in the word the, he most certainly did not "alter the words of another". The hypocrisy in this situation is you citing common sense. Additionally, consider this a formal warning for your childish name-calling. Comment on content, not editors. LaraLove|Talk12:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I am just as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, even when those opinions diverge. I am not the one who came here to beat what seemed to me to be a dead issue up again. No amount of discussion, threats, bullying or abuse is likely to make me change my mind on the fundamental principle that it is wrong to alter someone else's posting. BTW, my reply was to SynergeticMaggot; I'd forgotten that is was him who actually made the edit. That's an indication of how important this particular incident is to me. Can we let this one go now? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let this go, but stop confusing the situation (I never made the edit). I came here because you called me an idiot. My first post to your talk page is the diff. — MaggotSyn13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at what I said I did not call you an idiot. You may perhaps notice that I used the word "idiots". So far as I'm aware you are only one person, at best an "idiot". Now please go away and do something useful. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...to keep working on History of timekeeping devices, and I like your edits, but Sandy's latest comment (the one about "9 nominators") makes it sound like she's going to get medieval on us sometime in the near future; shall I jump back in, or would you rather fly solo? I just finished up my other urgent work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, feel free to jump back in. I was just holding the breach as I sensed that Sandy was really keen to close this one way or the other. Understandably so. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I was just saying that with nine nominators, it's surprising that others have had to do the copyediting. Anyway. That quote reminds me of the time Bishonen called Radiant! a mean motherfucker and no one batted an eye; puts the whole admin thingie in context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you'd think that with nine nominators there would be enough firepower to get the article through FAC. Anyway, I'm only replying in case there's any misunderstanding from any watchers of this page. I am not an administrator, so SandyG is not referring to anything that I've done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now what have I gotten myself into? I don't mean anyone. Well, maybe I mean the times I was told to "fuck off" and no one said anything. I'm commenting in general on the civility issue on Wiki, and whenever I see the mf word, I remember that one incident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A problem I simply don't have. I assume that everyone here thinks I've been rude to them in the past. And who knows, maybe they're right, and I was. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't recall any, Iri ... I should clarify that Bish's comment was utterly hilarious and in perfect context when she made it, but if I had said it (as a non-admin), it woulda been curtains for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, admins get away with things that would sink a mere mortal. Going way off the track here, but if you ever decided to put yourself forward at RfA I can see some epic battles being fought out. It would go down in wikihistory, I haven't the slightest doubt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't pursue this, because I know what a hell-hole RfA can be. But if you can't be an administrator, then there is something seriously wrong with the whole project. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uncyclopedia:AAAAA! She's everywhere! :) For the record, "get medieval" is a lot more humorous and softer now than it was in Pulp Fiction; Wierd Al Yankovich used it in Amish Paradise. I first started writing "She's going to lower the boom", but then I remembered that Malleus is in northern England, and I don't know if they lower booms there. (I don't even know if we lower them here!) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggestion. I'll start at the bottom and work up to incense candles, and Dank55 can work down from where he left off. I think another day ought to see it, and I'd have no objection whatsoever to it being closed tomorrow, whatever the verdict. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Sandy, sorry that I said "get medieval"...that does have a certain ring of "meanness", doesn't it? I just meant the timekeeping device is ticking, and we've been warned. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about closing it soon. What I am concerned about is that, because of the slowdown at FAC due to summer breaks, reviews are going much longer than typical, and nominators may be caught by surprise when the pace picks up after summer. Yes, I was curious if you thought I was that mean, but as Malleus said, I guess That's A Good Thing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly or wrongly, I did choose my username with some thought, although I did apparently make a mistake in my initial (unwitting) choice of the gender of my hammer's targets. Still, sorted now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the WP:WIAFA discussion, where Dec got a kick out of my "cow" (Can of Worms) edit summary, I almost told him a better story, but decided I didn't want it in archives on that page. I have a habit of typing fu for followup. When I decided that was bad, I switched to f/up for a while, until I realized it was equally bad. The best was a fu to mf edit summary, which fortunately, my feeble mind recognized as Not A Good Thing before I hit the send button LOL !!! Hey, thanks for all the copyedit work; "significant contributor" or not, getting them over the hump makes them significant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
now GA status was the one i looking for on here, i really don't know what i was thinking about FA status. agree with you there. took (Jz84's) advice and mentioned on the wiki board, still to look at the GA status page, but i'll do that right away.
anyway, thanks for your edits - much appreciated. thing is, if you're wondering where i got the block quotes i found them on the Elgin, Moray article (in the history section) Kilnburn (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the block quotes look very nice, and I used to use them myself quite a bit. But if you're looking to get an article to GA/FA then you have to pretty much stick with the wikipedia Manual of Style. In fact, for FA it's mandatory. You're doing a great job with Kirkcaldy, keep it up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original sources are punctuated as I had them. Please don't assume that all punctuation automatically goes outside the quotation marks. Otto4711 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Manual of Style on logical punctuation; as you are the expert on this matter I will now leave the article to you to do with it as you will. I really don't have the time for this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the MoS, specifically the part that says "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation." Since the instances in which you are moving the punctuation outside the quotation marks are instances in which not only the sense of the punctuation but the actual punctuation is part of the quotation, it is correct to have the punctuation inside the quotation marks. I'm sorry if this has annoyed you; it certainly was not my intent. Otto4711 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, do as you will with the article, I'm really not bothered to argue your interpretation of what logical punctuation means. Life's too short, and I have many other things I'd rather be doing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I feel compelled to add, after reading this and seeing the edit summaries by Otto on the page, I'm very reluctant myself to do a damn thing on that article as well, even though it was requested (by Collectonian) that I help out with CE. Apology notwithstanding, Otto, you certainly didn't act collaboratively when someone has volunteered to help the article along. I have asked one question on the GA review page regarding the section headers, which I believe are wrong at this point, per WP:LAYOUT. Other than that, I'm not gonna touch the article. Life's too short to be reamed over frickin punctuation/quotation differences. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, look. If someone has introduced errors into an article, it is not some violation of the Wikipedia spirit to correct them. I have the original sources for all of the contested punctuation placements. I'm guessing that it's likely that Malleus Fatuorum does not. If he or any other editor, whether copy editing for a GA review or happening to stumble over an article at random, makes a mistake, I'm going to correct the mistake. I feel that my edit summaries adequately explained why I reversed the changes that I did and that the reversals are rooted in the MoS. And again, I'm sorry if this has cheesed people off but to characterize what I've said and done here as "reaming" anyone is IMHO hyper-sensitive and overly dramatic.
I have responded to your comment regarding section headers at the review. If you choose to respond, great. If not, that's fine too. Sorry to trouble you. Enjoy your day. Otto4711 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you've failed to address in this, regardless of whether you "were right", or Malleus was "right", is your tone. Your edit summaries left much to be desired in the way of tone. They were demeaning and presumptuous. "It ain't what you say, it's how you say it". Good day to you too. I already responded to your query on the GA review page. I have no interest in battling any editor over such trifly details of any article, Ga or not. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and along those lines, I'll give you some advice. Instead of instantly reverting a Copyeditor's edits with edit summaries that say "you're wrong! what were you thinking?!?!", how 'bout next time coming to the talkpage of the copyeditor, or any other contributor and saying "you know, I'm not seeing this the same way as you. The sources say...., but you changed it to.... What do you think would be a good solution?" Again, it ain't what you say...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if you choose to interpret edit summaries such as "punctuation is correct per original source" as "demeaning and presumptuous" that's your problem, not mine. That you choose to read such summaries as "you're wrong! what were you thinking?!?!" says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about me. Otto4711 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent>Alright, we'll continue this. Here are your edit summaries. Keep in mind that I've never said that you were wrong, or that Malleus was right. Never once did you post to Malleus' page to ask for clarification, you simply reverted him with the following summaries:
The line is "You're too hungry." The period goes inside the quotation mark
the punctuation is correct per the original source
punctuation is correct per the original sources
is correct per original source. please stop assuming that all punctuation must go outside the quotation marks
the line is "he's a loser." period goes inside quotation marks
fixing punctuation again oer (sic) original source
Again Otto, I couldn't give a rip if you are right or wrong. Talk to the Copyeditor. When I'm copyediting anything, which I do quite a bit, and the article's nominator continually and repeatedly "reverts" everything I do in good faith, I'm gonna get angry. Not because I don't make mistakes, hell I royally screwed up the last one I did. But because of your approach. Reverting a copyeditor is evil. Talking to a copyeditor (a suggestion I gave you above, including a "talk path"), will only help you for your next GA nomination. Have a great day. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, if you or Malleus chose to take it that way, that's really not my responsibility. I note that I have a talk page as well, so if either Malleus or you had some concern about my revisions, you could have messaged me as easily as I could have messaged you. And in fact I did leave Malleus a message, the one opening this very section, to which his response was for all intents and purpose to tell me to piss off because of how short his life is going to be. And I'm sorry, but calling an edit "evil" is just ridiculous drama queen hyperbole.
Malleus, if you would prefer this not continue on your talk page and if Keeper cares to continue it, please feel free to transplant this to my talk page. Otto4711 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a copyeditor's job to stop an article nominator from reverting their fixes. I'm done with this. Dear God, don't bring this to my talkpage. I cannot imagine a more trivial dispute than this, suitable for WP:LAME. I have no interest in editing the article, I'm moving on to the next nominator. I did enjoy the movie when I saw it, and I learned some things from (your) article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After submitting one of my own articles for review, I was browsing the backlog and wondered exactly what 'qualifications' were required to review other articles? Do you need a knowledge of the subject, or can anyone with a little bit of experience (such as myself) just chip in and point out mistakes and problems? I just wanted to help clear the backlog a little. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no qualification, and you don't any specialist knowledge of the subject. In fact, arguably the less you know about it the better, as you'll be reading the article from the point of view of most readers. I tend to stick to things that I have a degree of interest in though, as that makes reviewing less of a chore. I suggest that you pick an an article you'd like to review and dive in. If you like, I'll take a look at your review when you've done and give you some feedback on it. But I'm sure you'll get the hang of it soon enough; if you can write a GA, then you can review one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already 'reviewed' one here, well nto really a review, just what I see as constructive comments. Personally I don't think the article is good enough although I'm hesitant to be so brazen as to add anything extra to that review. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've covered all the main points, and I'd agree with you that the article isn't quite there yet. There are some formatting errors and the prose looks a bit dodgey in places. With a small article like that one I'd be inclined just to dive in and fix the MoS things like spaces before citatations, even tidy up the prose. I probably wouldn't be so concerned about the number of references, it's a very short article after all, and the event happened a long time ago, but I'd want to be fairly confident that all the main points were covered, which I'm slightly dubious about on first reading. Is the area prone to earthquakes? Why? What's the underlying geology? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know your feeling on the Pythons, but I thought, in the light of the six-and-a-half dozen Simpsons FAs, you and some of the the UK-based editors might be interested in this AfD... Makes me want to indulge in an anthrax ripple... :-( Dekkappai (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody Hell, unbelievable. We have articles on minor characters in minor video games, yet Mr Praline, one of the iconic comic images of the 20th century, is nominated for deletion? Just let me find my baseball bat ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might be, as I've long suspected, something of an age issue too-- a major pop icon of 20 or 30 years ago goes up for a "never heard of 'im" delete... Meanwhile, let's start another Family Guy character article... wait a sec, let me find my pitchfork & I'll be right with you... Dekkappai (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'd be tempted to dive in on them, if I didn't think every article on a Japanese hoochie-koochie actress would be deleted and salted if I took my eye off them for a second... Been a Python fan since, I think, 1976, when they were introduced to us Yanks in a summer-replacement comedy-survey program hosted by, of all people, Dean Martin. I tuned in just to see the Chaplin and Keaton clips, but, besides the Pythons, it also gave me my first glimpse of Andy Kaufman (WOW, is that article in bad shape!). Quite a feat for a little piece of fluff summertime show... I'd probably think about starting an article on it too if I didn't think some "never heard of it" teen practicing for Adminship would put it up for for deletion within five minutes of its creation... :-( And it is so hard to keep my eye off those Japanese hoochie-koochie actresses... Dekkappai (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just started a small section based on what quotes I could find through an Amazon search. I should be able to get some print sourcing in my hands tomorrow, and will do what I can then... Meanwhile, as the "Save Mr Praline" campaign starts up, roving gangs of deletionist thugs are looking for other unguarded windows to bash in... Have I ever told you about the article I started on a Rimsky-Korsakov opera, which, though sourced, with inline citations, was put up for deletion within minutes of its creation?... Dekkappai (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for helping to save Mr Praline, who's AfD has been closed a strong keep I just saw. Quite right too! BTW, I saw that you were accused of canvassing on behalf of the article here. Now Dekkappai, you've been around wikipedia long enough to know that the deletionists prefer to go about their stealthy business in secret. Letting people who may be interested in a discussion know that it's actually taking place is really beyond the pale in wikidreamland ... I can feel another Orwellian moment coming on [2]. ;-)
Good God, I'm a canvasser?! I wonder how long it is till adding sourcing to an article on the chopping block is considered cheating... And with the accuser's new-found tools, I'm expecting that giant foot to drop down out of the sky and splatter me all over the floor any second now... :-( Dekkappai (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and you're the lucky duck whose name popped up on my watchlist :-) Have you followed this full discussion? Are you able to give me a nutshell on where this issues stands, vis-a-vis WIAFA crit. 3, or do I need to engage the full controversy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate image policy too, especially all that fair-use and derivative work nonsense. What nobody seems to have got their head around is that if there's no financial advantage to a breach of copyright then there's no point in a copyright holder pursuing the matter. Therefore my conspiracy theory is that the recent tightening up on image policy is a precursor to a commercial exploitation of the freely provided wikipedia content.
I started reading that thread you're referring to a little while ago, but my eyes started to glaze over after the first few paragraphs. The bottom line, I think, is that fair-use claims are going to get harder and harder to justify until ultimately they're no longer allowed. For now, I don't think anything's changed, at least not until the dust settles on this latest storm in a teacup. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, I'd guess it's because the high-profile articles are the ones that are most likely to be commercially copied elsewhere and thus the ones where there's the most pressing need to comply with GFDL. (Note to everyone; I know nothing whatsoever about image policy but that didn't stop the last "simple question" about it on my talkpage spiraling to 50k – Malleus, I dare say you saw it. Don't let the same thing happen to you!) – iridescent01:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iridiscent, I'm surprised at you saying that. You know that I would never get into any controversial discussions about images and copyright.[3]
Malleus, you must know how I care for the people I care for ... be nice :-) I didn't mean to start something, and I appreciate the to-the-point answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. Since I watchlist your page out if simple hero-worship,I have been following the discussion here with interest. I agree that the WP:DRAMA is mostly the thrashing about to air grievances, but it looks like there are some recurring themes regarding how we interpret (or at least phrase) the guidelines. I've added a subsection to that discussion, proposing a way to dial down the drama spigot and fix both the immediate problems whilst addressing the larger issue. Can I get your feedback on it? Sandy, Iridescent and the rest of ya's should feel free to pipe up, as I've previously come into contact with all of you. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were a big help copy-editing the Benjamin Franklin Tilley article during its FA-cycle. Could I perhaps ask you to take a quick look at Uriel Sebree and work your magic on that article as well? One of the FA responders has indicated that it needs a good copy-editing, but obviously I'm too close to the prose to do an effective job. Could you help or recommend some that can? Thanks very much for your assistance. JRP (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick glance the article looks very nice; I'll see what I can do. Dank55 is someone else you might care to enlist. He's got a great eye for good prose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. When you are done copy-editing, could you please make a note on the FAC page? Tony1 and Karanacs are waiting on "done" remarks from you and Dank55 for them to reevaluate the article. No hurry (and you may be done already), but when you are done I would appreciate if you would drop a line so that they and Sandy know that it's all done. Thanks. JRP (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were waiting for the previous voters to re-evaluate, but everyone seems to have gone on vacation. Despite my promise to stay neutral, I gave it another read-through and supported. Btw, thanks for the kind words, you two! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I didn't immediately connect that this was about Dr Johnson; I assumed it would be about another obscure American politician, with all due respect to any ex-colonists who may reading this. Of course I'll help! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moi? Malleus !! No obscure American politicians in the twoarticles that brought me to Wiki. I'm thrilled to see Dr Johnson come up to speed, since I've been staring at that mess for several years. He finally has a real article, even if he can't get through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Doctor Johnson would be slightly happy with the results so far, although he could have finished the biography in thirty minutes and then make us cry with just one line of his witty characterization of the effort. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd watch placing the spacing code within the ref tags - it tends to screw up the format. I initially removed a lot of them last night to fix 5 errors that just didn't want to go away. Plus, it seems uneven - are some of them supposed to lack the spacing code? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not strictly needed anyway unless there's a linebreak, so I won't. I really can't see why it would mess up the formatting though ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why either. It was strange (and I just removed the formatting back to the previous version in the end). Those broken ref links are the hardest to track down. By the way, thanks for the copy editing. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Just a note - this and this. Sandy asked why Boswell wasn't used that often, and I explained that his Lives are one of multiple sources (he didn't use up his whole amount of data, nor did he use all of the correspondence, for example). However, people would expect passages from the Lives. I thought a nice compromise to these expected masses could be to have relevant scenes or anecdotes that match a certain moment to be put in side boxes. What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so excited that Dr Johnson has an article now; I registered on Wiki on Feb 3 2006 and first edited Johnson on Feb 6 2006;[4] I've been watching the wreck ever since. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's certainly no wreck now, even if it has taken over two years to get to this state. Still quite a bit of work to be done though, so must press on. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the fancy quotes. I never knew they existed. However, should the "Boswell Life" be inside the final quote or not? I think I've seen it either way, so the choice is yours. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to figure out how to get the quotes in the box and not have the formatting go insane. I attempted to put the one in quotes and it almost doubled the size of the text. I wasn't capable of tinkering with the formatting to fix it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick thought, if you entered the images manually, you could shrink them down just a tiny bit and maybe they will appeal to Sandy more than they currently do (or do on their own). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just started what I think will be pretty much a final run through the whole article, so I haven't got there yet. I did look at it briefly yesterday, but I fell at almost the first hurdle with this: "Johnson displayed symptoms of various diagnoses ...". I've always believed that diagnosis is based on signs—those things the physician sees—and symptoms—those things the patients complains of. Have I misunderstood? Is it even possible to display the symptom of a diagnosis? Help! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; signs is better. I've just been trying to keep the POV out of the section, and haven't focused enough. Also, Ottava posted to WT:MED to try to get more clarity on some of the wording (I'm not at all happy with "madness" being in there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with "madness" either. I'm very much persuaded by Szaz's myth of mental illness, another article that is in depressingly poor shape. :-( BTW, do you have easy access to the book by Bate? I'm not at all sure what this (from the Final works section) means: "This claim brought swift reaction from Macpherson, who threatened to counteract Johnson."
No, I don't have that; I only have the TS articles, and Kushner's book on the history of TS. It might be best to just leave that section, pending someone weighing in on the thread at WT:MED; do have a read of that thread, as I'm still not sure how to best position the entire section. Knowing that Johnson had TS puts all of the other descriptions in context, but I don't know how we deal with that "posthumously". TS was unknown in Johnson's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a bit of a hack at that section, and it makes sense at least to me now, pending whatever input WT:MED is able to provide. One other thing though, which often comes up during reviews: "In 1994, J. M. S. Pearce ...". The question always asked is "Who's Pearce?" Better to say something like "psychiatrist J. M. S. Pearce ..." or whatever, just a little flavour of what expertise the person being referred to has. (I hope you don't mind me making these suggestions, I really feel like I'm trying to teach my granny to suck eggs.) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (but ... I don't know who Pearce is, and in medical publications, what matters more is the journal he was published in ... Eubulides can help there, I pinged him). It reads well now; I still don't know how we contextualize, though, which is why I added the link to History of Tourette syndrome, since he died in 1784, but TS was first described in 1825 and then 1885. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the problem with contextualisation. As you say, TS hadn't been identified in Johnson's time, so I think the present section on posthumous diagnoses is fine. The only thing that occurs to me is that it pretty comes out of the blue that Johnson was affected by tics, involuntary vocalisations, compulsive behaviour and the rest. From the point of view of telling his story, I'd like to see some mentions of that elsewhere in the article, with the final diagnostic section being the dénoument that explains what might have been causing it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you noticed, as I was afraid it was my bias :-) That Johnson had TS explains almost everything else, so IMO, it should be introduced early on. But I'm afraid to push for that, since I may be the only one who recognizes his TS throughout his life and bio, and I could be biased. But to do it right, his TS can't be relegated to the final paragraph, and the literary folk need to fully read the medical journals and yours truly's articles on Tourette syndrome and Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome#Latent advantages ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be on your side in any such discussion. Johnson wasn't a writing machine, he was a human being, and the article should do justice to his humanity, in all its aspects. I'd like to see his TS at least mentioned in the lead, and preferably, as I just said above, also with some examples sprinkled at appropriate points in the text. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to push for that; it's important for editors to be aware of their own biases, and I'm a bit ... <fill in the blank> ... about bias and COI that I've seen in other places recently. It's an issue; I suspect I'll have to pass this to Raul when it comes to FAC anyway, because editor bias bugs me. At any rate, the entire discussion of this should be consolidated to Talk:Samuel Johnson; it's now here, my talk page, and at WT:MED. I hope that providing high quality sources, and a good wiki article on TS, it would be obvious to Wiki editors, who are now more informed about TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you'll find this hard to believe Sandy, but I don't think it is quite yet. Close though. For instance, what does this mean? "He most likely lived with his parents and experienced mental anguish." Are the two things related in some way? Or this: "During this time, Johnson's mental state started to slip into a "state of 'absence'". His state slipped into a state? The big stumbling block for GA though is the References section. The layout isn't consistent, some entries have things like "pp. 396–399" (why?) and none have isbns. I think if that section is sorted out it would stand a pretty good chance at GA now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are ISBNs still necessary? I thought they dropped that a long time ago. Quite a few of the works don't have ISBN numbers. Also, the page numbers there are the listings for what pages the article falls under (when you search for it in a magazine/book). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that GA dropped that requirement? Not at all, in fact GA has become rather strict about sourcing. Where a book has an isbn then it has to be included, along with all the other details like publisher, authors(s) date and so on. The page numbers are already given in the Notes section, so why repeat them? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Academic journals/books require either a volume's complete page numeration or an article's beginning and ending page range. This is standard bibliographic procedure as laid out by Chicago and later when Harvard and MLA took off. None use ISBN. I can tell you just from looking at the page that you will only find about 12 ISBN numbers. Most of them lack the ISBNs. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware of academic referencing standards, but this is not an academic paper that we're writing. I can absolutely categorically guarantee that this article will not get through GA with its present referencing system. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're feeling lucky, then try it and see. ;-) In the meantime, can you confirm that the Bate book that the article relies so heavily on was really published in 1977 and not 1979 as its isbn appears to suggest? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, wait for Karanacs or Maralia to go through once more. Before FA, the citations need to be sorted. Why not use the method used at The General in his Labyrinth? I don't speak those weird styles, so I don't much care, but part of the links now are live, while part aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good job I'm on your case. ;-) Seriously though, if we can straighten out the Bibliography, as I said above to SandyG, I think this is now a pretty credible GA candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've probably done about as much as I can on Dr Johnson now, at least for the time being anyway. You've vastly improved the referencing today, and it's starting to look like a pretty decent article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am mistaken, but the image of Ian McDiarmid, the subject of a BLP article is being used in the TFA Palpatine. The image is not, in point of fact, even in the Palpatine article. I am guessing that Mrs. McDiarmid and all his young-uns would be mighty disappointed to know that the chap they have been calling Daddy all this time is in fact a force-abusing megalomaniac from Naboo. Maybe we should reinsert a more appropriate image from the Palpatine article, instead of damaging the actor's reputation by equating him with a character he finished portraying over three years ago?
How did this mistake happen? - Arcayne(cast a spell)04:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow. I tried logging out and seeing if I could get autoformatting to display inconsistently or incorrectly; I couldn't. (Feel free to reply here, I always watchlist.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Aw fucksters. I wrote that in a fit of ire and put it in Malleus' userspace. My bad Mall. If the WR-folks come pounding on your door, redirect them to my side o the pond, eh? ....Keeper | 76 | what's in a name?23:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since at least two of the three posters in that WR thread are WP admins themselves, I imagine you're safe. If you're concerned, feel free to move either/both to my userspace, and let them come... – iridescent23:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not to worry MF, you are explicitly not on the "eve of destruction". (ok,ok, so I read WR. F**in sue me.) Too many admins are in love with you, which is perhaps a much more blissful place to be than +admin anyway. All the love, none of the grief. :-) Keeper | 76 | what's in a name?23:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I said earlier (was it on Iridescent's talk page?) that I really have no regrets at all about my RfA crashing and burning. I really do prefer to be bumbling around articles than chasing sockpuppets. My ambition is to become as invulnerable as Gianno, and for the same reason that he's invulnerable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WR may have more than its fair share of tinfoilhattery and batshit-insane conspiracy theorists, but looking at their opponents in action doesn't exactly make me feel we're on the moral high ground here either. WR isn't ED; for every bad post there, there are a dozen intelligent comments on some of the problems too many people here try to pretend don't exist. Incidentally, Giano may be one of our best writers, but you don't get this for no reason – he can be a true pain at times. – iridescent23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was a little too hasty in what I said. I certainly don't condone that kind of behaviour, and I wouldn't expect anyone to accept it from me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'd guess 50% of the posts on there are from prominent WP editors, I can't imagine you'd get much disagreement. Someone in the arbcom case thoughtfully provided a Who's Who guide, albeit with a few fairly obvious exceptions, myself, Poetlister and Giano being the obvious ones that come to mind, as it only lists those who've participated in the SlimVirgin forum. (I sometimes feel I'm the only person here who hasn't ever had an argument with SV). Don't necessarily believe everything on there though, and you can safely ignore anything tdnarB leinaD (backwards to confuse google, as you don't want him targeting you) says about, well, anything. – iridescent00:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was lucky enough to make that list, probably for my trolling posts that blatantly attack other Wikipedians, like this one. :-) —Giggy01:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus. I've written a big expansion of Norton Priory and think/hope it is nearing GA quality. Would you be kind enough to have a look at it and tell me what you think. And if you have time to do some copy-editing..... Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your very prompt attention, copyediting and comments. I have a break coming soon so will not submit it for GA for a while, and will bear your comments in mind before the submission. Many thanks again. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've become a little cautious about stepping into Irish articles since getting involved in tidying up the Manchester Martyrs, a Fenian ambush that took place over 100 years ago. I remember the Enniskillen bombing very well, as my wife was visiting a hospital nearby that day, and saw them preparing to accept the casualties. I think it was certainly a turning point in the troubles, so I'm going to throw caution to the wind and take a closer look at the article. My first impression, after a very quick read through, is that it's a long way from FA, but with some work it could be a credible GA candidate. I'll try to be more specific on the article's talk page once I've had the opportunity to look at it in more detail. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want help at WP:TFA/R? I added the article to the pending template at WT:TFAR; you could probably add it to the main page after the next batch is scheduled, but when there are more than five, you have to delete one. It's far enough out that deleting one of the current five didn't seem necessary, but you may want to get it in after the next batch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I obviously need all the help I can get, as I had completely misunderstood how the system works. I thought that the points system was to decide between articles nominated for a particular day, not for nominations in general. So any and all help will be gratefully received. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The system is in transition; your post there might help isolate weak spots as we try to tweak it. Did you not see the part about five noms at a time? Because it's in the top section, instead of with the point calculations? Or did you see it and not understand it? Did you notice the pending template on the talk page there for future noms? Want to understand how the page feels to a person coming there for the first time, and where it went wrong, so we can fix as needed. Also, if you look at the pending template, you'll see your "competition" in terms of points. I'll follow here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hey, so many questions! The short answer would be "No, and no." My cockup is probably at least as much to do with my mental model of how I thought a system like that would work, so although I may have seen the "five noms at a time" warning, I thought that applied to five noms for a particular slot, ie., five noms for 18 August. As for the pending template, no, I didn't see any mention of that, although perhaps once again it just didn't fit my mental model to even be looking for it. --~
On the five total, I just tweaked the instructions, so let me know if that's better. As far as mention of the talk page template, it's a very new thing that we're still trying out, and we don't really know if it will work, so adding it to the main page wouldn't be a good idea yet. It gives us a way to see what's "in the pipeline" and how the competition stacks up, and allows for advance discussion.
For example (see the template):
You're competing with a futbol team on August 16. But advance talk page discussion has already determined that most people are going to oppose that request, because they prefer Yao Ming during the Olympics and Donald Bradman on his 100th bday, and another sports TFA in between would be too many. In other words, even if they get one of the five slots before you do, they will get opposes, so you can get the slot. So, your other competition is the Warsaw battle (on similarity). I think it would have two points, not sure, because Piotr has already had a gazillion TFAs.
As to timing, technically, you could knock Emily Dickinson out and replace her right now with the Massacre, but she has sentimental support and that would make you, um ... do you care ... unpopular. Truth is, knocking her off isn't necessary, because you're still a month out, and Raul almost never schedules a month out. The mainpage is currently scheduled through tomorrow, so you should simply watch Raul's contribs for the next time he schedules (some time tomorrow), and then get a slot (he will either schedule Quatermass or not, so that will be out). You can replace Quatermass with Peterloo as soon as Raul schedules the 18th. Also, the table was supposed to make this more clear, did the table not help at all? If there are already five, you have to knock out the lowest pointer. Still with me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) :Err, I think I followed most of that; Emily Dickinson is perfectly safe so far as I'm concerned. Do I care about unpopular? No, but it's a worthy article that deserves its day in the sun. The only thing I'm struggling with now is how to know when I can nominate Peterloo Massacre. Is it just a matter of jumping in whenever I notice Raul schedule a slot? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk)
welll ... someone has already challenged your three points, calling it a two (see the removal of the points from the template). So. As soon as Raul schedules, you can grab a slot. If you miss an opening, and there are already five, you can only knock out a one-pointer to replace it with Peterloo. You can always replace a lower-point article, but then starts the discussion of your points. I say (hope this isn't bad advice and you don't shoot me), wait til Raul schedules next time, and then see how it shakes out. You probably know that the problem is that we have over 950 articles that haven't been on the main page, growing by about two per day, and only 365 days in a year, so the slots go to the highest-pointers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus. I know you are in the midst of a battle for Mr Praline at the moment, but if you secure a victory any time soon, could you please cast your eye over Sunderland Echo for me? You helped me enormously with Navenby earlier this year, which went on to achieve FA status, and I would really like to improve this article to a similar standard. It has been quite a tough task, actually, as there is no real precendent set for an English provincial newspaper at GA/FA - which means I have been flying in the dark somewhat. Apparently The Philadelphia Inquirer is the only featured newspaper article (that I've been told about anyway..) while The Wall Street Journal, Washington Blade and The Technique are listed as good articles. None, however, is a provincial English newspaper, and they all seem to have very different styles of writing - and all different formats too. Thankyou! (By the way, it is currently hanging around on the GA nom list, if you want to take a look, and has just undergone a peer review).--seahamlass11:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start, more to do yet, but I'll be surprised if you have too much trouble getting this through GA. FA, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game, as you know yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it... You've moved a fullstop! Seriously, thanks so much. Really appreciate your help. (As for FA, well... I'll just have to stock up on wine and tranquilisers!)--seahamlass21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty as charged! Just the one fullstop though. While you're here, I pondered over this sentence for a while: "Originally designed to fill a gap in both the newspaper and political markets of Victorian Sunderland ...". I'm really not sure I understand what a political market is? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't reply last night...but mum sent me to be early (!) (Sorry, your talk page is fascinating stuff!) Actually, I got tied up with a GA I'm trying to review/help (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) - thought I'd do one while hanging around on nom board with Echo. (It's hard going, loads of MoS problems and anon IP edits all the time. Not quite sure what to do with it, actually...) Back to your point anyway - errrr - guess that is a statement that just makes sense to me! At least, I know what I mean... If you can think of a better phrase PLEASE find one. The Echo was basically started because: 1. They wanted to get their political views across in a newspaper, but there wasn't one dedicated to Radical views in Sunderland. 2. Storey realised at the same time that there was a gap in the market for a daily paper in Sunderland, as all it had were weekly ones. I tried to say this as clearly as possible, in as few words as possible, but obviously haven't quite managed it. That doesn't really help, does it!--seahamlass08:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your explanation, I've rewritten that sentence into something that my simple mind can understand. If you think it's complete rubbish—note that no fullstops were injured during the rewriting of that sentence—then feel free to change it back. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So good I used it twice, to paraphrase a song that is going round and round my head at the moment. Thanks!
Yes, I agree with you, I guess I'm just impatient! Maybe its because its the 'summer' (well, supposedly), but things seems to be taking ages at GA. I'm thinking of renaming it "Sunderland Harry Potter Soap Stars Fluff and Ex-Beatle Wives Echo" in the hope of attracting a reviewer... But I'll do as you suggest and try and be patient.--seahamlass20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, lead me to it, I'll buy a copy of that! I know that GA has its critics, but you do usually get at least one other decent editor taking a close look at the article and offering suggestions. I've got no problem at all with skipping GA and going straight to FA if I'm really confident about the article, like with Peterloo Massacre. But when I'm less certain I like to take it a bit more easily, as with Chat Moss. But hell, what do I know? I think it'll be worth your wait anyway, at least I hope it will. Chill, go listen to some relaxing music. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen this!! Yeah - great idea... Except someone got there before me with yours - and I gave up on mine! Congratulations, by the way - shortest GA review/pass I've ever seen. "This article meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore been passed." Wow, what a compliment! No ifs, no buts, no dodgy refs... Nice little article too. Are you FA-ing it? By the way, thanks for all the little SE tweaks today - all tweaks welcome!-- Seahamlass14:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh! I hadn't noticed that Ordsall Hall had passed, I'm obviously pleased about that. It's a nice little article I think, but probably a bit on the short side still for FA, and not quite comprehensive enough yet. Could do with another picture as well I think ... on reflection it's perhaps a good job that I wasn't reviewing the article. :lol: I do though have Pendle witch trials that I'm hoping to take to FAC very soon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fingers, toes, eyes - everything crossed! But Tony hasn't weighed in yet... Have to admit, I let out a Homer Simpson-style whoop on the first support. Something rather unseemly in that, unless you are under 10 or a cartoon character!-- Seahamlass18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess another Homer whoop is in order! But it will have to be a quiet one, as feel a bit groggy this morning...Thankyou so much for all the time and effort you put into this. Really, really appreciated. As to next project, well I thought I might become an admin... (Joke!) Actually, I might try for a featured pic. Woke up this morning and found, from my contributions list, that I'd stuck one at peer review!! [6]-- Seahamlass07:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wondered if I could ask a favor. I'd like to take pulmonary contusion to FAC but it needs a copyedit first, and someone recommended you. Could you have a look? It would be much appreciated! Peace, delldottalk23:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm gonna go ahead and take it to FAC. Any help you could offer with the prose would still be most welcome, of course! Thanks again, delldottalk17:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia has suggested you might be a good person to contact about being a fresh pair of eyes to look at the prose of this FAC. If it is of any interest, the Peterloo Massacre gets a mention in William too, but old WW doesn't come out looking too good!! Anyway, if you would have time that would be great. If not, no worries! --Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing – you appear to dislike the use of the past continuous ("heading", "attending", "playing", "joining", etc). I think it rather enhances the article, and would consider reverting it, but thought I should seek clarification from you first. How strongly do you feel about this? I should make it clear that most of this text was written by Slp1, not myself. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dislike it where it's consistent with the tense used elsewhere in the sentence, but there are some places I moved from -ing as a result of having been pulled up by Tony over the noun -ing issue. So long as the tenses are consistent, I don't otherwise have a problem with -ing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, and I understand nothing is in stone, but I have been fine with all your changes, and just grateful for the help. I have been reading too much David Crystal, so am very much of a que sera sera disposition about all these things! Slp1 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great article, one that you and the other editors ought to feel really proud of. The few issues I've raised at the FAC are trivial, although I'd still like to see them addressed. I've got no hesitation at all in supporting this article, even though I've also got no doubt at all that if I had ever met Wilberforce he and I would definitely not have seen eye-to-eye. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the help and also for the support. I actually managed a few edits in between your many (no edit conflicts thankfully!) trying to deal with most of the issues you raised, even before you supported. Feel free to take a look: I wouldn't mind the eagle eye on this one especially [7] since I have decided that this grammar thing just ain't my thing! BTW I think you might like him better than you think: it seems he was very jolly and extremely good company. Though I can't agree with many of his ideas either, I suspect he was actually quite humble about them, very kind, very interesting and entertaining, and more interested in others than pushing himself or his ideas forward. Thanks again!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just gone midnight here. Mummy says I can stay up for a bit longer, to watch another episode of Star Trek, before I have to climb the wooden hills to the Land of Nod. Might have a beer while I'm watching TV as well, but don't tell Mummy. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can do better than beer. Have a glass of champagne, and Mummy need never know. I'm sure she would approve actually since its a celebration! You seem to have put the article over the edge to promotion. Thanks! --Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll give it a go then. Looks like we need to throw off the delightful Emily. Can you let me have the text you were going to use or is that cheating? Richerman (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look through the page history you'll see my nomination, so feel free to cut and paste it. Bear in mind though that I had no idea what I was doing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words! It is always encouraging to know that you're valued. Oddly enough I share your thoughts on WP:GM - if it wasn't around, I don't think I'd still be around. The whole admin role to me is supplimentary to my role in the GM team - any abuse about admin stuff is completely wasted on me! Besides, all can't be lost when people like User:Yorkshirian recieve a 12 month ban - the system must work in some cases it seems! Don't know if you noticed that User:Joshii is blocked for 1 month for socking too?
I do appreciate your contact. I think having a admin around at WP:GM has been a good thing. I'm thinking that User:Nev1 might be our next guy to nominate? Anyway, don't worry bout me - nobody's grinding me down just yet! --Jza84 | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that WP:GM is the reason I've stayed on too, and that it's worked fantastically. Although I'd noticed pretty early on that the project was active, I hung back from joining because I didn't know if it could work. I'm now proud to be part of such a thriving initiative. I think a measure of a project's strength is the amount of chatter you get on it's talk page; I've only seen a handful of other projects, but it seems we're the some of the most talkative in the UK :-)
As for becoming an admin... I can't image that I've had nearly enough experience in 'admin areas' to garner enough support votes but it's nice to know that two people I respect think I could wield the tools well. Nev1 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a big advantage over me in the admin stakes Nev1. My RfA's crashed and burned because I'm inclined to call a spade a fucking shovel. You're inclined to be a little more diplomatic than I am. I'd give the idea some thought if I were you, bearing in mind of course that the RfA process can be a really big ego-bruiser. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too worried about an ego bruising, what could possibly go wrong ;-) </tempting fate> I will certainly think about it. I'll say now that if I were to become and admin, I'd try to follow in Jza's footsteps and put WP:GM (and therefore writing articles) ahead of getting too distracted by any shiny new buttons. Nev1 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been there. Believe me, to have your contributions weighed in the balance and then found to be wanting is a hard blow to take, no matter how hard-nosed you are. Please don't even think of going for it unless you're absolutely convinced that you won't take the outcome too seriously whichever way it goes. Wikipedia is not short of administrators; it's short of good, solid, article builders like you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what would protect me from getting too bothered if people don't like my contributions is I have taken something out of the wikipedia experience; I know more about what I've written about, I've learned to be less biased, and improved my writing from dire to acceptable ;-) It definitely wouldn't be wouldn't be the be all and end all for me. In fact I recall advising you not to take it too seriously either when you had your first RfA. Hmm, that sentence has too many bes, probably needs a copy edit. And while we're on the subject of copy edits... is there any chance you could take a look at Warwick Castle? It's undergone a peer review and the prose needs a bit of bashing into shape before I (hopefully) take it to WP:FAC. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found that in the event my first RfA was more of an ego-bruiser than I had bargained for. My second, on the other hand, hardly bothered me at all, even though it arguably went even worse than the first, as I'd by then got quite used to the idea that no matter what I do there will always be some delicate flowers whose toes I'll have stepped on. And now, having completely given up on the admin idea, I no longer don't have to ponce around like a fairy being nice to everyone just in case they turn up in the Oppose column in RfA#3. :lol: I'll be happy to take a look through Warwick Castle. Promise me though that you won't get the hump if I move any of your fullstops. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back again??!! Thankyou! And congratulations on Greater Manchester too. I think your Wiki geography team must be the most productive in the whole place. Just wish Wiki Journalism was as good. (Or even really existed!) If this thing ever ends, I think I'm going to concentrate on a tragedy next as a bit of light relief...-- Seahamlass19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're very close now, which is why I put in that last push. ;-) The UK Geography project does seem to have more than its fair share of productive editors, and I think we're particularly fortunate at the GM Project. I was really pleased about the Greater Manchester article, even though in all truth I didn't really contribute that much to it. Still, I'm happy to take the credit for it anyway. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do have one final, final, suggestion though, and that's to remove all of the autoformatted date linking. You may have seen that done to other FACs, including Greater Manchester. It's no big deal, but one of the dates in the article does wrap on on my 1280x1024 display. It can easily be removed semi-automatically. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do whatever. There was nothing autoformatted about the dates, though, I did it all myself...Yawn. (Except the totally numeral dates on the refs). Then I spotted at FAC that Tony is super anti-date formatting it and thought I'd wait and see if he said anything. Umm - how do I remove it semi-automatically?-- Seahamlass21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You copy this into your monobook.js page, refresh your cache, and voilà, you have a new "all dates" tab when you're editing. Job done. I'll run through the article now, while you read the instructions—I'm still hoping that you can get this promoted tonight. The tension is killing me! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Red wine has dulled my nerves marvellously. Unfortunately, it has also left me unable to type properlllllly. I have to confess, I've never yet worked out how to use a sandbox or monobook. It's a wonder I've managed to create anything actually, although I did get Twinkle or Huggle or something at some point, which is quite fun. Perhaps, if this does get promoted, I should just go back to basics! Just got another support. Lovely comment too. Ahhhh. Time for another glass!-- Seahamlass21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're very nearly across the line. My nerves have been somewhat calmed as well, by copious quantities of Stella. If I get blocked for anything I say or do later on, then I'm going to blame you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may interest you; where I asked for an admin to resign his bit. Kind of goes with everything you've maintained for a while, about admins using tools through some idea of "status" ......Pedro : Chat 23:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its sad to watch. RfA is all about (supposedly) being trusted with the tools. Yet having been "promoted", and then proven to be untrustworthy it's apparently not a big deal after all. It's hard to find the words to describe my disgust for the whole hypocritical pile of shit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few topics I'd like to work up to GA and even FA, but I'm not prepared to put up with admin abuse just to do that. Let the kiddies have their playground. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some deleted edits for Didsbury, most (all?) of which is in the Gay & Sussex book that is already quoted in the article. I'll transfer it to a non-deleted temporary source so you can see it. Rudget14:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There looks to be some good information there. I'm concerned, at first sight, that the material may have been copied directly from the Gay & Sussex book. Do you have a copy that you could check with? We'd need to be able to source whatever we used by page number in the book anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy and just as grim is that I think, as do you, it is copied directly from the book. Would I need to visit my library and pick up a copy to confirm it? Rudget14:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone needs to have done that and checked before we can use any of this material. If you can't get to the library for whatever reason, I've got some books that I need to return to Didsbury later this week anyway, so I could have a look then if you haven't already done so. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my mind, yes. It may well have been due to your comment at my RfA, if only I could remember what it was. I'll have to go back and check what you said now, even though I'd hoped to be able to forget all about that horrible experience. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just provide you with a diff, so you don't have to look at all those nasty opposes or dispiriting red background... By the way, did you change your user name recently? The RFA is spelled Malleus Fatuarum; couldn't find it for a bit. --barneca (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too late! I just looked and replied to you on your talk page. So far as the username's concerned, there was some gender realignment needed, or so I was told. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see above, my position has shifted a little. I feel a little like a Marxist in saying that we should each be given the opportunity to contribute according to our abilities and interests, not denied the opportunity to do so because of some perceived lack of experience in other areas. Here endeth the lesson. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've seen the excellent work you've done on Norton Priory and I was wondering if you'd be willing to cast your experienced eye over the article on Netley Abbey. I hope to get the article up to GA standard and with the work you've done on other mediaeval sites I hoped you might be able to give me a few pointers as to how to proceed. Soph (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to help where I can. I'll take a closer look later, but on a first scan you need to get rid of the "&"s from the section headings, and replace {{cquote}} with {{quote}}. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for giving it a look over, it is really appreciated. I'll change the quotes and '&' tonight. Re the cites, I did them the way I taught to at university (a long time ago now), putting them as close as reasonable to the concept or fact being referenced, because wiki's policy didn't seem to be clear. Putting them at the end of each sentence outside punctuation in order of reference is cool with me though and I'll do that. Re the images, I've had real problems with formatting them in the page. I've tried attaching them to paragraphs and doing other things, but on checking using different browsers under OS X, Windows (2k and Vista) and Ubuntu I get different bad stuff happening, especially text running under images and edit links under text making it unreadable. What I've done is the least bad I've been able to do, but I know it seriously needs to be sorted out. Soph (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usual wikiway is to put the citation after the punctuation, whether that's a comma, a fullstop or whatever. What you've done isn't wrong, but it gives reviewers less to jump on if the formatting looks familiar to them. I'll sort out that image problem; I've had exactly the same problem myself in the past, as with Beeston Castle. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back in January, I granted you rollback, and you were among the first people I ever gave rollback to. At the time, you said you weren't going to use it that often, but I said it didn't matter how much it was used as long as you used it correctly. Well, I recently went through some of your rollbacks, and as you said, you don't use it that often, but the best thing is that you use it correctly and efficiently. :) Thank you, Malleus Fatuorum. Acalamari22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was because I was recently thinking of that discussion that I just wanted to review your work and inform you that you were doing a good job. I didn't have any "suspicions" or anything like that: I had 100% confidence in you when I pressed the button to grant you rollback, and I'm keeping that confidence. :) No disrespect was intended: just a compliment. Acalamari22:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per this, I realize that my teasing you was excessive and inappropriate. Sometimes I can't help myself, but that doesn't mean that it was correct. You are a hard worker and spend your time doing a lot of work on the encyclopedia, so it is probably best that I don't purposely try to aggravate you and distract you. I apologize for wasting your time and offending you. By the way, you did a lot of great work with the Samuel Johnson page. I think you should take charge at the FAC or any other reviews because of the amount of effort that you put in, and you, with Sandy, were the two that actually moved it into such high quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been one to avoid saying what I think needs to be said for the sake of a quiet life. I think that you have been behaving like a complete dickhead, perhaps because you have some ownership issues with Samuel Johnson. My position has always been clear. I have added no content to the article, therefore I would not try to steal your thunder by claiming credit for it, or nominating it at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its funny that you say I have ownership issues when I basically gave you control. And yes, you changed quite a lot. You don't have to be bashful about it. :) By the way, I don't edit for "credit" nor do I really like that term. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there!... You know me too well! - I'm actually hoping to raise the Royton article upto (at least) a B-class over the next week or so. Hopefully I can help the Oldham borough catch upto Trafford asap that way (although I've a long way to go!).
Re the Manchester Mummy though, in all honesty - I don't think it's ready. I know there's a formal criteria, but when it comes to GA, I also think "is it a good article"? Yes, this article (thusfar) reads beautifully and has flawless citation, but it's still a little patchy IMHO. As it currently stands (I realise this is work-in-progress) the lead overpowers the rest of the article, and we have no image (which I'm a personal sucker for - and it could even be something as simple as Harpurhey Cemetary or the Manchester Museum, but ideally the Mummy of course!). That said however, you mentioned you have some material on the way to you to aid its expansion?? I think that may be decisive as to whether this can whack those GA buttons.
And with that all said... I do think you're right to mark this out now however. As you say (and this is something Nev1 is also very good at), these smaller "golden nugget" type pages are critical to making WP great; anyone can find out things about Manchester from any number of places online, but something like Castleshaw Roman fort and the Manchester Mummy are really under-reported on. I'd be happy to help once the next wave of material is noted down - infact, I remember doing my bit not long ago and linking this article to the Hollinwood page. :) --Jza84 | Talk 01:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article's not ready yet, I know that, but hopefully it'll soon be the best article on that subject anywhere. It's always going to be a short article though. I guess I was really trying to draw attention to these little articles, of which we must have loads in the project. Another one I'm determined to do some work on is Jerome Caminada, Manchester's Sherlock Holmes. As you say, Nev1 has a good nose for these little nuggets as well.
Absolutely, which is why I'll probably be holding you both to randsom for some communal copyeditting and detailed peer reviewing (aka slaughtering my pathetic command of standard British English) of Royton, sometime in the very near future! (Actually, I always thought of Royton as Shaw and Crompton's poor relation, but I'm finding out for the first time it was in fact a rather notable and important little place!)
I think you're absolutely right though, and once we had some of our major (top-priority) articles done-and-dusted, I always envisaged the project going down the route of creating smaller but equally informative little gems of knowledge (like for historic houses and coats of arms etc). Of course people are superceding my thoughts and putting it into action before I ever thought we could! I think the Manchester Mummy will be a great example of this, and I'd be happy to help. Of course, I don't have anything on this affair to hand as a source, but I'm willing to do the peer review, copyeditting stuff where my capabilities allow. :) --Jza84 | Talk 02:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really, really like your article. (I've read a couple of books on this in the past, and researched a little about witches in Sunderland etc too). As you did so much for Sunderland Echo recently, do you think it would seem a bit dodgy if I voted 'support' for the witches now? I honestly wouldn't vote if I didn't like it!-- Seahamlass13:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not dodgey at all, and I'd be grateful for the support. Not sure why, but I'm feeling very much like an over-protective mother hen with this article. Just like you did with Navenby I suppose. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I don't think there are any witchcraft FAs, certainly no English ones anyway, so I wanted to try and break some new ground, like you did with the Echo. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - "giving birth" to an article actually feels a little emotional! It's great breaking new ground, though, so much less restrictive... Navenby had to fit in with so many formatting rules (understandably, and I do agree with them), but SE didn't. You just made it up as you went along. I liked that...and Witches is the same. I wish you all the best. It really does deserve it!
No problem at all. It's a great article, and I'm confident this will pass. I had always hoped to have been involved in one way or another, but found no area in which I could improve the page! One minor, minor concern though (and I've put it here rather than FAC), is that in the opening sentence, witch trials points to a dab-page. Wouldn't the Witch hunt article make for a better link??? --Jza84 | Talk 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll take a look; it certainly ought not to go to a dab page anyway. Have you made any progress yet with your Scottish witch articles? There seems to be a lot of fertile ground there. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paisley witch trials is on my to-do list, amongst several graphics I promised various users, and many many Greater Manchester articles I want to continue developing! I may make a stub for the article later on. :) --Jza84 | Talk 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with encyclopedias is that one thing leads to another. Just by innocently following a link, as I did earlier, I came across this, a shocking article for a major 19th-century novelist, born in Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to clog up your talk page...but how much longer can they keep you hanging on???? You've got loads of support and only one, ahem, negative ("firm oppose", does that even exist??!! Well, really...) Does FAC have to last a full week or something? Guess you must be getting through crates of the hard stuff at the mo - But all the best!
I've reached the philosophical stage now. I've dealt with what I consider to be all reasonable comments and pointed out why I don't agree with the remainder. There's nothing else I can do. It's going to be down to SandyG to decide whether those outstanding points, like "cloggy" prose, have merit and are actionable. I think I've made my opinion clear. and I'm not about to add material about the history of witchcraft in England, for instance, as that will likely attract another reviewer to comment on the article's lack of focus. I know that the article is a good FA candidate, and fully deserves to be promoted. I think though that if it does fail, I'll maybe rewrite it slightly to avoid using the words "Roman Catholic". 'Nuff said. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say thanks very much for your copyediting efforts, which ahve been cropping up on my watchlist. Wondered what you thought of the article - being a bit wary, as I've seen the definition of the featured articles process, and want to be confident going in! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no doubt that FAC is a pretty tough gig, but it's not as bad as it's painted in the Devil's Dictionary. I think it's a pretty good article, but I would anticipate some objections at FAC:
I mentioned the lack of images before. Would it nor be possible, for instance, to get an exterior picture of the Ambassador Hotel?
There were a couple of places I wasn't certain that I'd understood what was being said.
The article seems to cover the assassination itself pretty well, but I'm less convinced about its coverage of the aftermath. What effect, if any, did it have on the Democratic Party, for instance? The Kennedy family itself? What happened to Kennedy's wife?
I can certainly sort out the images, and you're right that an expansion of the aftermath section would be useful to fulfil the completeness requirements, so I'll look at those. Once I've done that, I'll get someone else to read it again, and hopefully they'll catch the problems you highlight in the second point. Thanks for your help! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm going to start trying to push a few articles through FAC (at least by the middle of next month, when I hope to be home more). Can I pester you for your copyediting skills on a few in the next few weeks? Ealdgyth - Talk19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Thanks for your GA review of Elsie MacGill. With all the work that you put into making the review, though, I wish you'd also notified the major article authors (myself and Maury Markowitz) -- I don't always keep up with my watchlist, and only just saw that the article had been reviewed and delisted now. Unfortunate all around. thanks, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption is that editors will be looking out for the articles they have an interest in. If you feel that the issues I raised have now been addressed, then I suggest that you nominate the article at GAN and I'll agree to review it again, unless you'd prefer someone else to do the job. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I know I can re-nom it, and will be glad to keep working on the article. My point was just that assuming everyone has an interest in the article actually getting fixed up, notifying major authors when an article is reviewed or nominated for something is easy and courteous. I'm sure other editors of reviewed articles would also appreciate it as well, as there are many reasons why an editor might not see a review without prompting (for instance, I travel quite a bit). Anyway, no worries, just wanted to mention it. best, phoebe / (talk to me) 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly prefer that editors addressed the issues raised during the hold period instead of having to delist an article and then review it again, so I will bear your comments in mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently encountered the GA article Michigan Life Sciences Corridor during a maintenance run and thought to bring it to the attention of an active member of the GA Sweeps project. I tend not to meddle in the actual branding of quality articles, but this article appears sufficiently problematic for its status to take a second look. Although well-sourced relative to the content length, with only two short paragraphs the article seems to fail the GA criteria of broad in its coverage. Much more information certainly exists on the subject. And of the ten total sentences in the article, the final sentence is time-relative and rather a "puff" remark. I leave any action on its continued GA status to your equitable review, should you wish to pursue the matter. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for drawing my attention to that. It's a nice enough little article so far as it goes, but it's clearly not a GA; start class at best I'd say, so I'm going to delist it. Obviously I'll explain on the article's talk page as well, and give some indications of where the article falls short. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
Some topics generate more heat than light, and this seems to be one of them. I'm not really sure what I think about the issue, and I'm going to have to go do some work shortly anyway. I'll take a closer look and probably chip in later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and I share your sentiments. I agree that this is an un-necessary discussion really, and would rather be spending time elsewhere, but owing to persistence, I've found that I'm fighting from the commonsense corner again! I'm trying to close it asap but this is a bit of a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just a comment would suffice here IMO. Hope all is well, --Jza84 | Talk 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again for your help. Part of my motivation was to set a standard for articles in what might be considered to be a tricky area. There is now a witchcraft FA, something that other editors thinking about writing similar articles can now refer to. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I was in the slough of despond a few times during the nomination, but I'd also be the first to admit that the article was significantly improved as a result of comments made by the reviewers. As I've said many times elsewhere, FAC is a tough gig, and so it should be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. If you carry on writing articles on that subject matter, you may get to be known as "The Wicker Man" (I'll get my coat.) DDStretch (talk)
No, I'm not fed up at all. Some random lass writes to you out of the blue about an obscure article and you fix the layout problems and give a huge amount of good advice, plus doing some of the work yourself - you've been great and you've helped me so much. Would you be willing to look over and help me get Netley Abbey to GA standard?Soph (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always happy to help where I can, especially to get an article through GA. Let me know when you think you're done with your current changes and I'll go through the article again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done pretty much everything I can do to it for the moment aside from spotting typos etc so I'm going to leave it alone now until you and Peter I Vardy (who I believe you know from your Cheshire work) have had a look at it. Thanks once again for all your help Soph (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I made another suggestion about the Bibliography on the article's talk page, and I'll take another look through the whole thing tomorrow. I do know Peter from the Cheshire project, yes, and I'd take very seriously any suggestions he has to make; he's an exemplary editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the extra review on Netley Abbey. I've made a detailed response on the article's talk page, but they are all excellent points and I've done the suggested changes, the only thing left now is the two cites missing page numbers. I've contacted the editor (Herthurs) who provided them in the hope that he can help. If he can't I'll delete the references and submit it for GA review in mid August. I agree about Dr Vardy, he's a great editor and I'm taking his comments and changes very seriously. Best wishes, Soph (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, due to your casual remarks on my talkpage recently, u have been maliciously accused to be involved in a collaborative 'witch-hunt' on another editor. Out of fairness, I'm informing u on this case, as I find it was an irresponsible & 'ungentlemanly' act (esp to an English) to accuse someone without notifying him of such act, or given a right to comment. See the full details here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre. I think that must be the first time I've been accused of "detailed collusionary and planned conspiratorial defamtory tactics". What a dickhead. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{Putting on a deerstalker cap, smoking a calabash pipe, and speaking with an English accent} "Elementary, my dear Malleus. Could it be your strong obsession with the 'Pendle witch trials' that led to this aforementioned accusation?" 8-P
Perhaps I should put up another warning notice on my talkpage: "Any passing casual remarks posted here is highly hazardous to your reputation & sanity!"
Looking on the positive side, maybe this incident could serve as an inspiration in your next writeup entry for your highly respected Wiki guide (with registered hits in Google!) - Malleus' WikiSpeak next! ;-0
After being posted with a 10-page long warnings (in print preview mode!), he's currently lying low for the moment, but I would advise u to be on the lookout for him in future, lest u may received another 'stab in the back' again, that may affect your high-profile standing in the GA/FA/RfA circles, or your attempt on another 'stab' (pun not intended) for RfA in future. Remember your cuppa mate! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no more RfAs on the horizon, I've had quite enough of that revenge-fest. On a brighter note, I was pleasantly surprised to see 1,860 Google hits for WikiSpeak, with the first one being to here. Fame (of a sort at least) at last. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to it. I (perhaps naively) believe that our history of Empire hasn't been an altogether bad thing, as it has forged links around the entire globe. Singapore is still a member of the Commonwealth, for instance; we share some of the same history and all of the same democratic ideals. Which, to return to theme, is partly why I found Starstylers comments to be offensive. We should all be proud of what we are, but we also need to be respectful that others are rightly proud of what they are too. I've never backed away from a good old ding-dong, but I never have, and I never would, stoop to the kind of nationalistic abuse I saw from Starstylers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest holding back until SummerSlam (2003)'s review is done. SRX seems to be trying to make these wrestling articles more accessible to a general readership, and if he's successful in that goal, then that would be the template to follow. I still think there's a way to go yet though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Meadowpippit2008.jpg){kind=link}
