This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
THAT was easy... Up for looking at Barbara L? I'll be doing source stuff at FAC tonight, and be gone over the weekend, so no rush, since I won't put Babs up until next week. I've tried to do as much of it as I can... I even did non-breaking spaces! Ealdgyth - Talk21:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
She'll be a lot of repeat stuff from Chicado: race mare, big broodmare, lots of babies. Her racing career was a bit longer, but not as prestigious (no year end titles). More babies, but not as many became big name stallions. Any of the jargon from Chicado will aplly with Babs. MM will come later, I'm not totally convinced there isn't something lurking in my files somewhere that I can use for the divine MM. (I have no desire to dethrone you from the shortest FAC title, which MM as she stands just might.) Ealdgyth - Talk22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Being such a disappointment to Moni, in that I'm definitely hetero, I knew that a long time ago (grins). I'd just like to see something smaller than a hurricane project FAC, where no one can go "it's not really notable" (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk22:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Bring on the bitching about all those horrible teenagers. Bring on all the insulting comments and sweeping assumptions that all teenagers are the same. Conveniently ignore the fact we have dozens, if not hundreds of teenagers participating on Wikipedia, both as admins and ordinary editors – often doing a much better job of it than the "grown-ups". Majorlytalk13:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Should you then bring on the invalid comparisons to racism? How about if we evaluate individuals on their actions and begin by holding off on jumping 10 cognitive leaps from research about teenagers playing with guns to editors mass opposing all RfAs because of maturity issues? --Moni3 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be an amazing day if I looked at the RfA page and saw voters actually evaluate candidates on their actions, rather than this "immaturity" thing pulled from the air. I hope you not seriously suggesting only teenagers play with guns either. Majorlytalk13:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I recognized my own maturity issues, and sought to fix them. Most teenager editors start off immature and go on to become great users. It's the quasi-mature, sarcastic admins who drag us down, at least much moreso than the teenage sysops. ceranthor14:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't believe that only teenagers play with guns. Yes, I believe that younger people have a limited experience base with which to judge a wide variety of issues outside their knowledge and that they tend to overreact, are significantly affected by external influences: praise and recognition from others, for example. This is not limited only to teenagers, but it occurs overwhelmingly in this age bracket. You're accusing the wrong person here of slights. I'm recommending that everyone judge editors based on their actions and posts. When those actions and posts reflect jumping to conclusions, foolhardy edits, and behavior similar to what I saw when I taught...indeed...what I did what I was an adolescent, then concerns about maturity should be expressed. I suggest getting your dander up when someone is addressing you specifically. I have seen posts here about ignorant Americans, POV-pushing faggots, feminazi bimbos, elitist FA writers...I choose to respond when someone addresses me directly. Otherwise, I waste my time worrying about generalities that do not apply to me. --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC) *snark*
When you say "here", I hope you don't mean that you've seen anyone called a "POV-pushing faggot", or a "feminazi bimbo" on this talk page ... ah wait, I've just noticed that you mentioned "ignorant American" as well; it's a fair cop 'guv. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum14:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Meant Wikipedia in general. Should any of your talk page frequenters include me in the ignorant American category, they know where my talk page is and can address me directly. --Moni3 (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I can see that. Wikipedia's teenage editors are all the more mature ones, no really immature teenager would "waste their time" on this project. That is my two cents. ceranthor14:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I find this discussion strange on so many different levels, not least of which is that very few of us know anything about each other's real identitiy or age. You for instance, Ceranthor, appear to be claiming that you're a teenager, but are you really? I claim to be well past my teens, but am I really? --MalleusFatuorum14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Grumpy old git's nearer the mark for sure. Apart from which I'm far too lazy to pretend to adopt a different online identity than what I am, a grumpy old git. :-) --MalleusFatuorum14:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've really got too much else on at the moment to be able to do much to help. I've got twoarticles of my mine on the burner, I'm helping with another at peer review, and I'm trying to help finish GA Sweeps. Perhaps in a few weeks ... sorry. --MalleusFatuorum18:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. If it strikes your fancy, check over there in a few weeks; I suspect it won't be stabilized by then. Cheers! Frank | talk 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
And maybe that's my problem here :-) Anyway, this one isn't so much "unfolding" as "bouncing frenetically around cyberspace"...but you've got the right idea. Cheers! Frank | talk 00:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh bugger! I've been found out. Strange that nobody else bothered to tell me that I was a sock of RickK's and obviously related to WebHamster ... to be fair though I expect that everyone thought I probably already knew that. There are some weird people about, with even weirder ideas. --MalleusFatuorum17:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at where Ottava's post lead, I found User:RickK, where "There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do" looks very familiar but was written 04:32, Jun 21, 2005 - how depressing. --Philcha (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I will need you to look over some pages and work on some leads related to the 9 part Ainsworth DYK (dual credit, but don't worry about not adding much content). I mostly want to do that before we get into something like the Lancanshire Witches to really get comfortable with writing about Ainsworth's novels and the such. Also, a big set would attract some attention to Ainsworth and possibly make things easier when working on the great one. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset
Could I beg a little of your time to look over Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset. The seventh (& last) of these lists which I'm working on getting up to FL status. I still need to make the dates sort, but otherwise I think it's getting there. Any comments or c/e on prose before I nominate it would be greatly appreciated.— Rodtalk22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well there's not much that can be done about that article, it's purpose is to act as a summary and a directory, so I can't see a way it could become featured. It might be worth choosing Somerset as the lead article and just letting the voters hash it out at FTC. The good thing about FTC is that if it goes wrong it's not going to spill over onto the articles – or so it seems to me anyway from my very limited experience of it – as reviewers don't examine the articles for inter-consistency for example (they take it for granted that GAC and FAC did their job), they just examine the link between the articles. If you chose to go ahead with Somerset as the lead, you could basically say "here's the topic, here are my reasons, take it or leave it". Nev1 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits & comments - I've had another go at the buildings working in chronological order in Bath & the rest of the area - it would be great if you could take another look.— Rodtalk10:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any sources at all on the topic; that's the nominators job, not yours or mine. I do what I can with these football articles, but I draw the line at searching out sources. --MalleusFatuorum00:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
My memory isn't what it was—actually it probably is, because it was always very selective—but wasn't it you who asked me to take a look at Badnjak? What do you think of it now? Ready for FAC? --MalleusFatuorum01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks really good, I did notice that at 5 am when I woke up and couldn't get back to sleep...but then I did. The badnjak log is ready to be chucked on the fire now.Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
FAC is always going to be picky, but if we both keep an eye on it, and help where we can, I'm pretty confident that it can get that bronze star. --MalleusFatuorum02:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Who would ever have predicted almost a quarter of a million views in one month for what so many thought was an obvious hoax and tried so hard to get deleted. --MalleusFatuorum19:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't do Sport anyway, but I had WP:GAN on my watchlist and I saw that you had recently added it. Sorry, the WP:GAN was in the wrong place, at the wrong time. You obviously ignored the advice about going for a PR instead. Anyway, I enjoyed reviewing a well-written English-English article. Pyrotec (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really do PR, but I might think about taking it there first if I ever get the motivation to try at FAC. Some topics are just small though, and I suspect this is one of them. I'm happy with GA. --MalleusFatuorum16:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed, but the article passed FA earlier this week, so thanks again for the copyedit you put into it. On a related note, a wanted to express on this page my admiration for the writers on this site who are able to write high-quality and professional articles on a wide variety of subjects. I've written several articles on modern F1 races, and with Rudi's article I wrote one on a German driver in the 1930s, but to be able to jump from paintings to film to Nazis to (for example) witches is a talent I find incredibly impressive. That we have so many writers here who can do that (many of them watch this talk page, and they know who they are) I think speaks volumes about the strength of Wikipedia, in spite of its faults. Just my two cents. Apterygial03:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, it's a nice piece of work that deserved its promotion. Look forward to seeing Rudi on the main page. It's not easy making sports articles accessible to non-specialists, but you did a fine job with this one; hopefully we're going to see many more from you. --MalleusFatuorum12:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't know how good the chances are of Rudi making the main page. He would have got four points at the requests page, but Archie Jackson (on the main page today) cuts that in half. I might ask Raul... Apterygial12:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've had more "success" with TFA by just leaving it to Raul to pick whatever he likes. I've only once nominated for TFA, and I found it to be an incomprehensible, arbitrary, and frustrating process that I can't imagine ever going through again. Especially as the reward is another frustrating couple of days cleaning up the inevitable vandalism. --MalleusFatuorum12:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. I know journalists who say they love getting angry mail because they know it means they are being read. Vandalism is perhaps as close as we get here, particularly with the more obscure subjects (I think some people think motorsport started with Schumacher, and are alarmed to find people were doing it a little earlier). Apterygial13:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Journalists have the advantage that nobody tries to rewrite or "correct" their piece though. After this hit the main page it had to be protected for two days because some religious cranks were convinced that King James I was a Calvinist. --MalleusFatuorum13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Myra Hindley
I have Inside the Mind of a Murderess by Jean Ritchie. I won't have an internet connection for the next few days as I'm away, but I may have spare time to copy the article onto my laptop and add stuff from this book.
No, I haven't read that yet. I've been focusing on trying to get the basic facts straight, so I've been largely relying on Topping's book for that—he was the detective in charge of the later investigation, so I'm assuming that he's about as reliable a source as there is for that at least. There's still a big gap in the article though, in trying to explain how it was that Hindley allowed herself to get caught up in the murders, so hopefully there'll be something in Ritchie's book to help out with that. --MalleusFatuorum20:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no rush, I've found the article a bit heavy-going anyway, so I've not been doing as much as I had hoped. In my defence I've been taking a bit of light relief at Manchester Martyrs. Having successfully roused the religious warriors I thought I might as well see what I could do with the Ireland warriors. :-)
Thanks :) I got up at 6am, drove 150 miles, worked almost 12 hours, an hour to the (shit) hotel, bed, then up at 6am again, 45 min drive, 12 hours work, and finally a 150 mile drive home. I am, to be polite about it, fecking knackered :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Just do what I used to do when chasing my ass all over the country doing stuff I didn't want to be doing in places I'd rather not be. Close your eyes and think of the money. :-) --MalleusFatuorum22:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the easiest thing for me to do is type up the salient points in this book. Its a mixture of fact, and opinion, so I'll use formatting to add notes to this sandbox. If you prefer, you can then whip things out of there and add to the MM or MH articles as you please. I'll make sure that you're perfectly aware of what is the author's opinion, and what is stated as fact, from this book. If you don't get time, once I've gone through the majority of the book, I'll add some bits myself to the main articles - but as they're your baby, you may have a better idea of where things should go. It does appear to be giving good information though on how she turned from a likeable sweet child into a manipulative/manipulated woman. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I trust your judgement to add whatever's relevant in the appropriate place. I haven't really done much with MH's article anyway, other than a quick look to see if it's wildly at variance with what's being said in MM. --MalleusFatuorum19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
PS. I'm not so sure that she was ever really all that much of a "sweet little child". Her father (who was a boxer IIRC) taught her how to fight when she was quite young, and she leathered a few of the lads she grew up with by all accounts. --MalleusFatuorum19:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you'd consider backing down slightly from your confrontational demeanor. I understand you disagree with a lot of recent edits and are probably frustrated, but you can challenge edits on the talk page without doing things like threatening FAR (or asking if people are calling you a liar). There are no emergencies on Wikipedia, so having a calm discussion on the subject, such as simply asking why people might assume Calvinism influenced the incident, might work out better instead of threats. Equazcion (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
No need to wonder, because the answer is no. What I have decided to do though is to take the article off my watchlist until the religious warriors have stopped bickering over it. In a month or so I'll go back and take another look at it, and if I think it's been damaged beyond repair by their squabbling then I'll take it to FAR. That's not a threat, that's a promise. --MalleusFatuorum22:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am incredibly disappointed that you can't conduct this debate without resorting to personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Personally, I don't care whether you take it to FAR or not, threat or promise. I'm interested in trying to work collaboratively to improve the article by reaching consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc)22:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest that the day after the article has appeared on the main page is not the best day to go making huge changes, mainly because the main author is almost always incredibly stressed from fighting vandalism all day when it's on the main page. As someone said above, there are no emergencies, so taking time to discuss before editing is probably a good plan, no? Ealdgyth - Talk22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Do with the article as you will Equazcion, I'm done with it. Your accusations of "personal attacks" and not "assuming good faith" just stink of hypocrisy to me. There is no intention to "improve" the article, just blatant attempts to present a particular religious viewpoint that is at best tangential to the story. But of course you know best. I wish to God that I'd never written the bloody article now; it's distressing to watch it being destroyed by pov warriors. --MalleusFatuorum22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
From what I see, I am confused why both Equazcion and Scott are not yet blocked. Disruption alone would warrant 24 hours. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I would be blocked. I have no side in the POV war, as I don't know enough about history to feel strongly either way. I was just trying to help come to some compromise between the two sides, and to that end I edited the article a total of twice, once to implement Malleus' compromise suggestion and the next directly afterward to clarify my own edit ("in" to "during"). Malleus, I didn't accuse you of personal attacks or AGF violations. Equazcion (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"I am incredibly disappointed that you can't conduct this debate without resorting to personal attacks and assumptions of badEquazcion" faith." So who the fuck were you talking to there then? Yourself? --MalleusFatuorum22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Doh! I'm really sorry Equazcion, I guess the red mist had descended. I think you were doing your best to help reach a compromise, but things have obviously got a little out of hand since then. I initially thought, perhaps like you, that this was simply an objection to the phrase "a product of", which seems to mean different things depending on which side of the Atlantic you live, but it's subsequently become clear that the agenda is far deeper than that. I have no problems at all with what you've done, and no hard feelings I hope. --MalleusFatuorum22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Let's hope the warring subsides and the talk page discussion remains relatively calm. I've actually requested temporary full protection for the article, though I'm not sure what the general feeling is towards full-protecting today's featured article. I hope your break from the article is productive. We all need one once in a while. Equazcion (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, if that is the case then I redact to just Scott. I assumed like Malleus that you were referring to Malleus. Scott's reading things that are not there in any regard is really bothering me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, but just to clarify, I haven't seen Scott do anything that deserves to be blocked either, and I'm not sure exactly what disruption you're referring to, that might be worthy of a block. He participated in a heated discussion as all of us did. Also to clarify, I wasn't referring to Scott in any accusation. Rather, I never made any accusations. I was correcting Malleus regarding who made the accusatory comments in the first place -- The piece of dialog Malleus quoted actually came from Scott, not myself, which is why I pasted his signature from that comment in response. Equazcion (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The disruption is claiming that the word "protestant" refers to "Calvinism" in a situation where it very clearly does not. To try to change a page while promoting such a believe is in violation of many editing policies and just completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it's really not. You seem to disagree with Scott's edits, and people don't get blocked for disagreeing with you, even if you're entirely convinced that they're wrong. Equazcion (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Disagreement is one thing, being able to count the number of his reversions is quite another. It seems ex-sysops are not obliged to conform to 3RR. --WebHamster11:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Only because no one complained, I think. Regardless, if one side was guilty of that then both were. It's over now anyway, I think, at least for a while. Equazcion (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It's over for a day because of the protection and because it got locked on 'the wrong version'. There was only 1 editor there with a 5RR+. I'm steering clear of the discussion simply because there appears to be no point in arguing with someone who shouts POV as foul then simply wants to stamp his own POV on the article. That is what gets editors blocked, ie the editors who truly don't have a POV that is. The POV warrior will just blissfully carry on thinking he's right because a mate of his is able to block the editors arguing with him. Just another example of Mal being correct about the corruption within the admin fraternity. --WebHamster11:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I see no sign of POV editing, but there does seem to be a misunderstanding between those who are aware that the Scottish Reformation and the Church of Scotland are Calvinist in character, & those who are not. It was Malleus who introduced Calvinism into the article, though he seems not to realize it - his source - "product of the Scottish Reformation" - assumed more general knowledge on the matter than he or Ottava seem to have. Anyone who looks at our respective lists of articles will see that Scott's interests include Church of Scotland topics & mine Catholic ones, yet we seem to me to have no difference as to facts that could or should be in the article. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
To claim that the Church of Scotland is Calvinist would be like claiming that Augustine's influence over Calvin makes him a Catholic. Obviously, to make either claim is laughably absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If, as seems likely, you're determined to continue talking bollocks then please do so elsewhere. I'm just not interested in your half-understood ideas, perennial misunderstandings, and extreme pettiness. --MalleusFatuorum19:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
"You seem to disagree with Scott's edits" - What I disagree with is someone edit warring in order to push something that is not only historically inaccurate but grammatically absurd. His acts are vandalism of the highest order. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This really makes me want to just cuss you out. Blah!!!!! Notability simply because it was from 1914, even though there is -no- ability to expand it more than a sentence? Gesh! I am surprised you are defending one of Dr Blofields mass created articles with such a rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, permit me to defend myself. I think that the overwhelming majority of Dr Blofeld's sub-stubs were worthless, something that I think even he now admits. In this particular instance though I think a film made in 1914 is notable simply because of its age, and I've no doubt that more could be discovered about it if anyone had the motivation to investigate. --MalleusFatuorum01:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I spent time in a library, the National Archives online database, the LoC database, the DC consortium database (Aladdin), and all of the public access information. The most that can be found is that it had a title and a year. There is no info on even run time. This is as dry as dry can be. And movies came out before 1914, so, it would not be old enough to be worth while on that note, plus it can be listed on the article about 1914 films with just as much information. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
"Dry as dry can be" isn't a criterion for deletion. And it's not quite true to say that "the most that can be found is that had a title and a year", as there's also a cast list. Surely you know me well enough by now Ottava to know that once I've made my mind up I rarely change it. :-) --MalleusFatuorum01:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava. I think you must be mistaking me for someone who gives a shit whether the article is deleted or not. I see no harm in keeping it and no harm in deleting it, so on balance I'd keep it. --MalleusFatuorum01:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You don't know User:DGG. Oh Malleus, you have to get out more. Sigh. DGG is one of our top inclusionists. But yeah, this article will forever be one sentence, without even a reliable source for that one sentence. Sigh, I don't even know why we have V, RS, or N when editors just seem to have no concern about such articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the differences between us is that I don't categorise editors as X or Y, and I take everyone as I find them, no matter what our previous encounters. --MalleusFatuorum02:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I would think you are purposefully trying to frustrate me. Bah! DGG is a self described inclusionist. It is not like I am trying to negatively characterize him. He does good in his zeal to defend adding content to the encyclopedia. However, he has a very strong inclusion standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, DGG has personally deleted over 8300 pages from Wikipedia as an admin. I'm an exclusionist/deletionist (although softened as of late) I've spent a good deal of time over my 1.5 years as an admin patrolling newpages and speedy delete candidates, and have only managed to weed out about 3000 pages. Where exactly does DGG "self-describe" himself as inclusionist, pray tell? Keeper | 7600:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That's because I caught what Malleus had. By the way, I'm mostly referring to AfDs. Who knows what all of his deletions are but I doubt he has done that many AfDs, and if so he would be abiding by consensus regardless. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have begun to see that link as a step in wikipedia's maturation, not about me at all really. So who knows, maybe one day it will turn blue. Not today though. --MalleusFatuorum01:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Didn't mean to stir up that kind of trouble just popping by. :-) Do you need me to find all your "never ever again" links to remind you how useless "adminning" is? Wait for the de-bundle. It could happen. Look at all the piecemeal add-ons and bolt-ons already in existence, snowball starting with rollbacker and now auto-this and auto-that. The admin regime needs to fall, it is ridiculously bureaucratic and meaningless and filled with children. The article writers will outlast them, because they care about the encyclopedia more than their own status and up-levelling. Of course, if you did RFA3, I'd be a supporter for these very reasons. Of all the wikipedians, I still find you to be the one that would be the most unlikely to ever block another editor, and therefore one of the better admins. Keeper | 7601:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Malleus and I would do better as Arbitrators than admin. Slower pace and all. PS, Malleus, can I make my RfA 2 all about you? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, I would probably be just about the worst arbitrator ever. I'm very short on patience, so ArbCom's snail's pace would drive me to distraction. --MalleusFatuorum01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, one obvious difference is that I haven't got the slightest interest in being an arbitrator, and I can't imagine that ever changing. Just not interested. --MalleusFatuorum01:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to be obtuse, but no, I'm not. I'm rather interested in the process by which administrators are chosen. Perhaps it will all become clearer in time. Or then again perhaps it won't. --MalleusFatuorum01:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Whatever will be, will be, then. You are an ideal candidate, which is exactly why you may likely never pass the (current) admin selection process. You are honest and fair, and you are willing to call a pile of shit a pile of shit because it is a pile of shit. Terminal qualities in today's rfa climate. Keeper | 7601:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, are you interesting in joining an elite team of crime fighting super heroes? You get to choose your own nickname, costume, and the benefits are through the roof. Plus, you get to punch vandals and ne'er do wells in the face! Think it over. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll put that on my watchlist. Actually I quite enjoyed working on the article, made me feel all Christmassy. :-)
There's bound to be some comment and criticism, but the key to success at FAC, I think anyway, is not to take any of it personally, but try as best you can to either deal with or refute the points being made. I'm quietly confident it'll get through. --MalleusFatuorum16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it gets through, it would be a perfect candidate for the Main Page on 6 January :-) Of course, I won't take any criticism personally. Still, I think that at some point your support might be crucial, and if you believe in its success then there might be some chance for its promotion :) VVVladimir (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you still engaged in the GA process? I decided to nominate an article to see how the process works (Steve Lukather). Some research problems are preventing me from approaching FA quality, so why not. I suppose I should review a couple while I'm there? --Andy Walsh(talk)18:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I am yes. Tell you what, I'll review Luke if you review another one in the music queue. I don't have any nominations there, or anywhere else for that matter, so there can be no accusations of quid pro quo. --MalleusFatuorum18:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I got there before I thought I would, interesting article. I've made a few comments in the review, which is now on hold, nothing too serious I don't think. --MalleusFatuorum21:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks—your comments will be a huge help. One of my above-mentioned research problems was finding anything on his personal life. He's tight-lipped about it, and if any details of his personal life make it out on the internet he gets them taken down. The dead link used to be his blog, which he apparently removed after details of some internal Toto quarrels came out in the comments. Heh. Will dig around, though. I'll ping you when I've responded to your feedback. --Andy Walsh(talk)21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I suspected that might be the case. As far as I'm concerned there's enough biographical material already for that not to be a worry if you can't find anything else, at least for GA anyway. --MalleusFatuorum21:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Malleus! I know that you are usually busy with half a dozen other projects at any one time, but I was wondering if you would have a few minutes to look over an article that I am improving with a near-term FAC in mind? Icelandic horse is the article, and it's already had a few eyes on it, but I would love for it to get the benefit of your wonderful copyediting skills. Your work was extremely helpful in advance of the FAC for Suffolk Punch, and I'm hoping to take the Icelandic article through that gauntlet in the same prepared fashion. Thanks in advance, whether you have the time or not! Dana boomer (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
What's the usual timescale in reviewing GANs? An editor reviewing a nominated article of mine hasn't responded to my replies in the review page for a week now. It doesn't help that the article was waiting at GAN for several months before someone reviewed it, and it also doesn't help that the reviewer is a newly registered user. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It varies, but usually not much longer than a week unless the nominator is actively dealing with some of the issues raised and needs more time to deal with them. Which article is it? --MalleusFatuorum12:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, disappointing. I'll post a second opinion on the review and then ask Keristrasza if (s)he intends to complete the review. If there's no reply after a few days then I'll close it myself. --MalleusFatuorum12:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I think! ;) That article I think will be up for mucho vandalism shortly, what with this possible BBC invitation. How do you think it'd fare at FAC? Badly? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think with just a little bit more polishing it might do well. I'd have a slight concern about the Views section though, as it does come across as pretty negative. Do Griffin or the BNP have no views/policies that aren't controversial? --MalleusFatuorum15:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
They probably do. Most people view them as right-wing, personally I think they're more old-Labour with a hint of racism myself. The trouble is finding sources that publish such details. As you can imagine, the mass media in this country isn't really inclined to publish nice things about the man. That's why some of the 'balancing' I've inserted into the article tends to be about the BNP, rather than the man. Its ok I think though as Griffin has full control over just about everything the BNP does or says. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking over the "policies" section on the BNP website, there are a fair few uncontroversial-even-if-you-don't-agree policies ("Bring hospital cleaning back in-house and make high cleanliness a top priority", "The reversal of the programme to close special needs schools which penalises the most vulnerable", "Make joint custody of children the norm in divorce cases", "Reject ID cards, intrusive surveillance and the retention of DNA samples of the innocent"...). The problem is, they don't make as interesting reading as the "prosecute Ian Duncan Smith as a war criminal" extremism, nor are they as relevant as they don't define the man in the same way—Abraham Lincoln and Joseph Stalin don't include their views on whether stray dogs should be rehoused or put down, or the pros-and-cons of asphalt vs tarmac for road surfacing, even though their governments presumably had policies on them. – iridescent12:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The GAR page however states that often its simpler to just renominate it. Its annoying though, I think a lot of people won't touch it for fear of being labelled. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I think in this case, partly because of the controversial nature of the subject, you're more likely to get quick feedback from GAR. Also the article seems pretty close to GA already so GAR might not be too intense. It's up to you of course. Nev1 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I very much agree with that. Not only will a new reviewer have to deal with a controversial subject but also with a controversial review, and so I've got no doubt at all that a community GAR is really the only realistic option. --MalleusFatuorum15:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok you asked for permission on my talk page Malleus and you have it - you know more about GA than I do, so I'm happy to go with whatever you suggest. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Are there many more in the pipeline? Just thinking I might be able to rustle up a few sources with a bit of advance notice, or at the very least give a heads-up to other football editors who might be able to help out. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Right now MUFC would fail, because of its serious lack of inline citations. Take a look at the 1969–1986 section for instance, which is completely uncited. --MalleusFatuorum12:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. Could've sworn it used to be better, maybe I was thinking of another United-related article. Plenty to chew on there. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't remember there ever being a time when the History section of the Man Utd article was well-referenced, but that's probably only because I've been spending most of my time working on the other articles in Category:Manchester United F.C. I'll give the article a good look at some point over the next few days. – PeeJay13:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Differences
I've settled my differences with PofD. I've given him some guff on Pink Floyd that he didn't know about.
As for you, I suggest that you talk to me directly, if you have anything more to say. Cheers, Basingwerk (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't have anything to say to you in the first place other than to call you to task for making unfounded accusations against the good faith efforts of other editors, which I've done. --MalleusFatuorum17:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You're placing far too much emphasis on the weight of your importance to me Basingwerk. I couldn't care less what you think of me, and I'm not interested in settling any differences. In fact I have no interest, in you, at all. I am however interested in unsourced additions and personal attacks, and deleting warnings from your talk page won't actually stop anyone else interested from investigating further. Please do carry on. Malleus I'm sorry this person is posting this rubbish on your talk page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your copyedits to the Autobianchi Primula. It was nice of you to spend some time tidying up this quite forgotten article while reviewing it. That said, as a formerly active member of the WikiProject Good Articles I am somewhat disappointed with the lack of a full review. This would be most helpful to bring this article up to standard. I have also found it good practice to post a review and leave some time to the editors keeping the article in their watchlist to act upon it before delisting. Often a lot can be improved as the attention is drawn to the article's shortcomings.
Would you be so kind and spend a tad more time providing a brief review according to WIAGA? If you could also take back the delisting and leave it on good-faith hold, it would be an absolutely brilliant opportunity to get back to this article and improve it further with the added motivation on "saving" one of the few automotive GAs.
As I said at the review, my two main concerns are the lack of citations in an apparently important section of the article and the lack of content; I mentioned modifications throughout the car's production run as one example. That there had been a request for citation ignored for two and a half years did not fill me with confidence that any editors would step forward to expand this article, so I'm pleased to see your desire to help get it back its GA listing.
The article at present is far short of meeting the GA criteria in my opinion, and needs significant work that's probably best not done under the pressure of a GA reassessment. What I will do though is undertake to look at it again once you've finished your work on it, and review it at GAN when you think that its ready. --MalleusFatuorum19:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much again! I have not noticed your review, as I am more accustomed to reviewers transcluding them into talk pages. I believe it would be beneficial to do so. I will get down to work on the article tomorrow (it's almost 11 PM in the CET zone). Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I translude live reviews onto the talk page, but closed ones are linked from the article history. BTW, just to cheer you up a bit I reviewed this auomotive GA earlier, and it's kept its GA listing. So that's the kind of thing I'm expecting to see really, although I'd have preferred it not to rely so heavily on a single source. But this is GA. not FA, so I don't expect perfection. --MalleusFatuorum20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Another idiot magnet
I'm sure you will have noticed that I've temporarily suspended by duties at WP:GM of late, and have been working on one of those "idiot magnets" again. I'm working on a totally revamped version of the Cornish people article (just take a look at what state it's in!) per this discussion. My draft is at User:Jza84/Sandbox5.
I am likely to need an independant editor, who happens to be a good copyeditor, to take a look at this in the next few days, just to make sure I haven't made any silly mistakes. I'm not particularly interested in the topic as it happens, but I've thoroughly enjoyed working on something that is so unconventional for me. As far as I can see, it's about 95% finished (still need a few statements to be referenced), and was wondering if you'd be that independant editor to give me a hand before publishing this to the world? --Jza84 | Talk 18:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't work too hard. Next week (probably) I'll have almost finished building the basic content for this, and I'll be expecting one of Wikipedia's best copyeditors to at least give the 120-150kb or so finished version a little bit of a polish :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad, because you have a lot of Ainsworth to think about. Anyway, this proved to meet the title rather well, but I think the instigator of the mess is probably why. Anyone who thinks a non-notable film that shouldn't even have an article is some how even close to a very famous poem by one of the greatest poets ... well, there is one word for them, and I don't understand how such a person is even allowed to walk around without being banned. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I only wanted to get an admin to quickly move over a redirect because users like myself aren't privileged enough to have that power. ;/ It isn't my fault some troll decided to claim that a completely non-notable film somehow rivals one of the best short poems by one of the most famous British poets. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Seriously Ottava, I didn't see any evidence that moving the page was malicious and crying that it was because Jeni is a troll and has a grudge sounds like cheap and desperate rhetoric and does you no credit. It's pretty easy to see how someone unfamiliar with either subject area could think that neither subject is a primary topic. This could have been easily resolved at WP:RM without the drama-fest of an AN thread and an ANI thread because Jeni thought you were out of line in calling for her head on a plate. Nev1 (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As I proved here, there are -no- sources on the movie. There is no discussion of the movie. The movie is a 10 minute obscure film made 95 years ago. There is -no- possible way to say that there is any comparison between the two. She made the move simply because she has hated me for a long time and wanted to spite me in IRC. She made that perfectly clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by lack of knowledge.
If you post a link in IRC, people will look. I can only assume that Jeni looked at both articles and neither seemed to be a primary topic so created a dab page. Sure, it's a 10 minute move that's nearly 100 years old, but that's a rubbish argument for it being less notable. The Tennyson poem is 16 lines written over 150 years ago, but neither length nor age has any bearing on notability. The links you've provided prove that the Tennyson poem is the primary use, but the burden of proof was with you and if Jeni didn't know then it was fair enough that she moved the page. I've got no idea what your interactions with her on IRC are like and I don't think it can be proven (they don't keep logs of IRC chat do they?) but claiming it was done just to piss you off seems a little off to me. Nev1 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a very long history of Jeni doing stuff like this to me and causing problems on IRC against me. So, yeah. And Nev, the Tennyson poem is anthologized in just about every major Tennyson collection and is one of his greatest short poems. The movie has -nothing- on it that can be found online except for Wiki and IMDB. There is also a huge difference between a Tennyson poem and -any- short silent film. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In that case, you may like to provide some links to back your assertion that there's a long history between you and Jeni. WP:V should be made a policy in project space as well as mainspace. Sure, I'll agree as a matter of principle that any Tennyson poem is more notable than half the films made today, never mind a silent film (although something like The Tramp would be an exception), but you decided to mention that "The movie is a 10 minute obscure film made 95 years ago" even though that has no relevance to notability. That kind of tangential detail detracts from your argument and obscures the valid points you make. Did your opening statement at WP:AN put into context how insignificant the film is? No, you merely asserted that it's a "very obscure silent film". Nev1 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be easier just to provide witnesses. And the word "obscure" is very relevant to notability. I already proved on multiple places that there are -no- references online that discuss the film. It is up to the person claiming that the film is not obscure to provide links. You have to -prove- notability, not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Witnesses can misremember things, links are better, but provided neither about your past with Jeni. I vaguely recall seeing some bad natured interaction between you two, but I'd hesitate to give details because I don't remember them. Something can be obscure but still notable, take the example of Nico Ditch, an obscure subject but with proven notability. Now the film article should have asserted notability (although from the way the AfD is heading it didn't), and it the burden to prove it is notable is on the author. However, you claimed that the poem is the primary topic, essentially more notable, and no matter how you spin it you didn't back that up in you initial statement. Nev1 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did - the article itself had multiple highly reliable secondary sources. That alone proves that it was more notable than the other, since the other lacked -any- sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You've provided evidence that proves the poem is the primary topic, but not that there was any malicious intent. The second part was a bad call IMO. Time to move on from this I think, for me at least. Nev1 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There was no attempt at consensus or communication, there was no attempt at dispute, and there was a statement saying it was what I deserved to have happen. I think that is strong evidence that she didn't act appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Check out this bit of delusional rambling by those two. The amusing thing is that they honestly believe that their constant edit warring and POV pushing on tons of pages is some how equal to my content work. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
--Wow! This thread went in a direction I didn't anticipate!.... Anyway.... I think I've completed my final, pre-copyedit draft of this at User:Jza84/Sandbox5. If you could spare any time in the next 24-48 that would be great. The lead was agreed upon by consensus, but everything bar that is game for anatomisation! --Jza84 | Talk 23:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have some time, could you work on User:Ottava Rima/Cruikshank authorship dispute. We need to figure out a better title (it could just be named for the one pamphlet, Artist and the Author) and possibly find some more sources. George Cruikshank's Life, Times, and Art Should have some more content and some more of Cruikshank's perspective. There should probably be a few more books out there. Googlebooks might have something, but it is always spotty for those in the kingdom. I'll drop some of the other pages on your doorstep that will need some small work and possibly some leads before going to DYK. I want to get this set out to provide a basis to really start going into the more exciting Ainsworth stuff (witches witches and more witches). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about Cruikshank. Wouldn't this be better folded into Cruikshank's own article, which looks pretty sparse as is. When can we get to the witches and highwaymen? I don't think DYK is worth chasing anyway, pretty much a waste of time and space IMO. --MalleusFatuorum01:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It isn't about Cruikshank, and he deserves his own article. This is about a publication of a pamphlet which claimed rights over many of Ainsworth's novels and one of Dickens. And I would like to have Ainsworth have some prominence before going after anything else. Anyway, this is the list of the articles that are connected to the topic. Rookwood, Jack Sheppard, Guy Fawkes, come on, you know they have to appeal to you. I'll be doing the brunt work if you don't want to do that. However, I do need help with these big sets in terms of leads and other finishing aspects which done require that much work. Since you are interested in the guy I would hope you would be willing to lend a small bit of your time to these articles before tackling the witches in full depth. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
In general though I don't like the idea of holding these articles back so as to make a big wave at DYK. I really couldn't care less about DYK; I think it's just a waste of main page space. --MalleusFatuorum01:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, these books are all independently notable, so, whats the big deal? And the pamphlet is about the claim, so it would be necessary to have the background and then the newspaper spots with the original claim (since the Pamphlet is just a publication and expansion of the newspaper claim). If you want to find some more sources on the pamphlet and expand, feel free. That was just a start anyway. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I know they are, but that's nothing to do with DYK, and it wasn't what I was disputing anyway. I was talking about this one article on Cruikshank's pamphlet, which ought to be given the name of the pamphlet and moved into mainspoace, not held back for some DYK award. --MalleusFatuorum01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Its not done, and I would rather have the set of articles that are part of the dispute so that people, when clicking on the article, will see a lot of information on Ainsworth. This man was basically shoved aside in British criticism and I would like to give him the honor he deserves as a major author by having something well written instead of just half developed crap. ;/ Look at Characters of Shakespear's Plays - 40k when I put that to DYK. I want people who click on these articles from the main page to go "hmm, there is a lot of great information on a topic I never knew existed" instead of saying "this guy must be a douche because there are only a few sentences and looks like it was written by some jerk just wanting to get a number higher". Does that make sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
And one of the things that helps is having mostly well developed pages in a big set. People see the large set, it gets noticed, they take time and look through many of the pages, etc. Putting one or two at a time would clog DYK, cause problems, and be boring when it shows up. I use DYK to promote my cause (literature or whatever), as it is a tool that can get thousands of views within just a 6 hour period. The only thing that can get such attention besides on a normally searched topic is TFA, and it takes a lot more effort for such a thing to happen. Don't be afraid of DYK as it can serve as a strong tool to use. Plus, I find it an honour to be the one to be responsible for some of the greatest Brits ever to be listed there. Tennyson will be there soon, as well as Ainsworth, John Keats, William Blake, Robert Southey, Leigh Hunt, and a few others that I will be trying to finish before midway through October. To already have 50% of them be dedicated to high literature makes this a -real- encyclopedia, not just some crappy collection of television shows, unknown bands, and BLP violations. I have many articles sitting in my subpage section slowly being worked on. I have a set of Johnson's sermons and pages dedicated to Keats's attempt at an epic that will probably be there for a while. It is all part of trying to bring some of the most important parts of high culture in British history to Wiki and separate it from everyone else. If only the Queen gave out medals for this. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Xit was a minor character in Ainsworth's "Tower of London", a kind of dwarf pet of the Tower guards. There's a range of cameras called Xits[2] which seem to be called these days "Zits" by camera collectors. It's possible that Shew named the camera after the dwarf (small sized camera)- I'm wondering whether the original pronunciation was "chit" as in "a mere chit of a boy".Ning-ning (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, I'm going to be traveling, with sporadic and slow internet access, through the end of September. Since we're in the era of Johnson's 300th birthday, and he's getting lots of publicity, can I interest you in watchlisting Samuel Johnson and Samuel Johnson's early life, at least through his September 18th birthday? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me, even if it was on Ealdgyth's talk page. I've spent a few hours converting the book sources in the Virginia article to Harvard style, and was hoping you could look over them for any obvious errors if you had a second. I also wondered something in general—what's the though on wikilinking in a citation. As in, linking the author, when possible, seems approved of, but what about linking the publisher, or the city of publication? Thanks again, and I hope you can support us next week when I'd like to put this up for FAC.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 03:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The obvious problem is that you've now lost the page numbers. The idea is to include the page number(s) in the {{Harvnb}} template, as in {{Harvnb|Chambers|2005|p=25}}, or {{|Harvnb|Smith|1997|pp=35–37}} for a range of pages. So long as the publisher is only linked on its first occurrence, as the author also ought to be, I can't see that anyone would object to a link. Bit dubious about linking the city of publication though; why would anyone be inclined to follow such a link? --MalleusFatuorum12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there should only be two now with a missing page number, marked with "Verification needed" in the text. One of these is already covered by another reference, but I'd asked the user who added the book in question if they could find the page number for me anyways. Thanks for looking it over.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 14:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like there's a lot of work gone into this article, so you want to be sure to take it to FAC in the best shape you can. You'll be amazed how picky FAC reviewers can. For instance, looking through quickly I noticed that the way numbers are represented isn't consistent. The usual rule is that numbers under ten are written out and those over 10 in numerals, and you shouldn't do what I've just done, mix numerals and text in the same sentence, except where the number starts a sentence, in which case it should be spelt out. Also, percentages are given inconsistently, as in "The 'total crime risk' is twenty-nine percent lower than the national average" vs "14.1% of Virginians lack any health insurance". The key is to pick one style and apply it consistently throughout the article. --MalleusFatuorum14:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't expect many comments on prose though. I can't remember the last time anyone critiqued my writing at FAC. Lots of FAC reviewers tend to concentrate on the rules, rather than the content. Unfortunately the good reviewers like User:Laser brain seem not to be much in evidence of late. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for recognizing the work that's been put in. I can tell you the pattern with the numbers, and let me know if you think it'll fly in FAC. One and two word numbers are spelled out, including numbers like "twenty-nine percent", but three or more word numbers like "103 executions" and "14.1%" are left as numbers. So there is a pattern, seemingly random though it may seem to be. Think that will be problem?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a matter of how you interpret the MoS I suppose. I take this—"mathematical quantities, measurements, stock prices, etc., are normally stated in figures"—to mean that percentages should be given as numbers rather than text, but I could easily be wrong. --MalleusFatuorum19:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum, I suppose I was canvassing specific FAC commentators, but I wasn't intentionally targeting those who are currently active, like yourself, but instead those who influenced my previous nominations. It would be a big step for me to be able to change their minds by my hard work, and I hope you don't hold it against me or the article in question, which if you wanted, you could comment on at WP:FAC#Virginia. Thanks again for your advice! I did go ahead and switch all the percents to the number and symbol format as you suggested here. Best-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing to hold against you Patrick, even if I were so inclined, which I'm not. You simply asked for my opinion and I gave it. It's obvious to me that you've put a great deal of effort into this article, so the least I can do is to take a close look at it. I'll comment at the FAC in due course. --MalleusFatuorum11:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Inform MasterOfHisOwnDomain who is determined to destroy a page based on his misunderstandings of our policies and guidelines here, then. I am disgusted by such behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Please calm down and read what I said here. No one is trying to destroy your work. Drop the hyperbole and the threats of ANI as you are being unnecessarily confrontational. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I showed that you were completely wrong in that comment. There is no way to claim that saying they were "harsh reviews" is point of view. They were attack articles and made it clear they were such. That is like saying a page on World War II saying that "Germany went on the offensive" was point of view. Nev1, if you are going to hold such a ridiculous understanding of point of view, don't respond to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Reviewers sometimes make mistakes. MOHOD was not to know that the word "harsh" was used in the sources and removing the word was a reasonable thing to do as it appeared to be a point of view. What is not reasonable is accusing someone of destroying your work when they were trying to help. You have unnecessarily antagonised someone when all you need to do was revert the edit and explain that it was used in the source and why "in order to" is not a weasel word. The integrity of the article was not jeopardised and to claim otherwise is a gross exaggeration. Nev1 (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Reviewers are not supposed to pontificate about guidelines and policies and start editing pages without even having the decency of checking, especially when their view of guidelines and policies is clearly flawed. I have not "antagonised" anyone. I stated: "Please don't make changes that go against the source again. It is highly inappropriate." Asking someone not to violate our policies is -not- antagonising. The fact that you would attempt to claim it is such makes me question your good faith in responding here at all along with your understanding of our policies and guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Threatening ANI was antagonistic rather than your attempt to explain the situation to MOHOD. I agree with you that harsh should be used, but I also think that it's understandable for someone to think it's a point of view. That's understandable, not necessarily correct. Nev1 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Threatening ANI? Don't make things up. He said not to clutter his talk page with such concerns. Where else do you take concerns about adding in major policy problems if the talk page is no longer an option? There is no reason to think that there is a point of view, nor is there justification to start changing a fully cited work based on such claims without checking. As someone who deals with sourcing issues throughout FAC and find many, many problems, I do not tolerate people introducing such problems just because they feel like it. This is an encyclopedia, not some place of whim in which you do whatever you want. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Critical Review - "It is a fine piece of ruins, and must at once please and affect the sensible minds" and Monthly Review "We meet with some passages, however, in this performance that are almost, if not altogether, unintelligible". There is no way to claim saying these are "harsh" is POV in any regard, as they are intended to be harsh. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to explain how I saw and currently see things on the issue, outside of FAC where it might begin to derail discussion. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
"In order" in that sentence is unnecessary in that it adds nothing extra to the sentence. Whether or not it's in used in the sources is, to me, rather irrelevant; an encyclopedia should be as comprehensive and concise as possible, in a way that referenced sources cannot and don't have to be.
I'm not trying to destroy the article, I think that is exaggerating the impact of my edits. A reversion of the part of my edit to "harsh", explaining that it was referred to as such in the sources, would have sufficed as an explanation. I would have liked to have discussed it, in either the talk page or on the review itself, and explain the issue of making this obvious to the reader (that sources discuss it as harsh). My intention was to remove what I considered simply a casual POV slip-up by a user who is evidently passionate about the article. I've been prone to the mistake on a number of occasions. It isn't a case of indecency to not check the sources, but simply a case of logistics (for one thing I had no access to any sources today, as I've just moved school).
Hope that better explains my position, but thank you Nev1 for explaining, in a better way than I can, what I would have said had I been more attentive to the goings on at other talk pages. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a major rhetorical difference between "in order to" and "to" do something, especially when one implies a clear cause and effect relationship and the other does not imply any real relationship. "I would have liked to have discussed it" you didn't want to discuss it, as you 1. changed without discussion and 2. made it clear afterward that you don't appreciate comments on your talk page. "It isn't a case of indecency to not check the sources" It is when a line is cited. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
In fairness, most dictionaries and style guides (including, for what that's worth, our own) consider "in order to" generally to be a redundancy unless it's necessary to avoid ambiguity. Seriously, OR, I think you can chalk this one down to good faith. Malleus can testify that he spends a fair amount of time cleaning out my own "in order"s. – iridescent21:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
He called it a "weasel word". Plus, that is only half of it - the other thing was him saying that I violated NPOV by saying something was a "harsh review", even though "harsh review" is not a negative to the -review- but an accurate descriptive that the reviewer would have chosen and is language used in all of the sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"Weasel word" is perhaps a little harsh, not least because it's a phrase, but pretty much everyone would agree that "in order to" is redundant 99.999% of the time, as Iridescent says. --MalleusFatuorum21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
As for "harsh review", I'm reminded of my own recent battle over "product of the Scottish Reformation". Sometimes you just have to walk away and let things be. Would it alter the nature of the article so very much if that phrase was excised? --MalleusFatuorum21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
To be fair I was unsure whether to even call it a "weasel word", so please don't take that personally; I would just call it "unnecessary".
"Violated NPOV" is hardly quoting me is it? You're making me out to be a lot worse than my intentions were. I don't make destructive edits and I don't accuse users of anything, this is a relaxing and positive hobby of mine; I think OV, you need to assume the best in people who are taking the time to contribute to the FAC process. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Assume the best of people? Bah, it is difficult enough to assume good faith with most of what goes on. Assuming the best would require a lobotomy followed by many, many hallucinogens. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I tend somewhat towards the Huxleyian view on hallucinogenics. Our brains are a swirling seething mass of powerful chemicals anyway. So which is reality? What we see under the influence of LSD or what we see without it? Both? --MalleusFatuorum17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Huxley was very particular in Brave New World that we shouldn't dope ourselves up and just live in a government mandated world without danger, fear, or exposure to real feelings, so, I disagree with your interpretation. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This is one of wikipedia's most depressing aspects. It's awash with administrators queuing up to block anyone who uses a naughty word, but is completely unconcerned about the pov warriors who try to rewrite history for their own ends. I still find it staggering that any sane person would change a "conviction for murder" to a "conviction for killing", but of course we're not talking about sane people. --MalleusFatuorum19:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Without knowing the specific details of what you (Malleus) are referring to, "conviction for murder" and "conviction for killing" are most definitely not the same thing, as anyone familiar with war-crime tribunals, the drink-drive procedure or Michael Jackson can confirm. – iridescent20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a little more understandable, but there's no crime of "killing" in the UK that anyone could be convicted of. Murder, yes. Manslaughter, yes. But not "killing". --MalleusFatuorum20:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That's just plain odd. Whether it was a murder or a justifiable act of war against an occupying power blah blah blah is a POV statement – that the killers were executed for murder is a simple statement of fact. If there's one golden rule of Wikipedia, it's "anything mentioning Ireland will degenerate into insanity". Have you seen this angels-on-a-pinhead exercise yet? – iridescent21:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I had a brainwave... if the source says murder, ought we put that word in quotation marks? That would be one way of getting round it. Also, touch-wood my comments at Talk:Cornish people have highlighted some holes in the arguements I was up against. It was just the kind of thing I expected. In the old days Wikipedia was quite liberal about adding content with a source; it was a kind of two-steps-forward one-step-back approach where citation was to be considered only a courtesy that you'd think about adding in the future some time. Tackling some of the big, meta- UK articles, and especially anything to do with the Celts, it's clear to me that many-an "experienced" editor hasn't moved on from that period. --Jza84 | Talk 21:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that's giving the inch that leads to conceding the mile. There has never been a criminal offence of "killing" in the UK that someone could be convicted and executed for. Those three were convicted of murder, for which the only penalty at that time was execution. The jury decided that they were guilty of murdrer, whatever any revisionist may try to argue, and that is what they were executed for. Whether or not they "really" committed murder is an altogether different debate. As is the debate about whether the UK government committed murder by executing the three. None of that impacts on the facts of this particular case though. They were executed for murder, like it or lump it. --MalleusFatuorum21:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The words "collaboration" and "Ireland" seem like odd bedfellows. I think that members of the various Irish projects ought to be feeling thoroughly ashamed of how little they've managed to achieve in terms of adding quality content to wikipedia. I also think it's high time that those pov warriors were tackled head-on, not avoided. Sadly though wikipedia's systems of governance encourage pov-pushing, focusing instead on the far more important task of eliminating all "incivility" from the site. Except for the incivilty from the administrators themselves of course, which is generally excused or ignored. --MalleusFatuorum21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the Irish articles are very good - Vintagekits's series on Irish boxers (a group I barely knew existed) was excellent, for instance (and is the reason VK holds the most-blocked record but hasn't been slung off). It's whenever they have to agree on anything that there's a problem. Some of the greatest fights in Wikipedia's history come when the Peerage project and the Ireland project have to work together on something. – iridescent21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My impression is that although the Ireland project and the Peerage project SHOULD work together, they've never actually managed it... Call me cynical. Ealdgyth - Talk21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree entirely with you (Malleus). The quality, improvement and reputation of Wikipedia has got to come first. With Wikipedia taking a battering in 2008 and 2009 for its bizarre, low quality content (local example Denshaw coming to mind as just one), combined with editor numbers falling and the quantity of WP articles growing exponentially (vs. the decreasing ratio of commended articles) something should be done. My preference would be to open up the appeal of being involved in editting Irish content to traditionally uninvolved parties (I don't know, say editors interested in Russia or the far-east). In return, Irish editors would be encouraged to work on their content, provide editting time, graphics, or suggestions for these uninvolved parties. I'd also get right-wing about the use of policies in such a weak area of progress - the clique is presently doing us no favours, so I wouldn't be afraid of losing them for a week or two for POV-nonsense. Beyond that I'd have a system that rewards good behaviour - what I don't know - perhaps endorssments from others, or promises that any Irish FA would feature on the main page. I'd also urge "the collaboration" to start much smaller, on a county or town. --Jza84 | Talk 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is the internet, the realm of people who aren't used to arguing in public, where abusive and insulting behaviour may well result in a broken nose. Too many people don't understand the difference between their opinion, and a reliable source. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(Threadjack) Does anyone feel like taking a look at some changes I made to the 1996 Manchester bombing article? Concerns have been raised that it's too detailed, and something may need to be trimmed as the background section I added started a long time ago, in a galaxy far awayPlantations of Ireland in the 16th century, which is perhaps too much for a section intended to give context to the 1996 bombing. Nev1 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that it was too detailed, but you've addressed that. Where I think it still falls down though is in its recency. Irish Republicans had been mounting attacks in Manchester for over 100 years before then, under different brandings. --MalleusFatuorum00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Given the apology today, I had a look at this and was surprised to note that its a GA. Since you're doing the sweeps thing, and because I know you're interested in computing, I thought that this article might be one you'd like to look at. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's on my watchlist, and I've been worried about it for some time; right now I don't think it's a GA, far from it. The sweeps project though is only looking at those articles promoted before the GA criteria were toughened up, in about August 2007 IIRC. Given the publicity surrounding the government's apology, now might be the time to initiate a GA community review though. --MalleusFatuorum16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Learning quality
Learning is something I've enjoyed all my life. Just in the past few weeks I've been working on List of Daytona 500 pole position winners, in an attempt to get it ready to submit to FLC. While I've been through 3 GANs (2 passed), I see that anything featured is a whole new ballgame. I've learned how to do sortable tables and how to use the convert tags, but probably the most important thing has been the quality of references. I learned early on that it was important to reference anything I added to an article, but sometimes a reference that might get through a DYK, won't stand the review of featured material. Once I get this one done, I'm going to set my sights on a FAC. If I can get something up to that quality - then my next step will be to ask Ottava to review something for me. He's probably the most detailed reviewer I've seen so far here. I figure if I can learn to write well enough to pass his inspection, then I will have truly learned a lot. In between now and then, I might ask you to look over a BLP or BIO too. I'd like to get Rex White improved to GA, but I'll need to do a lot of work on it first. Iri helped me out with a stub expansion a while back, Chester Dale bio, so maybe I'll pick that one instead. I don't know as much about him, and research would be more time consuming, but it would be a good learning experience. All in all though I'm having a hell of a good time here! ;) — Ched : ? 16:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I didn't know Tony1 was a FA writer/reviewer. I've worked a little with him, or rather I've been in a few of the same threads; but it was related to admin. review stuff. How to create a better system to get people in and out of that situation. Hmmm. IIRC he's a pretty decent fellow. I just may have to look him up. ;) — Ched : ? 17:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
But it is a wonderful feeling to finally get a "support" from Tony1 (although I am usually thrilled when he just leaves a comment that says "this isn't bad".) I'm going to take this thread as a challenge and try to get a support from Ottava on my next nom. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It might be Karanacs, I don't know. I think the best I've ever had is when Tony struck his oppose. Not that I'm bitter or anything you understand. :-) --MalleusFatuorum17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If you really loved learning you'd wave an article under Tony1's and OR's noses. Getting an eyeful of criticism will learn you up real good. --Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Just drop me a note if anyone wants me to look over anything - I tend not to give supports or opposes if I am just looking over sourcing issues (others can do that), so, it is nothing to be afraid about. I only oppose if I see something fundamentally wrong and want the whole FAC to not pass until it is fixed. I honestly hate opposing and it puts a pit in my stomach when I have to. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a theory that people think in three different ways, focusing on what they see, what they hear, or what they feel. I'm very much in that latter category; when I come across an article that doesn't feel right—perhaps the wording is archaic, or doesn't match the style of the rest of the article—then I look deeper. --MalleusFatuorum19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Question
You recently argued that administrators have by and large gained their position by lying. I did not want to disrupt the existing discussion with such a diversion, however I think the topic merits discussion of its own.
I am wondering if, in a community that documents every single statement and action of every user, you could provide some examples where administrators have gained their position by lying. On a website that insists on complete transparent documentation of each and every action by every user such evidence should be abundantly available. Chillum01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, Malleus, most admins are truthful, kind people. I have no idea about the two admins mentioned above, but isn't that statement at the least speculative? ceranthor02:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
"On a website that insists on complete transparent documentation of each and every action by every user" What website is that? Seeing as how most of the discussion takes place on the WMF email string, in private emails, IRC, off site message boards, instant messengers, and at Wiki Meetups, it surely can't be Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You did a very thorough review of the Suharto article. Choosing a slightly different type of article, would you be interested in doing such a review of Achtung Baby? I have just nominated it for peer review. In my experience, attention is often not given to articles in peer review, but every now and then, one does get a great review. Perhaps the language is quite dense as the Suharto article was/is. I would really like to get non-pop culture editors to look at it. Sometimes I cringe at the language used in music articles. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
R&H has some of U2's best music on it, and I loved the whole album at the time. But I do get some of the criticism, even if it was a bit mis-directed. --Merbabu (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You very kindly did some copyediting on this list-article which I then submitted as a FLC. So far it has two supports but it seems from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates - Nominations urgently needing reviews - that this is not enough to constitute a consensus. I don't know if you're interested in contributing?? Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. At least I feel I am doing something to keep the WikiProject Cheshire in the public's eye (and does Widnes need some good publicity!) - Cheshire does not have an amazing "team" of editors like Greater Manchester. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yes I see a blank block log for today. I'm in the middle of ruining my eyes by rewriting an article and didn't take the time to check that before I posted. My question should be revised: What's this about? --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I am personally offended by Malleus' blatant disrespect for Wikipedia's Illustrious and Honourable Administrative Corps. His comments may lead others to take on a negative view of our amazing sysops with our sterling collective reputation. His POINTy actions bring Wikipedia into disrepute, which is completely unacceptable in my own view, thus I took it upon myself to correct the situation and protect our glorious project with my unilateral "block". Lara02:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is a serious point in Lara's post that does bug me. I do kinda hate being lumped into a "group", in this case, the admin. group. We're all individuals here, each doing our best to improve the 'pedia. When I see "you admins", I'm thinking ... huh? There's good editors, there are bad editors ... there are good admins, and there are "less-than-good" admins. meh ... I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled enjoyment. ;) — Ched : ? 02:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Ched, admins have a tendency to stick together - see for example the case of an admin who committed multiple incivilities that would have led to a block if they'd been committed by a non-admin. I've also seen admins rally round in response to suggestions that vandalism should be treated much more seriously than alleged incivility. --Philcha (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
My view was very well expressed over 200 years ago by Jonathan Swift. "I have ever hated all nations, professions, and communities, and all my love is toward individuals: for instance, I hate the tribe of lawyers, but I love Counsellor Such-a-one, and Judge Such-a-one: so with physicians—I will not speak of my own trade—soldiers, English, Scotch, French, and the rest. But principally I hate and detest that animal called man, although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth. This is the system upon which I have governed myself many years, but do not tell ..." --MalleusFatuorum20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi M, you might remember this from 2007! I've been working on it for the past few days, and I'd appreciate your opinion on it. Thanks, Majorlytalk20:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I remember it well. I was at one point seriously considering passing it at GAN until it became apparent that a lot of it had been copied from one book. --MalleusFatuorum20:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It was a pretty poor article, whether it had been copied or not: [3]. It missed out substantial information about the family, and the house itself. It's vastly improved in my opinion. Majorlytalk20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jza84 suggested you as a good copy-editor for FA articles. If you are available then Sheffield is in need of a copy-edit or will fail its FAR. I think that most of the other issues have been addressed by various editors but this one remains as a stumbling block to keeping its FA status. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Blimey, that FAR's been open for a while. It's obvious that a lot of effort's been put into trying to retain this FA listing, so it would be a shame to see it fail just because of a bit of prose tweaking. I'll see what I can do, but I probably won't have the time to really go through it in detail for a couple of days yet. --MalleusFatuorum22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking up the job. Do not know how long the FAR will stay open but presumably if they see progress is being made then they may hold on for a bit. Keith D (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just about done with Sheffield now, which I think is looking pretty good. I've raised a few minor points on the review page. Good luck with the FAR. --MalleusFatuorum02:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, did that
First, I'm not really up to speed on WP at the moment as r/l concerns have distracted me a bit. Hope to get back into the swing of things by the middle or end of the week. I noticed real quick this morning a comment you made about "Let's take a step back" .. that may not be the exact wording, but if you'll notice ... that's exactly what I did. After reading the ensuing conversation on the thread below mine, I basically left no further comment. I can't speak to the specifics, but I am generally aware of the editor and the situation; although I do lack any knowledge of the specifics. The "pseudo-block" notices and conversations actually spanned multiple users talk pages (mine, Law, Huntster, Lara, Juliancolton, etc.) I AGF that the question was a valid one, and tried to respond honestly. If anything I said caused you offense, then I do apologize, as that was most definitely not my intent. I think very very highly of you Mal, and did not intensionally speak/type with the desire to offend you, or a wish to see humor made at your expense. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in the slightest offended by anything you've done or said Ched. My comment was a general one, as I thought some people were taking Lara's joke block way too seriously. Even in one particular case using it as an excuse to justify and revert to previous bad behaviour. --MalleusFatuorum11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh ... OK, good. I'm just trying to read through a whole bunch of stuff over the last few days, and wanted to make sure. Cheers and best. ;) — Ched : ? 11:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I should have given you this ages ago...
The Surreal Barnstar
Because I always know I'll get the straight dope from you, and for all you do for the good of the encyclopedia. Somehow a "normal" barnstar didn't seem very Malleus. Ealdgyth - Talk22:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's quite what Cirt's saying Ottava. As it happens I find the {{Harvnb}} template quick and easy to use, and I pretty much always use it myself, but I wouldn't push it down anyone's throat; it's perfectly easy to get the same result, minus the linking, manually, and I can understand that some may prefer not to have the blue links.
There are only two issues standing between this article and its GA listing, only one of which I think has merit. I'd agree that the lead ought to be expanded to include a little about critical reception, but I wouldn't agree that that section needs to be expanded, and certainly not to meet the GA "broadness" criteria. So rather than fight with the reviewer, why not do as I'd do? Agree to differ on the citation style, justify why the Critical reception section doesn't need to be expanded to meet the GA criteria, and bite your tongue and expand the lead as requested? --MalleusFatuorum19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There already is a line to the reception, and I don't really know how there could be anything else based on weight and standard sizing per WP:LEAD. It is only 22k. The only notable review is mentioned by name. I could just copy and paste the first paragraph of the section at the bottom of the lead, but that would be ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead does nevertheless look a little light, but having looked through the article now a little more carefully I'd have additional issues with it as well. For instance: "However, Eliot's health declined and he was staying in Shamley Green." Are these two ideas linked in some way? If so how, and if not, then why are they jammed together like that? --MalleusFatuorum21:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I left out that Shamley Green was where he was recovering. A house turned into a little sanitarium (is that the term still?). There was a British thought from the Restoration to the fizzle of the Empire that (in various expressions) basically blamed illness on the city and sent people out into the country to get healthy. This was what Eliot was doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
What about this: "This changes by Little Gidding by adding in the time that Eliot was a watchmen at the Faber building during the London blitz. Eliot also lectured during the war." Ignoring the rather awkward "this changes by ... by" how are the ideas in those two sentences and the following one related?
Let me be perfectly honest Ottava. I agree with you that the review has been poor, and that the emphasis on a particular citation style used in articles about episodes of The Simpsons was both irrelevant and slightly insulting. Where we apparently disagree though is why the review was poor. It appears to me that the reviewer didn't read the article properly, and instead focused on a few mechanical checks. A cursory reading shows several areas where the text is unclear, and in some places awkwardly written. It could pretty easily be buffed up to GA but it's not quite there yet, at least not in my opinion. --MalleusFatuorum21:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I made some fixes. I'm going to throw in a few more critics even though they might not belong there just to appease. I put Abrams in simply because I use him for everything nowadays. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ainsworth 2
User:Ottava Rima/Guy Fawkes. By the way, the list if you want to work on any of the leads or the such. I'm going to add User:Ottava Rima/Ainsworth biography to the list. That page is about 25% finished before summaries and discussions of his works are added after. I don't know if it will be possible to expand George Cruikshank. If you would care to put any effort in during the next week on these pages, I would appreciate it. :) The plot sections would probably be the ones needing the most work. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That was a bad rejection. I would have passed it easily. Anyway, these books shouldn't be rejected, especially when the plot sections are so sparse. My plan is mostly to build the pages to around 10k before nominating them all together. Then, I will build up some of the more interesting works to GA status as I begin to work on Lancashire Witches. I want to put forth Lancashire Witches as a fully developed page of over 30k and GA worthy. Then, I want to devote an entire hook to it (something about killing witches, with some kind of sex or gore addition) in order to try and get over 5k views. With that, I hope that there will be enough people seeing both the Ainsworth and the Lancashire Witches page, and then they may trickle down to other works. Thus, hopefully hooking some people on Ainsworth. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, it looked like this when I nominated it in ignorance of the fact that DYK was a mini GA review, or at least it is for novels. I haven't really had the motivation to get back to it as I'd hoped since then. I'm not certain which or how many of Ainsworth's novels I'll be able to get hold of, but I'll see what I can do. --MalleusFatuorum19:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
What probably happened is the lack of a section discussing themes (and thus, people analyzing the book in a way beyond summary) probably made someone think it wasn't a good page. I would have merely asked you to find a source that discussed the themes somewhat or simply found one on googlebooks for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
A good page meaning that they thought it was just one big plot summary. The whole "in universe" theory and all. And I don't mean "Good", mind you. Plus, she gave a hesitant check and you could have just stayed quiet and it probably would have been listed. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I could have "just stayed quiet"? I don't do just staying quiet". I understand and will try to be supportive of your mega Ainsworth DYK, but to be brutally honest I think that DYK is an embarrassing waste of space. --MalleusFatuorum01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I meant, you didn't have to say anything about withdrawing the nomination. Once you mention the possibility, people stop trying to find a way to help ensure things pass. Human nature. And you may think DYK is a waste of space, but I like my own DYKs. :D By the way - User:Ottava Rima/The Tower of London - dear old Lady Jane Grey. You might recognize the name. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Ottava Rima/Cruikshank authorship dispute - Care to write some leads? I need someone to for tomorrow night. I should be able to push them off then. I have Windsor Castle to add plot and themes to, and then St James's. This should cover 7 of the novels I really care about (the only other one being Lancashire Witches). Then I could start on the other. I plan on putting Ainsworth's bio up at the time also. A 30-40k bio should be decent for now (and then about 15k about his various works and the later controversy). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There, all done. Would you have time to write leads? I doubt it would take more than 5 minutes each and would be rather formulaic. If you don't want to, drop a note so I can process them myself and put the hook out by tonight. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy to to try and tackle some leads, but I wouldn't be able to get around to it tonight. It's already gone 10:00 pm here, and I'm feeling a bit knackered after a pretty exhausting weekend. --MalleusFatuorum21:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
How about this - I'll put in some cheesy formulaic leads and put them on the DYK list. Since it will take 4-5 days before anyone bothers with them, you can use that time to improve the leads and other fixes to the pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on the William Harrison Ainsworth biography. Right now, I put down a rough sketch of his early publications and I have to go back and fill in the biography that joins them. I'm going to leave some of the later stuff open and incomplete so that it can be filled in while working on The Lancashire Witches and, if you are willing, Auriol. Leads will need to be added soon (I didn't have a chance to do them) and when that is done the main bio will need a look over (I'm about 60% finished for now). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'l see what I can do about leads. I'll be glad when these Ainsworth articles get out "into the wild", so to speak. To be perfectly honest I'd never heard of the man before I started delving into the Lancashire witches—the real ones, not the novel. --MalleusFatuorum21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
A shame, indeed. Perhaps we can remedy it. One of the professors during the 60s was a scholar on Victorian lit and he pursued Ainsworth to a degree. I don't know what works he had on the matter though. He was purposefully ignored based on a few controversies (Newgate novel, for instance) and on Thackeray and Dickens turning against him. I take it that when the time came to look at Victorian novels in a broader view, most people focused only on the females. Anyway, there is a lot that could be written on him, and I have a few ideas for off wiki publications. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I just finished the biography -enough- for now (to The Lancashire Witches). I will be moving the pages to mainspace in about 2 hours (and adding in short temporary leads to those without them). I think that once the blue links are added to the biography page, it will really become blatant how important Ainsworth was (until 1860/1870 or so, that is). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The hook is not supposed to be over 200 characters and is currently 195. If you have any ideas on how any of the above should be changed, then please feel free. If you think it should go over 200, I can simply ask about it on the DYK talk page. I put in temporary leads on a few of the pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
And it will be a great job when we finish. :D I can taste the excitement of The Lancashire Witches now. I have some works about -his- sources for the matter, which would be interesting when looking at the overall view on the actual witches. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I made a very small change to the hook. Obviously, feel free to revert if you don't like it. Guy Fawkes is particularly interesting too, as well as the witches, as according to Ainsworth the plot was hatched in Ordsall Hall, a medieval manor house about two miles from me. --MalleusFatuorum18:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you want to be adventuresome sometime, we could easily expand the sources section and include a picture taken by you of the location. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a hidden rule (C3) regarding hooks with multiple new articles: "if your hook introduces more than one article, you can do a basic calculation by subtracting the number of characters in the bolded character string for each additional new article beyond the first. If having done that the hook length is still 200 characters or less, it is probably an acceptable length". Nev1 (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Seeing you cite the Poe quote made me remember - Carver describes Poe as "the ever bitchy" before quoting him. If only we could get away with such nonsense. XD Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It's difficult sometimes. There are swathes of articles on one particular topic that I can't even bear to look at, much less edit, because although apparently "well cited", the sources are talking bollocks. --MalleusFatuorum19:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Haha. Well, I just meant to add flare. Poe was ever bitchy, so, that is reliable. :) By the way someone suggested possibly allowing for 250 characters. This is a character counter if you want to tweak or come up with alternate descriptives (but please keep Henry the VIII as "a horny king", haha). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Distractions distractions...
Well, I'm thinking Barbara L is getting ready for her final polish before her moments in the sun. And I've dug a bit more on Urse d'Abetot, and I think we're ready to move forward on him after Babs. I'll be home for most of the next few months, so it's time for more FACs! (Be gone a few weekends, but nothing too long, not like the last few months have been.) Can I beg copyedits on these from you? You know I'll be in your debt even more... Ealdgyth - Talk16:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've decided that on 27 November, the second anniversary of my first failed RfA, I will submit myself again to that process. Not because I want to be an administrator, but because I want to be able to more effectively support other editors who are trying to create content in the face of overwhelming odds.
Ealdgyth, there's no way I'd ever get through an RfA; I'm not even trusted to create new pages. I'm just trying to put a stake in the ground. --MalleusFatuorum20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Feeling a bit too good about yourself? An RfA will take care of that in short order. Although I'd support. It's healthy to be challenged. All the reaction you will get will reflect the inner conflict other editors have when faced with assessing their own discomfort when faced with bluntly posed realities. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a curious thing Majorly. You and I have agreed about, well very little really, and I think your position on child administrators is absurd. I'm certain that you feel similarly about me. Nevertheless I know that your heart's in the right place. Maybe we could persuade Ottava to stand again as well? All for one, and one for all. --MalleusFatuorum22:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You might find this very odd coming from me, but I'd likely oppose any child I knew running for adminship. I believe they should at least be 13 or older, preferably 16. I'd disagree with opposing teenagers on a blanket basis though, as there are many fine admins who are teenagers. Majorlytalk23:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
To be honest Majorly I had to read that three or four times to make sure I hadn't misunderstood what you'd written. Clearly we're not so far apart on this age issue, just on the details. --MalleusFatuorum04:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Quite. I'm under no illusions Moni, I know that I stand less chance than a snowball in Hell. Unfashionable though it may be, and even non-PC in the wikifantasyworld, I just want to make a point. As loudly as possible. I'm really not bothered about the result, as it's a foregone conclusion anyway. Which is exactly my point. --MalleusFatuorum21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm certainly hoping that there's a good turnout, the more the merrier. One of RfA's many problems is that it's done pretty much in private. Not this one though. --MalleusFatuorum22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that any contribution you could make would even be worth the effort of reading Tfz, whatever the technology deployed to spread your stupid bigotry. --MalleusFatuorum01:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Where have I called you a name? If I had done that I'm quite certain that you'd have called in the civility police and had me blocked by now. What I have said is that your position displays clear bigotry. --MalleusFatuorum01:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Semantics now? A person who carries bigotry is a bigot. I really don't think you should be putting yourself forward for adminship until you cease calling other editors bigots and pov-pushers. Tfz01:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You clearly have no idea what the word "semantic" means. Why not go and find someone else more able to relate to your concerns? I'm certain that you can't be the only intellectual dwarf on here. --MalleusFatuorum01:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a very generous offer Casliber, but you and I both know it would be a suicide mission. What has surprised me the most is that the bastard who helped to sink my first RfA has also offered to nominate. Truth be told though, I don't really want to be an administrator, and I'd make very little use of the extra buttons if I had them anyway. It's really just to make a point. --MalleusFatuorum02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
We-ell, maybe not. I have tried announcing all over the place that the admin reviews at arbcom would hopefully result in more leniency when voting at RfA and hopefully more fluidity between sysophood and nonsysophood. There are alot of people who plainly should have the tools. There is alot of tinkering that one can do with the tools even when one is primarily a content editor (like me). Anyway, we'll see. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Cas. You've got my support whether you want it or not. Unless you can change the pagename successfully enough so I can't find it in time. ++Lar: t/c03:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
That's very kind of you Lar, but we both know it's doomed to failure. Which is the point of it really as far as I'm concerned. I'm not even sure what I'd do if it was successful, probably resign straight away. --MalleusFatuorum04:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If you are expecting to fail, why not go straight for RFB? That'd make things interesting... (I'd support you regardless). Apterygial10:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not that I expect to "fail", it's that I expect to make a point. I'm indifferent as to whether an RfA passes or not, and I'm not boring enough to become a bureaucrat anyway. --MalleusFatuorum10:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Your candidacy will be heated to be sure, but my hunch is that the tide is in your direction. Without wanting to be overly or prophetically dramatic, it would be a huge victory. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It has cost you again. I have blocked ye both for 135 years. Ye may appeal after this time through the usual channels. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, if you want to rain on the parade of my recent page creation bits, do so in private. I'm trying to play the big man here, let me have my moment. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
← Well, I look forward to the chance to atone for this uncharacteristic lapse of judgment. Although I really think you should bolster your Template Talk: edits before November; I'm concerned that you are unfit for adminship because you have not spent enough time in that namespace (just a little warmup for the usual quality oppose rationales). But it will all be so worth it. You won't believe the rush of absolute power the first time you semi-protect fish because of school-day vandalism. It's probably exactly what the Great King Xerxes felt when he led the Immortals across the Hellespont at the height of the Persian Empire. Well, one of the Persian Empires. I understand from Wikipedia that there were dozens of them... :P MastCellTalk04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
RE my talkpage message: no problem, and thanks for dealing with my subjective, finnicky little queries. Feel free to give me a poke next time you put something up at GAN and I'll try and review it - that's probably quicker than waiting in the queue with everyone else. Ironholds (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem whatsoever. 'sides, the more long articles I remove from the backlog, the more likely some other reviewer will take a look at my long GACs :P. Ironholds (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course not - apologies if it sounded like that. It was in reference to this. Unless more than one illegitimate both tanked your first RFA and has offered to nominate at your third! Pedro : Chat 22:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah! I wasn't being entirely serious when I write that. In fact I had an entirely different bastard in mind anyway, who hasn't offered to nominate. :-) --MalleusFatuorum23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Your talkpage has become so entirely entertaining in the last few weeks that I have a mind about possible returning here. Of course, expectations would be for silly old keeper to actually improve some articles, so perhaps not. Looking forward to November though. My watchlist has been updated. Keeper | 7606:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It ought to be an illuminating experience. I had to delay it until the end of November though, to give poor old Pedro enough time to think of something nice to say about me. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I mean well too, but I've got loads of other things I ought to be doing anyway, some of them even on wikipedia, like helping Ottava with his William Harrison Ainsworth evolving masterwork. I don't need to be around people with a bad attitude. --MalleusFatuorum21:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping it was a misunderstanding (on his part, about how Wikipedia works). I'm sure he'll change, and if not, he'll probably sink through self-imposed exile and isolation. Nev1's doing a good job of trying to steer him on to the right path. It's refreshing to see an ethusiastic newbie (I can only think of the rather fantastic User:J3Mrs in the last 12 months or so from our neck of the woods), so I'd rather have him mentored than loose him.
William Harrison Ainsworth looks interesting. Never heard of the bloke too. The lead's a little thin and there doesn't seem to be many wikilinks in the prose, but I see you're onto that above.... Bar those, it's nicely written, and can see your appeal. --Jza84 | Talk 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean Ainsworth's own article, which is pretty poor, but the DYK bombshell on a few of his major novels that Ottava's preparing in his sandbox. I hadn't heard of Ainsworth either, until I started investigating the history of the Pendle witches. In his time Ainsworth was considered the equal of Charles Dickens, so he deserves better. We're so quick to forget ... --MalleusFatuorum22:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Dickens was forgotten too until GK Chesterton revived interest in him, Ainsworth just wasn't as lucky. I really like Ottava's tactic of a "DYK bomb". A good hook can get an article more views in a day that it would get in 6 months and is a great way of promoting a subject. Its shows real passion and dedication to be able to do it properly. Nev1 (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I was very sorry to read that you have left the L&C project - it needed you, your skills and advice. I've left a little note on the "creator's" talk page which I hope will guide him to take good advice rather than ride his premature high horse. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really much of a joiner anyway Peter, and I'm quite certain the project will do very with the likes of you, Nev1, and Jza84 around anyway. I'd just prefer to spend my time here where it's more likely to be appreciated. --MalleusFatuorum17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not much of a joiner anyway. I'll continue to help individual editors whenever I can, no matter what projects they may or may not belong to, but I'm not really naturally drawn to geography-based projects; GM was the exception. --MalleusFatuorum22:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, (I had posted this originally to User:Jza84 thinking he posted the original question, not realising it was infact yourself - for which I humbly apologise) Anyway, following your points, I want to point out that those opening 2 paragraphs are the pieces of original article, in fact it was only those that comprised of the original article, before I worked hard to extend it with much pride and devotion. Anyway, I paid a visit to the article to re-word those paragraphs, but when I came to save the changes, it said that someone else has also made an edit. I'm not sure now as to which of the adjustments will be best - the one you made, or the one I was about to make. Here is the adjustment I was going to make: Lostock Hall (formerly known as Cuerden Green between 1212 - 1332) is a small village in Lancashire to the south of Preston and to the north of Farington. It is now bordered to its immediate south-east by the large M6/M61/M65 motorway interchange.
Lostock Hall has an identity of its own but in common with other small areas in modern times it is being taken over by new housing estates and a reduction in 'community spirit'. The former separate community of Tardy Gate is now for all intents and purposes a part of Lostock Hall - it used to be the farming community linking one part of rural Lancashire to another. Lostock Hall's main road to the north, Leyland Road leads to the district of Penwortham in the north-west, and onto the City of Preston in the north, this boundary being on the junction between B5254 (Leyland Road) and Flag Lane. To the north-east is the new residential estate of Walton Park which leads onto the rural village of Walton-le-Dale, with this boundary between being the old railway bridge on Wateringpool Lane (just after the gas works). The main road to the east, Brownedge Road, links it to Bamber Bridge, the boundary between the two is the 'Old Railway Bridge' situated on the B5257 (Brownedge Lane). The roundabout junction of B5254 (Watkin Lane) and A582 (Lostock Lane - east bound), in the south-east, is the boundary which separates Lostock Hall and Cuerden. There is small area of farmland (situated on Old School Lane) which is still comes under the old name of Cuerden Green. To the south and south-west is the parish district of Farington, where the boundary line is also the roundabout junction of B5254 (Watkin Lane) and A582 (Lostock Lane, with the difference here being that it is the west-bound part of Lostock Lane. To the west is the rural hamlet of Whitestake, where the boundary line between them and Lostock Hall being the railway bridge on Coote Lane, which spans over the main western line. I'll let you compare the 2, and decide. Let me know if you want to use my version. Regards (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
I don't think I've ever edited Lostock Hall Gareth, so you couldn't have clashed with any changes I'd made. Anyway, the current lead looks pretty close to the version you've copied above, and the personal voice I was complaining about has gone. I'd make two comments about the lead as it stands now though. The first is that there's way too much information on present-day boundaries; surely that can be summarised? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, but there nothing in it about Lostock's Hall for instance, which forms about half of the present article, or anything about Lostock Hall's industries. You might well find it easier to write the lead last, once the rest of the article is a little more fleshed out. The second thing that strikes me about the lead is the opening of the second paragraph: "Lostock Hall has an identity of its own but in common with other small areas in modern times it is being taken over by new housing estates and a reduction in 'community spirit'." This seems once again like a personal opinion; everywhere "has an identity of its own", and I'm really unclear as to how anywhere could be "taken over by ... a reduction in 'community spirit'." It's difficult to write dispassionately on a subject you're passionate about, but it's essential to producing a well-balanced encyclopedia article. As a rule of thumb, don't include anything in the article that you can't provide a citation for to a published reliable source, such as books, newspapers, journals, and web sites. What we're striving for here is verifiability, not "truth".
I don't mean my comments to be negative, I'm only making them now because I think it's in the long-run easier to set out on the right path now, rather than have the article ultimately fail when/if you present it at GA. --MalleusFatuorum16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. More like the wikipedia version of "Oh for Christ's sake grow up; who gives a fuck?" If I had to compare myself with any Shakespearean characters I'd be hard pressed to choose between Petruchio and Prospero. --MalleusFatuorum23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
TFA -and- the Ainsworth 10 part hook together. I don't know what happen over the past week, but there must have been many drunks around who felt that it would be a good thing to encourage us. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The queues were completely empty (meaning, no one had anything ready), and it was lumped in the end, so, they took 50 or so over and this was ready to go, so, it made it in fast. Luck of the draw. Plus, it was in a day old set, so, it was technically three days old at the time. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Hey Mal, hope you're doing well. I have a question. Regarding the HowStuffWorks site (link), do you think it qualifies as a WP:RS for the FA/FL high-end articles? I've read through their about page, and their jobs page, and I'm curious how the reviewers would consider this source. I'm also interested in the views of your TPS friends who work in this area: Ottava, Iri, Tony, etc. Thanks for any input. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't use it to cite anything controversial. However, I would say the same thing to many things that are published. I've actually seen the one book used in physics classes for High School students, as it makes an introduction to practical physics. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to say no, although Ealdgyth is probably the best one to ask. We should generally be relying on good quality secondary sources, not tertiary sources like HowStuffWorks. But as Ottava says, if its something fairly unimportant then you might get away with it, but probably not at FAC. --MalleusFatuorum14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks folks - I think it's enough to encourage me to look for other/better sources. And congrats all the way around for the DYK and Front page FA stuff ... good work! Cheers. ;) — Ched : ? 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not the best quality, but it will work for something where you need to explain something simple. Say ... that horse sinew is used for violins in the horse article, or something like that. It is put out by Discovery Channel...which means it's on par with the Beeb or something similar. Yeah, there are better sources, but where it's mainly used is in non-technical articles to explain something simple (like, the violin thing above), where someone is going to insist on a source citations, but its a simple fact that doesn't require an ironclad source. Ealdgyth - Talk21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
? c/e of England for GA
I don't know if you've noticed but England is currently up for GA (again) & has been greatly improved since the reviewers first set of comments, but still needs copy edting. It's a big article & a bit patchy but if you had the time and inclination I'm sure any help would be appreciated.— Rodtalk17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That looks like a big job, but it's a big topic, so it would be churlish to say no. Let's hope that the GA reviewer is a patient sort. BTW, since when was Northern Ireland a country? "... in which other countries of the United Kingdom — Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ..." --MalleusFatuorum19:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes its a big job & it takes a big person to take it on - thanks. The reviewer has been back & seen progress so summarised the outstanding issues on the talk page a day or two ago, so seems willing to wait as improvement are being made. The issue of whether England is a country, let alone NI, has been done to death on that talk page & others & I'm staying out of that one.— Rodtalk19:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
GAR of Celtic Pagan Reconsructionism
Glad to see I was not the only one who saw the problems with that article. Hopefully the editors involved will take steps to improve the article rather than just arguing against criticism.Davémon (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ainsworth received 1.7k views from being on the main page for 6 hours (Comparison, Johnson received 36.9k while his early life received 24.5k). The dispute received 1.7k reviews.
Now, everyone, how do you get lots of page hits at DYK? Sex or bacon. A horny king came in at 2.4k. :D Wait until I sex it up with bacon when I put out a hook for Ainsworth's Flitch of Bacon (... that William Harrison Ainsworth started a tradition of awarded couples with bacon based on their sexual relationship?). The hits would have to be through the roof. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Moors murders
Will you be doing much on this over the weekend? If not, I'll take my lappy with me and edit a saved version while bored. I don't know if my hotel has internet access, or even if I'll have time. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I was trawling Youtube for that documentary I worked on yarns ago. Anyhow I found this. I should warn you, although it appears to be professionally made, it contains images of Edward Evans dead, and Lesley Anne Downey tied up (but not indecent). It also contains interviews with Topping, and Anne West, so it must be a legit documentary. Its in several parts, and may help with this article. The images aren't nice, and the interview with Anne West is moving. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to know how far to go with this. There's lots more stuff that could be said, but we're trying to write an accurate and informative encyclopedia article, with links to help those who want to know more, not the definitive account of the murders. --MalleusFatuorum23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, reading that again I'm surprised I said that. What I'm aiming for is the definitive encyclopedia article on the Moors murders. --MalleusFatuorum00:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you missed my entry on the article's talk page, but there is a bit of duplicated info now I've reached the point in the Ritchie book where the murders are occurring.
How do you suggest we get around that? Perhaps thin out the initial description of each murder, until the reader gets to 'as a couple' The whole 'indoctrinate David Smith' thing comes slap bang in the middle of their murdering spree. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Any additional info about the murders ought to go in the section describing the murders. As a couple is a subsection of Personal background, where it was my intention to describe Brady and Hindley's relationship before their killing spree began, not the murders themselves or the circumstances surrounding them. We need to bear in mind as well that any information beyond the bare facts of each murder comes only from Hindley's confession made over 20 years later, which Topping strongly suggests he wasn't entirely convinced by.
I'd suggest that it's OK to expand the As a couple subsection with additional personal details such as the move to Wardle Brook Avenue, related to the chronology of the murders, but not with details of the murders, which ought to be covered elsewhere. --MalleusFatuorum13:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok mate, once I'm mostly through this book we can again look at it to see what should go where, and if any additional sections need creating. The Ritchie book suggests that Brady is a control freak, something I'm minded to agree with, given his (and her?) attempted indoctrination of David Smith, and also his refusal to pinpoint the location of Keith Bennett. My opinion though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
? ce for Buildings and architecture of Bath
If your excellent work on England hasn't worn out your copyediting powers would you take a look at Buildings and architecture of Bath. It's a brand new article, which I hope to put up for GA (& maybe go all the way to FA). I believe it to be comprehensive & well referenced, but you know what my prose is like!— Rodtalk20:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll try and take a closer look through over the next few days, but it looks pretty good to me on a quick read through. Apart from this abortion that is: "... saying that the density volume of buildings ...". Did the report really say that? What is density about, if not about volume? --MalleusFatuorum02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I need a second opinion on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on Indolence/archive1. I wont reveal my opinion, but you can kinda see hints to it on my talk page at the bottom. Slim Virgin compared the different versions of the page (pre FAC and post FAC). As I pointed out, 7 people rewrote the page, only one bothered to support after doing it. I could assume one or two would be willing to support after a few clarity issues are met. What that leaves is a bunch of people who came in, rewrote things, and left. No real care for clarity, for the sources, etc, or even with the FAC. I would just appreciate your assessment of the FAC and the bottom comparison that Slim Virgin points out. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, my opinion is this. I think the post-FAC version is more elegantly written, but is less accurate. So I'd opt for the pre-FAC version with a bit of a facelift. --MalleusFatuorum00:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It was more of a question of - is it worth bothering to continue the FAC or not than anything else. I thought that was obvious. I was wrong. :P If they are going to change things and then leave, what should I think? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
There comes a point with some articles at FAC, and we got pretty close to it with Sam, where the process begins to damage the article rather than improve it. You have to judge whether that point's been reached yet with Ode or not. From my very quick look through I'd say that it has, and if I was in your position I'd likely withdraw the article, keep whatever was of value during the review, but basically revert to the pre-FAC version and before resubmitting it buff up some of the awkward phrasing such as "the negative compatibility". --MalleusFatuorum00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Then it should probably be "in quotes", because "negative compatibility" looks like a term used by someone who's unaware of the word "incompatibility". If it has a technical meaning, as you seem to be suggesting, then that needs to be explained to us non-literary bods. --MalleusFatuorum01:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
.... wait, wtf. I just checked to make sure and someone added that in. WTF. Okay. I'm going to leave the Wiki for a bit. It is bad enough that people want to push a fringe view about Oscar Wilde being a pederast based on some intellectually dishonest scholars who haven't even ever written a Wilde biography and merely want to push some idea without proof. But that, inserting that word in there. Blah. That is too much. I just rewrote it. It was plain wrong. Sigh. There are too many errors on this Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I just fixed up a lot of OR and other sourcing problems on the article. The person at FAC seems to think that the page should talk about romanticism as a whole when very few critics link it to such. They also seem to think that the page should do more than what Keats or the sources is doing. They further confused classical with neo-classical. It definitely feels like people are purposefully toying with things. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not attributing any reason for it. For what I know, it could be perfectly random. I just describe patterns. Only religious can explain why things are the way they are. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I find only a lack of religion as an excuse to everything. Religion sets forth ramifications for actions and puts in a design that has both a beginning and an end. Otherwise, there is just an endless cycle without purpose. That would mean that nothing matters, as nothing ever changes. It just is. Such a system would remove all meaning, which is how many people act. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Wheter or not there can be morality without belief in God is of course a long-running and unsettled debate. What is not in doubt though is that we very frequently see immorality and a belief in God. --MalleusFatuorum14:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I've always seen a lack of religion as representing a healthy and open mind. For me, (most) religion is rooted in morality, not the other way around, and a lack of religion is never indicative of a lack of morality. Nor is the presence of religion indicative of the presence of morality. Apterygial14:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that's probably true for religion at its best, but for most people it's just an elaborate system of rewards and punishments designed to control behaviour. --MalleusFatuorum14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it is rather evident that immorality is what turns a lot of people into believing in a God. If everything was perfect, there would be no reason to turn to a savior figure that promises to judge people based on their actions. Anyway, "immorality" only exists as long as there is a system of morality, and both Aristotle and Plato provided strong proofs as to why morality is grounded in at least a "prime mover". As Milton says, "Free will is choosing the right path". "Open minds" and the rest to justify immorality is mostly decayed logic that seeks to remove standards as a whole simply to remove standards. "Be open minded, nothing is wrong with killing your neighbor and eating them" is utterly preposterous, for example. A mind should be neither open or closed, but a center of judgment and processing in which reason takes in what is beneficial and ignores what is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Aristotle also "proved" that we see because of the light emitted from our eyes reflecting back off those objects in our field of vision. What 20th-century mathematics has demonsdtrated is that there are some things that we can never prove, never be certain of, never deduce from what we alraedy know to be true. And the existence or not of God is one of those. --MalleusFatuorum14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, mathematics has not disproven God, and it would be absurd to claim such. Furthermore, physics has made it very clear that the vastness of space, the complexity of science, and the rest shows that random probability cannot exist and that time and space operates in a linear direction expanding in an exponential manner. The "big bang" theory was one of the primary proofs that Aristotle's hypothesis of a prime mover was correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
What I said was that mathematics has demonstrated that there are some statements we will likely never be able to prove or disprove, and I'm suggesting that "There is a God" and "There is no God" fall into that category. Neither is it clear that space-time will continue to expand; it sems just as likely that at some future point the process will reverse, and the Universe will implode. The essence though is what we take to be axiomatic. If you take it to be an axiom that "the vastness of space" or the complexity of a living organism could not possibly have come into being without an intelligent designer then of course God follows quite naturally from that. If on the other hand you do not accept that as axiomatic then it does not, and some other explanation is required—bearing in mind of course that God explains nothing; it's simply a label for the massive gaps in our understanding of how the Universe works. --MalleusFatuorum17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not Aristotle's views on physical cosmology were correct, Wikipedia has proven his assertion that the brain functions primarily to cool the blood. MastCellTalk18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You mean disproven? :) Anyway, even Darwin heavily relied on Aristotle, so, that shows a lot on how great the main was without the technology to really figure things out. Pure logic and reasoning surely got him far. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Aristotle was a great thinker, no question about that, but I'd hazard a guess that he was wrong at least as often as he was right in his scientific pronouncements. --MalleusFatuorum19:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As you could say for Francis Bacon, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc. Science is built on the backs of giants, and rarely do the previous people become completely ignored (at least, these, who will forever be known). We still rely on Euclid even though Lobachevsky debunked the certainty of the Euclidean universe. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You won't persuade me of the existence of God, just as I won't persuade you that our concept of God is simply a vestige of our Stone Age wonder at what we saw around us but had no explanation for. I apply Occam's razor. What is it that can only be explained by the existence of an all-powerful entity? That we don't understand how the Universe came into being, or how it will end, is proof of our ignorance, nothing else. --MalleusFatuorum20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Stone Age wonder? - I am reminded of Walt Whitman.
"When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and
measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much
applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars."
- Walt Whitman
Art and beauty, truth and the sublime. They are not "Stone Age" wonders, but the essence of humanity itself and what makes it great. Ainsworth turned to the gothic and Catholic past because the Church understood these very things, and it was an aspect that Britain lost when continuing to burn any connection between itself and Rome. Our ignorance should be enough to prove that there is something great, something awe inspiring. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The thing that is "great ... and awe inspiring" may turn out to be us, humanity itself. Without us to see it, there is no beauty, no ugliness. --MalleusFatuorum20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You're looking the wrong way Ottava. It's not what we've been, it's what we might become. Perhaps some future generation may come to see that we misundertood the story of Jesus. It wasn't about God becoming Man, but about Man becoming God. --MalleusFatuorum21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Domer48 I would be far more concerned with things like this. Why don't you issue a warning for that? The behaviour from some editors on this article is fucking disgusting. It makes me angry to think about it tbh. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
My view is that all we can try and do is to drive a wedge into the Irish Republican nonsense with a fair, neutral, and balanced article. Which is what I intend the Manchester Martyrs to be, and what I think it's close to becoming. I really do wish the pov warriors would spend more of their time trying to improve the rubbish that passes for an article on Irish nationalism, for instance. --MalleusFatuorum20:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how you put up with it. I rarely go running to teacher but on some of those instances I'd have been straight to the admins tbh. It isn't right that we spend time here trying to improve articles, only to be accused of ulterior motives. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That's why they pay admins the big bucks. I'm always happy to throw a large wall of warnings and education at POV warriors and follow-through with sanctions when necessary. Let me know if you need a hand. Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I never go running to teacher, and I despise those who do. Admins can't do anything, as wikipedia has no effective policies for dealing with pov pushing and content disputes. That's why it's necessary to provoke me to the point of using naughty words. There's a clear policy for that. --MalleusFatuorum21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Just noting; firstly the day Malleus goes "straight to the admins" will be the day I wake up with three breasts and a golden nipple. Secondly, as for the big bucks, I personally split mine out on a straight three way split between Malleus and Ottava and myself. Malleus got his paycheck for my admin role only yesterday in actual fact - a generous no pounds and fuck all pence if I recall....:)Pedro : Chat 21:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the mess is, I wasn't there and I didn't cause it. I'll tell you frankly why I get so pissed off with these Irish republican pov warriors; I was brought up in the southwest of Scotland, where bigotry is spelt in block caps. Been there, seen it, don't ever want to see it again. --MalleusFatuorum23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, you have to watch yourself around me. Your words struck me as eerily similar to this - "I can quite understand that, he said calmly. An Irishman must think like that, I daresay. We feel in England that we have treated you rather unfairly. It seems history is to blame." - Ulysses. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't agree that the Irish were treated unfairly. As were the English. Remember the Peterloo Massacre? The Irish issue differs only because of the emigres returning after having fought in the American Civil War, believing that similar military action was the only way to achieve their goal. --MalleusFatuorum23:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This edit. What is the point of this? Sandstein has only enforced policy, the unblock was with the reason reducing to "time served" and was done with the consent of Sandstein. The block wasn't wrong, the user was just given yet another chance. You should know by now that we don't punish people here, any action taken is to prevent further disruption to the project.
It seems as though you are intentionally trying to escalate drama when the incident is all but over, and this is not the first time either. In fact it has become a pattern. Do you really seek strife so much that you must pour fuel on the fire? Are your goals here in line with the projects goal of creating an encyclopedia or are you just getting your kicks? If you are here to create an encyclopedia then there is no need to demand punishment or prolong disputes, if you are here for a pint of blood or a head on a platter then please find some website that is a battleground. Chillum01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Answering the question about why Malleus is here... his edit count seems to show that about 60% of the time he's off in the article space editing. You know, articles, those things we're here to build? Often, he's doing something very thankless, which is copyediting for folks like me. Care to compare edit statistics with him? (He beats me by about 5%, btw.) Ealdgyth - Talk01:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Makes me wonder what was the point of this edit. Intentionally trying to escalate drama or needlessly creating a battleground? Or would that be an assumption of bad faith on my part? Nev1 (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Chillum - "No Personal Attacks" means that there should be no attacks on information that is personal - sex, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. "Fool" is referring to behavioral attributes. By definition, by letter, and by spirit of NPA, there is no way to make such a claim that the comment was a personal attack, and administrators making blatantly out of policy blocks why pretending that there is a policy to back them up does a disservice to the whole community. Furthermore, the policies even state that blocks only happen at the most egregious instances, and people should 1. ignore the comments and 2. have the person strike it themselves. None of this happened. As such, admin who operate like this way are a threat to the integrity of this community in an equal manner to those who are sock puppets, who create vandalism, and the rest. This is an encyclopedia, not a place where people can make up rules to bully others into submission. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I will leave this for others to interpret then[4]. (added later as it was apparently ambiguous 04:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)) By this I mean I am removing this and over thousand other users from my watchlist and letting others interpret what they are doing. Chillum02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Wait, are you suggesting you had Malleus on your talk page watchlist? Why ever would you do that? :) I'm intrigued. I only have... 5 (?) talk pages on my watchlist, and two are my own. (SandyGeorgia being one of the others, then Ceoil, and of course Malleus). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I am saying that I am clearing my watch list of most users, including this one. If you haven't noticed I am backing off. Chillum03:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It is so not realistic that adults have to work everything out without telling each other to fuck off every once in awhile. How do these people survive the real world without a CIV policy in place? I'd unblock Giano if I could, but I already revered Sandstein's block of Child of Midnight, and I can only take one Arbitrary case at a time. Lawtype!snype?06:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Giano got off with time served. (Personally, I think he might have been better off not being quite so outrageous, but i'm not Italian either...) Ealdgyth - Talk12:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
So, a small group of people are trying to claim that an individual who never had a publication on Oscar Wilde and briefly claims Wilde was a pederast without any sources (and the claim only covers 3 lines in the essay) is some how a reliable source on Wilde's sexuality. They also push the idea that the source is as legitimate as Wilde biographies written by experts and fully sourced. And these individuals think they aren't being disruptive by continuing to claim such. I really don't understand how people like that are still allowed to be around here. It is rather obvious that they have no respect to our policies nor can be trusted in any regard with an encyclopedia.
Can we switch? I'd rather deal with Irish nationalists that are upset that there isn't enough coverage of their perspective than with the above. Why do you get all of the seemingly normal issues? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
How interesting - synchronicity in action. I just found the rather short but good page on James Bulger at the ODNB via their current "featured theme" on children and childhood.[5] You are no doubt aware that the ODNB also has an article on Myra Hindley. I am rather disappointed that the AfD discussion ended with our article being deleted - I should have thought an article in the ODNB was pretty good prima facie evidence of notability.
The material on Myra Hindley hasn't been deleted, in fact it's been expanded, and it's now in one place instead of being spread out over several articles. The ODNB is organised rather differently, in that it's a dictionary of people rather than an encyclopedia. So there's no place for an article on the Moors murders in the ODNB, it has to have two articles, one on Brady and one on Hindley, but we don't suffer from the same restriction. --MalleusFatuorum12:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, as I wrote in the AfD debate, I think there is a place for an article on the murders and also one on Hindley (at least), concentrating on different facets - the essence of Wikipedia:Summary style is that subtopics are broken out into more detailed articles, which necessarily overlap to some extent with their "parent" articles, and vice versa - but the consensus seems to be against me here, so that it that. However, there still seems to be a substantial amount of relevant biographical material in the full version of Myra Hindley which is not included in Moors murders.
Incidentally, there is no ODNB article on Ian Brady - they always wait until the 4th year after a death before publishing an article; so this year they started to add deaths from 2005. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Harold Shipman could do with some work too. I'm really hoping the the AfD on Hindley and Brady goes the "right" way, because a pound to a penny none of those voting to keep those articles will lift a finger to sort them out. --MalleusFatuorum15:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom - It doesn't matter where I will go. This is a group of friends who keeps pushing this nonsense. They started on Persian Empire and continued to meat across various pages. Folantin, Fullstop, Dbachmann, Antandarus, Akhilleus, Itsmejudith (the last one is the one that is currently causing the most disruption with reinforcements of course. This is where she didn't make admin because of the same kind of disruption before), etc. I'm surprised Moreschi or Dougweller haven't yet tried. They are purposefully ignoring all of our rules just to destroy this encyclopedia, and they are using meat puppets to reinforce them. At least Irish nationalists -care- about the encyclopedia. The above group is merely dead set on destroying it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
You know more about GAN than me
Do you think this GAN is iffy enough to warrant objecting to? I have no particular interest in this article (it only found my way onto my watchlist due to a dispute over the capitalisation of its name) but not a single one of these "major issues" looks like a valid objection to me (although I agree that the map is too big for the article). – iridescent 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Note - having looked at this more closely, I realise two of the illustrations were actually taken by me way-back-when – iridescent20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I see any "major issues", but the uncited sections were always going to be a problem, along with the gallery. I'd have put it on hold while those issues and the map were sorted out. I don't see a problem with the lead, nor with the images in the table of stations. Because it doesn't presently meet the GA criteria I don't think there'd be any point in objecting to the quick fail. --MalleusFatuorum21:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, I'm not losing sleep. I'd have failed it myself (and by definition it's an unstable article anyway, as all the trains on the line are in the process of being replaced). – iridescent21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments such as this "I think that as an administrator you have been an officious, bullying, waste of space."[[6]] This is very innapropriate. To quote the warning template please comment on content not the contributer.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, I think it is time to stop posting on Chillum's talk page. It is one thing to respond to people coming after you. However, once they start walking away, it is good to let them go. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
{{subst:if|||
{{{message}}}
||subst=subst:}}
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
?? What happened to my nice speech I put into here? lol I'm glad to see though that things are resolving - no need for the war; keep that elsewhere in the world. P.S. Malleus, cheers for the cyber-boot up my ass early, it kinda helped me out a little. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
mmmmm cookies... foooooood lol. made me all hungry now! thanks Hell in a bucket, I'll take a whole box of those off ya hands! Pr3st0n (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll give you a cookie too, to say thanks - as long as I get to have a nibble on it! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I think he's done with expansion, and I even went through and culled links. And did a poor attempt at copyediting. Might I persuade you to work your magic on the poor guy? He's next up for the FAC meat grinder. Ealdgyth - Talk16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
... that User:Ottava Rima is capable of bullying 9 individuals, 6 of whom are admin, even though those individuals constantly reinforce each other in multiple threads and constantly threaten to block and the such? See here for evidence of his amazing powers.
I must be some super user to be capable of such feats of strength. And apparently I am "bullying" by requiring our policies such as RS, V, and the rest to dominate articles instead of allowing things that are out and out fabrications and the rest to hold sway. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to slow it down a little Ottava. The way consensus works, numbers do matter. And being memorialized in the hall of martyrs isn't all it's cracked up to be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Most readers of this page know your post was humorous - the first para is a parody of a Barnum-style promoter - but I suspect the individuals you describe do not have a sense of humour. In addition I think you should be more discreet about such conflicts - such advertising makes you your own worst enemy. --Philcha (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
A request
Hey there Malleus. A couple months ago, you gave me a few pointers for taking Nikita Zotov up to GA status. I just wanted to thank you for your comments; your advice helped me take it through GAN. I was wondering if you had the time to look at it again; I was thinking about taking the article to FAC and I wanted to get your opinion first. Thanks for all your help, NW(Talk)23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Figured you might have gotten distracted by the numbers/digits thread below, so I'm just posting to attract your attention. Sincerely, NW(Talk)01:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Malleus; I recently gave a superficial copyedit of the Nikita Zotov article, and have noticed your recent changes. I haven't been able to find a MOS entry that advises either way, but surely it should be 17th/20th century or seventeenth/twentieth century, rather than 17th/twentieth? Second query; again not sure if we have a convention on it, but in terms of using or spelling numbers, I've always gone by the rule of thumb that one-or-two digit numbers should be spelled (e.g. "the woman was fifty years old"), and any number with more digits should be represented by number characters (e.g. "the woman was 107 years old"). Any thoughts? Skomorokh 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
We use to. Apparently, people have been stealing my word version of numbers and replacing them with digits. I gave up fighting against it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to Skomorokh, but a sentence ought not to start off with "20th century historians ..." The other usual MoS convention is that numbers less than ten are spelt out and those greater than 10 and over are given as numbers. Unless they're in a "list" as I've just done. If you disagree with any of my edits then feel free to revert them. --MalleusFatuorum00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being opaque; the diffs in question are 17th, twentieth and 50. Am I to understand not starting a sentence with a number takes precedence over consistency in the case of the centuries? I've had a look around the MoS and it seems ambiguous on fifty vs. 50: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." I'm not challenging your edits, just trying to understand the rationale, and more specifically the stylistic norms of the editors of high-end content, so that I can be a help rather than a hindrance in copyediting in future. Thanks both, Skomorokh 00:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm flattered that you consider me a "high-end editor". :-) Basically yes, sentences ought not to start with a number. The MoS is ambiguous though on 50 vs fifty, I agree; it's ambiguous in lots of places in fact, but the less than/more than 10 rule is one that most seem to go by. --MalleusFatuorum01:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Typography of figures has got to be be one of the most complex things on Wikipedia ;) Here are a few tid-bits from WP:MOSNUM:
"Centuries are given in figures: the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting."
"As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." However...
"Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs."
"Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer: 9 mm, The option price fell to 5 within three hours after the announcement." Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for a stimulating discussion; it was probably naive to imagine there was a straightforward answer to any of these questions. I'm also starting to question the benefits of iterative copyediting – perhaps it ought to be left until the end and done right once. Finally, I can't help but ask about your dragon template at the top of this page; surely you don't mean to end it in a comma? If so I might have to re-assess that high-end-editor status! Skomorokh 10:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, I want to thank you to coming to my aid in the on-going "UK Copyright Act 1911" debate. I wasn't expecting you to come in, but your cyber-boot is coming in handy ;-) Thanks for helping out mate! Pr3st0n (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I was making a general point; I haven't looked into the details of the specific case, but I did notice that you failed to make a clear case for either PD or copyright release in your RfA, where this issue first cropped up. In any event, copying text without attribution is plagiarism, and to be avoided. --MalleusFatuorum23:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again, you came in at the right moment - how do you do that? Must be psychic! lol. That's 2 barnstar's I to find for you now!, 1 for last nights boot up my ass, and 1 for tonight's help. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll just put them in my "issued" list, so at least they are somewhere for reference lol. I do owe you a favor in return though. Use it wisely ;-) Pr3st0n (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm not happy about copying so much text from this source, PD or not, attributed or not, but that's a separate discussion. --MalleusFatuorum00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to check something with the 2 of you if I may - in last nights discussion on my talk page, over the copyrights issue, you would have been aware that the thread itself got tidied up to flow into time-line, as I gathered there were edit conflicts happening, I got a few myself in that convo. Anyway, one user is now complaining, stating that it should not be moved into time-line; now I know you were aware it was happening, as you all continued to post at the end of each others message, after the tidy-up took place. Am I to assume correctly that you were OK with this message time-line tidy-up which happened in your presence? Pr3st0n (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's the kind of thing that some may object to, as it became less easy to see who was replying to who. As far as I'm concerned though it's your talk page to organise as you like, didn't bother me as you didn't change any of the comments. --MalleusFatuorum15:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No, definitely not me, and definitely not the sort of thing I would ever be likely to do, no matter what my personal opinion of that editor. --MalleusFatuorum13:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
To prove that it's not me you mean? People will believe whatever they want to believe anyway, but if there's any real doubt in anyone's mind I'd have no objection to a checkuser. --MalleusFatuorum14:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No one could seriously think it was you (apologies to Ched; I meant, no one who's had their coffee could seriously think this was you); I think Pilcha was suggesting you might want to ask a Checkuser to find out who is impersonating you, to see if it can be stopped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the whole time I was typing this - it just didn't feel right! If I'd have seen something on Chillum's talk like that, I wouldn't have been surprised - but I have NEVER known Mal to stoop to that level (vandalism) (even in my very limited interactions). I'm just glad it got found before it made more problems. Sorry I didn't notice the spelling right off the bat and block straight out Mal; I had just gotten up and hadn't had my coffee yet. ;) — Ched : ? 14:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that even my worst enemy here could plausibly accuse me of ever having vandalised anything Ched; it just isn't something I'd do. I'm quite happy to tell Chillum, for instance, on his talk page exactly what I think of him, but why on Earth would I want to vandalise his userpage? Apart from which I thought that he and I had agreed to leave each other alone, as we just don't see eye-to-eye. --MalleusFatuorum14:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
EXACTLY! Even if I'd disagree with you over something (past, present, or future), I know you're a straight shooter, and while you won't pull any punches, ... I have the utmost respect for your integrity! (Oh, and at Floquenbeam, "lol .. sometimes it takes me a little bit to get up to speed" Having been on the Internet before WWW existed, I'm pretty slow at making assumptions. Definitely have to have my coffee first - and even then, I'm pretty useless at the SPI stuff. ;)) — Ched : ? 15:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed your comment Ched, but it was fairly mild considering. I just can't believe that I got a warning for something another user did that was absolutely nothing to do with me! --MalleusFatuorum15:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL ... hey, at least he didn't redirect his talk page to yours ... ahhhh. .... you might want to delete this particular post per WP:BEANS once you've read it. ;-) — Ched : ? 15:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
As an experienced GA reviewer, can I seek your advice? Now that I've got a few GAs under my belt, and even 1-2 FAs, I've been thinking about helping with the backlog at GAN. I left some non-review comments at Talk:A Christmas Carol. I've also seen comments by you, and others, at User talk:Iridescent#A penny for your thoughts and elsewhere that GA reviews are in danger of getting too challenging. So, if you get a moment, would you take a look at my Carol comments and tell me which you think are (a) appropriate for a GA review; (b) too strict for a GA review or (c) inappropriate full-stop. Thanks, BencherliteTalk09:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty fair review I think, so well done. Personally I'd just have fixed those punctuation issues you mentioned in the first couple of points, it's quicker and easier. I don't entirely agree with your contention that there should be nothing in the lead that isn't in the body of the article (and hence there's no need for citations in the lead), but you're right in that the lead does need some work. I wouldn't be insisting on additional sources, not at GAN anyway, but I'd have suggested that the citation, footnotes, and printed sources were tidied up. I prefer to see the footnotes, then citations, then printed sources. That's obviously not a GA requirement though, although "Slater, op. cit., 206." isn't appropriate and I'd want that fixed. What's your view on the copyright status of the book cover in the lead? I think there's no problem with the illustrations in the rest of the article, but I think it's maybe stretching things a bit to claim that the book itself is a two-dimensional work of art. I'd be inclined to think that a fair use claim needs to be made for that. But overall a pretty good review I think. --MalleusFatuorum14:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Butting in .. not having looked at the article, if the book cover is a book jacket, then yes, it's two-dimensional, but if it's the actual book that's shown, then it's three dimensional. Ealdgyth - Talk11:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Take this unsurpassable opportunity to be in at the beginning of an other wikidrama LMAO. No viagra or cialis needed --WebHamster20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I know you're a busy chap, but do you fancy working on a similar article to Moors murders, such as Murder of James Bulger, or Harold Shipman, after a suitable pause for thought? Or do you have too much to do? I still have my Pink Floyd stuff, and other things on the side, but I'm about past the crest of the hill on those so can slow down a little. Parrotof Doom20:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd been thinking about Harold Shipman anyway, and Majorly mentioned James Bulger before. I'm sure the three of us could do something with both of those, if we can manage to shepherd Brady and Hindley through FAC. I'm slightly alarmed at the recent calls for an In popular culture section, as I thought we'd already dealt with that. Oh well. :-( I think I'd probably try to tackle Shipman first, as a break from child murderers though. --MalleusFatuorum22:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
