User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2008/January

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Hi, As you may have spotted on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset the latest reviewer is saying that several things "should be hyphenated as compound adjectives". Can you advise or point me to the bit of MOS I should use for this?— Rod ^talk 09:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the relevant bit of the MOS. Applying the rules can be a bit complicated though, so you might also find it helps to look at this as well. I agree with one of the examples the reviewer gave - "purpose-built" - but not the other - "much reduced output" - as that isn't being used as a compound adjective. Nobody would write the equivalent "very-reduced output", for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this & your other edits. I think "a bit complicated" for these hyphen rules is a bit of an understatement - I will never understand English grammar I went to a grammar school!— Rod ^talk 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, but there is a balance between not saying it, saying in a convoluted manner, and saying it in a precise manner. I was trying to balance precise against convoluted. The convoluted reason is two fold: to fool the bombers into dropping their load in the wrong location (thereby preventing further damage); and to put out the fire, thereby preventing further damage. I've changed douse to smothered; the incendaries may have been burning magnesium so dousing (with water) was not a good idea.Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making was that incendiaries would have been doused/smothered wherever possible wherever they were dropped. Except, presumably, in these decoy towns. So it seems a little obvious to say that incendiaries dropped on Bristol were put out wherever possible. Indeed it would have been worthy of mention had they not been. Were special measures put in place to douse/smother incendiaries dropped on Bristol more quickly than in any other town/city for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct to surmise that incendiaries dropped on the decoy towns were not smothered; but I can't answer the question posed, may be it is unverifiable. I have been provided, earlier tonight, with a book reference that refers in more detail to this subject; so I will obtain a copy. I have visited one of Glasgow's decoy towns; and I knew (as of last week) that Birmingham had decoys; and I believe Manchester had some (you can probably deduce where they might have been located). What I mean, is not always what is written; and others often see that first. My point was the edit summary, itself; perhaps wikistress was present.Pyrotec (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The topic of decoy towns - and the other devices used to divert bombers during WW2 - is an interesting one, worth an article in its own right. I came across a reference to sulphur burning fog generators supposed to have been installed near to where I live in Manchester, but I haven't managed to find one of them yet.

It wasn't my intention to cause you any wikistress, and I'm sorry if you felt that my edit summary reflected my opinion of your efforts to improve the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 3 - January 2008 December issue | February issue Project News There are now 3,301 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. With 1,789 current featured articles, that brings the total of good and featured articles to 5,090! The most recently promoted articles are: Hurricane Daniel (2006), Tarbosaurus, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Wicca, Seth MacFarlane, Stanley Internment Camp, Hurricane Karen (2007), Interstate 155 (Illinois), Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007), Brian Sings and Swings, Winston Churchill, Mzoli's, John Kefalas, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Attachment disorder, Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, Byzantium under the Angeloi, Wowowee, Tyrone Wheatley, Mina (singer), Jon Burge, Mercury Hayes, William Lowndes Yancey, and Toni Preckwinkle. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include: Awadewit (talk · contribs) Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Elcobbola (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Kane5187 (talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 166 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of December: Majoreditor (talk · contribs) Bernstein2291 (talk · contribs) The4325 (talk · contribs) Pepsi2786 (talk · contribs) Monowi (talk · contribs) Rankun (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GAReview Template Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer. To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article. GA Sweeps After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details. At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep. Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA. Did You Know,... ... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000? ... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"? ... that there is a bot (StatisticianBot) that gives a daily report on GAN? ... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed? ... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star? From the Editors Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA. OhanaUnited Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers! Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Line of Duty series 3 (talk | history | start review) • Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Concorde • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Wicked (musical) • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

I took your advice and pinged Tony on whether the article now meets his standards. Thanks for your review, and for your help with copyediting. I also really appreciate the kind words—I'm pretty proud of the progress the article has made :) Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You should feel proud of it, it's a nice piece of work. I really hope that it gets the support it deserves. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point about Travis's rank. I looked that up (he was a major), and added it into the article. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I shoot myself in the foot? I did not get an admin coach (see your comment under oppose). RFA was spur of the moment that I only thought of in the last 2 days or so. Archtransit (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was making a general point about admin coaches, but you obviously hadn't realised that the open to recall issue has become a bag of worms. So no, I don't think that you've shot yourself in the foot at all, and I'm pretty sure that you'll sail through, so don't worry. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what Lar is doing, but it looks awfully complicated. I'll have to review his process before doing any comments on it. I still haven't actually thought through a process in my own mind yet. Thanks for the info about what he's working on. Corvus cornix_talk 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lar's point, I think, is that every admin ought to be clear about the precise conditions under which they will be agree to subject to recall, and what will happen once those conditions are met. One size probably won't fit all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You are a true hater of any attempt to improve this project. When a clear and concerted effort was in progress, a real attempt to improve this article was being undertaken, you just killed the process with out consensus. I have spent months trying to improve many articles/portals/projects/etc. and you destroyed everything I belived the whole wiki-thing was about by "calling" this article finished when it clearly wasn't. If it is just that easy to crush so much work while it is in progress I will not use any more of my life on this. -- SECisek (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's rather a misrepresentation of the facts. I simply closed the GA review as it was clear to me the consensus was that the article was not a GA and still required substantial work. When that has been done it is a very simple matter to put the article forwards for another GA nomination. The purpose of the GA review is to attempt to establish a consensus as to whether an article meets the GA criteria or not, not to pass any other kind of judgement. To suggest that I "am a hater of any attempt to improve this project" is quite simply hyperbolic rhetoric. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again,

Adminship going further and further out of reach now.... I just wondered how you felt about Peterborough being an FA? A cursory glance through the article highlights alot of (admittedly fairly minor) breaches of MOS, grammatical redundancy and some mild peacock terms.

I've raised some concerns at the talk page where another user has asked if more users from WP:UKGEO would be able to make some commentary/judgement. I thought of you (and User:Rodw). Hope you get a chance to fly by. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the FA review I'm a bit surprised that it was promoted in the first place. It certainly doesn't look like an FA to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Much appreciated as ever! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As promised I thought I would let you know that following your assistance, I have nominated London congestion charge for featured article status. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London congestion charge. Regan123 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with it, I hope it goes well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I did mean to quickfail it, sorry - you can remove it from the nominee list. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that one folk singer refers to Salford as 'Dirty old town' doesn't mean that it 'has been given the nickname', it means that one folk singer wrote one song. The citation doesn't go beyond these simple facts. As a long term resident of Salford, I have NEVER heard anyone use this as a nickname - EVER - resident or visitor. Most people in the area are aware of the song and its history and it is rightly mentioned later on in the article and I can see no problem with this. If you can come up with convincing evidence that this has ever been a nickname, (in the way that Londoners call London 'the smoke' or New Yorkers call their town 'The Big Apple' then please do, you will be hard pressed to find any reference which is not in a copy of the WP page or mentions the song. I have no personal axe to grid here excepting that this reference has already been made in the article, and to repeat it seems derogatory.StaceyGrove (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference comes from a book about Salford, not from one singer. Did you check the citation before you decided that it was "irrelevant"? I do not consider the fact that you have never come across the term to be especially relevant in the face of evidence to the contrary. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Malleus Fatuarum! Since you've assessed quite a few good articles and contributed to them, I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:

• Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
• Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

If you have the time, it'd be great if you could review those articles and assess their strengths and weaknesses. And if you wish to submit feedback, go to those articles's talk pages and follow the links. Thanks, and a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not really the right person to ask about films or any other arts topics really. I'm much happier looking at a statistical result than I am about weighing up the opinions of ephemeral critics. I'm often reminded of a probably apocryphal story about the 1990s visit of a Chinese envoy to France; when asked what his opinion of the French revolution was all he had to say was: "Too soon to tell".

I'd be happy to pop along and give you my opinion on how well those articles are written though, content aside. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up Trafford, I really need to look up guidelines on dash usage etc, you've done a lot of work because I didn't get it right first time. Any ideas where I find that? Nev1 (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSDASH is the place to look. But the thing that seems to trip lots of editors up is that the same same MOS rules apply to references as well, so it's a bit of a minefield. To say nothing of the hyphenation "rules", which could drive a saint to drink. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. My favourite part is "en dashes are stylistic alternative to em dashes" as if it wasn't complicated enough already. Nev1 (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No I always find your contributions constructive. I'd also like Bath to get to FA (again) but need to get Somerset & Exmoor over that hurdle first!— Rod ^talk 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out a few things I missed in the review. I appreciate your help, and keep up the good work! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, another favour. In the latest reviewers comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset a reviewer states: "Drainage started in Roman times, and was restarted various times: - odd as times is a now in the first and part of an adverbial construction in the second. maybe reword?" - I have no idea what an adverbial construction is - could you look at the sentence?— Rod ^talk 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if I understand it any more than you do. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I was like "whoa, nice! I never saw that!". I'll keep working on it, and thanks for the support. Green caterpillar (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish you luck with the article. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned on RfR about only needing to use rollback occasionally. Well, it doesn't really matter how much you use it: it's how you use it. If you only perform one or two rollbacks a day (or even a week), as long as rollback is used to revert vandalism and not to edit war, then there's nothing to worry about. :) Good luck. Acalamari 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Malleus. Many thanks for your involvement in the Thomas Brassey article. I am of course pleased that you have accepted it as a GA, but more than that I am grateful for the way you have done it - no putting it on hold to deal with minutiae, etc. I was keen to get this article accepted as as a GA because Brassey is an important unrecognised Cestrian (and by the way it's good to have you as a participant in the Cheshire WikiProject). I have been persuaded by Doug Haynes (and others) that he deserves more credit than he has received to date. I shall deal with the points you raised in the next day or two and will place any comments on the talk page. Best wishes - and Happy New Year. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Brassey is an important Cestrian, as you say, and one who's been surprisingly forgotten. You wrote an excellent article, so it would have been churlish of me to deny the little green dot just for the sake of a very few minor points, which I had full confidence that you would address anyway.

I hope to get more involved with the Cheshire project this year, but I'll be careful to stay away from articles that I might be asked, or want, to review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, If you had a minute could you look at the comments of the last 2 reviewers on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset & see whether you think the changes suggested are reasonable?— Rod ^talk 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

By and large I don't think that they're reasonable, no, and you and the other editors have probably already done all that can reasonably be expected to be done to deal with them. Several of the comments seemed to display an ignorance of the subject and its context (the metric/imperial nonsense again) and others were verging on I don't like it, like the demand to get the maps redrawn as SVGs. I have to say that I'm really not keen on that ugly Americanism, Transportation either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ping. Rudget. 23:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I've done the last 2 pages of everything, rewent through your list, and I'm pretty sure I've made improvements to the article. It used to sound like this scholarly textbook-type thing that would definitely make me fall asleep. Anyway, I hope it is good enough to make GA now, and please let me know if there's anything else needed to get there. Thanks again for your dedication to the nomination. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very substantial improvement.Nice job! A couple of the references (12 and 14) are broken though, so you might want to take a look at those. User:Deacon of Pndapetzim has indicated an intention to make some further changes, so as one of the GA criteria is that an article should be stable, I propose to wait for a few more days before deciding whether or not to list this article. I'm happy to extend the hold period in cases where the article is being worked on satisfactorily, like this one is. Looking pretty good so far though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into how the broken references work. Anything I can do to help stability? Green caterpillar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on what changes User:Deacon of Pndapetzim plans on making now. If they're fairly minor, no sweat. But if they're more substantial, adding lots of new information, significantly restructuring the article, well ....

I'd suggest that you contact User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, and come to some agreement between you on what version of this article you want the final GA assessment to be made against. But whatever the outcome, you should be pleased with the work that you've done in transforming this article from one that definitely would not have passed to one that's now got a fighting chance. I'm sure that if we all work together in good faith we can get that little green dot for Albin. Keep up the good work!. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hoped to get a run on St George's too (more info there), but had to settle for St Thomas' Church, Stockport, about which I have nearly nothing. Ah well, time for kip. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, I created a stub with the name Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, Prestwich, fixed the link and you red-linked it again ten minutes later! Slow down boy, slow down!!! Richerman (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought we'd agreed on the naming convention Church of St Mary tbe Virgin, Prestwich? Rather than Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, Prestwich? If I've got it wrong, then I apologise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I apologise regardless. I should have noticed that you'd turned the link blue and not touched it. My fault. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, I thought we were doing church or parish church depending on which it was. Anyway I'm off to bed now as I'm knackered. No more red-linking while I'm gone!!:-) Richerman (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try my best not to make things worse while you're gone. I'll be gone shortly myself anyway, so that limits my potential for causing any more collateral damage. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I see what you mean now - I hadn't read the last bit of the conversation on naming. And I have to admit I was once a left-footer too!! Adeste fideles laete triumphantes etc, etc. I hope you weren't a Cardinal Langley boy too? Richerman (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't, I went to Catholic schools in Scotland, but when my family moved down to England I went to a regular grammar school, which I much preferred. I've got half a mind to go back to confession one day, just to get a few things off my chest. "Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It is ... errr ... well ... an awful long time since my last confession. But that's not why I'm here. I'm here about the stance that the Roman Catholic Church has taken on ..." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your second review. I know that this article's GA process is probably rougher than most, and I've seen many who just rate it and don't give it a second thought, and you have just put a lot of time into this, so, um, thanks :). Anyway, when's the new on hold date for resolving with Deacon and making the second set of changes? Would it be 7 days from you posting on my talk page? Thanks again. Green caterpillar (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I said this Friday midnight on the talk page, but if things are still progressing then, and it's looking promising, I'm quite open to extending the end date a little more. GA reviews are a little variable, I agree. I guess you just drew the short straw. :-)

To be serious though, if GA is going to be worth anything, then it's got to be more than a quick look through and a yay or a nay. I don't think I'm being especially tough, but if you or anyone else does, then we can always ask for a second opinion and I'll abide by that. And if the result of the review isn't considered acceptable, then there's always WP:GAR. So it's not all just down to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My strength as a wikipedia editor is my knowledge and the research I do; I'm delighted that someone will take their time to teach me more about making these articles more readable and professional. As for the GA process, it's rather random and the GA award isn't really anything to me other than a signal that it's close to being ready for FA, which doesn't matter if there's no intention of going down that route. However, I'm gonna use GA more from now on because, like FA, it's a pretty fine way of getting people to review articles without straining friendships. FA noms are the only guaranteed way for this, but GA noms give a chance for it too, as Malleus and Albin demonstrate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to say that. The research that you've done is really impressive; all I've tried to do is to make it accessible to more readers in the case of the Albin article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, and in the end I abstained myself from voting in your RfA, I'm sure that you'll make a good admin. So I wish you the very best of luck in your new role. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malleus Fatuarum - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. I will try to prove myself to be as sensible and reasonable as you found my answers to the questions and editing history. The RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your new buttons. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A belated thank you for your RFA support! Archtransit (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No sweat, you deserved it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm certain that WP:3RR wouldn't be applicable here, as this is a fairly clear case of vandalism removal. Middleton is on my watch list, but I spotted it late! Hopefully the warning on his/her talk will halt this.

Any thoughts since on Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester? I'm quite astonished the way it is going. There's even a strong oppose in there! -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I only have one thought, and that's also astonishment. A strong oppose based on a misunderstanding of the difference between a footnote and a citation is quite simply incredible. The experience has left me convinced that the FLC process is fundamentally flawed, and I would be very reluctant to get involved with it again. A cursory glance at almost any of the current featured lists makes the point I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

G'day mate! I wld greatly appreciate if u cld assist me in reviewing the above article. Fyi, the article was reviewed & left in limbo state despite my replies, follow-up edits (See also my talkpage) and gentle reminders sent earlier. I wish to seek closure on this case as my personal responsibility & accountability to the SGpedian community which has supported my contributions all these while. Thanks! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again. The article seems to be languishing at GAN, so I'll try and take a look at it over the weekend. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank u for your time & kind assistance in reviewing the abovementioned. As per your review, I've completed the necessary follow-ups & my reply on the talkpage here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Are you aware that User:Rudget has retired?! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Retired? Why? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

His user page explains some bizzare happenings which occurred within the last 24 hours. According to the note, there was a hoax made about Rudget by a cousin of his... after a small hullaboloo, this seems to have prompted him to leave the project. A great shame of course, but we (well, particularly you!) get a personal thanks which is nice.

However, subjectivity aside, yet another case of a user acheieving adminship, only to leave the project shortly after. As they say round here, "it's a bad do". -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a bad do. Whatever the particular circumstances surrounding Rudget's departure, there are too many users disappearing after they've got those few extra admin buttons. Job done in their minds I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to think not, but my heart and head says yes, this seems to be the case all too often. I know this phenomina has been discussed at lengths in the past too. Rudget was always extremely keen to be an admin, of course, and it is therefore a double disappointment to the project that once achieved, and following some silly incident, he felt the need to depart.

I would've liked to have shared my opinions with him that had this incident occured before synopship I doubt he would've left, whilst also, it seems to have wasted a great deal of user's time, efforts and contributions (considering all the coaching, polling, feedback, promises made and expectations raised). Alas, his talk page is protected and unless he get a chance to monitor this, well, he'll never know. That's that I guess. I'll remove him from the participants lists at WP:GM. Onwards and upwards I guess. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't feel too badly about the experience. I know that RfAs can be a little unsettling, but being an admin is no big deal anyway. Self-nominations generally seem to be given a rougher passage anyway. Good luck for next time. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely crazy. It really is. I mean, why would someone oppose such a stunning article??? Granted, we obtained some constructive feedback that was overlooked by us (naturally), but three opposes including a strong oppose based on factors that cannot be addressed! It's madness.

This list is superior to a great many other featured lists. I really stand by that. I can't see any issues. It is frustrating. Do you have any ideas? Perhaps withdrawing the nomination and re-starting it will help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm all out of ideas for the moment. We've produced an elegant looking and useful list that is way better both technically and aesthetically than many of the current featured lists, yet it gets opposed on the basis of ill-informed (or worse) personal preferences.

I'm not sure about withdrawing and then restarting the nomination. I suppose I'd probably just let the nomination take its course and then think about what to do next if it fails. Having said that I've got no ideas, one has just occurred to me. What about asking the main editors of some of the present FAs to pop along and given an opinion? Without, of course, any encouragement to support, just to give an honest assessment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for GAR comments regarding this. If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Kindly comment on this. Thanks. Marax (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Noting your edit summary. Complex stuff, obviously, but have you actualy noted that I'm saying that by removing discretion at RfA the 'crat's "job" become diluted? Have you noticed that by indenting under a comment it refers to the previous comment? Have you actually noticed that I made no argument (in the true sense of the word) but an observation instead. Have you noticed that since my oppose on your RfA, and my attempt to reconcile because of that, your initial gentle reply and then four or so hours later an outright tirade against me, that funnily enough your snarky comments and edit summaries are not actually making you look so clever? I'm going off-line now, because I'm so irritated at the way you assume bad faith and can't seem to help but snipe at me. Try and remember I'm a human being, a volunteer, and believe in this project. I know you are the same. Why must you relentlessly bring up bad blood? Pedro :  Chat  00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think that you need to calm down a bit, and consider that not everyone who disagrees with you does so because of what you call "bad blood". It may simply be because you're talking bollox. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

::Or maybe, and I quote from your words "Your argument would carry so much weight if you could point to even one example where a candidate passed RfA with less the 50% of the votes" is a load of bollocks, when it is utterly without context and you still have provided no diff's when I mentioned 50%. I'd be delighted if you could provide the diff so that we can work on the conversation. Pedro :  Chat  08:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful to a colegial atmosphere. Struck with apologies. Pedro :  Chat  08:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. Your argument appeared to be that if RfA became a vote then we might as well promote 1,000 admins to bureaucrats. My counter-argument was that RfA is already a vote in all but name, hence my challenge to produce an RfA that had passed with less than 50% of support votes. I never said that you had mentioned 50% anywhere. If you insist on seeing that as a personal remark motivated by some imaginary "bad blood" then so be it. My opinion remains unchanged. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I failed to make my argument clear, and apologise, but and am still mystified how on earth you get your logic. Assume, for one moment, that I was arguing in seriousness that if RfA is a vote then we can make all admins 'crats as there is no longer a need to determine consensus. It is a mathematical decision only. Okay, we've done that. Now move to - you feel RfA is already a vote in all but name. Okay, I'm happy with that. Now move to - so Pedro, you give me an RfA that has passed at 50%. That is you self declared counter-argument Eh?? You might as well have said, so Pedro give me a chicken that has turned into an elephant. It's a total non-sequiter. That's why I I felt this was based on previous (sadly) negative interaction. You replied with a line of logic/reasoning that was so far out to sea. Now, I'm sorry I shouldn't have come running to your talk page, but can you not see that your "give me an rfA that has passed at 50%" is so wildly of base and nothing whatsoever do do with my comments and thoughts?Pedro :  Chat  12:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't. And I believe that your running to my talk page accusing me of bearing grudges against you because I disagreed with/misunderstood your position is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Let's once again be clear. I believed your opposition to my RfA to be based on your misunderstanding of events. My only grouse against you was that when your misunderstanding was pointed out to you, you dug your heels in and refused to face the facts. I had already made that point perfectly clear to you, but so far as I'm concerned it is now water under the bridge. Just a pity that you can't also see it that way. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. If I was expected to take what you say seriously, then I would also require an apology for your accusation of "outright tirade", "snarky comments", and "sniping". Of course, I don't really expect an apology, as the rules for civil behaviour appear to be very different depending on who you are, and who you had a disagreement with within living memory. But am I bovvered? Does this face look bovvered? In point of fact, I think that you did me a favour in opposing my RfA, which I was very reluctant to undertake in the first place. It forced me to re-assess why I wanted to be involved in wikipedia, and the answer had nothing to do with a few extra buttons that I would probably only have used rarely anyway. The new rollback function meets my needs in reverting obvious vandalism easily and quickly very well. So, far from bearing you a grudge, I'm actualy quite grateful to you in a perverse sort of a way. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Buddy, if you're happy so am I. I apologise, of course, for those comments detailed above if they have hurt you or just proved bothersome. They were wrong of me, poorly said. I still feel you have not even vaguely explained your logical leap from RfA is a vote to > give me an RfA that passed at 50% but let's not worry about it. No biggie. Glad you are "enjoying" the rollback tool. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have preferred it if you had simply apologised for your comments because they were both untrue and unworthy of you. But no big deal, let's move on. I will be quite content if the next time I happen to make the mistake of disagreeing with you that you do not automatically assume bad faith on my part. On that basis I am happy prepared to accept your apology. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

pls use subst: when leaving warning messages - then the actual text gets added to the page, otherwise vandals get into template space. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to remember to do that in future. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and encouragement. I have made a brief holding reply to your message on my talk page but am replying here in more detail to express my personal thoughts. I am in more than one mind about working Runcorn and other articles towards FA, partly because of previous experiences (including near-abuse) in the process. This leads me to ask what Wikipedia is for. Is it for individual editors to get some sort of medal, or is it to provide information to the readers out there who consult the articles? Does an article have to jump the hurdles to pass as a FA in order to be useful to the reader, or does it just have to be "good enough" to be good enough? I think the Runcorn article, as it now is, gives a good account of the town. Does it matter that much to the reader that some sentences are too short? Since Runcorn was "failed" I have spent time on filling gaps in the content of Wikipedia with short to medium articles, fully referenced, aiming at the reader rather than at a WP assessor. Perhaps this is more effective than scoring FAs - I don't really know. But I enjoy writing shortish articles, or improving existing articles, rather than taking flak from rude commentators. Sorry if that sounds a bit negative but I see no point in contributing to WP if I don't enjoy what I am doing.

Thanks for your encouraging remarks elsewhere about the Cheshire WikiProject. But my experience is that very few so-called participants are doing anything. Ddstretch set it up but seems to have his finger in multiple projects; Espresso Addict was becoming very active, then disappeared for a couple of months and has just returned; Salinae has been struggling to get Middlewich to GA but seems to have given up; otherwise not a lot. I am jealous of the degree of activity by the editors of WikiProject Greater Manchester and very impressed by the recent successes at FA. The members have been very encouraging about my articles on Greater Manchester churches. I fear that the energy and enthusiasm of the Cheshire editors (other than of course your good self!) may not be adequate at present to drive the idea forward. Sorry to be so negative (again!); I await with interest the response (or otherwise) to your suggestion on the Project Talk Page.

To change the subject, would you be so kind as to have a look at John Douglas (architect) and Edmund Sharpe; I have expanded the former article and started the latter. Do you think this is a reasonable model for articles of this type? I am rather concerned that the Douglas tables are so big (which reflects his activity) and wonder if they should be placed in a separate list (as Thomas Brassey and List of structures built by Thomas Brassey). (Sorry I am much more interested in doing this sort of thing than polishing articles for FAs.)

But having got all that off my chest, perhaps if one or two selected Cheshire articles could be presented to the "team", who could return to Cheshire editors for matters of content, so that they (the "team") could take the "FA flak", it might be worth doing. Which I think was the idea anyway, wasn't it? Sorry if this is a bit rambling. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have been inactive in the project for a while. I'm not all that active in other projects, except the WP:UKGEO one. At the moment, I don't have much time for serious wikipedia article writing, as I am battling the UK Immigration authorities to allow my wife and son to remain with me in the UK (they are Chinese citizens), as well as dealing with a few other family-related problems brought about by having increasingly elderly relatives, and so real-life is taking a greater priority. I would welcome extra help with Cheshire related articles. At the moment, I am trying to expand my work on completing the coverage of Cheshire civil parishes, and also exapnding various history-related issues to Cheshire. Thanks for the words, Peter. I appreciate that you feel few of us are engaging in Cheshire things at the moment. This explains some of the reason why I have been more silent recently, but I think your message will help me realise that I should concentrate on the Cheshire project for a while.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand your reluctance to re-enter what did appear to be an FA bearpit with the Runcorn article. The idea of the team, as I understand it - I'm not a member, so I probably ought not to speak on its behalf, but I will anyway - is to energise projects into becoming confident and capable of producing FAs, and then to move on. So I think that proposing an article or two and then having one or more members of the Cheshire project standing by to deal with content issues is exactly what they're looking for. They'll deal with all the copyedit/MoS issues.

The idea also, I think, is that a Cheshire Project success, say, will lead to increased participation in the Cheshire Project, perhaps a bit like what happened to the GM project last year. The first FA was very dificult, but success breeds success. There's always a tension between writing a lot of useful and informative articles and writing a fewer number of GA/FAs, and I've often felt that myself. I've come to the conclusion that it's a matter of balance though, and we ought to be doing a bit of both. You mentioned the Middlewich article, and Salinae perhaps having given up on it because of the frustration of not getting it through GA. With a little bit of guidance, and a few examples to follow, that could have been a GA today and Salinae still an active editor. That's an article that I'd certainly like to see listed as a GA, and if nobody else does then I may pick up the baton on it.

I feel a bit guilty for not helping out more with Cheshire; I've got my eye on a few articles that I think could be good GA candidates, and I'm very tempted to try and finish off the job that Salinae started with Midlewich. In the meantime, of course I'd be very happy to take a look at John Douglas (architect) and Edmund Sharpe and give you the debatable benefit of my opinion. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why, yes. Dlohcierekim 01:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Then we may have to agree to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just a thank you for your time and effort. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. You wrote an excellent article on an important subject in art history that I was very pleased to see get that little gold star. Well done!. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the barnstar. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening anything. (and I'm moving this here - feel free to move it back to BN if you feel it isn't off topic.). It made an honest suggestion to start a discussion on (controversial v noncontroversial) based on the thread directly below that one (basically, "what is controversial, anyway, 'crats?"). What did I type that you took personally? I'm asking seriously. If something I typed (I refuse to type "said" as you cannot hear my non-raised, non-emotional tone anymore than I can hear yours) was offensive to you, let me know, I'll strike it. Seriously. Keeper | 76 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No sweat. It's difficult without being able to see body language and hear tone of voice to understand what someone is really saying. I took what you said for an accusation that I was in some way focusing my general concerns on Rudget. I see now that I was mistaken in thinking that, and I apologise for having believed otherwise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted (even though I would have said apologize, not apologise). :-) I wish my PC had a "tone checker" in a similar sense as a "spell checker" as it would certainly save us from needless grief. And I also apologi<z/s>e, FWIW. If ever a general subject is raised (by you or by some other) regarding resysopping under "ambiguous controversy", I would like to think that this particular (admittedly unusual) circumstance could be the catalyst and good example for such a discussion. If ever you see one, let me know? I think you and I would likely agree more than we disagree. Moving along.... Keeper | 76 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, I think we probably would. I really had no idea before this that there was such a controversy surrounding how "controversial" was interpreted in these situations. Wikipedia can be a minefield for the unwary.

As an aside, British English allows both apologize and apologise. I chose apologise because I think it looks a little more elegant. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it's us damn Americans that are the bastards, as we see apologise not as elegant, or even acceptable, but as snobbish aka uppity. Damn you America, with all your warmongerin', aid givin', world leadin', money sendin', peacetalk hostin', technology innovatin', import-lovin', immigration welcomin', Disneyworld promoton' selves....Damn YOU (SA)!!!  :)Keeper | 76 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing. I don't want to make your economic recesssion any worse that it already is. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that made me laugh out loud. Glad I'm not a real estate broker, or should I say Estate agent... And with that, I'm done with this place until tomorrow's sun brings new optimism, new projects, and new speedy deletions....Cheers, Keeper | 76 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)