![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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, how are you? I plan on nominating SummerSlam (2003) for FAC, but before that I would like to get a copyedit, and Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) recommended you. If it's no bother may you copyedit the article? Thank You.-- S R X 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I hereby formally request you cease and desist any comment, opinion or action regarding an issue which is none of you business and does not concern you. Calling me a "dickhead"- such jealousy is a curse and a sin, Mr Hammer. Some British may smugly look down their nose at we former 'savage' colonials- but do so in the manner of willfully ignorant, delusionary smugness of the moral onanist petty bourgeoisie. They conveniently forget the blood upon their hands, the fact we had to violently evict colonial parasites and collaborators from our nation who enslaved, stole and exploit what they had no right nor claim to. Furthermore, the British and the Dutch both actively attempted to destroy our traditional societies by confiscating nobles' wealth, power and lands and handing them over to a pliant, submissive, non-assimilating and exploitative alien: the Hokkien Chinese (who incidentally grew approx one third of opium for their elites to flog to the Chinese mainland for tea). This is not racism- this is historical fact. Penang-Singapore-Medan is their triangular territory of sins. Furthermore, Britain and the US has a long and documented history of illegal self-serving interference in the politics of my nation. British should collectively shoulder the responsibility of 300,000+ murdered by installation of CIA/Mi6Foreign Office/BBC/preferred puppet Suharto- and the various covert and intel actions launched from your puppet sheriff outpost of Singapore (Raf Tengah, RAF Butterworth, a detachment of Gurkhas, etc- Singapore currently offering the US a nuclear sub base). Nigeria is not the only land were Royal Dutch Shell and BP keenly used violence for their oil. Indonesians such as myself, from a history of glorious nationalist struggle against our numerous oppressors have no shame in nationalism- it is beyond an ideology- it is our hereditary duty to forever be vigilant against the foes of the indigenous Indonesian people. Our 'hatred' is jusitified as is our perpetual outrage.
I sincerely offer you to be my guest in my wondrous Indonesia. What you will see, will most surely open your eyes to incriminating truths those, some ethnics attempt to hide and censor.
Let us pls leave each other in peace, respect each others' privacy and wish each other best wishes and part as disagreeing yet civil gents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starstylers ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Starstylers ( talk) 10:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL! That was the funniest quip I've ever heard from u to date! Save the hassle of sending your gunboats or even the upcoming QE-class HMS Prince of Wales (CVF) to this former Crown Colony for historic or nostalgic reasons mate. Fyi, there are already numerous well-documented cases of individuals or groups - 'activists', bloggers, writers, foreign media, suspects etc, who were detained while on visit or while on transit via S'pore, and some even got extradited to S'pore under the mutual co-operation & security agreements with Interpol, ASEAN or UN, to face charges of criminal acts, defamation (The SG govt has filed numerous libel suits & have yet to lose a case locally or abroad so far), or under the fearsome Sedition Act or Internal Security Act, for fanning racial or religious sentiments, promoting ultra-nationalism, communism, terrorism etc previously. Despite their respective government intervention pleading for leniency & public vigils, most were later sentenced to spend time at our (in)famous holiday chalet at Changi afterwards, with some receiving lasting painful reminders too, and the worst of all nightmares - death penalty - courtesy of our British-inherited laws & security apparatus that are heavily enforced 'in spirit and to the letter', even in cyberspace today. For some fortunate souls, they were denied entry & was issued a stern warning before being repatriated back immediately, but no doubt will shudder in cold sweat when recalling the 'welcoming reception' they got & regreting their foolish ways years later. Lastly, have u notice that no one has yet to leave any provocative or even bona fide academic comments, even anonymously on this talkpage to date? Still clueless? Read an example here which is self explanatory. Sadhu! -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I'm the lead reviewer on the article. I've gotten a bit of push back from the nominator about me being overly critical (it wouldn't be the first time, ha!), but reading through the article it just doesn't seem to have that GA quality. If you wouldn't mind providing a GA review, it would certainly be helpful. Best, epicAdam ( talk) 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I thought materiel was a misspelling but you wikilinked it further down so I stand corrected. If you want to put it back in and link it I promise not to change it again - honest! (damned Frenchies!) Richerman ( talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there; User:Collectonian recommended you. I'm trying to get this article ready to be nominated for GA-class, and she said you would be a good choice for a copyeditor. Could you please look the article over for me? Thanks! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! ( talk) 03:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been through the article now and I'll leave a few comments on its talk page. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just spotted your note about being tired and fed up of Wikipedia... Please, don't let the buggers grind you down. There are some complete idiots on Wikipedia, and some nice people too. You have done such great work at GA, FAC etc with projects of your own - as well as helping dozens of other people (me included). I've felt the same way several times here...and eventually it passes. I really hope you feel a bit better soon.--
Seahamlass
13:26, 04 August 2008 (UTC)
Continuing the discussion, so would I use 'all' {{citation}} throughout (so no cite book, cite web, cite journal etc) - would that still mean I use the harvnb template for the book citations? It all gets confusing from hereon.... Parrot of Doom ( talk) 11:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Much better - thanks -- Snowded TALK 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello there! Just wondered if I could twist your arm for a copyedit to Shaw and Crompton? I've just revisited the article and done a major rewrite of some sections. My vocab and writing isn't as good as I'd like. If you feel willing and able, there is no rush. Hope you can help, -- Jza84 | Talk 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
is very much in question here. Keeper ǀ 76 22:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
If I have offended you in a recent discussion with the use of the word cronies then I am sorry. I noticed your reply much later. I regret I cannot work on Wikipedia anymore due to the difficulties with JZA84 and when I am faced with the difficulties he accuses me of being offensive. However he is both judge and jury having blocked me and issued threats and questioning my integrity. I personally believe this type of editor is a bully, and if calling him a bully means he will block me again so be it. I have gone beyond the bit were I care. All I looked to do was enhance Liverpool pages and add some others unfortunately every now and then JZA played games and scrubbed my edits. This is the problem I am supposed to work in conjunction with him but he does not. I regret any offence to yourself however I have been bad mouthed a few times in recent weeks by this so called administrator so I have been a bit wary of whom he deals with. I am withdrawing my edits because this fella from Manchester judges he knows more about Liverpool than I do. Dmcm2008 ( talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of my new solution.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have clarified my oppose here. Asenine 10:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"A doctor treated the latter by inserting a pellet of radium on a probe into each of Zappa's nostrils—little was known at the time about the potential dangers of being subjected to radiation"
This does sound highly improbably but my family lived near Baltimore at the same time (my father also taught at the Naval Postgraduate School as Zappa's father did, the school moving to California in 1952) and my brother had the same procedures done for his sinuses. When he was an adult, my mother told him about it as there had been a fair amount of publicity that those procedures possibly caused cancer in later years. My brother so far has never gotten cancer, and he was angry at my mother for telling him about those Johns Hopkins procedures. (He would rather not have known.) Therefore, I know the statement in the article is true, though it could most likely be left out if you object. I objected to the sentence originally because it implied that it caused harm at the time, which was not true as far as I know. The editor then modified the sentence and blamed mustard gas for Zappa's problems in Baltimore. — Mattisse ( Talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Despite disagreement over under rehearsed, I wish you would touch the article again. The main editor has done everything he could do during FAC. I don't know much about Zappa and am at a loss as to "legacy". If you would help the main editor, that would be wonderful. He is very obliging and receptive to new ideas (albeit a little discouraged now). I just don't have the skills to help him much at this point. — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realise the articles in question were under renewed scrutiny, and had I known earlier, I would have sorted them out earlier. As such, a couple of them will have to delist, as I have no time to sort them out ahead of tomorrow's deadline. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you. I must dash, so good night. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 01:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Schools" class is now complete. Just a few continuity tweaks and its done. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 16:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Lord Nelson class" complete from your review queries. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 23:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure who you have notified about the GAR at Talk:Grand Central Station (Chicago)/GA1. Please notify all relevant projects and editors and then denote those parties at the top of the review like several of the other reviews at WP:CHIR.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The article
Manchester Mummy you nominated as a
good article has passed
, see
Talk:Manchester Mummy for eventual comments about the article. Well done!
Million_Moments (
talk)
20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, User:Malleus Fatuorum/Note label and User:Malleus Fatuorum/Ref label are causing entries at Category:Inline templates. Maybe they shouldn't or are temporary. - Colfer2 ( talk) 22:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Know what I think about dates? I think the WP:FAC page is approaching 50, and I can't close anything because we're lacking reviews. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If you've got time, could you copy edit the Sale article please? I thought I'd smoothed a lot of it out, but there are still some kinks holding it up at FAC. Nev1 ( talk) 11:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully this isn't super urgent, because I think I'm coming down with a lethal attack of the deadly man-flu, so I probably won't be around as much over the next few days. I'll still try and do what I can though. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
for the help copyediting Robert F. Kennedy assassination, which just snuck through as an FA. Fritzpoll ( talk) 14:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Malleus. I have submitted St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley as a GAC. The reviewer's comments, together with my initial thoughts, are here. As usual with my stuff, the assessor wants some copyediting - can you help here please? I should also be interested to have your comments on my replies to the criticisms (sometimes I think reviewers are dafter than editors (eg, what ARE blue links for if not to explain the meaning of terms which may be unfamiliar to the reader?)). Cheers. Peter. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a little note to enquire whether you would like to comment on the copyright of the image used in the SR N15X class article? It is currently halfway through the GA process, but the reviewer seems a little pensive over the copyright of the image. The situation is that it was published in 1936 in the UK (which sorts out the 70-year rule regarding copyright), as well as the fact that the author was anonymous. I have also put a fair use rationale (based upon the one used for the LNER A1 and A3 article). Really I just want someone to check over it, so if you know someone with experience in such matters, could you pass this little conundrum on? That would be of great help in getting this article to GA (don't worry, the bibliography has been properly formatted!). Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 11:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, although I thought it may still be classified as non-free by virtue of the fact that the journal in question is still in existence, albeit in a totally different era! I wish to thank you for your help in this matter.-- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As the WP image may get deleted, how does one use the Commons version? As you can tell, I'm not a user of the Commons section of Wikimedia, so am at a loss as to how to play around with it. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you cool your jets and have patience. Theres no need to be melodramatic with your 'edit war' quotes, is there? There are a number of people on here that shouln't be there and they are being removed. Those without references are having them added. Why don't sit on your hands for a while and wait before becoming all dramatic and let the piece be edited as is need ( Archangel1 ( talk) 19:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).
I see you've thrown your teddy out of the pram and resorted to name calling on the WikiManchester page by calling me an idiot for not discussing the issue. I am up for a discussion but I've told you to be patient for for the edits. Don't resort to childish behaviour on here. Get a grip of yourself ( Archangel1 ( talk) 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).
I'm not wasting my time on copy editing FAC any more. This is the second time I have given it up. The first time I was just doing too much really hard writing so the "main" editor could collect his FAC stars. I grew resentful when he copy/pasted my edits out of existence. (I don't like to collect things so I don't understand this passion for article awards, especially since they are not awarded in a fair fashion.) I believe the whole process is fundamentally screwed up. Mature, well-written articles are forfeited for formulaic ones. And those supported by the clique pass as well as those who (pardon me) suck up to those in power. I am not one of the in-group and do not want to be. (I don't like that kind of thing.)
I think I will become one of those editors that adds 100 complaints just as the FAC is about to end, then not lift a finger to help. — Mattisse ( Talk) 11:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The problem with Zappa was they had a formula and they insisted it had to apply and would not deviate. I can't access the FA review anymore (there doesn't seem to be a way to from the talk page) but several young guitarists and rock bands were presented as a model for Zappa. He is not young, he is not primarily an electric guitarist, he is not part of a band, he is not only a rock musician/composer/ arranger but also a film maker etc. None of this made any difference for the formula. He just does not fit those models and there is nothing to be done about it. I am going to urge the editor not to resubmit it and go through that again. — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you do a quick review of the article before I send it to GAN? i know that your review will make it the best it can be. Thanks, -- Meld shal 42? 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reviewers Award | |
I award this esteemed Reviewers Award to Malleus Fatuorum, for high quality reviewing at GAN and FAC. Congrats, and keep up the good reviews (and work, of course)! -- Meld shal 42? 18:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC) |
That's a very kind thought Meldshal42, thank you. I left the GA project back in May though, in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate. I've done very few GA reviews since then, except as part of GA Sweeps, and when I've finished my currently allocated categories I probably won't be doing any more of them either. I've never really done that much as an FA reviewer, and I'll very likely be doing even less in the future. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I was looking at the FA Peterloo Massacre and wondering why the dates in the opening paragraph aren't wikilinked per Wikipedia:DATE#Date_autoformatting ? I understand having an article deluged with linked dates isn't great, but perhaps there's some scope for at least linking dates in the opening paragraph? I believe you've been closely involved with getting the article to FA status, so thought you might be able to give some guidance on this. Thanks, -- Oscarthecat ( talk) 13:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I know you are not part of the in-crowd. But you have power somehow. I have watched you do and say things that I have been severely punished by the big boss for doing, and with no repercussions to you! You even recently turned down what I would have considered a mandatory suggestion to apologize to someone, and you got away with it! (In the past, when I was trying to be good, I would never have dared to do that.)
Now I don't care. I don't want FA's so the in-crowd can do and say what they want about me. I find plenty to do elsewhere on Wikipedia where the atmosphere is much more friendly and appreciative and the barbs not so frequent. I have been watching FAC for over two years now and I have seen it change for the worse, although the so-called standards may be higher. The referenced and well-sourced creativity is gone, except for the occasional Frank Zappa. It is all formula now. I think you cannot have a dictator and have a pleasant atmosphere. I believe FAC is near collapse and the dictator can no longer afford to alienate someone like you who helps out. That is the difference now. Just my 2 cents. (Should I expect another mean post on my talk page, albeit couched in oh-so-well-meaning wording?) — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: According to the ancient texts of Wikipedia: "Between the realms of the Godking of the West and the Monkey God of the East, there're still some 'crouching tigers, hidden dragons' that has yet to be discovered. Their exploits are legendary and even devastating at times, although they do not possess nor desire any admin powers. Such fearsome individuals (even to the admins) are known as the WikiDragons, one of the last of a dying breed, that can traces its proud ancient origins and tradition since the early Age of Nupedia." 8-p -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 05:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to pull one's hair out, be afraid of stepping on someone's toes, or even going into a self-imposed exile folks. It's a common trend that exists not just in Wikipedia, but also elsewhere online - look at the cyber bullying or pressure groups found in Facebook, online forums, social networking portals too. It get worse, when there're easy rules (by anyone, anytime, anywhere hiding behind a nick or anonymous IPs), poor policing & enforcement due to unclear code of practice, poor leadership (or the lack of), or simply no gentleman's honour whatsoever. No prizes for guessing why I've not participated or keen to be nominated in any of the above to date, although I've garnered enough experience here - DYKs, GAs, RfCs (I avoid unless when requested), fighting hardcore vandals & trolls, sizable supporters (both online & offline), & my ' staffy-like' reputation that has left quite a few hardcore blokes 'badly mauled & limping' after a deserving pit fight. To be a much happier & saner person in the long run, I've learnt not to be too attached to things, as life is short & transient, and to treat them with equanmity instead. If one's intention is good, one shouldn't be afraid to say or do the right thing when the time is given to u (See William Wilberforce), as ultimately, truth & justice will prevail one day as in the Law of Karma. Similarly speaking, for those who committed any unwholesome acts, they too, will received their just desserts one day. With good conscience or passion, one can help as much as we could with reasonable efforts here, but once u think that your task is completed, it's best to take a well-deserved break, or move on to other areas of the project that requires or appreciate your skills & integrity, or simply, return to your mundane life to devote more attention to your family, loved ones, or other worthy community projects elsewhere next. Perhaps, in our later years, we can share with our folks or reminiscence fondly with your favourite cuppa in hand, of our 'pioneering' stories with a smile & satisfaction, that we have once help to contribute, improve or preserve a free vast body of knowledge for humanity, that would most probably be still around (or in other representation, hopefully better) after we are long gone. 8-) -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 12:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh! I was hoping that my earlier advice could help to steer u from this mess that I was afraid u may be heading towards unknowingly, in view of your active participation in many potential 'time bomb' discussions so far. But alas, your unresolved emotions got the better of u. Hasn't your definitive WikiSpeak helps to serve as an outlet to let off 'steam' earlier? Even if u knew u are right deep down in your heart, u can choose to use a more appropriate analogy, OR just hold your tongue & wait patiently for Karma to resolve the issue for all to see later. Moving forward, I hope u take the time to cool off & reflect, & most importantly, to resolve the 'inner knot' in your heart which u have been carrying all these while, as it's unhealthy to u & others in the long run mate. -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any idea about this site, I mean who founded it and who is the owner? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 08:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You might like to reconsider the language you used before I report you for being abusive and uncivil. JRawle ( Talk) 09:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
←Malleus, an apology is in order. Please dispose of this matter now, and defuse this emotional spiral. I've used similar tone and language in the past—I can empathise with you on that count—but it went nowhere but bad places. JRawle is quite justified in being offended. Tony (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I had believed until fairly recently that I may in some small way be able to contribute to this encyclopedia. I see now that I was mistaken, and that I was simply wasting my time. --
Malleus Fatuorum (
talk)
10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we continue to talk here? The whole experience that you provided yesterday was invaluable to me, not only morale-wise but in opening up GAN. I feel once again I could actually be useful. But not with you gone. — Mattisse ( Talk) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this being called a CDB. This is clearly a civility issue. It appears to be preventative with respect to this, and he clearly states he won't apologize anyway. Syn ergy 15:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, it's no secret I think you're a dick. That is obvious, and you were clearly exhibiting it in this situation that got you blocked. I'm not judging... I'm a bitch. But it wasn't a cool down block. Just because someone is pissed off when they get blocked doesn't mean it gets classified as a cool down block. We have a civility policy. When it's breached, you run the risk of getting blocked. That simple. No matter how right you may be, or how much some of us may chortle at some of your words, or the fact that the discussion was mostly on your talk page and if people didn't like where it was going, they could have just gone away. When it comes down to it, it's still against policy. That said, when you're not being an ass, you're an asset to the project... :p Srsly, you really are. I know you're pissed off about the block, but you know flinging insults is not productive. Taking your ball and going home isn't the way to go. Refusing to apologize? Your choice. But add to that choice the decision to stay, and hopefully avoid similar situations in the future. Just because I think you're a dick doesn't mean I don't respect and appreciate your work here. Plus, you make me laugh... :D Jennavecia (Talk) 15:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, can't wait until this block has expired. What bothers me is that certain editors/admins (as the one mentioned in an above post) can do no wrong and are treated as superior. This contributes to the atmosphere of unfairness. I also think that the post immediately above this one by Jennavecia is uncivil, inflammatory, and contributes to the general unsavory atmosphere pervading this place. It is not geared to creating a congenial atmosphere in which editors can feel comfortable in making contributions to the encyclopedia. — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep him banned. He's always shooting from the lip (or in this case, fingers). I know I find it hard to be civil at times but this guy is a nightmare. If he wants to go, then go ( Archangel1 ( talk) 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).
Maybe your just lucky then.( Archangel1 ( talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).
No, it means I've been on the sharp end of his writing before. As I've already writen "Maybe your just lucky". It highlights the fact that he is a habitual offender and this not a single case but he's your pal so I wouldn't expect you to take NPOV ( Archangel1 ( talk) 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).
(Outdent) I fail to see what Malleus has done that is so, so awful. Call an editor a few names that other editors throw around routinely anyway. Fail to apologize? Would you rather have the hypocrisies than an editor whom you know where he stands? False apologies? Do they really work? What has this editor done that is actually harmful? Just read a little of ArbCom to learn what the big wigs call each other with impunity. Sticks and stones. It is apparent to me that this editor is a good guy but is someone who had trouble handing the routine hypocracy required around here. — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This block is ridiculous. Malleus has helped me get two articles through FAC this year - including one which broke totally new ground and would therefore have been impossible to complete without his copy-editing and Wikipedia skills. He was extremely helpful and friendly throughout both processes and I learned an incredible amount from him. Chin up Malleus - you don't deserve all this criticism. Wikipedia needs MORE people like you!!!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 18:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC) (formerly Seahamlass).
I've asked the blocking admin if I can unblock but he seems to have gone offline soon after he did this. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Another sorry case of double standards here, just like a bad re-run of his 2 earlier RfA episodes. Also serves as an interesting eye-opener on reality check here - one who has the balls to speak his mind honestly on certain touchy issues or the state of affairs here (which many are afraid to say so or even admit), and those who are unable to face or accept the truth. One should look at the moon, instead of looking at the finger pointing towards the moon. For those coming here with less than good intention, pse be aware of the Law of Karma before shooting your mouth off, as you never know who might dig up some incriminating details for all to see next. In just a few hours more, the 'fun' will be over soon, so let's get back to our tasks now, instead of generating even more negative karma here. -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I passed Hurricane Dean and followed the direction for transcluding (?) the talk page, I thought. However, there is a little red "review" link that I am sure should link to the GA review. I fiddled around but don't understand how to do it. Something in the trancluding formula I failed to do right. (But I sure feel good about having completed the review.) — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) I'm confused over how far to go in offering suggestions to GAN. For example, Kind of Blue has a reference section that needs fixing. Should wikilinking at first mention and such be an issue? What about embedded lists? Where would I go to find out what the "format" is for such an article? I find I automatically think in terms of FAC standards when that is not appropriate, but I am not sure what is. I am tempted to take on Casa de Estudillo because it has been there so long. But I question the organization, so much under the Ramona heading when that has little relevance today. I could suggest a reorganization, I guess. Is that proper? — Mattisse ( Talk) 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Dude, good to see ya on my page. I know we've clashed in the past, but I think it's more a matter of us both being uncivil people, hahaha. Most of your stuff makes me laugh, but so does most of what Giano says. Doesn't mean it's acceptable. Personally, as many people know due to me saying it semi-regularly, I think WP:CIV is over-the-top hippy shit. I rarely call people out for civility, and I choose to ignore the policy myself on occasion, knowing there's a risk of a block. Then, later, I realize I should have walked away and had some tea or something. I've learned to let little get to me at this point, but I think most people choose to be sensitive to such incivility. So ya... if you're getting annoyed at a sitch, drop on my talk page, remove details that would reveal who you're are talking about, and bitch away. All expletives are acceptable on my talk page. If you get blocked for comments on my talk page, directed at no specific person(s), I'll unblock you myself. You can even pop off on me... but just expect to get it back... so we either get blocked together or not at all... preferably the latter, because I think we both do good work. Okay, so I'm done now. As for this wall-o-text, yer welcome. Merry Humpday, Jennavecia (Talk) 05:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I took on Let's Get It On as a GAN. I am trying to replace the quote boxes as you did in Kind of Blue. Would you mind checking and see if I am doing it correctly. (I'm not sure if it looks right.) Thanks, — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I think I finished Let's Get It On, if you want to take a look before I put it on hold. I didn't know what to tell him about numbers as I have asked questions at WP:MOSNUM without getting satisfactory answers. Also, does GA worry about nbsp and such? — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Seven part DYK on Johnson on the main page. :) Also, after the next copy edit sweep goes through, I will be nominating the article. I will have you as the co-nom, as you were the MoS, language, and format expert that brought this up to fulfilling at least half the requirements, and you will be vital in discussion if anything comes up. I will also mention Sandy as a co-nom based on many of the vital MoS and content areas. I will state myself as content provider and images. This nom couldn't have happened without your work and your putting enough pressure on me to actually do a decent job. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
A note - Its proper to remove it (because it would take too long to explain), but this line is rooted in a joke about Johnson. Johnson was known to spending very little time accomplishing things, so a "significant" portion of his time for that piece was to reread his own poem twice more. Otherwise, he would have just wrote it and moved on. :) Many of his works are notable for the amount of time he didn't spend on them. :)
Ottava Rima (
talk)
00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, I see you are about to have some main page fun. Congratulations! I'll be very interested to see what kind of reaction this article gets, since it is the first of its kind. Karanacs ( talk) 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. Although you were uncivil and a block was wholly understandable, there seems to be a consensus here that, all told, the block may have been too long, or that a warning might have been more fitting. Please mind, we're all meant to be civil here, so one shouldn't be startled if one gets blocked for making offhand, cutting remarks about other editors or groups of editors. If you can't be friendly with an editor, that's ok, but then you must be steadfastly neutral and either stick only to content and sources, or not say anything at all. You were uncivil and this is almost always unhelpful when talking through text online (never mind it's indeed slightly easier to get away with this kind of thing whilst talking face to face or on the phone).
Please be civil here! Whether you agree or not, being uncivil is not worthwhile on Wikipedia, you do have editing skills and takes on sources to give so why bother? If this happens again you could very well be blocked for a longer time and there will be even fewer admins who are willing to unblock you. All the best, Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I missed all of this, I feel so out of the loop now. Glad to see you haven't changed :-) — Giggy 09:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Before I leave this behind me, I would like finally to draw attention to the fact that while I was blocked for using the term "idiot friend", others were allowed to call me "a nightmare" amongst other abuses, and even today I have seen what I consider to be worse abuse go unpunished. [6] I have drawn my conclusions, and I hope that others will begin to open their eyes to the abuses of power that have come to characterise wikipedia as well, why they are tolerated, and why they are even systematically encouraged. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You sneaky devil! After all the angst over getting Peterloo on the front page and Pendle Witch Trials gets on quietly with no fuss. How did you manage that, was it one of Raul's choices? Did you have to bribe him? Well, congratulations all the same :) Richerman ( talk) 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that someone changed the referencing method I had used in an article I wrote from cite xxx to plain <ref>blah, blah</ref>. Is the second method O.K.? I thought, besides harvard, only citation or cite xxx were accepted. Along the same lines, I am having trouble explaining to the author of Kind of Blue, Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music and Let's Get It On why he must use a consistent method and which one. I referred him to citation template pages, but I know how overwhelming it can seem. What method do you think he should use? Perhaps I could convert a few in his article to demonstrate. (Do you ever sleep?) — Mattisse ( Talk) 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I was experimenting with the Reference section of Kind of Blue. It starts out with the first reference in the citation template. So I tried converting the second reference to the same template, but because it has a "forward by" I could not figure out how:
How would that work? — Mattisse ( Talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malleus! Just thought I'd let you know that I have now submitted the article on Netley Abbey for good article review. We'll see how it does, but I could never have got even close without the help you and Dr Vardy have given. Cheers. Soph ( talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
[7] I understand your frustration, I really do (what with spending most of my content edits on copyediting, I really do). Given recent history, and the fact that many hold "friend of candidate" remarks against the candidate, is this the best time and place to be sharp-witted? Risker ( talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, how are you? Looks as if the Manchester team are doign amazing things. I came to ask if you might have a few minutes to look at Geology of Somerset, it's currently up for GA & has just recieved the first set of comments from the reviewer. I've dealt with many of them but am going to be away for a long BH weekend & then out of the country for work so I'm not sure I'm going to be able to address all the comments in time - anyway one of the comments was: "There are a lot of short sentences, which tend to make the prose choppy. Take a run through the article and try to combine some of these to make the article flow more." Any help you could offer would be great.— Rod talk 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
User talk:T-rex has gone and removed my ndashes for page ranges in Kind of Blue and Let's Get It On which I painstakingly put in. I reverted his changes and he reverted me, saying on his talk page that he is right. Who is right? Thanks, — Mattisse ( Talk) 23:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I notice that several articles where that script has been used, the editor reverted with the comment "restored formatting". Why can I not do the same, if it is a preference as you say? Since I am working on the article, why should my preference not count? — Mattisse ( Talk) 10:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, you are of course entitled to your opinion, and your oppose is certainly justified, and you are of course entitled to change your opinion as well. However, in Scetoaux's RFA#2, you were neutral based on the same unfortunate incident (as was I). Did something change in Scetoaux's behavior (for the worse) that I'm missing? I haven't commented on the RFA yet, I may not at all. Just wondering what's changed, he seems to continue to be contrite and regret that whole thing. Keeper ǀ 76 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That was cool beans. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
<- I'm trying to have a serious conversation below here, do you mind? Could murder a cold Guinness though ... -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the sources, and it would probably take me three or four days to get them. I think that most of the criticisms, including Colin's, Deacon's and even Awadewit's, could be fairly easily dealt with, but Ottava has a vision in mind for the article, and who am I to say that his vision isn't the right one? My view at the moment is that we just have to wait for what seems to me to be the inevitable archiving of this nomination, and move on from there, because Ottava's somewhat (in my view) belligerent responses aren't go to persuade anyone to alter their opinion. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
When I went to Wikimania this summer I attended a talk on the quality of Wikipedia's scientific articles by a biochemist. His analysis spent some time on scientific FAs and discussed their high quality. He had professors read and critique the articles: they were impressed with the quality of the FAs. As I am sure you are aware, it has been demonstrated more than once that Wikipedia's science articles are of a high quality, particularly the FAs. I have encouraged him to perform the same experiment with humanities articles, because I think it is important that we know how we are doing in that area as well. Unfortunately, I know that many of our literature FAs would not get such glowing reports from literature professors and I urge you to help me make these FAs into something that would. If we want Wikipedia to have truly excellent articles in the humanities, we have to set a high bar. For this reason, I am asking that you consider withdrawing Samuel Johnson so that sections on his works and his legacy can be added. Any professor of literature will tell you that you cannot write a biography of an author without discussing his works and the impact of those works in some depth. We would not write an article about a scientist that did not include a discussion of their discoveries and we would not write a biography of an artist that did not discuss their paintings, sculptures, etc. A biography of an author that does not discuss the texts of that author is incomplete. Thanks for considering this. Awadewit ( talk) 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad to help with the article -- it's an interesting piece. I like these ones that cover tidbits on a wide range of subjects (a little bit of science, history, mystery, etc.). Good stuff. Anyway... you're correct in your assessment that the rest of the article needs some sprucing up too -- especially the cited references. I plan on rewriting the "bog chemistry" section as soon as I locate a couple of sources. Cheers. CactusWriter 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Just wondered if you wouldn't mind having a shufty once again at the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal - its been peer reviewed by two people now, and copyedited. I don't fancy any more trips to the library for more research as I think there is enough info in there now, what do you think of it as it stands? Also, Paul Hindle (of the society, and a bloke referenced a few times in the article) has strongly recommended renaming the article - what do you think? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malleus Fatuorum. I'm having a difficult time getting Mount Cayley to GA status. Would mind helping out? Thanks. Black Tusk ( talk) 01:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
[8] Shouldn't you change the project rating when you delist articles? Gimmetrow 22:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
And wanting to beg a favor from you. I've got three articles I'm hoping to bring to FAC after I get back (be about August 17 or so until I'm home and able to handle an FAC). They are Stigand, Go Man Go, and William de St-Calais. They've all been PR'd, and basically need good copyedits before I bring them before the slavering hordes at FAC. Can you look them over for jargon, etc, as well as fix my prose? It's not a "must do asap" but it'd help a bunch if they were looked at in the next couple of weeks or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yay! I'm home. Are you as satisfied as you could be with those? I'm ready to do a little work for "me" and not for everyone else at FAC for a change... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so we have similar personalities, but we're not tight, so I seek from you an objective opinion. Obviously, as most people know, I'm vocal about my displeasure with Majorly's behavior on this project and others. He's initiated an RFC on himself and I would like to know if I'm being overly harsh. I ask you because I've not seen you previously involved in these matters and I know you have no beef with telling me exactly how it is, as others may not want to be completely honest with me in their opinions. This is the post I'm most concerned about. Jennavecia (Talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"Once an admin, always an admin", nothing will change no matter how much evidence, ArbCom will do nothing eventually after y'all waste a lot of time, so why should any right-minded, reasonable thinking person trudge through all the diffs and spend one second presenting a well reasoned response to another problematic admin situation. Figure out where to sign my name on that one. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
For GA I am reviewing Slipknot Demo and Welcome to Our Neighborhood. They are very short. The editor claims this is all the information available on the subject. Do you think it would harm GA to pass such short, minimalist articles, even though they technically meet the criteria for GA? — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
[undent]I've wondered about the Demo article for awhile, but I feel that it does technically meet the GA criteria; and it includes all reliable info that I have seen about the topic. I have discussed the idea with Rezter, as we have worked together on many of the band's articles, he felt it does warrant its own article and I would like to hear what he has to say. That being said, I wouldn't be offended or what have you if it was deleted, provided that the info contained is adaquately covered in Slipknot (band). As for Welcome To Our Neighborhood, I think it's fine. The article meets notability (top position on the Billboards), and provides all info that I know of. Malleus has stated that its critical reception could "use some work", if that means grammar it's not a problem, however, if that means expansion then I'm at a loss because I have nothing further. It was released on VHS at a time before the internet had widespread reviews, even Allmusic which has reviews on nearly every album out there only gave it a starred review without prose. The only thing I could think of would be to look in magazines, but to track down issues of Metal magazines from 1999 would be a hell of a search and there's no guarentee that they say anything concerning the video. Black ngold29 04:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been an update to a summary you have endorsed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly#View by Jennavecia. Jennavecia (Talk) 05:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus Fatuorum! I have seen from this link that you are one of the major contributors to the article Edward VIII abdication crisis. Since the latter currently has GA status, it is perfectly possible to combine it with the articles Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and Wallis, Duchess of Windsor (both of which are featured articles) in order to create a featured topic (FT). All of the featured topic criteria are currently met: the topic is well-defined with no obvious gap or missing article, and I have just created a template and a category in order to fully comply with criteria 1c. I would like to hear your opinion before starting a featured topic nomination. Regards. BomBom ( talk) 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot ( talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any rule of thumb on how many quotations an article can have? I have been persuading the editor of Voodoo (album) to reduce the amount, which he has. However, it still seems there are many quotes. — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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, how are you? I plan on nominating SummerSlam (2003) for FAC, but before that I would like to get a copyedit, and Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) recommended you. If it's no bother may you copyedit the article? Thank You.-- S R X 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I hereby formally request you cease and desist any comment, opinion or action regarding an issue which is none of you business and does not concern you. Calling me a "dickhead"- such jealousy is a curse and a sin, Mr Hammer. Some British may smugly look down their nose at we former 'savage' colonials- but do so in the manner of willfully ignorant, delusionary smugness of the moral onanist petty bourgeoisie. They conveniently forget the blood upon their hands, the fact we had to violently evict colonial parasites and collaborators from our nation who enslaved, stole and exploit what they had no right nor claim to. Furthermore, the British and the Dutch both actively attempted to destroy our traditional societies by confiscating nobles' wealth, power and lands and handing them over to a pliant, submissive, non-assimilating and exploitative alien: the Hokkien Chinese (who incidentally grew approx one third of opium for their elites to flog to the Chinese mainland for tea). This is not racism- this is historical fact. Penang-Singapore-Medan is their triangular territory of sins. Furthermore, Britain and the US has a long and documented history of illegal self-serving interference in the politics of my nation. British should collectively shoulder the responsibility of 300,000+ murdered by installation of CIA/Mi6Foreign Office/BBC/preferred puppet Suharto- and the various covert and intel actions launched from your puppet sheriff outpost of Singapore (Raf Tengah, RAF Butterworth, a detachment of Gurkhas, etc- Singapore currently offering the US a nuclear sub base). Nigeria is not the only land were Royal Dutch Shell and BP keenly used violence for their oil. Indonesians such as myself, from a history of glorious nationalist struggle against our numerous oppressors have no shame in nationalism- it is beyond an ideology- it is our hereditary duty to forever be vigilant against the foes of the indigenous Indonesian people. Our 'hatred' is jusitified as is our perpetual outrage.
I sincerely offer you to be my guest in my wondrous Indonesia. What you will see, will most surely open your eyes to incriminating truths those, some ethnics attempt to hide and censor.
Let us pls leave each other in peace, respect each others' privacy and wish each other best wishes and part as disagreeing yet civil gents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starstylers ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Starstylers ( talk) 10:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL! That was the funniest quip I've ever heard from u to date! Save the hassle of sending your gunboats or even the upcoming QE-class HMS Prince of Wales (CVF) to this former Crown Colony for historic or nostalgic reasons mate. Fyi, there are already numerous well-documented cases of individuals or groups - 'activists', bloggers, writers, foreign media, suspects etc, who were detained while on visit or while on transit via S'pore, and some even got extradited to S'pore under the mutual co-operation & security agreements with Interpol, ASEAN or UN, to face charges of criminal acts, defamation (The SG govt has filed numerous libel suits & have yet to lose a case locally or abroad so far), or under the fearsome Sedition Act or Internal Security Act, for fanning racial or religious sentiments, promoting ultra-nationalism, communism, terrorism etc previously. Despite their respective government intervention pleading for leniency & public vigils, most were later sentenced to spend time at our (in)famous holiday chalet at Changi afterwards, with some receiving lasting painful reminders too, and the worst of all nightmares - death penalty - courtesy of our British-inherited laws & security apparatus that are heavily enforced 'in spirit and to the letter', even in cyberspace today. For some fortunate souls, they were denied entry & was issued a stern warning before being repatriated back immediately, but no doubt will shudder in cold sweat when recalling the 'welcoming reception' they got & regreting their foolish ways years later. Lastly, have u notice that no one has yet to leave any provocative or even bona fide academic comments, even anonymously on this talkpage to date? Still clueless? Read an example here which is self explanatory. Sadhu! -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I'm the lead reviewer on the article. I've gotten a bit of push back from the nominator about me being overly critical (it wouldn't be the first time, ha!), but reading through the article it just doesn't seem to have that GA quality. If you wouldn't mind providing a GA review, it would certainly be helpful. Best, epicAdam ( talk) 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I thought materiel was a misspelling but you wikilinked it further down so I stand corrected. If you want to put it back in and link it I promise not to change it again - honest! (damned Frenchies!) Richerman ( talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there; User:Collectonian recommended you. I'm trying to get this article ready to be nominated for GA-class, and she said you would be a good choice for a copyeditor. Could you please look the article over for me? Thanks! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! ( talk) 03:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been through the article now and I'll leave a few comments on its talk page. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just spotted your note about being tired and fed up of Wikipedia... Please, don't let the buggers grind you down. There are some complete idiots on Wikipedia, and some nice people too. You have done such great work at GA, FAC etc with projects of your own - as well as helping dozens of other people (me included). I've felt the same way several times here...and eventually it passes. I really hope you feel a bit better soon.--
Seahamlass
13:26, 04 August 2008 (UTC)
Continuing the discussion, so would I use 'all' {{citation}} throughout (so no cite book, cite web, cite journal etc) - would that still mean I use the harvnb template for the book citations? It all gets confusing from hereon.... Parrot of Doom ( talk) 11:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Much better - thanks -- Snowded TALK 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello there! Just wondered if I could twist your arm for a copyedit to Shaw and Crompton? I've just revisited the article and done a major rewrite of some sections. My vocab and writing isn't as good as I'd like. If you feel willing and able, there is no rush. Hope you can help, -- Jza84 | Talk 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
is very much in question here. Keeper ǀ 76 22:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
If I have offended you in a recent discussion with the use of the word cronies then I am sorry. I noticed your reply much later. I regret I cannot work on Wikipedia anymore due to the difficulties with JZA84 and when I am faced with the difficulties he accuses me of being offensive. However he is both judge and jury having blocked me and issued threats and questioning my integrity. I personally believe this type of editor is a bully, and if calling him a bully means he will block me again so be it. I have gone beyond the bit were I care. All I looked to do was enhance Liverpool pages and add some others unfortunately every now and then JZA played games and scrubbed my edits. This is the problem I am supposed to work in conjunction with him but he does not. I regret any offence to yourself however I have been bad mouthed a few times in recent weeks by this so called administrator so I have been a bit wary of whom he deals with. I am withdrawing my edits because this fella from Manchester judges he knows more about Liverpool than I do. Dmcm2008 ( talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of my new solution.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have clarified my oppose here. Asenine 10:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"A doctor treated the latter by inserting a pellet of radium on a probe into each of Zappa's nostrils—little was known at the time about the potential dangers of being subjected to radiation"
This does sound highly improbably but my family lived near Baltimore at the same time (my father also taught at the Naval Postgraduate School as Zappa's father did, the school moving to California in 1952) and my brother had the same procedures done for his sinuses. When he was an adult, my mother told him about it as there had been a fair amount of publicity that those procedures possibly caused cancer in later years. My brother so far has never gotten cancer, and he was angry at my mother for telling him about those Johns Hopkins procedures. (He would rather not have known.) Therefore, I know the statement in the article is true, though it could most likely be left out if you object. I objected to the sentence originally because it implied that it caused harm at the time, which was not true as far as I know. The editor then modified the sentence and blamed mustard gas for Zappa's problems in Baltimore. — Mattisse ( Talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Despite disagreement over under rehearsed, I wish you would touch the article again. The main editor has done everything he could do during FAC. I don't know much about Zappa and am at a loss as to "legacy". If you would help the main editor, that would be wonderful. He is very obliging and receptive to new ideas (albeit a little discouraged now). I just don't have the skills to help him much at this point. — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realise the articles in question were under renewed scrutiny, and had I known earlier, I would have sorted them out earlier. As such, a couple of them will have to delist, as I have no time to sort them out ahead of tomorrow's deadline. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you. I must dash, so good night. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 01:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Schools" class is now complete. Just a few continuity tweaks and its done. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 16:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Lord Nelson class" complete from your review queries. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 23:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure who you have notified about the GAR at Talk:Grand Central Station (Chicago)/GA1. Please notify all relevant projects and editors and then denote those parties at the top of the review like several of the other reviews at WP:CHIR.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The article
Manchester Mummy you nominated as a
good article has passed
, see
Talk:Manchester Mummy for eventual comments about the article. Well done!
Million_Moments (
talk)
20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, User:Malleus Fatuorum/Note label and User:Malleus Fatuorum/Ref label are causing entries at Category:Inline templates. Maybe they shouldn't or are temporary. - Colfer2 ( talk) 22:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Know what I think about dates? I think the WP:FAC page is approaching 50, and I can't close anything because we're lacking reviews. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If you've got time, could you copy edit the Sale article please? I thought I'd smoothed a lot of it out, but there are still some kinks holding it up at FAC. Nev1 ( talk) 11:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully this isn't super urgent, because I think I'm coming down with a lethal attack of the deadly man-flu, so I probably won't be around as much over the next few days. I'll still try and do what I can though. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
for the help copyediting Robert F. Kennedy assassination, which just snuck through as an FA. Fritzpoll ( talk) 14:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Malleus. I have submitted St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley as a GAC. The reviewer's comments, together with my initial thoughts, are here. As usual with my stuff, the assessor wants some copyediting - can you help here please? I should also be interested to have your comments on my replies to the criticisms (sometimes I think reviewers are dafter than editors (eg, what ARE blue links for if not to explain the meaning of terms which may be unfamiliar to the reader?)). Cheers. Peter. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a little note to enquire whether you would like to comment on the copyright of the image used in the SR N15X class article? It is currently halfway through the GA process, but the reviewer seems a little pensive over the copyright of the image. The situation is that it was published in 1936 in the UK (which sorts out the 70-year rule regarding copyright), as well as the fact that the author was anonymous. I have also put a fair use rationale (based upon the one used for the LNER A1 and A3 article). Really I just want someone to check over it, so if you know someone with experience in such matters, could you pass this little conundrum on? That would be of great help in getting this article to GA (don't worry, the bibliography has been properly formatted!). Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 11:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, although I thought it may still be classified as non-free by virtue of the fact that the journal in question is still in existence, albeit in a totally different era! I wish to thank you for your help in this matter.-- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As the WP image may get deleted, how does one use the Commons version? As you can tell, I'm not a user of the Commons section of Wikimedia, so am at a loss as to how to play around with it. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you cool your jets and have patience. Theres no need to be melodramatic with your 'edit war' quotes, is there? There are a number of people on here that shouln't be there and they are being removed. Those without references are having them added. Why don't sit on your hands for a while and wait before becoming all dramatic and let the piece be edited as is need ( Archangel1 ( talk) 19:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).
I see you've thrown your teddy out of the pram and resorted to name calling on the WikiManchester page by calling me an idiot for not discussing the issue. I am up for a discussion but I've told you to be patient for for the edits. Don't resort to childish behaviour on here. Get a grip of yourself ( Archangel1 ( talk) 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).
I'm not wasting my time on copy editing FAC any more. This is the second time I have given it up. The first time I was just doing too much really hard writing so the "main" editor could collect his FAC stars. I grew resentful when he copy/pasted my edits out of existence. (I don't like to collect things so I don't understand this passion for article awards, especially since they are not awarded in a fair fashion.) I believe the whole process is fundamentally screwed up. Mature, well-written articles are forfeited for formulaic ones. And those supported by the clique pass as well as those who (pardon me) suck up to those in power. I am not one of the in-group and do not want to be. (I don't like that kind of thing.)
I think I will become one of those editors that adds 100 complaints just as the FAC is about to end, then not lift a finger to help. — Mattisse ( Talk) 11:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The problem with Zappa was they had a formula and they insisted it had to apply and would not deviate. I can't access the FA review anymore (there doesn't seem to be a way to from the talk page) but several young guitarists and rock bands were presented as a model for Zappa. He is not young, he is not primarily an electric guitarist, he is not part of a band, he is not only a rock musician/composer/ arranger but also a film maker etc. None of this made any difference for the formula. He just does not fit those models and there is nothing to be done about it. I am going to urge the editor not to resubmit it and go through that again. — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you do a quick review of the article before I send it to GAN? i know that your review will make it the best it can be. Thanks, -- Meld shal 42? 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reviewers Award | |
I award this esteemed Reviewers Award to Malleus Fatuorum, for high quality reviewing at GAN and FAC. Congrats, and keep up the good reviews (and work, of course)! -- Meld shal 42? 18:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC) |
That's a very kind thought Meldshal42, thank you. I left the GA project back in May though, in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate. I've done very few GA reviews since then, except as part of GA Sweeps, and when I've finished my currently allocated categories I probably won't be doing any more of them either. I've never really done that much as an FA reviewer, and I'll very likely be doing even less in the future. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I was looking at the FA Peterloo Massacre and wondering why the dates in the opening paragraph aren't wikilinked per Wikipedia:DATE#Date_autoformatting ? I understand having an article deluged with linked dates isn't great, but perhaps there's some scope for at least linking dates in the opening paragraph? I believe you've been closely involved with getting the article to FA status, so thought you might be able to give some guidance on this. Thanks, -- Oscarthecat ( talk) 13:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I know you are not part of the in-crowd. But you have power somehow. I have watched you do and say things that I have been severely punished by the big boss for doing, and with no repercussions to you! You even recently turned down what I would have considered a mandatory suggestion to apologize to someone, and you got away with it! (In the past, when I was trying to be good, I would never have dared to do that.)
Now I don't care. I don't want FA's so the in-crowd can do and say what they want about me. I find plenty to do elsewhere on Wikipedia where the atmosphere is much more friendly and appreciative and the barbs not so frequent. I have been watching FAC for over two years now and I have seen it change for the worse, although the so-called standards may be higher. The referenced and well-sourced creativity is gone, except for the occasional Frank Zappa. It is all formula now. I think you cannot have a dictator and have a pleasant atmosphere. I believe FAC is near collapse and the dictator can no longer afford to alienate someone like you who helps out. That is the difference now. Just my 2 cents. (Should I expect another mean post on my talk page, albeit couched in oh-so-well-meaning wording?) — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: According to the ancient texts of Wikipedia: "Between the realms of the Godking of the West and the Monkey God of the East, there're still some 'crouching tigers, hidden dragons' that has yet to be discovered. Their exploits are legendary and even devastating at times, although they do not possess nor desire any admin powers. Such fearsome individuals (even to the admins) are known as the WikiDragons, one of the last of a dying breed, that can traces its proud ancient origins and tradition since the early Age of Nupedia." 8-p -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 05:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to pull one's hair out, be afraid of stepping on someone's toes, or even going into a self-imposed exile folks. It's a common trend that exists not just in Wikipedia, but also elsewhere online - look at the cyber bullying or pressure groups found in Facebook, online forums, social networking portals too. It get worse, when there're easy rules (by anyone, anytime, anywhere hiding behind a nick or anonymous IPs), poor policing & enforcement due to unclear code of practice, poor leadership (or the lack of), or simply no gentleman's honour whatsoever. No prizes for guessing why I've not participated or keen to be nominated in any of the above to date, although I've garnered enough experience here - DYKs, GAs, RfCs (I avoid unless when requested), fighting hardcore vandals & trolls, sizable supporters (both online & offline), & my ' staffy-like' reputation that has left quite a few hardcore blokes 'badly mauled & limping' after a deserving pit fight. To be a much happier & saner person in the long run, I've learnt not to be too attached to things, as life is short & transient, and to treat them with equanmity instead. If one's intention is good, one shouldn't be afraid to say or do the right thing when the time is given to u (See William Wilberforce), as ultimately, truth & justice will prevail one day as in the Law of Karma. Similarly speaking, for those who committed any unwholesome acts, they too, will received their just desserts one day. With good conscience or passion, one can help as much as we could with reasonable efforts here, but once u think that your task is completed, it's best to take a well-deserved break, or move on to other areas of the project that requires or appreciate your skills & integrity, or simply, return to your mundane life to devote more attention to your family, loved ones, or other worthy community projects elsewhere next. Perhaps, in our later years, we can share with our folks or reminiscence fondly with your favourite cuppa in hand, of our 'pioneering' stories with a smile & satisfaction, that we have once help to contribute, improve or preserve a free vast body of knowledge for humanity, that would most probably be still around (or in other representation, hopefully better) after we are long gone. 8-) -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 12:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh! I was hoping that my earlier advice could help to steer u from this mess that I was afraid u may be heading towards unknowingly, in view of your active participation in many potential 'time bomb' discussions so far. But alas, your unresolved emotions got the better of u. Hasn't your definitive WikiSpeak helps to serve as an outlet to let off 'steam' earlier? Even if u knew u are right deep down in your heart, u can choose to use a more appropriate analogy, OR just hold your tongue & wait patiently for Karma to resolve the issue for all to see later. Moving forward, I hope u take the time to cool off & reflect, & most importantly, to resolve the 'inner knot' in your heart which u have been carrying all these while, as it's unhealthy to u & others in the long run mate. -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any idea about this site, I mean who founded it and who is the owner? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 08:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You might like to reconsider the language you used before I report you for being abusive and uncivil. JRawle ( Talk) 09:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
←Malleus, an apology is in order. Please dispose of this matter now, and defuse this emotional spiral. I've used similar tone and language in the past—I can empathise with you on that count—but it went nowhere but bad places. JRawle is quite justified in being offended. Tony (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I had believed until fairly recently that I may in some small way be able to contribute to this encyclopedia. I see now that I was mistaken, and that I was simply wasting my time. --
Malleus Fatuorum (
talk)
10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we continue to talk here? The whole experience that you provided yesterday was invaluable to me, not only morale-wise but in opening up GAN. I feel once again I could actually be useful. But not with you gone. — Mattisse ( Talk) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this being called a CDB. This is clearly a civility issue. It appears to be preventative with respect to this, and he clearly states he won't apologize anyway. Syn ergy 15:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, it's no secret I think you're a dick. That is obvious, and you were clearly exhibiting it in this situation that got you blocked. I'm not judging... I'm a bitch. But it wasn't a cool down block. Just because someone is pissed off when they get blocked doesn't mean it gets classified as a cool down block. We have a civility policy. When it's breached, you run the risk of getting blocked. That simple. No matter how right you may be, or how much some of us may chortle at some of your words, or the fact that the discussion was mostly on your talk page and if people didn't like where it was going, they could have just gone away. When it comes down to it, it's still against policy. That said, when you're not being an ass, you're an asset to the project... :p Srsly, you really are. I know you're pissed off about the block, but you know flinging insults is not productive. Taking your ball and going home isn't the way to go. Refusing to apologize? Your choice. But add to that choice the decision to stay, and hopefully avoid similar situations in the future. Just because I think you're a dick doesn't mean I don't respect and appreciate your work here. Plus, you make me laugh... :D Jennavecia (Talk) 15:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, can't wait until this block has expired. What bothers me is that certain editors/admins (as the one mentioned in an above post) can do no wrong and are treated as superior. This contributes to the atmosphere of unfairness. I also think that the post immediately above this one by Jennavecia is uncivil, inflammatory, and contributes to the general unsavory atmosphere pervading this place. It is not geared to creating a congenial atmosphere in which editors can feel comfortable in making contributions to the encyclopedia. — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep him banned. He's always shooting from the lip (or in this case, fingers). I know I find it hard to be civil at times but this guy is a nightmare. If he wants to go, then go ( Archangel1 ( talk) 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).
Maybe your just lucky then.( Archangel1 ( talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).
No, it means I've been on the sharp end of his writing before. As I've already writen "Maybe your just lucky". It highlights the fact that he is a habitual offender and this not a single case but he's your pal so I wouldn't expect you to take NPOV ( Archangel1 ( talk) 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).
(Outdent) I fail to see what Malleus has done that is so, so awful. Call an editor a few names that other editors throw around routinely anyway. Fail to apologize? Would you rather have the hypocrisies than an editor whom you know where he stands? False apologies? Do they really work? What has this editor done that is actually harmful? Just read a little of ArbCom to learn what the big wigs call each other with impunity. Sticks and stones. It is apparent to me that this editor is a good guy but is someone who had trouble handing the routine hypocracy required around here. — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This block is ridiculous. Malleus has helped me get two articles through FAC this year - including one which broke totally new ground and would therefore have been impossible to complete without his copy-editing and Wikipedia skills. He was extremely helpful and friendly throughout both processes and I learned an incredible amount from him. Chin up Malleus - you don't deserve all this criticism. Wikipedia needs MORE people like you!!!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 18:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC) (formerly Seahamlass).
I've asked the blocking admin if I can unblock but he seems to have gone offline soon after he did this. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Another sorry case of double standards here, just like a bad re-run of his 2 earlier RfA episodes. Also serves as an interesting eye-opener on reality check here - one who has the balls to speak his mind honestly on certain touchy issues or the state of affairs here (which many are afraid to say so or even admit), and those who are unable to face or accept the truth. One should look at the moon, instead of looking at the finger pointing towards the moon. For those coming here with less than good intention, pse be aware of the Law of Karma before shooting your mouth off, as you never know who might dig up some incriminating details for all to see next. In just a few hours more, the 'fun' will be over soon, so let's get back to our tasks now, instead of generating even more negative karma here. -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I passed Hurricane Dean and followed the direction for transcluding (?) the talk page, I thought. However, there is a little red "review" link that I am sure should link to the GA review. I fiddled around but don't understand how to do it. Something in the trancluding formula I failed to do right. (But I sure feel good about having completed the review.) — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) I'm confused over how far to go in offering suggestions to GAN. For example, Kind of Blue has a reference section that needs fixing. Should wikilinking at first mention and such be an issue? What about embedded lists? Where would I go to find out what the "format" is for such an article? I find I automatically think in terms of FAC standards when that is not appropriate, but I am not sure what is. I am tempted to take on Casa de Estudillo because it has been there so long. But I question the organization, so much under the Ramona heading when that has little relevance today. I could suggest a reorganization, I guess. Is that proper? — Mattisse ( Talk) 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Dude, good to see ya on my page. I know we've clashed in the past, but I think it's more a matter of us both being uncivil people, hahaha. Most of your stuff makes me laugh, but so does most of what Giano says. Doesn't mean it's acceptable. Personally, as many people know due to me saying it semi-regularly, I think WP:CIV is over-the-top hippy shit. I rarely call people out for civility, and I choose to ignore the policy myself on occasion, knowing there's a risk of a block. Then, later, I realize I should have walked away and had some tea or something. I've learned to let little get to me at this point, but I think most people choose to be sensitive to such incivility. So ya... if you're getting annoyed at a sitch, drop on my talk page, remove details that would reveal who you're are talking about, and bitch away. All expletives are acceptable on my talk page. If you get blocked for comments on my talk page, directed at no specific person(s), I'll unblock you myself. You can even pop off on me... but just expect to get it back... so we either get blocked together or not at all... preferably the latter, because I think we both do good work. Okay, so I'm done now. As for this wall-o-text, yer welcome. Merry Humpday, Jennavecia (Talk) 05:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I took on Let's Get It On as a GAN. I am trying to replace the quote boxes as you did in Kind of Blue. Would you mind checking and see if I am doing it correctly. (I'm not sure if it looks right.) Thanks, — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I think I finished Let's Get It On, if you want to take a look before I put it on hold. I didn't know what to tell him about numbers as I have asked questions at WP:MOSNUM without getting satisfactory answers. Also, does GA worry about nbsp and such? — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Seven part DYK on Johnson on the main page. :) Also, after the next copy edit sweep goes through, I will be nominating the article. I will have you as the co-nom, as you were the MoS, language, and format expert that brought this up to fulfilling at least half the requirements, and you will be vital in discussion if anything comes up. I will also mention Sandy as a co-nom based on many of the vital MoS and content areas. I will state myself as content provider and images. This nom couldn't have happened without your work and your putting enough pressure on me to actually do a decent job. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
A note - Its proper to remove it (because it would take too long to explain), but this line is rooted in a joke about Johnson. Johnson was known to spending very little time accomplishing things, so a "significant" portion of his time for that piece was to reread his own poem twice more. Otherwise, he would have just wrote it and moved on. :) Many of his works are notable for the amount of time he didn't spend on them. :)
Ottava Rima (
talk)
00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, I see you are about to have some main page fun. Congratulations! I'll be very interested to see what kind of reaction this article gets, since it is the first of its kind. Karanacs ( talk) 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. Although you were uncivil and a block was wholly understandable, there seems to be a consensus here that, all told, the block may have been too long, or that a warning might have been more fitting. Please mind, we're all meant to be civil here, so one shouldn't be startled if one gets blocked for making offhand, cutting remarks about other editors or groups of editors. If you can't be friendly with an editor, that's ok, but then you must be steadfastly neutral and either stick only to content and sources, or not say anything at all. You were uncivil and this is almost always unhelpful when talking through text online (never mind it's indeed slightly easier to get away with this kind of thing whilst talking face to face or on the phone).
Please be civil here! Whether you agree or not, being uncivil is not worthwhile on Wikipedia, you do have editing skills and takes on sources to give so why bother? If this happens again you could very well be blocked for a longer time and there will be even fewer admins who are willing to unblock you. All the best, Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I missed all of this, I feel so out of the loop now. Glad to see you haven't changed :-) — Giggy 09:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Before I leave this behind me, I would like finally to draw attention to the fact that while I was blocked for using the term "idiot friend", others were allowed to call me "a nightmare" amongst other abuses, and even today I have seen what I consider to be worse abuse go unpunished. [6] I have drawn my conclusions, and I hope that others will begin to open their eyes to the abuses of power that have come to characterise wikipedia as well, why they are tolerated, and why they are even systematically encouraged. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You sneaky devil! After all the angst over getting Peterloo on the front page and Pendle Witch Trials gets on quietly with no fuss. How did you manage that, was it one of Raul's choices? Did you have to bribe him? Well, congratulations all the same :) Richerman ( talk) 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that someone changed the referencing method I had used in an article I wrote from cite xxx to plain <ref>blah, blah</ref>. Is the second method O.K.? I thought, besides harvard, only citation or cite xxx were accepted. Along the same lines, I am having trouble explaining to the author of Kind of Blue, Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music and Let's Get It On why he must use a consistent method and which one. I referred him to citation template pages, but I know how overwhelming it can seem. What method do you think he should use? Perhaps I could convert a few in his article to demonstrate. (Do you ever sleep?) — Mattisse ( Talk) 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I was experimenting with the Reference section of Kind of Blue. It starts out with the first reference in the citation template. So I tried converting the second reference to the same template, but because it has a "forward by" I could not figure out how:
How would that work? — Mattisse ( Talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malleus! Just thought I'd let you know that I have now submitted the article on Netley Abbey for good article review. We'll see how it does, but I could never have got even close without the help you and Dr Vardy have given. Cheers. Soph ( talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
[7] I understand your frustration, I really do (what with spending most of my content edits on copyediting, I really do). Given recent history, and the fact that many hold "friend of candidate" remarks against the candidate, is this the best time and place to be sharp-witted? Risker ( talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, how are you? Looks as if the Manchester team are doign amazing things. I came to ask if you might have a few minutes to look at Geology of Somerset, it's currently up for GA & has just recieved the first set of comments from the reviewer. I've dealt with many of them but am going to be away for a long BH weekend & then out of the country for work so I'm not sure I'm going to be able to address all the comments in time - anyway one of the comments was: "There are a lot of short sentences, which tend to make the prose choppy. Take a run through the article and try to combine some of these to make the article flow more." Any help you could offer would be great.— Rod talk 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
User talk:T-rex has gone and removed my ndashes for page ranges in Kind of Blue and Let's Get It On which I painstakingly put in. I reverted his changes and he reverted me, saying on his talk page that he is right. Who is right? Thanks, — Mattisse ( Talk) 23:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I notice that several articles where that script has been used, the editor reverted with the comment "restored formatting". Why can I not do the same, if it is a preference as you say? Since I am working on the article, why should my preference not count? — Mattisse ( Talk) 10:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, you are of course entitled to your opinion, and your oppose is certainly justified, and you are of course entitled to change your opinion as well. However, in Scetoaux's RFA#2, you were neutral based on the same unfortunate incident (as was I). Did something change in Scetoaux's behavior (for the worse) that I'm missing? I haven't commented on the RFA yet, I may not at all. Just wondering what's changed, he seems to continue to be contrite and regret that whole thing. Keeper ǀ 76 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That was cool beans. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
<- I'm trying to have a serious conversation below here, do you mind? Could murder a cold Guinness though ... -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the sources, and it would probably take me three or four days to get them. I think that most of the criticisms, including Colin's, Deacon's and even Awadewit's, could be fairly easily dealt with, but Ottava has a vision in mind for the article, and who am I to say that his vision isn't the right one? My view at the moment is that we just have to wait for what seems to me to be the inevitable archiving of this nomination, and move on from there, because Ottava's somewhat (in my view) belligerent responses aren't go to persuade anyone to alter their opinion. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
When I went to Wikimania this summer I attended a talk on the quality of Wikipedia's scientific articles by a biochemist. His analysis spent some time on scientific FAs and discussed their high quality. He had professors read and critique the articles: they were impressed with the quality of the FAs. As I am sure you are aware, it has been demonstrated more than once that Wikipedia's science articles are of a high quality, particularly the FAs. I have encouraged him to perform the same experiment with humanities articles, because I think it is important that we know how we are doing in that area as well. Unfortunately, I know that many of our literature FAs would not get such glowing reports from literature professors and I urge you to help me make these FAs into something that would. If we want Wikipedia to have truly excellent articles in the humanities, we have to set a high bar. For this reason, I am asking that you consider withdrawing Samuel Johnson so that sections on his works and his legacy can be added. Any professor of literature will tell you that you cannot write a biography of an author without discussing his works and the impact of those works in some depth. We would not write an article about a scientist that did not include a discussion of their discoveries and we would not write a biography of an artist that did not discuss their paintings, sculptures, etc. A biography of an author that does not discuss the texts of that author is incomplete. Thanks for considering this. Awadewit ( talk) 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad to help with the article -- it's an interesting piece. I like these ones that cover tidbits on a wide range of subjects (a little bit of science, history, mystery, etc.). Good stuff. Anyway... you're correct in your assessment that the rest of the article needs some sprucing up too -- especially the cited references. I plan on rewriting the "bog chemistry" section as soon as I locate a couple of sources. Cheers. CactusWriter 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Just wondered if you wouldn't mind having a shufty once again at the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal - its been peer reviewed by two people now, and copyedited. I don't fancy any more trips to the library for more research as I think there is enough info in there now, what do you think of it as it stands? Also, Paul Hindle (of the society, and a bloke referenced a few times in the article) has strongly recommended renaming the article - what do you think? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malleus Fatuorum. I'm having a difficult time getting Mount Cayley to GA status. Would mind helping out? Thanks. Black Tusk ( talk) 01:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
[8] Shouldn't you change the project rating when you delist articles? Gimmetrow 22:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
And wanting to beg a favor from you. I've got three articles I'm hoping to bring to FAC after I get back (be about August 17 or so until I'm home and able to handle an FAC). They are Stigand, Go Man Go, and William de St-Calais. They've all been PR'd, and basically need good copyedits before I bring them before the slavering hordes at FAC. Can you look them over for jargon, etc, as well as fix my prose? It's not a "must do asap" but it'd help a bunch if they were looked at in the next couple of weeks or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yay! I'm home. Are you as satisfied as you could be with those? I'm ready to do a little work for "me" and not for everyone else at FAC for a change... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so we have similar personalities, but we're not tight, so I seek from you an objective opinion. Obviously, as most people know, I'm vocal about my displeasure with Majorly's behavior on this project and others. He's initiated an RFC on himself and I would like to know if I'm being overly harsh. I ask you because I've not seen you previously involved in these matters and I know you have no beef with telling me exactly how it is, as others may not want to be completely honest with me in their opinions. This is the post I'm most concerned about. Jennavecia (Talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"Once an admin, always an admin", nothing will change no matter how much evidence, ArbCom will do nothing eventually after y'all waste a lot of time, so why should any right-minded, reasonable thinking person trudge through all the diffs and spend one second presenting a well reasoned response to another problematic admin situation. Figure out where to sign my name on that one. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
For GA I am reviewing Slipknot Demo and Welcome to Our Neighborhood. They are very short. The editor claims this is all the information available on the subject. Do you think it would harm GA to pass such short, minimalist articles, even though they technically meet the criteria for GA? — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
[undent]I've wondered about the Demo article for awhile, but I feel that it does technically meet the GA criteria; and it includes all reliable info that I have seen about the topic. I have discussed the idea with Rezter, as we have worked together on many of the band's articles, he felt it does warrant its own article and I would like to hear what he has to say. That being said, I wouldn't be offended or what have you if it was deleted, provided that the info contained is adaquately covered in Slipknot (band). As for Welcome To Our Neighborhood, I think it's fine. The article meets notability (top position on the Billboards), and provides all info that I know of. Malleus has stated that its critical reception could "use some work", if that means grammar it's not a problem, however, if that means expansion then I'm at a loss because I have nothing further. It was released on VHS at a time before the internet had widespread reviews, even Allmusic which has reviews on nearly every album out there only gave it a starred review without prose. The only thing I could think of would be to look in magazines, but to track down issues of Metal magazines from 1999 would be a hell of a search and there's no guarentee that they say anything concerning the video. Black ngold29 04:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been an update to a summary you have endorsed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly#View by Jennavecia. Jennavecia (Talk) 05:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus Fatuorum! I have seen from this link that you are one of the major contributors to the article Edward VIII abdication crisis. Since the latter currently has GA status, it is perfectly possible to combine it with the articles Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and Wallis, Duchess of Windsor (both of which are featured articles) in order to create a featured topic (FT). All of the featured topic criteria are currently met: the topic is well-defined with no obvious gap or missing article, and I have just created a template and a category in order to fully comply with criteria 1c. I would like to hear your opinion before starting a featured topic nomination. Regards. BomBom ( talk) 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot ( talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any rule of thumb on how many quotations an article can have? I have been persuading the editor of Voodoo (album) to reduce the amount, which he has. However, it still seems there are many quotes. — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)