![]() | This page 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. |
Better than a day at the carnival! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Allright, since everyone seems to be watching this page :-) Testing out an idea on y'all. Tony wants a whole 'nother process, which gives me a headache just thinking about it. What about this. If your reliable sources, images and MoS (all three) don't get rough clearance within five days, the FAC is closed, and you can't come back for 28 days. That would mean, theoretically, when you do come back, we're only analyzing content and prose, which is what we should be doing anyway. Won't that encourage people to stop appearing without the basics in place? Or will this just earn us a reputation for checklist reviewing? I don't want to float the idea on WT:FAC unless it has some traction. The truth is, FAC has become such a solid way to get your article fixed for free, with 35 nominations in eight days, well ... we need to do something about the volume going through. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, since you have forbidden me to post on your page, I thought I would complain here as the only forum available to me. You accused me on Raul's page of disrupting the the FAC talk page discussion (under the section on Raul's page where other editors requested the closing of Samuel Johnson because "it's been there for an embarrassingly long time and is sending a bad signal to nominators about duration on the list"). [1]
Raul, the issue there is that Mattisse ( talk · contribs) is using the Johnson FAC to say I'm getting preferential treatment with an extra long running FAC, and has sidetracked other discussions at WT:FAC with this issue."
I have made a total of four short posts on the WT:FAC page, while you have made more than 70. I am hardly having a massive, disruptive effect on the discussion. It feels like you are attempting to intimidate me and encourage others to disrespect me. I would appreciate it if you would cease singling me out for blaming remarks and allow me to post my opinions without having you characterize me negatively. I am entitled to my opinions, just as you are, and don't warrant being singled out and badmouthed to Raul (or anyone else) for expressing them. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, this page just completed a thorough peer review and major trim. Ealdgyth suggested I contact you to request a copyedit and ask you to look it over to make sure it is concise. So.....please...when you have some time can you come have a look? Thanks for your help. :) 14:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to a couple of other talkpages, if you think it looks familiar. Any
TPSs, feel free to join in.)
I've totally rewritten
Bruce Castle from a stub to a Long Rambling Piece (and in a burst of vanity, timed it so
this edit would be
edit 100,000).
This is the third, and final part of my Lordship Lane triptych (along with The Mall Wood Green and Broadwater Farm), and has been the trickiest one to write. Because Bruce Castle is a distinctly dull building (architecturally, it's only really notable for being old), I've taken a Giano-horrifying approach and virtually ignored the architecture; instead, I've tried to write it as a chronological piece, focusing on the occupants of the house in the context of the social changes in the area. This has left it with some gaping holes; most notably that the architectural sections are weak (albeit mainly because there are no records of construction and the building isn't particularly distinguished).
Any comments, criticism, copyediting or rewriting gratefully received… – iride scent 00:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello there! Hope all is well! Your name flashed up on my watchlist just now, and haven't seen you around for the last couple of weeks (mind you, I've been a little tied up in real life).
Just wondered if you'd be willing to do a GA review of the UK article? I know its got GA status, but in honesty it shouldn't, and we both know that. An impartial review might help show others what I mean by " we need to start citing our sources"! No probs if this isn't your thing (although it would be nice!) -- Jza84 | Talk 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I'm confused about your last edit on my talk page. I think I may have offended you - I in no way intended my remark to offend, I was trying to be funny which I am afraid has produced the opposite effect. Please know that I value your opinions and I appreciate your help whenever it has been offered. Please do not ever think that I don't want to know your opinions because I always do. Peace. NancyHeise talk 02:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
To Malleus, for always giving me good advice and important help on a difficult project. NancyHeise talk 03:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
What was the link to your Devil's Dictionary page? -- KnowledgeHegemony Part2 14:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It's been moved to the mainspace, at WP:WikiSpeak. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I can not imagine going through another FAC if you are not going to be there to distribute your wisdom throughout the process. If I could send you real chocolates I would but this will have to do. Please come back. NancyHeise talk 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It's my last day of editing Malleus, of any substantial quantity (I never had the quality, so I'll have to rest my laurels on the quantity). I've had fun here, and in large part because of you and your excising wit and intelligence. I mean that. You are one of the best editors on this site, and you suffer fools poorly, also a grand quality. Leave on your own terms Mall, don't let some fool of an admin dictate your exit. Be well. If I'm ever on your side of the pond, I'm buying you a beer or seven.... Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, When you get a minute could you take another look at Kennet and Avon Canal as I believe your GAR comments have been addressed - if theres anything else just let us know.— Rod talk 13:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you make of this? Caulde 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I've got one close to whipped into shape, so if you could take a gander at Robert of Jumièges and tell me what I've overlooked/messed up/etc I'd greatly appreciate it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, would you have time to give me an opinion on an image? If so, it's the chart of issues at the end of Amazing Stories. A recent GA review pointed out that it's almost unreadable; it's actually readable if you click all the way through to the expanded image inside the image page, but it's certainly unreadable as a thumbnail and very nearly so on the image page.
I could address this in several ways, but I'm not sure what the right approach is. I am leaning to splitting it into two or even three images, each covering perhaps twenty or twenty five years, but otherwise essentially the same information. I could also eliminate the volume numbers and increase the font size of the headings, while reducing the size of the cells, thus increasing readability. I hate to do that, though, as the volume information is real info about the magazine that would be horribly tedious to present in any non-tabular way. What do you think? And if you've no time to look, no problem. Mike Christie (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I will consider supporting if a thorough copy-edit is done; please either do it yourself, or, if you are too familiar with the wording to see it (as does happen), get someone else to do it. Lest I be too negative, I am also asking for other opinions on my five samples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I unwatched. I never wanted my name on it anyway because I knew what would happen. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for many hours across many months that you wont get back and without it this could never have happened.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
23:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In response to comments that seem to suggest that field of Literature is something or the other, my response to you is thus:
$Kad@nfd;la#fhdo,ieur*^&e;14p%1430$%$#fk439^534-51k5/el*fmd%^fdkj$lfd*jf!!!!!!!!!
That is all. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Are these addressed? Ottava's response doesn't indicate if the text was fixed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw that dejected edit summary; misery loves company :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
PS, I wont be satisfied with the UK page unless it mentions that it includes the sacred kingdoms of Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumberland, in addition to Albany, Wales, Eire, Mann, and Cornwall. None of this "Scotland" crap, either. That is that. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- in real life, I am a very good cook, including cookies. Sorry I can't send real ones. I answered your message on my talk page. :) NancyHeise talk 03:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm doing a GAR on Strawberry Panic! and all of the issues have been fixed by the primary editor except it really needs a copy edit. The phrasing seems very awkward and overly long to me and doesn't seem to flow well at all. Might you have time to give it a going over so I can finish up the GAR? -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 16:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Trial by Fire Award | |
To Malleus Fatuorum, For your support throughout our little piece of Wikipurgatory and for your excellence in copyediting to bring Samuel Johnson to featured status, I pass along to you this most deserved barnstar. It's my favorite: you did come through this trial by fire "still shining", like the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
(←) Congratulations! I was too late to join in the FAC, but it looks like an excellent article, and I think Sandy also deserves the trial-by-fire award for dedication beyond the call of duty to ensure the article is so beautifully referenced :-) Geometry guy 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of High Culture and Endurance. | |
For bringing Samuel Johnson to FA: a Huge Achievement Malleus, its articles like this that make me proud to be part of the project. Well done. Ceoil sláinte 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hi there Eric Corbett/Archives/2008!
| |
---|---|
![]() |
Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there! |
Malleus Fatuorum, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Today I saw your notification that the article had been demoted. It is rather surprising that no notification that this GAR was even taking place. I would have expected to see such a notification placed at one of these pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board or even at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment. Had such a notification been made, perhaps someone would have addressed the issues mentioned. You placed a GAR notice on the article talk page for 15 minutes which gives no one time to do anything significant to the article. That seem like a very short time to allow editors, who watch the page, to even question your possible reasoning for the GAR, much less discuss or make, any improvements. Surely a time of at least 7-days would be appropriate instead of 15 minutes. ww2censor ( talk) 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I am having a real problem with a GAN, Ain't We Got Fun? and want to get some perspective before I take my stance. I am surprised by the bias of the article and the distortion of a commonly accepted reality about the song. You can tell me that I am seeing the article's defects all out of proportion! My main objections to accepting this article as a GA are as follows:
"Ain't We Got Fun" follows the structure of a foxtrot. [1] The melody uses mainly quarter notes, and has an unsyncopated refrain made up largely of variations on a repeated four-note phrase. [2] [3] [4] The Tin Pan Alley Song Encyclopedia describes it as a "Roaring Twenties favourite" and praises its vibrancy, "zesty music", and comic lyrics. [5]
Critical appraisals vary regarding what view of poverty the song's lyrics take. Nicholas E. Tawa summarizes the refrain Ain't we got fun as a satirical and jaunty rejoinder toward hard times. [2] Diane Holloway and Bob Cheney, authors of American History in Song: Lyrics from 1900 to 1945, concur, and describe the black humor in the couple's relief that their poverty shields them from worrying about damage to their nonexistent Pierce Arrow luxury automobile. [6]
Yet George Orwell highlights the lyrics of "Ain't We Got Fun" as an example of working class unrest:
All through the war and for a little time afterwards there had been high wages and abundant employment; things were now returning to something worse than normal, and naturally the working class resisted. The men who had fought had been lured into the army by gaudy promises, and they were coming home to a world where there were no jobs and not even any houses. Moreover, they had been at war and were coming home with a soldier's attitude to life, which is fundamentally, in spite of discipline, a lawless attitude. There was a turbulent feeling in the air. [7]
— George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
After quoting a few of the song's lines Orwell refers to the era as a time when people had not yet settled down to a lifetime of unemployment mitigated by endless cups of tea, a turn of phrase which the later writer Larry Portis contests. [7] [8]
He [Orwell] could just as easily have concluded that the song revealed a certain fatalism, a resignation and even capitulation to forces beyond the control of working people. Indeed, it might be only a small step from saying, "Ain't we got fun" in the midst of hardship to the idea that the poor are happier than the rich--because, as the Beatles intoned, "Money can't buy me love." It is possible that "Aint We Got Fun", a product of the music industry (as opposed to 'working-class culture') was part of a complex resolution of crisis in capitalist society. Far from revealing the indomitable spirit of working people, it figured into the means with which they were controlled. It is a problem of interpretation laying at the heart of popular music, one which emerged with particular clarity at the time of the English Industrial Revolution. [8]
— Larry Portis, Soul Trains
Notes
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Well, I was too optimistic. After reading the article I think it clearly fails several GA criteria and especially 1(a). Fixing all problems will require a lot of efforts and seems unlikely to happen any time soon. Ruslik ( talk) 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think it would've helped a lot of you added in your reassessment message in the article's talk page that you fixed as many problems as you can instead of just listing the problems that you weren't able to fix. It would've clearly shown that you are not simply doing it out of whim. User:Lenticel is quite active in various XfD discussions and I think the behavior there of some people has made him too sensitive to whimsical nominations for deletions. I know you are not obliged to do what I said, but it's all a part of demonstrating good faith, which is part of assuming good faith. -- seav ( talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus. Pleae re-check for linkrot on Itanium. I tried to fix them all, but I amy have missed one or two. Thanks. - Arch dude ( talk) 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I was sorry to see the recent changes to your user page. You're immensely valuable to this project, as I hope you realize; the irritations of the occasional bad interaction can certainly get frustrating, but I hope that after some time you'll be able to return to enjoying volunteering here. In any event, best wishes. Mike Christie (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I wish you the best of luck in whatever you do, and hope that you ocassionally visit WP:GM. I respect you too much to believe you'll be swayed by my words alone, but had you given any other reason other than real life commitments, I would have tried to convince you to stay. I rate your opinions above those of anyone else around here. I've relished the times we've worked together and think that you are one of the premier contributors to this project. I hope that time allows you to return and that when you do, you will drop by WP:GM. We'll keep a seat open for you ;-) Bon chance Nev1 ( talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Nev1 ( talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the NPOV issue and the "was was" thing that I missed. Wronkiew ( talk) 05:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
What's up? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
*Snuggles* <-- From an abusive admin!? :p But ya, uhm... :( You're supposed to come to my talk page and talk smack... wtf?! لenna vecia 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
(<--) You're right, Mal. And I agree with you. But the logs could be improved if Devs would give us the ability to delete our own entries on someone's block log. And of course, we need a way to bring admins down from their pedestal, but that still doesn't negate the fact that it's a silly reason to retire. I mean, we all contribute here knowing we're surrounded by nut jobs, dumbasses and children. You can't be surprised when stupid shit happens to you, and if you edit thinking "It'll never be me," you deserve to be the next. Taking a break is, of course, totally understandable. I'm just saying, retiring in protest over the dilution of some imaginary newly-tarnished reputation from a bad block is ridiculous. لenna vecia 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
A recent post to the United Kingdom talk page implied that the access date style for references/citations has changed from this. If the preferred style has changed, would you mind providing a link to the suggested style change please? All the reference access dates on the pages I've created are in year-month-day format and I'd rather not amend them all if there's no real need. Thanks. Daicaregos ( talk) 08:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Having read your note at the top & some of the discussions above I'm loath to ask (again) but I value your copy edit skills highly & had just popped in to ask you if you had a minute to look at Bridgwater and Taunton Canal unless you were going to be the GA reviewer (as its getting near to nomination) - but having seen your comments its probably too much to ask?— Rod talk 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't checked your talk talk page, and so hadn't received your message in response to mine with regards to the plan of Chester Cathedral. I see considerable advantage is bringing the numbering into line with the usual standard.
Amandajm ( talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry please explain the message on my talk page. Million_Moments ( talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This is just a note to say that I have set up a GAR for Brenda Song here. This would seem the right way to air any differences that there may be concerning that article's recent GA review. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was just promoted to GA minutes ago. The article has serious content problems. The subject is pseudoscientific in nature. However, the editor has interwoven into the article legitimate medical diagnoses and evidence with this pseudoscientific, discredited therapy that borders on a cult. I have posted to the editor who just passed the article as I was posting my objections in the GA review and I got an edit conflict. So I posted my objections on the talk page as well. (This article has been in GA review since the being of September.) And he has agreed to discuss my objections with the editor. However, if the article does not sufficient disentangle the legitimate from the pseudocience in the article, I am wondering if I could post it to GAR? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 01:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1 — Mattisse ( Talk) 04:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've finally had time to complete my review (as in compare the article against the criteria :-) ) of Ireland. I supported your delist from the beginning, but my review has confirmed to me just how much work is needed to fix it. The quality of the sources is poor, which is reflected in the issues you noted and is something that is never easy to fix. (Hey, it involves going to the library, which Wikipedians are not so good at IMO!)
I'm sorry that meanwhile we have been arguing at cross purposes. I'm impressed that you've been able to escalate an argument with me, and also by your debating skills. I'm not really sure why you employed these skills to misdirect, misunderstand, and misrepresent comments by an editor who is sympathetic to your position and largely in agreement with you, but whatever. I can understand that you might find the discussion at WT:GA as comment on your delist, but I do not. That comment is taking place at WP:Good article reassessment/Ireland/1, where there is unanimous and ringing endorsement of your decision. Geometry guy 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Just notification. Syn ergy 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Given your recent help with the £ symbol, I wondered if you could help me understand what 4.02d means? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I just saw your edit on the talk page of the editor who nominated Netley Abbey at FAC. You are such a helpful person on Wikipedia, you have all the qualifications for being a decent admin. I know that you are not into that idea after reading your user page but frankly, you are what Wikipedia needs more of. If you ever reconsider adminship, I would like to either nominate you or at least have the chance to vote - I didn't know you were up for consideration before or else I would have filled the page with glowing compliments of your worthiness. I hope I will be given that chance in the future. NancyHeise talk 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
[You] are very honest and frank, and very much orientated towards content. You already have a respected voice, and thats enough; if you seek to become a part of the admin corp you would have to silence and restrain yourself, and thus loose the part of Malleus that makes Malleus Malleus.
Gimmetrow may well be referring to my presumptions about GimmeBot activity. Geometry guy 16:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what has instigated such a response to my last edit and can only put it down a poorly conveyed message by me. When I mentioned the point of "looking down noses", I was speaking in a general term. Thats wasnt aimed at you specifically and if I offended you then I apologise. I mentioned the footballer/pop star issue as you it 'seemed' to be an issue you had which was a personal gripe. In this world of celebrity, I would undrestand your aversion to their inclusion onto an article. ( Anthony of the Desert ( talk) 00:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)).
Hi Malleus Fatuorum. Could you look at this article and see what is needed for GA? It's not a GA nominee yet but it's broad in it's scope, stable, contains images etc like what is needed for GA status. I'm asking you this before I nominate the article because then I can fix whatever is wrong with it and therefore it be less likely to fail; I'm not a good reviewer ;-). Black Tusk ( talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Better than a day at the carnival! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Allright, since everyone seems to be watching this page :-) Testing out an idea on y'all. Tony wants a whole 'nother process, which gives me a headache just thinking about it. What about this. If your reliable sources, images and MoS (all three) don't get rough clearance within five days, the FAC is closed, and you can't come back for 28 days. That would mean, theoretically, when you do come back, we're only analyzing content and prose, which is what we should be doing anyway. Won't that encourage people to stop appearing without the basics in place? Or will this just earn us a reputation for checklist reviewing? I don't want to float the idea on WT:FAC unless it has some traction. The truth is, FAC has become such a solid way to get your article fixed for free, with 35 nominations in eight days, well ... we need to do something about the volume going through. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, since you have forbidden me to post on your page, I thought I would complain here as the only forum available to me. You accused me on Raul's page of disrupting the the FAC talk page discussion (under the section on Raul's page where other editors requested the closing of Samuel Johnson because "it's been there for an embarrassingly long time and is sending a bad signal to nominators about duration on the list"). [1]
Raul, the issue there is that Mattisse ( talk · contribs) is using the Johnson FAC to say I'm getting preferential treatment with an extra long running FAC, and has sidetracked other discussions at WT:FAC with this issue."
I have made a total of four short posts on the WT:FAC page, while you have made more than 70. I am hardly having a massive, disruptive effect on the discussion. It feels like you are attempting to intimidate me and encourage others to disrespect me. I would appreciate it if you would cease singling me out for blaming remarks and allow me to post my opinions without having you characterize me negatively. I am entitled to my opinions, just as you are, and don't warrant being singled out and badmouthed to Raul (or anyone else) for expressing them. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, this page just completed a thorough peer review and major trim. Ealdgyth suggested I contact you to request a copyedit and ask you to look it over to make sure it is concise. So.....please...when you have some time can you come have a look? Thanks for your help. :) 14:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to a couple of other talkpages, if you think it looks familiar. Any
TPSs, feel free to join in.)
I've totally rewritten
Bruce Castle from a stub to a Long Rambling Piece (and in a burst of vanity, timed it so
this edit would be
edit 100,000).
This is the third, and final part of my Lordship Lane triptych (along with The Mall Wood Green and Broadwater Farm), and has been the trickiest one to write. Because Bruce Castle is a distinctly dull building (architecturally, it's only really notable for being old), I've taken a Giano-horrifying approach and virtually ignored the architecture; instead, I've tried to write it as a chronological piece, focusing on the occupants of the house in the context of the social changes in the area. This has left it with some gaping holes; most notably that the architectural sections are weak (albeit mainly because there are no records of construction and the building isn't particularly distinguished).
Any comments, criticism, copyediting or rewriting gratefully received… – iride scent 00:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello there! Hope all is well! Your name flashed up on my watchlist just now, and haven't seen you around for the last couple of weeks (mind you, I've been a little tied up in real life).
Just wondered if you'd be willing to do a GA review of the UK article? I know its got GA status, but in honesty it shouldn't, and we both know that. An impartial review might help show others what I mean by " we need to start citing our sources"! No probs if this isn't your thing (although it would be nice!) -- Jza84 | Talk 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I'm confused about your last edit on my talk page. I think I may have offended you - I in no way intended my remark to offend, I was trying to be funny which I am afraid has produced the opposite effect. Please know that I value your opinions and I appreciate your help whenever it has been offered. Please do not ever think that I don't want to know your opinions because I always do. Peace. NancyHeise talk 02:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
To Malleus, for always giving me good advice and important help on a difficult project. NancyHeise talk 03:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
What was the link to your Devil's Dictionary page? -- KnowledgeHegemony Part2 14:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It's been moved to the mainspace, at WP:WikiSpeak. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I can not imagine going through another FAC if you are not going to be there to distribute your wisdom throughout the process. If I could send you real chocolates I would but this will have to do. Please come back. NancyHeise talk 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It's my last day of editing Malleus, of any substantial quantity (I never had the quality, so I'll have to rest my laurels on the quantity). I've had fun here, and in large part because of you and your excising wit and intelligence. I mean that. You are one of the best editors on this site, and you suffer fools poorly, also a grand quality. Leave on your own terms Mall, don't let some fool of an admin dictate your exit. Be well. If I'm ever on your side of the pond, I'm buying you a beer or seven.... Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, When you get a minute could you take another look at Kennet and Avon Canal as I believe your GAR comments have been addressed - if theres anything else just let us know.— Rod talk 13:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you make of this? Caulde 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I've got one close to whipped into shape, so if you could take a gander at Robert of Jumièges and tell me what I've overlooked/messed up/etc I'd greatly appreciate it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, would you have time to give me an opinion on an image? If so, it's the chart of issues at the end of Amazing Stories. A recent GA review pointed out that it's almost unreadable; it's actually readable if you click all the way through to the expanded image inside the image page, but it's certainly unreadable as a thumbnail and very nearly so on the image page.
I could address this in several ways, but I'm not sure what the right approach is. I am leaning to splitting it into two or even three images, each covering perhaps twenty or twenty five years, but otherwise essentially the same information. I could also eliminate the volume numbers and increase the font size of the headings, while reducing the size of the cells, thus increasing readability. I hate to do that, though, as the volume information is real info about the magazine that would be horribly tedious to present in any non-tabular way. What do you think? And if you've no time to look, no problem. Mike Christie (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I will consider supporting if a thorough copy-edit is done; please either do it yourself, or, if you are too familiar with the wording to see it (as does happen), get someone else to do it. Lest I be too negative, I am also asking for other opinions on my five samples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I unwatched. I never wanted my name on it anyway because I knew what would happen. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for many hours across many months that you wont get back and without it this could never have happened.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
23:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In response to comments that seem to suggest that field of Literature is something or the other, my response to you is thus:
$Kad@nfd;la#fhdo,ieur*^&e;14p%1430$%$#fk439^534-51k5/el*fmd%^fdkj$lfd*jf!!!!!!!!!
That is all. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Are these addressed? Ottava's response doesn't indicate if the text was fixed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw that dejected edit summary; misery loves company :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
PS, I wont be satisfied with the UK page unless it mentions that it includes the sacred kingdoms of Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumberland, in addition to Albany, Wales, Eire, Mann, and Cornwall. None of this "Scotland" crap, either. That is that. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- in real life, I am a very good cook, including cookies. Sorry I can't send real ones. I answered your message on my talk page. :) NancyHeise talk 03:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm doing a GAR on Strawberry Panic! and all of the issues have been fixed by the primary editor except it really needs a copy edit. The phrasing seems very awkward and overly long to me and doesn't seem to flow well at all. Might you have time to give it a going over so I can finish up the GAR? -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 16:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Trial by Fire Award | |
To Malleus Fatuorum, For your support throughout our little piece of Wikipurgatory and for your excellence in copyediting to bring Samuel Johnson to featured status, I pass along to you this most deserved barnstar. It's my favorite: you did come through this trial by fire "still shining", like the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
(←) Congratulations! I was too late to join in the FAC, but it looks like an excellent article, and I think Sandy also deserves the trial-by-fire award for dedication beyond the call of duty to ensure the article is so beautifully referenced :-) Geometry guy 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of High Culture and Endurance. | |
For bringing Samuel Johnson to FA: a Huge Achievement Malleus, its articles like this that make me proud to be part of the project. Well done. Ceoil sláinte 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hi there Eric Corbett/Archives/2008!
| |
---|---|
![]() |
Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there! |
Malleus Fatuorum, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Today I saw your notification that the article had been demoted. It is rather surprising that no notification that this GAR was even taking place. I would have expected to see such a notification placed at one of these pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board or even at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment. Had such a notification been made, perhaps someone would have addressed the issues mentioned. You placed a GAR notice on the article talk page for 15 minutes which gives no one time to do anything significant to the article. That seem like a very short time to allow editors, who watch the page, to even question your possible reasoning for the GAR, much less discuss or make, any improvements. Surely a time of at least 7-days would be appropriate instead of 15 minutes. ww2censor ( talk) 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I am having a real problem with a GAN, Ain't We Got Fun? and want to get some perspective before I take my stance. I am surprised by the bias of the article and the distortion of a commonly accepted reality about the song. You can tell me that I am seeing the article's defects all out of proportion! My main objections to accepting this article as a GA are as follows:
"Ain't We Got Fun" follows the structure of a foxtrot. [1] The melody uses mainly quarter notes, and has an unsyncopated refrain made up largely of variations on a repeated four-note phrase. [2] [3] [4] The Tin Pan Alley Song Encyclopedia describes it as a "Roaring Twenties favourite" and praises its vibrancy, "zesty music", and comic lyrics. [5]
Critical appraisals vary regarding what view of poverty the song's lyrics take. Nicholas E. Tawa summarizes the refrain Ain't we got fun as a satirical and jaunty rejoinder toward hard times. [2] Diane Holloway and Bob Cheney, authors of American History in Song: Lyrics from 1900 to 1945, concur, and describe the black humor in the couple's relief that their poverty shields them from worrying about damage to their nonexistent Pierce Arrow luxury automobile. [6]
Yet George Orwell highlights the lyrics of "Ain't We Got Fun" as an example of working class unrest:
All through the war and for a little time afterwards there had been high wages and abundant employment; things were now returning to something worse than normal, and naturally the working class resisted. The men who had fought had been lured into the army by gaudy promises, and they were coming home to a world where there were no jobs and not even any houses. Moreover, they had been at war and were coming home with a soldier's attitude to life, which is fundamentally, in spite of discipline, a lawless attitude. There was a turbulent feeling in the air. [7]
— George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
After quoting a few of the song's lines Orwell refers to the era as a time when people had not yet settled down to a lifetime of unemployment mitigated by endless cups of tea, a turn of phrase which the later writer Larry Portis contests. [7] [8]
He [Orwell] could just as easily have concluded that the song revealed a certain fatalism, a resignation and even capitulation to forces beyond the control of working people. Indeed, it might be only a small step from saying, "Ain't we got fun" in the midst of hardship to the idea that the poor are happier than the rich--because, as the Beatles intoned, "Money can't buy me love." It is possible that "Aint We Got Fun", a product of the music industry (as opposed to 'working-class culture') was part of a complex resolution of crisis in capitalist society. Far from revealing the indomitable spirit of working people, it figured into the means with which they were controlled. It is a problem of interpretation laying at the heart of popular music, one which emerged with particular clarity at the time of the English Industrial Revolution. [8]
— Larry Portis, Soul Trains
Notes
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Well, I was too optimistic. After reading the article I think it clearly fails several GA criteria and especially 1(a). Fixing all problems will require a lot of efforts and seems unlikely to happen any time soon. Ruslik ( talk) 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think it would've helped a lot of you added in your reassessment message in the article's talk page that you fixed as many problems as you can instead of just listing the problems that you weren't able to fix. It would've clearly shown that you are not simply doing it out of whim. User:Lenticel is quite active in various XfD discussions and I think the behavior there of some people has made him too sensitive to whimsical nominations for deletions. I know you are not obliged to do what I said, but it's all a part of demonstrating good faith, which is part of assuming good faith. -- seav ( talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus. Pleae re-check for linkrot on Itanium. I tried to fix them all, but I amy have missed one or two. Thanks. - Arch dude ( talk) 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I was sorry to see the recent changes to your user page. You're immensely valuable to this project, as I hope you realize; the irritations of the occasional bad interaction can certainly get frustrating, but I hope that after some time you'll be able to return to enjoying volunteering here. In any event, best wishes. Mike Christie (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I wish you the best of luck in whatever you do, and hope that you ocassionally visit WP:GM. I respect you too much to believe you'll be swayed by my words alone, but had you given any other reason other than real life commitments, I would have tried to convince you to stay. I rate your opinions above those of anyone else around here. I've relished the times we've worked together and think that you are one of the premier contributors to this project. I hope that time allows you to return and that when you do, you will drop by WP:GM. We'll keep a seat open for you ;-) Bon chance Nev1 ( talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Nev1 ( talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the NPOV issue and the "was was" thing that I missed. Wronkiew ( talk) 05:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
What's up? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
*Snuggles* <-- From an abusive admin!? :p But ya, uhm... :( You're supposed to come to my talk page and talk smack... wtf?! لenna vecia 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
(<--) You're right, Mal. And I agree with you. But the logs could be improved if Devs would give us the ability to delete our own entries on someone's block log. And of course, we need a way to bring admins down from their pedestal, but that still doesn't negate the fact that it's a silly reason to retire. I mean, we all contribute here knowing we're surrounded by nut jobs, dumbasses and children. You can't be surprised when stupid shit happens to you, and if you edit thinking "It'll never be me," you deserve to be the next. Taking a break is, of course, totally understandable. I'm just saying, retiring in protest over the dilution of some imaginary newly-tarnished reputation from a bad block is ridiculous. لenna vecia 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
A recent post to the United Kingdom talk page implied that the access date style for references/citations has changed from this. If the preferred style has changed, would you mind providing a link to the suggested style change please? All the reference access dates on the pages I've created are in year-month-day format and I'd rather not amend them all if there's no real need. Thanks. Daicaregos ( talk) 08:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Having read your note at the top & some of the discussions above I'm loath to ask (again) but I value your copy edit skills highly & had just popped in to ask you if you had a minute to look at Bridgwater and Taunton Canal unless you were going to be the GA reviewer (as its getting near to nomination) - but having seen your comments its probably too much to ask?— Rod talk 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't checked your talk talk page, and so hadn't received your message in response to mine with regards to the plan of Chester Cathedral. I see considerable advantage is bringing the numbering into line with the usual standard.
Amandajm ( talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry please explain the message on my talk page. Million_Moments ( talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This is just a note to say that I have set up a GAR for Brenda Song here. This would seem the right way to air any differences that there may be concerning that article's recent GA review. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was just promoted to GA minutes ago. The article has serious content problems. The subject is pseudoscientific in nature. However, the editor has interwoven into the article legitimate medical diagnoses and evidence with this pseudoscientific, discredited therapy that borders on a cult. I have posted to the editor who just passed the article as I was posting my objections in the GA review and I got an edit conflict. So I posted my objections on the talk page as well. (This article has been in GA review since the being of September.) And he has agreed to discuss my objections with the editor. However, if the article does not sufficient disentangle the legitimate from the pseudocience in the article, I am wondering if I could post it to GAR? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 01:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1 — Mattisse ( Talk) 04:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've finally had time to complete my review (as in compare the article against the criteria :-) ) of Ireland. I supported your delist from the beginning, but my review has confirmed to me just how much work is needed to fix it. The quality of the sources is poor, which is reflected in the issues you noted and is something that is never easy to fix. (Hey, it involves going to the library, which Wikipedians are not so good at IMO!)
I'm sorry that meanwhile we have been arguing at cross purposes. I'm impressed that you've been able to escalate an argument with me, and also by your debating skills. I'm not really sure why you employed these skills to misdirect, misunderstand, and misrepresent comments by an editor who is sympathetic to your position and largely in agreement with you, but whatever. I can understand that you might find the discussion at WT:GA as comment on your delist, but I do not. That comment is taking place at WP:Good article reassessment/Ireland/1, where there is unanimous and ringing endorsement of your decision. Geometry guy 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Just notification. Syn ergy 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Given your recent help with the £ symbol, I wondered if you could help me understand what 4.02d means? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I just saw your edit on the talk page of the editor who nominated Netley Abbey at FAC. You are such a helpful person on Wikipedia, you have all the qualifications for being a decent admin. I know that you are not into that idea after reading your user page but frankly, you are what Wikipedia needs more of. If you ever reconsider adminship, I would like to either nominate you or at least have the chance to vote - I didn't know you were up for consideration before or else I would have filled the page with glowing compliments of your worthiness. I hope I will be given that chance in the future. NancyHeise talk 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
[You] are very honest and frank, and very much orientated towards content. You already have a respected voice, and thats enough; if you seek to become a part of the admin corp you would have to silence and restrain yourself, and thus loose the part of Malleus that makes Malleus Malleus.
Gimmetrow may well be referring to my presumptions about GimmeBot activity. Geometry guy 16:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what has instigated such a response to my last edit and can only put it down a poorly conveyed message by me. When I mentioned the point of "looking down noses", I was speaking in a general term. Thats wasnt aimed at you specifically and if I offended you then I apologise. I mentioned the footballer/pop star issue as you it 'seemed' to be an issue you had which was a personal gripe. In this world of celebrity, I would undrestand your aversion to their inclusion onto an article. ( Anthony of the Desert ( talk) 00:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)).
Hi Malleus Fatuorum. Could you look at this article and see what is needed for GA? It's not a GA nominee yet but it's broad in it's scope, stable, contains images etc like what is needed for GA status. I'm asking you this before I nominate the article because then I can fix whatever is wrong with it and therefore it be less likely to fail; I'm not a good reviewer ;-). Black Tusk ( talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)