Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hi, I've been to speak to you about an article review.....] (]) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've been to speak to you about an article review.....] (]) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:I've become a little cautious about stepping into Irish articles since getting involved in tidying up the ], a Fenian ambush that took place over 100 years ago. I remember the Enniskillen bombing very well, as my wife was visiting a hospital nearby that day, and saw them preparing to accept the casualties. I think it was certainly a turning point in the troubles, so I'm going to throw caution to the wind and take a closer look at the article. My first impression, after a very quick read through, is that it's a long way from FA, but with some work it could be a credible GA candidate. I'll try to be more specific on the article's talk page once I've had the opportunity to look at it in more detail. --] (]) 23:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Old Trafford, Murrays' Mills and 1990 Strangeways Prison riot all passed GAC last month! In previous newsletters, the issue of WP:GM's lack of GAs has been raised numerously, so a large 'well done' to all those who contributed, be it little or large!
Also, Milnrow and City of Salford have been nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to join in with their discussions here and here respectively. To 'obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs' is one of WP:GM's short-term aims, let's hope the City of Salford won't be the last borough with this status.
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on London! Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still flagging a little in GAs and falls behind London by 3. This is the closest we have ever got to taking the lead in local British GAs, if you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
And don't forget that the Manchester congestion charge article will need all input possible to keep it up to date with the government's new legislation (grumble grumble)...
Member News
There are 46 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Our newest member is:
Let's not forget that Jza84 became an administrator this month! Congratulations on your new role.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed..
Obtain GA status for one third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, except for City of Salford being nominated at WP:GAC. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Greater Manchester is, of course, our highest priority article. Mr Stephen posted some milestones to getting this article up to FA status a while back. Please check them out and see what you can do.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Misplaced Pages articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but we'll need more if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 12th April, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 151 of our 1551 article unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
Delivered on June 12, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
Blackburn
Hi Malleus Fatuorom. I've recently done quite a bit of work on the Blackburn article, inspired by Jza84's GA review in which he provided some invaluable advice about how the article might be developed.
I think it would be useful for someone who hasn't been involved with the Blackburn article to cast a fresh eye over it at this stage. Jza84 recommended you as someone who might be able to do that. If you have time, would you mind having a look at it to see what you think? Beejaypii (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I just had a quick look through the Blackburn article, and my first impression was "Wow". You've done a great job in developing it. Give me an hour or two to look at it in more detail. Later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Not all of them? I'm gutted. :-( Seriously though, I really can't see this article having too many problems at its next GA nomination, in which I wish you luck. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You might enjoy this
For an interesting example of RfC, take a look at page 208 of Misplaced Pages: The Missing Manual... I wonder whose RfA is used... Dekkappai (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Yesterday another editor suggested that my area of editing interest would cause harm to my eyesight. Might I politely suggest that a stronger-strength lens is in order for you too, Malleus? :-) No, actually the RfC that has been immortalized in print belongs to a current Admin whose username begins with an E and ends with a 3. The page that is printed representing said RfC lists my and your statements. Fame at last! :-( Dekkappai (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Very odd-- I was at another computer when I saw page 208. Now here at home, it is indeed not part of the book preview... Anyway, take my word for it, we're there... Dekkappai (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see if it I search for "Dekkappai" in Google Book Search (the surrounding pages aren't included). If I just follow your link through to that particular book, the page isn't there. My guess is Google is trying to cut down on the material it's offering for free. 04:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, trout aside, I've always felt that if there's an opportunity for malfeasance, then someone, sometime, will take advantage of it. But your interpretation was right. I simply meant how do you know you're talking to the person you think you are, the person who logged on? Trout pax? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, seems that will be a problem that will inevitably have to be flagged up under this proposal. Trout pax? Nimirum! Rudget (logs) 20:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm obviously getting slow Rudget. I was racking my brains to think of wtf nimirum meant in text-speak ... until I realised that it wasn't text speak at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyedit
Hi Malleus. I've been referred to you by another user who advised me you might be willing to do a copyedit for me? The article I'm trying to get to FA is Hylton Castle. If you could give it the once (or twice) over, I'd be very grateful. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The article needs more than just a quick copyedit or two before it's a plausible GA candidate, never mind FA. If you're prepared to listen to my suggestions, then I'm prepared to help. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw this notice here and took a look at the article. At the moment, I'm streamlining the references, it should take quite a bit out of the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Malleus. Should you ever want a change of wiki-scenery we'd love to have your participation once again at GAR. Best regards, Majoreditor (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've rather neglected GAR of late I know. My only excuse is that I've been focusing my GA reviewing efforts on GA Sweeps recently. I've just about finished the first section I committed to do there, so you can expect to see my words of wisdom (or complete bullshit, depending on your view) at GAR any time soon. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
...to keep working on History of timekeeping devices, and I like your edits, but Sandy's latest comment (the one about "9 nominators") makes it sound like she's going to get medieval on us sometime in the near future; shall I jump back in, or would you rather fly solo? I just finished up my other urgent work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please, feel free to jump back in. I was just holding the breach as I sensed that Sandy was really keen to close this one way or the other. Understandably so. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I was just saying that with nine nominators, it's surprising that others have had to do the copyediting. Anyway. That quote reminds me of the time Bishonen called Radiant! a mean motherfucker and no one batted an eye; puts the whole admin thingie in context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, you'd think that with nine nominators there would be enough firepower to get the article through FAC. Anyway, I'm only replying in case there's any misunderstanding from any watchers of this page. I am not an administrator, so SandyG is not referring to anything that I've done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Now what have I gotten myself into? I don't mean anyone. Well, maybe I mean the times I was told to "fuck off" and no one said anything. I'm commenting in general on the civility issue on Wiki, and whenever I see the mf word, I remember that one incident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
A problem I simply don't have. I assume that everyone here thinks I've been rude to them in the past. And who knows, maybe they're right, and I was. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Can't recall any, Iri ... I should clarify that Bish's comment was utterly hilarious and in perfect context when she made it, but if I had said it (as a non-admin), it woulda been curtains for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right, admins get away with things that would sink a mere mortal. Going way off the track here, but if you ever decided to put yourself forward at RfA I can see some epic battles being fought out. It would go down in wikihistory, I haven't the slightest doubt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I won't pursue this, because I know what a hell-hole RfA can be. But if you can't be an administrator, then there is something seriously wrong with the whole project. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
uncyclopedia:AAAAA! She's everywhere! :) For the record, "get medieval" is a lot more humorous and softer now than it was in Pulp Fiction; Wierd Al Yankovich used it in Amish Paradise. I first started writing "She's going to lower the boom", but then I remembered that Malleus is in northern England, and I don't know if they lower booms there. (I don't even know if we lower them here!) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion. I'll start at the bottom and work up to incense candles, and Dank55 can work down from where he left off. I think another day ought to see it, and I'd have no objection whatsoever to it being closed tomorrow, whatever the verdict. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds great. Sandy, sorry that I said "get medieval"...that does have a certain ring of "meanness", doesn't it? I just meant the timekeeping device is ticking, and we've been warned. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not worried about closing it soon. What I am concerned about is that, because of the slowdown at FAC due to summer breaks, reviews are going much longer than typical, and nominators may be caught by surprise when the pace picks up after summer. Yes, I was curious if you thought I was that mean, but as Malleus said, I guess That's A Good Thing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and look at the edit count then and notice that MF and Dank will end up higher than several of the nominators :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, I did choose my username with some thought, although I did apparently make a mistake in my initial (unwitting) choice of the gender of my hammer's targets. Still, sorted now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
On the WP:WIAFA discussion, where Dec got a kick out of my "cow" (Can of Worms) edit summary, I almost told him a better story, but decided I didn't want it in archives on that page. I have a habit of typing fu for followup. When I decided that was bad, I switched to f/up for a while, until I realized it was equally bad. The best was a fu to mf edit summary, which fortunately, my feeble mind recognized as Not A Good Thing before I hit the send button LOL !!! Hey, thanks for all the copyedit work; "significant contributor" or not, getting them over the hump makes them significant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
And now for something completely different...
I don't know your feeling on the Pythons, but I thought, in the light of the six-and-a-half dozen Simpsons FAs, you and some of the the UK-based editors might be interested in this AfD... Makes me want to indulge in an anthrax ripple... :-( Dekkappai (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Bloody Hell, unbelievable. We have articles on minor characters in minor video games, yet Mr Praline, one of the iconic comic images of the 20th century, is nominated for deletion? Just let me find my baseball bat ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This might be, as I've long suspected, something of an age issue too-- a major pop icon of 20 or 30 years ago goes up for a "never heard of 'im" delete... Meanwhile, let's start another Family Guy character article... wait a sec, let me find my pitchfork & I'll be right with you... Dekkappai (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Right. I'd be tempted to dive in on them, if I didn't think every article on a Japanese hoochie-koochie actress would be deleted and salted if I took my eye off them for a second... Been a Python fan since, I think, 1976, when they were introduced to us Yanks in a summer-replacement comedy-survey program hosted by, of all people, Dean Martin. I tuned in just to see the Chaplin and Keaton clips, but, besides the Pythons, it also gave me my first glimpse of Andy Kaufman (WOW, is that article in bad shape!). Quite a feat for a little piece of fluff summertime show... I'd probably think about starting an article on it too if I didn't think some "never heard of it" teen practicing for Adminship would put it up for for deletion within five minutes of its creation... :-( And it is so hard to keep my eye off those Japanese hoochie-koochie actresses... Dekkappai (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
If I nominate 50 administrators for desysopping, will I get a barnstar? (I know it'll be hard to keep it down to 50, but I could try). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just started a small section based on what quotes I could find through an Amazon search. I should be able to get some print sourcing in my hands tomorrow, and will do what I can then... Meanwhile, as the "Save Mr Praline" campaign starts up, roving gangs of deletionist thugs are looking for other unguarded windows to bash in... Have I ever told you about the article I started on a Rimsky-Korsakov opera, which, though sourced, with inline citations, was put up for deletion within minutes of its creation?... Dekkappai (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well done for helping to save Mr Praline, who's AfD has been closed a strong keep I just saw. Quite right too! BTW, I saw that you were accused of canvassing on behalf of the article here. Now Dekkappai, you've been around[REDACTED] long enough to know that the deletionists prefer to go about their stealthy business in secret. Letting people who may be interested in a discussion know that it's actually taking place is really beyond the pale in wikidreamland ... I can feel another Orwellian moment coming on . ;-)
Good God, I'm a canvasser?! I wonder how long it is till adding sourcing to an article on the chopping block is considered cheating... And with the accuser's new-found tools, I'm expecting that giant foot to drop down out of the sky and splatter me all over the floor any second now... :-( Dekkappai (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a read through the AfD shows that it's already considered not cricket to provide sources during the deletion process review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I checked your diffs at History of timekeeping devices and was very happy with them, but I have a question about "since", which you changed to "as". Was this because you always make that change, or because you always make that change in British English, or because the sense of it was more in the nature of "taking into account the fact" than "because"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
My view—one that I'm quite happy to corrected on—is that "since" implies a temporal relationship rather than a causal one. It certainly wasn't a British English vs American English thing anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No reversion needed, there's an argument that "as" was better, and it's certainly not worse, I'm just asking for my own enlightenment. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Your comments
Your comments are severely unneeded and counterproductive. I suggest you take more time to think about what you're about to say before you post. — Maggot03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
CIV, dude. CIV. And stop drama-mongering, or God help you... I don't really know what you meant by that... thus, CIV, dude. LaraLove|Talk04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. It is difficult to express in mere words my view on a policy that has become so abused and distorted in the situations to which it is applied and in the hypocrisy of its selective application. In truth, I find your defence of an editor altering the words of another to be a gross offence against common sense and common morality. That is all I have to say on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually agree with you about the gross misapplication of the civility policy, which is why I rarely cite it, and even here did so in more of a joking way. I did it with humor because of how utterly ridiculous you're being. I mean, really dramatic. Stop making over-the-top negative comments about SynergeticMaggot over this instance. HeadBomb moved a misplaced t in the word the, he most certainly did not "alter the words of another". The hypocrisy in this situation is you citing common sense. Additionally, consider this a formal warning for your childish name-calling. Comment on content, not editors. LaraLove|Talk12:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope that I am just as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, even when those opinions diverge. I am not the one who came here to beat what seemed to me to be a dead issue up again. No amount of discussion, threats, bullying or abuse is likely to make me change my mind on the fundamental principle that it is wrong to alter someone else's posting. BTW, my reply was to SynergeticMaggot; I'd forgotten that is was him who actually made the edit. That's an indication of how important this particular incident is to me. Can we let this one go now? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll let this go, but stop confusing the situation (I never made the edit). I came here because you called me an idiot. My first post to your talk page is the diff. — Maggot13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If you look at what I said I did not call you an idiot. You may perhaps notice that I used the word "idiots". So far as I'm aware you are only one person, at best an "idiot". Now please go away and do something useful. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyedit of Sunderland Echo
Hi Malleus. I know you are in the midst of a battle for Mr Praline at the moment, but if you secure a victory any time soon, could you please cast your eye over Sunderland Echo for me? You helped me enormously with Navenby earlier this year, which went on to achieve FA status, and I would really like to improve this article to a similar standard. It has been quite a tough task, actually, as there is no real precendent set for an English provincial newspaper at GA/FA - which means I have been flying in the dark somewhat. Apparently The Philadelphia Inquirer is the only featured newspaper article (that I've been told about anyway..) while The Wall Street Journal, Washington Blade and The Technique are listed as good articles. None, however, is a provincial English newspaper, and they all seem to have very different styles of writing - and all different formats too. Thankyou! (By the way, it is currently hanging around on the GA nom list, if you want to take a look, and has just undergone a peer review).--seahamlass11:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made a start, more to do yet, but I'll be surprised if you have too much trouble getting this through GA. FA, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game, as you know yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it... You've moved a fullstop! Seriously, thanks so much. Really appreciate your help. (As for FA, well... I'll just have to stock up on wine and tranquilisers!)--seahamlass21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Guilty as charged! Just the one fullstop though. While you're here, I pondered over this sentence for a while: "Originally designed to fill a gap in both the newspaper and political markets of Victorian Sunderland ...". I'm really not sure I understand what a political market is? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't reply last night...but mum sent me to be early (!) (Sorry, your talk page is fascinating stuff!) Actually, I got tied up with a GA I'm trying to review/help (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) - thought I'd do one while hanging around on nom board with Echo. (It's hard going, loads of MoS problems and anon IP edits all the time. Not quite sure what to do with it, actually...) Back to your point anyway - errrr - guess that is a statement that just makes sense to me! At least, I know what I mean... If you can think of a better phrase PLEASE find one. The Echo was basically started because: 1. They wanted to get their political views across in a newspaper, but there wasn't one dedicated to Radical views in Sunderland. 2. Storey realised at the same time that there was a gap in the market for a daily paper in Sunderland, as all it had were weekly ones. I tried to say this as clearly as possible, in as few words as possible, but obviously haven't quite managed it. That doesn't really help, does it!--seahamlass08:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on your explanation, I've rewritten that sentence into something that my simple mind can understand. If you think it's complete rubbish—note that no fullstops were injured during the rewriting of that sentence—then feel free to change it back. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
So good I used it twice, to paraphrase a song that is going round and round my head at the moment. Thanks!
Yes, I agree with you, I guess I'm just impatient! Maybe its because its the 'summer' (well, supposedly), but things seems to be taking ages at GA. I'm thinking of renaming it "Sunderland Harry Potter Soap Stars Fluff and Ex-Beatle Wives Echo" in the hope of attracting a reviewer... But I'll do as you suggest and try and be patient.--seahamlass20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, lead me to it, I'll buy a copy of that! I know that GA has its critics, but you do usually get at least one other decent editor taking a close look at the article and offering suggestions. I've got no problem at all with skipping GA and going straight to FA if I'm really confident about the article, like with Peterloo Massacre. But when I'm less certain I like to take it a bit more easily, as with Chat Moss. But hell, what do I know? I think it'll be worth your wait anyway, at least I hope it will. Chill, go listen to some relaxing music. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Just seen this!! Yeah - great idea... Except someone got there before me with yours - and I gave up on mine! Congratulations, by the way - shortest GA review/pass I've ever seen. "This article meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore been passed." Wow, what a compliment! No ifs, no buts, no dodgy refs... Nice little article too. Are you FA-ing it? By the way, thanks for all the little SE tweaks today - all tweaks welcome!-- Seahamlass14:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Oooh! I hadn't noticed that Ordsall Hall had passed, I'm obviously pleased about that. It's a nice little article I think, but probably a bit on the short side still for FA, and not quite comprehensive enough yet. Could do with another picture as well I think ... on reflection it's perhaps a good job that I wasn't reviewing the article. :lol: I do though have Pendle witch trials that I'm hoping to take to FAC very soon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Kirkcaldy article
just me
now GA status was the one i looking for on here, i really don't know what i was thinking about FA status. agree with you there. took (Jz84's) advice and mentioned on the wiki board, still to look at the GA status page, but i'll do that right away.
anyway, thanks for your edits - much appreciated. thing is, if you're wondering where i got the block quotes i found them on the Elgin, Moray article (in the history section) Kilnburn (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the block quotes look very nice, and I used to use them myself quite a bit. But if you're looking to get an article to GA/FA then you have to pretty much stick with the[REDACTED] Manual of Style. In fact, for FA it's mandatory. You're doing a great job with Kirkcaldy, keep it up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You were a big help copy-editing the Benjamin Franklin Tilley article during its FA-cycle. Could I perhaps ask you to take a quick look at Uriel Sebree and work your magic on that article as well? One of the FA responders has indicated that it needs a good copy-editing, but obviously I'm too close to the prose to do an effective job. Could you help or recommend some that can? Thanks very much for your assistance. JRP (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
At a quick glance the article looks very nice; I'll see what I can do. Dank55 is someone else you might care to enlist. He's got a great eye for good prose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
One more thing. When you are done copy-editing, could you please make a note on the FAC page? Tony1 and Karanacs are waiting on "done" remarks from you and Dank55 for them to reevaluate the article. No hurry (and you may be done already), but when you are done I would appreciate if you would drop a line so that they and Sandy know that it's all done. Thanks. JRP (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think they were waiting for the previous voters to re-evaluate, but everyone seems to have gone on vacation. Despite my promise to stay neutral, I gave it another read-through and supported. Btw, thanks for the kind words, you two! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Blech, I feel like I should apologize for taking you up on the offer to CE. I never expected Otto to act like that. So I'm sorry. :( -- ] (] · ]) 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool...if ya get bored, and still don't mind a CE request, Shojo Beat is one of "mine" that needs a CE before I send it up for GA. -- ] (] · ]) 01:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The original sources are punctuated as I had them. Please don't assume that all punctuation automatically goes outside the quotation marks. Otto4711 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read the Manual of Style on logical punctuation; as you are the expert on this matter I will now leave the article to you to do with it as you will. I really don't have the time for this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have read the MoS, specifically the part that says "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation." Since the instances in which you are moving the punctuation outside the quotation marks are instances in which not only the sense of the punctuation but the actual punctuation is part of the quotation, it is correct to have the punctuation inside the quotation marks. I'm sorry if this has annoyed you; it certainly was not my intent. Otto4711 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
As I said, do as you will with the article, I'm really not bothered to argue your interpretation of what logical punctuation means. Life's too short, and I have many other things I'd rather be doing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)I feel compelled to add, after reading this and seeing the edit summaries by Otto on the page, I'm very reluctant myself to do a damn thing on that article as well, even though it was requested (by Collectonian) that I help out with CE. Apology notwithstanding, Otto, you certainly didn't act collaboratively when someone has volunteered to help the article along. I have asked one question on the GA review page regarding the section headers, which I believe are wrong at this point, per WP:LAYOUT. Other than that, I'm not gonna touch the article. Life's too short to be reamed over frickin punctuation/quotation differences. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ya know, look. If someone has introduced errors into an article, it is not some violation of the Misplaced Pages spirit to correct them. I have the original sources for all of the contested punctuation placements. I'm guessing that it's likely that Malleus Fatuorum does not. If he or any other editor, whether copy editing for a GA review or happening to stumble over an article at random, makes a mistake, I'm going to correct the mistake. I feel that my edit summaries adequately explained why I reversed the changes that I did and that the reversals are rooted in the MoS. And again, I'm sorry if this has cheesed people off but to characterize what I've said and done here as "reaming" anyone is IMHO hyper-sensitive and overly dramatic.
I have responded to your comment regarding section headers at the review. If you choose to respond, great. If not, that's fine too. Sorry to trouble you. Enjoy your day. Otto4711 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What you've failed to address in this, regardless of whether you "were right", or Malleus was "right", is your tone. Your edit summaries left much to be desired in the way of tone. They were demeaning and presumptuous. "It ain't what you say, it's how you say it". Good day to you too. I already responded to your query on the GA review page. I have no interest in battling any editor over such trifly details of any article, Ga or not. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
and along those lines, I'll give you some advice. Instead of instantly reverting a Copyeditor's edits with edit summaries that say "you're wrong! what were you thinking?!?!", how 'bout next time coming to the talkpage of the copyeditor, or any other contributor and saying "you know, I'm not seeing this the same way as you. The sources say...., but you changed it to.... What do you think would be a good solution?" Again, it ain't what you say...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if you choose to interpret edit summaries such as "punctuation is correct per original source" as "demeaning and presumptuous" that's your problem, not mine. That you choose to read such summaries as "you're wrong! what were you thinking?!?!" says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about me. Otto4711 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>Alright, we'll continue this. Here are your edit summaries. Keep in mind that I've never said that you were wrong, or that Malleus was right. Never once did you post to Malleus' page to ask for clarification, you simply reverted him with the following summaries:
The line is "You're too hungry." The period goes inside the quotation mark
the punctuation is correct per the original source
punctuation is correct per the original sources
is correct per original source. please stop assuming that all punctuation must go outside the quotation marks
the line is "he's a loser." period goes inside quotation marks
fixing punctuation again oer (sic) original source
Again Otto, I couldn't give a rip if you are right or wrong. Talk to the Copyeditor. When I'm copyediting anything, which I do quite a bit, and the article's nominator continually and repeatedly "reverts" everything I do in good faith, I'm gonna get angry. Not because I don't make mistakes, hell I royally screwed up the last one I did. But because of your approach. Reverting a copyeditor is evil. Talking to a copyeditor (a suggestion I gave you above, including a "talk path"), will only help you for your next GA nomination. Have a great day. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, again, if you or Malleus chose to take it that way, that's really not my responsibility. I note that I have a talk page as well, so if either Malleus or you had some concern about my revisions, you could have messaged me as easily as I could have messaged you. And in fact I did leave Malleus a message, the one opening this very section, to which his response was for all intents and purpose to tell me to piss off because of how short his life is going to be. And I'm sorry, but calling an edit "evil" is just ridiculous drama queen hyperbole.
Malleus, if you would prefer this not continue on your talk page and if Keeper cares to continue it, please feel free to transplant this to my talk page. Otto4711 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a copyeditor's job to stop an article nominator from reverting their fixes. I'm done with this. Dear God, don't bring this to my talkpage. I cannot imagine a more trivial dispute than this, suitable for WP:LAME. I have no interest in editing the article, I'm moving on to the next nominator. I did enjoy the movie when I saw it, and I learned some things from (your) article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
GA reviews
After submitting one of my own articles for review, I was browsing the backlog and wondered exactly what 'qualifications' were required to review other articles? Do you need a knowledge of the subject, or can anyone with a little bit of experience (such as myself) just chip in and point out mistakes and problems? I just wanted to help clear the backlog a little. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no qualification, and you don't any specialist knowledge of the subject. In fact, arguably the less you know about it the better, as you'll be reading the article from the point of view of most readers. I tend to stick to things that I have a degree of interest in though, as that makes reviewing less of a chore. I suggest that you pick an an article you'd like to review and dive in. If you like, I'll take a look at your review when you've done and give you some feedback on it. But I'm sure you'll get the hang of it soon enough; if you can write a GA, then you can review one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've already 'reviewed' one here, well nto really a review, just what I see as constructive comments. Personally I don't think the article is good enough although I'm hesitant to be so brazen as to add anything extra to that review. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you've covered all the main points, and I'd agree with you that the article isn't quite there yet. There are some formatting errors and the prose looks a bit dodgey in places. With a small article like that one I'd be inclined just to dive in and fix the MoS things like spaces before citatations, even tidy up the prose. I probably wouldn't be so concerned about the number of references, it's a very short article after all, and the event happened a long time ago, but I'd want to be fairly confident that all the main points were covered, which I'm slightly dubious about on first reading. Is the area prone to earthquakes? Why? What's the underlying geology? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
... and you're the lucky duck whose name popped up on my watchlist :-) Have you followed this full discussion? Are you able to give me a nutshell on where this issues stands, vis-a-vis WIAFA crit. 3, or do I need to engage the full controversy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I hate image policy too, especially all that fair-use and derivative work nonsense. What nobody seems to have got their head around is that if there's no financial advantage to a breach of copyright then there's no point in a copyright holder pursuing the matter. Therefore my conspiracy theory is that the recent tightening up on image policy is a precursor to a commercial exploitation of the freely provided[REDACTED] content.
I started reading that thread you're referring to a little while ago, but my eyes started to glaze over after the first few paragraphs. The bottom line, I think, is that fair-use claims are going to get harder and harder to justify until ultimately they're no longer allowed. For now, I don't think anything's changed, at least not until the dust settles on this latest storm in a teacup. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I'd guess it's because the high-profile articles are the ones that are most likely to be commercially copied elsewhere and thus the ones where there's the most pressing need to comply with GFDL. (Note to everyone; I know nothing whatsoever about image policy but that didn't stop the last "simple question" about it on my talkpage spiraling to 50k – Malleus, I dare say you saw it. Don't let the same thing happen to you!) – iridescent01:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Iridiscent, I'm surprised at you saying that. You know that I would never get into any controversial discussions about images and copyright.
Malleus, you must know how I care for the people I care for ... be nice :-) I didn't mean to start something, and I appreciate the to-the-point answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. Since I watchlist your page out if simple hero-worship,I have been following the discussion here with interest. I agree that the WP:DRAMA is mostly the thrashing about to air grievances, but it looks like there are some recurring themes regarding how we interpret (or at least phrase) the guidelines. I've added a subsection to that discussion, proposing a way to dial down the drama spigot and fix both the immediate problems whilst addressing the larger issue. Can I get your feedback on it? Sandy, Iridescent and the rest of ya's should feel free to pipe up, as I've previously come into contact with all of you. :) - Arcayne()02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, so you are all about the Columbian-style, are you?. Guess that's better than some of the alternatives. like weaponized Ricin. Your humility is inspiring; I should build a statue in memorial. - Arcayne()20:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I've become a little cautious in accepting copyediting assignments since The Great Fullstop Disaster you'll see just above this topic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why I didn't immediately connect that this was about Dr Johnson; I assumed it would be about another obscure American politician, with all due respect to any ex-colonists who may reading this. Of course I'll help! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Moi? Malleus !! No obscure American politicians in the twoarticles that brought me to Wiki. I'm thrilled to see Dr Johnson come up to speed, since I've been staring at that mess for several years. He finally has a real article, even if he can't get through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure Doctor Johnson would be slightly happy with the results so far, although he could have finished the biography in thirty minutes and then make us cry with just one line of his witty characterization of the effort. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In order to not edit conflict, I'm going to give you five minutes to reply before I begin editing. I hope thats enough time. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd watch placing the spacing code within the ref tags - it tends to screw up the format. I initially removed a lot of them last night to fix 5 errors that just didn't want to go away. Plus, it seems uneven - are some of them supposed to lack the spacing code? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not strictly needed anyway unless there's a linebreak, so I won't. I really can't see why it would mess up the formatting though ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why either. It was strange (and I just removed the formatting back to the previous version in the end). Those broken ref links are the hardest to track down. By the way, thanks for the copy editing. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Just a note - this and this. Sandy asked why Boswell wasn't used that often, and I explained that his Lives are one of multiple sources (he didn't use up his whole amount of data, nor did he use all of the correspondence, for example). However, people would expect passages from the Lives. I thought a nice compromise to these expected masses could be to have relevant scenes or anecdotes that match a certain moment to be put in side boxes. What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm so excited that Dr Johnson has an article now; I registered on Wiki on Feb 3 2006 and first edited Johnson on Feb 6 2006; I've been watching the wreck ever since. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well it's certainly no wreck now, even if it has taken over two years to get to this state. Still quite a bit of work to be done though, so must press on. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I like the fancy quotes. I never knew they existed. However, should the "Boswell Life" be inside the final quote or not? I think I've seen it either way, so the choice is yours. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to figure out how to get the quotes in the box and not have the formatting go insane. I attempted to put the one in quotes and it almost doubled the size of the text. I wasn't capable of tinkering with the formatting to fix it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick thought, if you entered the images manually, you could shrink them down just a tiny bit and maybe they will appeal to Sandy more than they currently do (or do on their own). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Only when I have on my bullet-proof vest, suit of armor and ride around in a metal-plated tank with my asbestos suit on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just started what I think will be pretty much a final run through the whole article, so I haven't got there yet. I did look at it briefly yesterday, but I fell at almost the first hurdle with this: "Johnson displayed symptoms of various diagnoses ...". I've always believed that diagnosis is based on signs—those things the physician sees—and symptoms—those things the patients complains of. Have I misunderstood? Is it even possible to display the symptom of a diagnosis? Help! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right; signs is better. I've just been trying to keep the POV out of the section, and haven't focused enough. Also, Ottava posted to WT:MED to try to get more clarity on some of the wording (I'm not at all happy with "madness" being in there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with "madness" either. I'm very much persuaded by Szaz's myth of mental illness, another article that is in depressingly poor shape. :-( BTW, do you have easy access to the book by Bate? I'm not at all sure what this (from the Final works section) means: "This claim brought swift reaction from Macpherson, who threatened to counteract Johnson."
No, I don't have that; I only have the TS articles, and Kushner's book on the history of TS. It might be best to just leave that section, pending someone weighing in on the thread at WT:MED; do have a read of that thread, as I'm still not sure how to best position the entire section. Knowing that Johnson had TS puts all of the other descriptions in context, but I don't know how we deal with that "posthumously". TS was unknown in Johnson's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've had a bit of a hack at that section, and it makes sense at least to me now, pending whatever input WT:MED is able to provide. One other thing though, which often comes up during reviews: "In 1994, J. M. S. Pearce ...". The question always asked is "Who's Pearce?" Better to say something like "psychiatrist J. M. S. Pearce ..." or whatever, just a little flavour of what expertise the person being referred to has. (I hope you don't mind me making these suggestions, I really feel like I'm trying to teach my granny to suck eggs.) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree (but ... I don't know who Pearce is, and in medical publications, what matters more is the journal he was published in ... Eubulides can help there, I pinged him). It reads well now; I still don't know how we contextualize, though, which is why I added the link to History of Tourette syndrome, since he died in 1784, but TS was first described in 1825 and then 1885. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the problem with contextualisation. As you say, TS hadn't been identified in Johnson's time, so I think the present section on posthumous diagnoses is fine. The only thing that occurs to me is that it pretty comes out of the blue that Johnson was affected by tics, involuntary vocalisations, compulsive behaviour and the rest. From the point of view of telling his story, I'd like to see some mentions of that elsewhere in the article, with the final diagnostic section being the dénoument that explains what might have been causing it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you noticed, as I was afraid it was my bias :-) That Johnson had TS explains almost everything else, so IMO, it should be introduced early on. But I'm afraid to push for that, since I may be the only one who recognizes his TS throughout his life and bio, and I could be biased. But to do it right, his TS can't be relegated to the final paragraph, and the literary folk need to fully read the medical journals and yours truly's articles on Tourette syndrome and Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome#Latent advantages ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be on your side in any such discussion. Johnson wasn't a writing machine, he was a human being, and the article should do justice to his humanity, in all its aspects. I'd like to see his TS at least mentioned in the lead, and preferably, as I just said above, also with some examples sprinkled at appropriate points in the text. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to push for that; it's important for editors to be aware of their own biases, and I'm a bit ... <fill in the blank> ... about bias and COI that I've seen in other places recently. It's an issue; I suspect I'll have to pass this to Raul when it comes to FAC anyway, because editor bias bugs me. At any rate, the entire discussion of this should be consolidated to Talk:Samuel Johnson; it's now here, my talk page, and at WT:MED. I hope that providing high quality sources, and a good wiki article on TS, it would be obvious to Wiki editors, who are now more informed about TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
On Bate/Macpherson - I think it meant to be something like counter attack. Anyway, I will reword the sentence to make sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I know you'll find this hard to believe Sandy, but I don't think it is quite yet. Close though. For instance, what does this mean? "He most likely lived with his parents and experienced mental anguish." Are the two things related in some way? Or this: "During this time, Johnson's mental state started to slip into a "state of 'absence'". His state slipped into a state? The big stumbling block for GA though is the References section. The layout isn't consistent, some entries have things like "pp. 396–399" (why?) and none have isbns. I think if that section is sorted out it would stand a pretty good chance at GA now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Are ISBNs still necessary? I thought they dropped that a long time ago. Quite a few of the works don't have ISBN numbers. Also, the page numbers there are the listings for what pages the article falls under (when you search for it in a magazine/book). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean that GA dropped that requirement? Not at all, in fact GA has become rather strict about sourcing. Where a book has an isbn then it has to be included, along with all the other details like publisher, authors(s) date and so on. The page numbers are already given in the Notes section, so why repeat them? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Academic journals/books require either a volume's complete page numeration or an article's beginning and ending page range. This is standard bibliographic procedure as laid out by Chicago and later when Harvard and MLA took off. None use ISBN. I can tell you just from looking at the page that you will only find about 12 ISBN numbers. Most of them lack the ISBNs. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of academic referencing standards, but this is not an academic paper that we're writing. I can absolutely categorically guarantee that this article will not get through GA with its present referencing system. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten through GA without a problem before with the same style. Most FAs get through without this being a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're feeling lucky, then try it and see. ;-) In the meantime, can you confirm that the Bate book that the article relies so heavily on was really published in 1977 and not 1979 as its isbn appears to suggest? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Well at least you've managed to find an isbn. Well, done! I note though that the publisher name given in the article is incorrect. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Or, wait for Karanacs or Maralia to go through once more. Before FA, the citations need to be sorted. Why not use the method used at The General in his Labyrinth? I don't speak those weird styles, so I don't much care, but part of the links now are live, while part aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a good job I'm on your case. ;-) Seriously though, if we can straighten out the Bibliography, as I said above to SandyG, I think this is now a pretty credible GA candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I've probably done about as much as I can on Dr Johnson now, at least for the time being anyway. You've vastly improved the referencing today, and it's starting to look like a pretty decent article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am mistaken, but the image of Ian McDiarmid, the subject of a BLP article is being used in the TFA Palpatine. The image is not, in point of fact, even in the Palpatine article. I am guessing that Mrs. McDiarmid and all his young-uns would be mighty disappointed to know that the chap they have been calling Daddy all this time is in fact a force-abusing megalomaniac from Naboo. Maybe we should reinsert a more appropriate image from the Palpatine article, instead of damaging the actor's reputation by equating him with a character he finished portraying over three years ago?
How did this mistake happen? - Arcayne()04:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I wondered if I could ask a favor. I'd like to take pulmonary contusion to FAC but it needs a copyedit first, and someone recommended you. Could you have a look? It would be much appreciated! Peace, delldottalk23:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't follow. I tried logging out and seeing if I could get autoformatting to display inconsistently or incorrectly; I couldn't. (Feel free to reply here, I always watchlist.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
On reading this again, I'm not sure that I've properly understood. Are you saying that "20 February 1989" is the same as "February 20 1989"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Aw fucksters. I wrote that in a fit of ire and put it in Malleus' userspace. My bad Mall. If the WR-folks come pounding on your door, redirect them to my side o the pond, eh? ....Keeper | 76 | what's in a name?23:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Since at least two of the three posters in that WR thread are WP admins themselves, I imagine you're safe. If you're concerned, feel free to move either/both to my userspace, and let them come... – iridescent23:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, not to worry MF, you are explicitly not on the "eve of destruction". (ok,ok, so I read WR. F**in sue me.) Too many admins are in love with you, which is perhaps a much more blissful place to be than +admin anyway. All the love, none of the grief. :-) Keeper | 76 | what's in a name?23:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I said earlier (was it on Iridescent's talk page?) that I really have no regrets at all about my RfA crashing and burning. I really do prefer to be bumbling around articles than chasing sockpuppets. My ambition is to become as invulnerable as Gianno, and for the same reason that he's invulnerable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
WR may have more than its fair share of tinfoilhattery and batshit-insane conspiracy theorists, but looking at their opponents in action doesn't exactly make me feel we're on the moral high ground here either. WR isn't ED; for every bad post there, there are a dozen intelligent comments on some of the problems too many people here try to pretend don't exist. Incidentally, Giano may be one of our best writers, but you don't get this for no reason – he can be a true pain at times. – iridescent23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I was a little too hasty in what I said. I certainly don't condone that kind of behaviour, and I wouldn't expect anyone to accept it from me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Since I'd guess 50% of the posts on there are from prominent WP editors, I can't imagine you'd get much disagreement. Someone in the arbcom case thoughtfully provided a Who's Who guide, albeit with a few fairly obvious exceptions, myself, Poetlister and Giano being the obvious ones that come to mind, as it only lists those who've participated in the SlimVirgin forum. (I sometimes feel I'm the only person here who hasn't ever had an argument with SV). Don't necessarily believe everything on there though, and you can safely ignore anything tdnarB leinaD (backwards to confuse google, as you don't want him targeting you) says about, well, anything. – iridescent00:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was lucky enough to make that list, probably for my trolling posts that blatantly attack other Wikipedians, like this one. :-) —Giggy01:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Malleus. I've written a big expansion of Norton Priory and think/hope it is nearing GA quality. Would you be kind enough to have a look at it and tell me what you think. And if you have time to do some copy-editing..... Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your very prompt attention, copyediting and comments. I have a break coming soon so will not submit it for GA for a while, and will bear your comments in mind before the submission. Many thanks again. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've become a little cautious about stepping into Irish articles since getting involved in tidying up the Manchester Martyrs, a Fenian ambush that took place over 100 years ago. I remember the Enniskillen bombing very well, as my wife was visiting a hospital nearby that day, and saw them preparing to accept the casualties. I think it was certainly a turning point in the troubles, so I'm going to throw caution to the wind and take a closer look at the article. My first impression, after a very quick read through, is that it's a long way from FA, but with some work it could be a credible GA candidate. I'll try to be more specific on the article's talk page once I've had the opportunity to look at it in more detail. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions
Add topic
