Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::I've never been in an "in group" in my life, and I don't intend to start now. ;-) --] (]) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::I've never been in an "in group" in my life, and I don't intend to start now. ;-) --] (]) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Sorry to jump in, Malleus. Mattisse, I am really concerned with the amount of vitriol here. I solemnly promise, as an FAC reviewer who also writes articles, that I judge each article on its merits and there is no "quid pro quo" except in time given. Yes, it is a fact that some articles don't get a lot of attention, but that often has more to do with the subject matter (we don't have as many reviewers interested in pop culture topics). We can't force reviewers to review articles that don't interest them, and we are suffering from a shortage of reviewers. If you have suggestions on how to improve or revamp the process, please make them - I think all of us would be amenable to something workable that could improve FAC. ] (]) 17:28, 13 August 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.
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)
Fingers, toes, eyes - everything crossed! But Tony hasn't weighed in yet... Have to admit, I let out a Homer Simpson-style whoop on the first support. Something rather unseemly in that, unless you are under 10 or a cartoon character!-- Seahamlass18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess another Homer whoop is in order! But it will have to be a quiet one, as feel a bit groggy this morning...Thankyou so much for all the time and effort you put into this. Really, really appreciated. As to next project, well I thought I might become an admin... (Joke!) Actually, I might try for a featured pic. Woke up this morning and found, from my contributions list, that I'd stuck one at peer review!! -- Seahamlass07:29, 20 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 think I'm gonna go ahead and take it to FAC. Any help you could offer with the prose would still be most welcome, of course! Thanks again, delldottalk17:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia has suggested you might be a good person to contact about being a fresh pair of eyes to look at the prose of this FAC. If it is of any interest, the Peterloo Massacre gets a mention in William too, but old WW doesn't come out looking too good!! Anyway, if you would have time that would be great. If not, no worries! --Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Just one thing – you appear to dislike the use of the past continuous ("heading", "attending", "playing", "joining", etc). I think it rather enhances the article, and would consider reverting it, but thought I should seek clarification from you first. How strongly do you feel about this? I should make it clear that most of this text was written by Slp1, not myself. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't dislike it where it's consistent with the tense used elsewhere in the sentence, but there are some places I moved from -ing as a result of having been pulled up by Tony over the noun -ing issue. So long as the tenses are consistent, I don't otherwise have a problem with -ing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, and I understand nothing is in stone, but I have been fine with all your changes, and just grateful for the help. I have been reading too much David Crystal, so am very much of a que sera sera disposition about all these things! Slp1 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a great article, one that you and the other editors ought to feel really proud of. The few issues I've raised at the FAC are trivial, although I'd still like to see them addressed. I've got no hesitation at all in supporting this article, even though I've also got no doubt at all that if I had ever met Wilberforce he and I would definitely not have seen eye-to-eye. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the help and also for the support. I actually managed a few edits in between your many (no edit conflicts thankfully!) trying to deal with most of the issues you raised, even before you supported. Feel free to take a look: I wouldn't mind the eagle eye on this one especially since I have decided that this grammar thing just ain't my thing! BTW I think you might like him better than you think: it seems he was very jolly and extremely good company. Though I can't agree with many of his ideas either, I suspect he was actually quite humble about them, very kind, very interesting and entertaining, and more interested in others than pushing himself or his ideas forward. Thanks again!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm no great shakes with grammar either, but I've suggested a change. If you don't like it, you know what you can do. Revert it! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It's just gone midnight here. Mummy says I can stay up for a bit longer, to watch another episode of Star Trek, before I have to climb the wooden hills to the Land of Nod. Might have a beer while I'm watching TV as well, but don't tell Mummy. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I can do better than beer. Have a glass of champagne, and Mummy need never know. I'm sure she would approve actually since its a celebration! You seem to have put the article over the edge to promotion. Thanks! --Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
OK I'll give it a go then. Looks like we need to throw off the delightful Emily. Can you let me have the text you were going to use or is that cheating? Richerman (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If you look through the page history you'll see my nomination, so feel free to cut and paste it. Bear in mind though that I had no idea what I was doing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words! It is always encouraging to know that you're valued. Oddly enough I share your thoughts on WP:GM - if it wasn't around, I don't think I'd still be around. The whole admin role to me is supplimentary to my role in the GM team - any abuse about admin stuff is completely wasted on me! Besides, all can't be lost when people like User:Yorkshirian recieve a 12 month ban - the system must work in some cases it seems! Don't know if you noticed that User:Joshii is blocked for 1 month for socking too?
I do appreciate your contact. I think having a admin around at WP:GM has been a good thing. I'm thinking that User:Nev1 might be our next guy to nominate? Anyway, don't worry bout me - nobody's grinding me down just yet! --Jza84 | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that WP:GM is the reason I've stayed on too, and that it's worked fantastically. Although I'd noticed pretty early on that the project was active, I hung back from joining because I didn't know if it could work. I'm now proud to be part of such a thriving initiative. I think a measure of a project's strength is the amount of chatter you get on it's talk page; I've only seen a handful of other projects, but it seems we're the some of the most talkative in the UK :-)
As for becoming an admin... I can't image that I've had nearly enough experience in 'admin areas' to garner enough support votes but it's nice to know that two people I respect think I could wield the tools well. Nev1 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You have a big advantage over me in the admin stakes Nev1. My RfA's crashed and burned because I'm inclined to call a spade a fucking shovel. You're inclined to be a little more diplomatic than I am. I'd give the idea some thought if I were you, bearing in mind of course that the RfA process can be a really big ego-bruiser. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too worried about an ego bruising, what could possibly go wrong ;-) </tempting fate> I will certainly think about it. I'll say now that if I were to become and admin, I'd try to follow in Jza's footsteps and put WP:GM (and therefore writing articles) ahead of getting too distracted by any shiny new buttons. Nev1 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been there. Believe me, to have your contributions weighed in the balance and then found to be wanting is a hard blow to take, no matter how hard-nosed you are. Please don't even think of going for it unless you're absolutely convinced that you won't take the outcome too seriously whichever way it goes. Misplaced Pages is not short of administrators; it's short of good, solid, article builders like you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think what would protect me from getting too bothered if people don't like my contributions is I have taken something out of the wikipedia experience; I know more about what I've written about, I've learned to be less biased, and improved my writing from dire to acceptable ;-) It definitely wouldn't be wouldn't be the be all and end all for me. In fact I recall advising you not to take it too seriously either when you had your first RfA. Hmm, that sentence has too many bes, probably needs a copy edit. And while we're on the subject of copy edits... is there any chance you could take a look at Warwick Castle? It's undergone a peer review and the prose needs a bit of bashing into shape before I (hopefully) take it to WP:FAC. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I found that in the event my first RfA was more of an ego-bruiser than I had bargained for. My second, on the other hand, hardly bothered me at all, even though it arguably went even worse than the first, as I'd by then got quite used to the idea that no matter what I do there will always be some delicate flowers whose toes I'll have stepped on. And now, having completely given up on the admin idea, I no longer don't have to ponce around like a fairy being nice to everyone just in case they turn up in the Oppose column in RfA#3. :lol: I'll be happy to take a look through Warwick Castle. Promise me though that you won't get the hump if I move any of your fullstops. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Back again??!! Thankyou! And congratulations on Greater Manchester too. I think your Wiki geography team must be the most productive in the whole place. Just wish Wiki Journalism was as good. (Or even really existed!) If this thing ever ends, I think I'm going to concentrate on a tragedy next as a bit of light relief...-- Seahamlass19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you're very close now, which is why I put in that last push. ;-) The UK Geography project does seem to have more than its fair share of productive editors, and I think we're particularly fortunate at the GM Project. I was really pleased about the Greater Manchester article, even though in all truth I didn't really contribute that much to it. Still, I'm happy to take the credit for it anyway. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I do have one final, final, suggestion though, and that's to remove all of the autoformatted date linking. You may have seen that done to other FACs, including Greater Manchester. It's no big deal, but one of the dates in the article does wrap on on my 1280x1024 display. It can easily be removed semi-automatically. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy to do whatever. There was nothing autoformatted about the dates, though, I did it all myself...Yawn. (Except the totally numeral dates on the refs). Then I spotted at FAC that Tony is super anti-date formatting it and thought I'd wait and see if he said anything. Umm - how do I remove it semi-automatically?-- Seahamlass21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You copy this into your monobook.js page, refresh your cache, and voilà, you have a new "all dates" tab when you're editing. Job done. I'll run through the article now, while you read the instructions—I'm still hoping that you can get this promoted tonight. The tension is killing me! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Red wine has dulled my nerves marvellously. Unfortunately, it has also left me unable to type properlllllly. I have to confess, I've never yet worked out how to use a sandbox or monobook. It's a wonder I've managed to create anything actually, although I did get Twinkle or Huggle or something at some point, which is quite fun. Perhaps, if this does get promoted, I should just go back to basics! Just got another support. Lovely comment too. Ahhhh. Time for another glass!-- Seahamlass21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You're very nearly across the line. My nerves have been somewhat calmed as well, by copious quantities of Stella. If I get blocked for anything I say or do later on, then I'm going to blame you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This may interest you; where I asked for an admin to resign his bit. Kind of goes with everything you've maintained for a while, about admins using tools through some idea of "status" ......Pedro : Chat 23:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Its sad to watch. RfA is all about (supposedly) being trusted with the tools. Yet having been "promoted", and then proven to be untrustworthy it's apparently not a big deal after all. It's hard to find the words to describe my disgust for the whole hypocritical pile of shit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a few topics I'd like to work up to GA and even FA, but I'm not prepared to put up with admin abuse just to do that. Let the kiddies have their playground. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I really, really like your article. (I've read a couple of books on this in the past, and researched a little about witches in Sunderland etc too). As you did so much for Sunderland Echo recently, do you think it would seem a bit dodgy if I voted 'support' for the witches now? I honestly wouldn't vote if I didn't like it!-- Seahamlass13:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Not dodgey at all, and I'd be grateful for the support. Not sure why, but I'm feeling very much like an over-protective mother hen with this article. Just like you did with Navenby I suppose. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
PS. I don't think there are any witchcraft FAs, certainly no English ones anyway, so I wanted to try and break some new ground, like you did with the Echo. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup - "giving birth" to an article actually feels a little emotional! It's great breaking new ground, though, so much less restrictive... Navenby had to fit in with so many formatting rules (understandably, and I do agree with them), but SE didn't. You just made it up as you went along. I liked that...and Witches is the same. I wish you all the best. It really does deserve it!
No problem at all. It's a great article, and I'm confident this will pass. I had always hoped to have been involved in one way or another, but found no area in which I could improve the page! One minor, minor concern though (and I've put it here rather than FAC), is that in the opening sentence, witch trials points to a dab-page. Wouldn't the Witch hunt article make for a better link??? --Jza84 | Talk 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll take a look; it certainly ought not to go to a dab page anyway. Have you made any progress yet with your Scottish witch articles? There seems to be a lot of fertile ground there. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Paisley witch trials is on my to-do list, amongst several graphics I promised various users, and many many Greater Manchester articles I want to continue developing! I may make a stub for the article later on. :) --Jza84 | Talk 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The trouble with encyclopedias is that one thing leads to another. Just by innocently following a link, as I did earlier, I came across this, a shocking article for a major 19th-century novelist, born in Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to clog up your talk page...but how much longer can they keep you hanging on???? You've got loads of support and only one, ahem, negative ("firm oppose", does that even exist??!! Well, really...) Does FAC have to last a full week or something? Guess you must be getting through crates of the hard stuff at the mo - But all the best!
I've reached the philosophical stage now. I've dealt with what I consider to be all reasonable comments and pointed out why I don't agree with the remainder. There's nothing else I can do. It's going to be down to SandyG to decide whether those outstanding points, like "cloggy" prose, have merit and are actionable. I think I've made my opinion clear. and I'm not about to add material about the history of witchcraft in England, for instance, as that will likely attract another reviewer to comment on the article's lack of focus. I know that the article is a good FA candidate, and fully deserves to be promoted. I think though that if it does fail, I'll maybe rewrite it slightly to avoid using the words "Roman Catholic". 'Nuff said. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Source work
I've found some deleted edits for Didsbury, most (all?) of which is in the Gay & Sussex book that is already quoted in the article. I'll transfer it to a non-deleted temporary source so you can see it. Rudget14:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There looks to be some good information there. I'm concerned, at first sight, that the material may have been copied directly from the Gay & Sussex book. Do you have a copy that you could check with? We'd need to be able to source whatever we used by page number in the book anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy and just as grim is that I think, as do you, it is copied directly from the book. Would I need to visit my library and pick up a copy to confirm it? Rudget14:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think someone needs to have done that and checked before we can use any of this material. If you can't get to the library for whatever reason, I've got some books that I need to return to Didsbury later this week anyway, so I could have a look then if you haven't already done so. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have changed my mind, yes. It may well have been due to your comment at my RfA, if only I could remember what it was. I'll have to go back and check what you said now, even though I'd hoped to be able to forget all about that horrible experience. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll just provide you with a diff, so you don't have to look at all those nasty opposes or dispiriting red background... By the way, did you change your user name recently? The RFA is spelled Malleus Fatuarum; couldn't find it for a bit. --barneca (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Too late! I just looked and replied to you on your talk page. So far as the username's concerned, there was some gender realignment needed, or so I was told. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
As you can see above, my position has shifted a little. I feel a little like a Marxist in saying that we should each be given the opportunity to contribute according to our abilities and interests, not denied the opportunity to do so because of some perceived lack of experience in other areas. Here endeth the lesson. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I want to say thanks very much for your copyediting efforts, which ahve been cropping up on my watchlist. Wondered what you thought of the article - being a bit wary, as I've seen the definition of the featured articles process, and want to be confident going in! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's no doubt that FAC is a pretty tough gig, but it's not as bad as it's painted in the Devil's Dictionary. I think it's a pretty good article, but I would anticipate some objections at FAC:
I mentioned the lack of images before. Would it nor be possible, for instance, to get an exterior picture of the Ambassador Hotel?
There were a couple of places I wasn't certain that I'd understood what was being said.
The article seems to cover the assassination itself pretty well, but I'm less convinced about its coverage of the aftermath. What effect, if any, did it have on the Democratic Party, for instance? The Kennedy family itself? What happened to Kennedy's wife?
I can certainly sort out the images, and you're right that an expansion of the aftermath section would be useful to fulfil the completeness requirements, so I'll look at those. Once I've done that, I'll get someone else to read it again, and hopefully they'll catch the problems you highlight in the second point. Thanks for your help! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I've seen the excellent work you've done on Norton Priory and I was wondering if you'd be willing to cast your experienced eye over the article on Netley Abbey. I hope to get the article up to GA standard and with the work you've done on other mediaeval sites I hoped you might be able to give me a few pointers as to how to proceed. Soph (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Always happy to help where I can. I'll take a closer look later, but on a first scan you need to get rid of the "&"s from the section headings, and replace {{cquote}} with {{quote}}. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for giving it a look over, it is really appreciated. I'll change the quotes and '&' tonight. Re the cites, I did them the way I taught to at university (a long time ago now), putting them as close as reasonable to the concept or fact being referenced, because wiki's policy didn't seem to be clear. Putting them at the end of each sentence outside punctuation in order of reference is cool with me though and I'll do that. Re the images, I've had real problems with formatting them in the page. I've tried attaching them to paragraphs and doing other things, but on checking using different browsers under OS X, Windows (2k and Vista) and Ubuntu I get different bad stuff happening, especially text running under images and edit links under text making it unreadable. What I've done is the least bad I've been able to do, but I know it seriously needs to be sorted out. Soph (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The usual wikiway is to put the citation after the punctuation, whether that's a comma, a fullstop or whatever. What you've done isn't wrong, but it gives reviewers less to jump on if the formatting looks familiar to them. I'll sort out that image problem; I've had exactly the same problem myself in the past, as with Beeston Castle. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
A follow-up
Back in January, I granted you rollback, and you were among the first people I ever gave rollback to. At the time, you said you weren't going to use it that often, but I said it didn't matter how much it was used as long as you used it correctly. Well, I recently went through some of your rollbacks, and as you said, you don't use it that often, but the best thing is that you use it correctly and efficiently. :) Thank you, Malleus Fatuorum. Acalamari22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was because I was recently thinking of that discussion that I just wanted to review your work and inform you that you were doing a good job. I didn't have any "suspicions" or anything like that: I had 100% confidence in you when I pressed the button to grant you rollback, and I'm keeping that confidence. :) No disrespect was intended: just a compliment. Acalamari22:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
Per this, I realize that my teasing you was excessive and inappropriate. Sometimes I can't help myself, but that doesn't mean that it was correct. You are a hard worker and spend your time doing a lot of work on the encyclopedia, so it is probably best that I don't purposely try to aggravate you and distract you. I apologize for wasting your time and offending you. By the way, you did a lot of great work with the Samuel Johnson page. I think you should take charge at the FAC or any other reviews because of the amount of effort that you put in, and you, with Sandy, were the two that actually moved it into such high quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have never been one to avoid saying what I think needs to be said for the sake of a quiet life. I think that you have been behaving like a complete dickhead, perhaps because you have some ownership issues with Samuel Johnson. My position has always been clear. I have added no content to the article, therefore I would not try to steal your thunder by claiming credit for it, or nominating it at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think its funny that you say I have ownership issues when I basically gave you control. And yes, you changed quite a lot. You don't have to be bashful about it. :) By the way, I don't edit for "credit" nor do I really like that term. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello there!... You know me too well! - I'm actually hoping to raise the Royton article upto (at least) a B-class over the next week or so. Hopefully I can help the Oldham borough catch upto Trafford asap that way (although I've a long way to go!).
Re the Manchester Mummy though, in all honesty - I don't think it's ready. I know there's a formal criteria, but when it comes to GA, I also think "is it a good article"? Yes, this article (thusfar) reads beautifully and has flawless citation, but it's still a little patchy IMHO. As it currently stands (I realise this is work-in-progress) the lead overpowers the rest of the article, and we have no image (which I'm a personal sucker for - and it could even be something as simple as Harpurhey Cemetary or the Manchester Museum, but ideally the Mummy of course!). That said however, you mentioned you have some material on the way to you to aid its expansion?? I think that may be decisive as to whether this can whack those GA buttons.
And with that all said... I do think you're right to mark this out now however. As you say (and this is something Nev1 is also very good at), these smaller "golden nugget" type pages are critical to making WP great; anyone can find out things about Manchester from any number of places online, but something like Castleshaw Roman fort and the Manchester Mummy are really under-reported on. I'd be happy to help once the next wave of material is noted down - infact, I remember doing my bit not long ago and linking this article to the Hollinwood page. :) --Jza84 | Talk 01:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The article's not ready yet, I know that, but hopefully it'll soon be the best article on that subject anywhere. It's always going to be a short article though. I guess I was really trying to draw attention to these little articles, of which we must have loads in the project. Another one I'm determined to do some work on is Jerome Caminada, Manchester's Sherlock Holmes. As you say, Nev1 has a good nose for these little nuggets as well.
BTW, there's no chance that you can get Oldham articles to catch up with Trafford. Not while Nev1 and I are still alive anyway. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, which is why I'll probably be holding you both to randsom for some communal copyeditting and detailed peer reviewing (aka slaughtering my pathetic command of standard British English) of Royton, sometime in the very near future! (Actually, I always thought of Royton as Shaw and Crompton's poor relation, but I'm finding out for the first time it was in fact a rather notable and important little place!)
I think you're absolutely right though, and once we had some of our major (top-priority) articles done-and-dusted, I always envisaged the project going down the route of creating smaller but equally informative little gems of knowledge (like for historic houses and coats of arms etc). Of course people are superceding my thoughts and putting it into action before I ever thought we could! I think the Manchester Mummy will be a great example of this, and I'd be happy to help. Of course, I don't have anything on this affair to hand as a source, but I'm willing to do the peer review, copyeditting stuff where my capabilities allow. :) --Jza84 | Talk 02:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's that time again...
When I'm going to start trying to push a few articles through FAC (at least by the middle of next month, when I hope to be home more). Can I pester you for your copyediting skills on a few in the next few weeks? Ealdgyth - Talk19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for your GA review of Elsie MacGill. With all the work that you put into making the review, though, I wish you'd also notified the major article authors (myself and Maury Markowitz) -- I don't always keep up with my watchlist, and only just saw that the article had been reviewed and delisted now. Unfortunate all around. thanks, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
My assumption is that editors will be looking out for the articles they have an interest in. If you feel that the issues I raised have now been addressed, then I suggest that you nominate the article at GAN and I'll agree to review it again, unless you'd prefer someone else to do the job. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
yes, I know I can re-nom it, and will be glad to keep working on the article. My point was just that assuming everyone has an interest in the article actually getting fixed up, notifying major authors when an article is reviewed or nominated for something is easy and courteous. I'm sure other editors of reviewed articles would also appreciate it as well, as there are many reasons why an editor might not see a review without prompting (for instance, I travel quite a bit). Anyway, no worries, just wanted to mention it. best, phoebe / (talk to me) 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly prefer that editors addressed the issues raised during the hold period instead of having to delist an article and then review it again, so I will bear your comments in mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I recently encountered the GA article Michigan Life Sciences Corridor during a maintenance run and thought to bring it to the attention of an active member of the GA Sweeps project. I tend not to meddle in the actual branding of quality articles, but this article appears sufficiently problematic for its status to take a second look. Although well-sourced relative to the content length, with only two short paragraphs the article seems to fail the GA criteria of broad in its coverage. Much more information certainly exists on the subject. And of the ten total sentences in the article, the final sentence is time-relative and rather a "puff" remark. I leave any action on its continued GA status to your equitable review, should you wish to pursue the matter. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing my attention to that. It's a nice enough little article so far as it goes, but it's clearly not a GA; start class at best I'd say, so I'm going to delist it. Obviously I'll explain on the article's talk page as well, and give some indications of where the article falls short. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not fed up at all. Some random lass writes to you out of the blue about an obscure article and you fix the layout problems and give a huge amount of good advice, plus doing some of the work yourself - you've been great and you've helped me so much. Would you be willing to look over and help me get Netley Abbey to GA standard?Soph (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm always happy to help where I can, especially to get an article through GA. Let me know when you think you're done with your current changes and I'll go through the article again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done pretty much everything I can do to it for the moment aside from spotting typos etc so I'm going to leave it alone now until you and Peter I Vardy (who I believe you know from your Cheshire work) have had a look at it. Thanks once again for all your help Soph (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Great. I made another suggestion about the Bibliography on the article's talk page, and I'll take another look through the whole thing tomorrow. I do know Peter from the Cheshire project, yes, and I'd take very seriously any suggestions he has to make; he's an exemplary editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the extra review on Netley Abbey. I've made a detailed response on the article's talk page, but they are all excellent points and I've done the suggested changes, the only thing left now is the two cites missing page numbers. I've contacted the editor (Herthurs) who provided them in the hope that he can help. If he can't I'll delete the references and submit it for GA review in mid August. I agree about Dr Vardy, he's a great editor and I'm taking his comments and changes very seriously. Best wishes, Soph (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
Just wondered if I could "cash in" some chips (so to speak!) and have your good presence on Talk:United Kingdom? Probably best if you read this one yourself - I'm too horrified to stay within the bounds of WP:CIVIL! ;) --Jza84 | Talk 13:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Some topics generate more heat than light, and this seems to be one of them. I'm not really sure what I think about the issue, and I'm going to have to go do some work shortly anyway. I'll take a closer look and probably chip in later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I know, and I share your sentiments. I agree that this is an un-necessary discussion really, and would rather be spending time elsewhere, but owing to persistence, I've found that I'm fighting from the commonsense corner again! I'm trying to close it asap but this is a bit of a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just a comment would suffice here IMO. Hope all is well, --Jza84 | Talk 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Well this professional wrestling article is written completely out of universe for all readers to comprehend, but if you can't I understand. Thanks anyways.--SRX17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I tried to make the improvements proposed by you and other FA reviewers, can you reply on the Peer Review page? Thanks. :)--SRX17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks once again for your help. Part of my motivation was to set a standard for articles in what might be considered to be a tricky area. There is now a witchcraft FA, something that other editors thinking about writing similar articles can now refer to. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit I was in the slough of despond a few times during the nomination, but I'd also be the first to admit that the article was significantly improved as a result of comments made by the reviewers. As I've said many times elsewhere, FAC is a tough gig, and so it should be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well done. If you carry on writing articles on that subject matter, you may get to be known as "The Wicker Man" (I'll get my coat.) DDStretch (talk)
A notice
Hi, due to your casual remarks on my talkpage recently, u have been maliciously accused to be involved in a collaborative 'witch-hunt' on another editor. Out of fairness, I'm informing u on this case, as I find it was an irresponsible & 'ungentlemanly' act (esp to an English) to accuse someone without notifying him of such act, or given a right to comment. See the full details here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Bizarre. I think that must be the first time I've been accused of "detailed collusionary and planned conspiratorial defamtory tactics". What a dickhead. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
{Putting on a deerstalker cap, smoking a calabash pipe, and speaking with an English accent} "Elementary, my dear Malleus. Could it be your strong obsession with the 'Pendle witch trials' that led to this aforementioned accusation?" 8-P
Perhaps I should put up another warning notice on my talkpage: "Any passing casual remarks posted here is highly hazardous to your reputation & sanity!"
Looking on the positive side, maybe this incident could serve as an inspiration in your next writeup entry for your highly respected Wiki guide (with registered hits in Google!) - Malleus' WikiSpeak next! ;-0
After being posted with a 10-page long warnings (in print preview mode!), he's currently lying low for the moment, but I would advise u to be on the lookout for him in future, lest u may received another 'stab in the back' again, that may affect your high-profile standing in the GA/FA/RfA circles, or your attempt on another 'stab' (pun not intended) for RfA in future. Remember your cuppa mate! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There are no more RfAs on the horizon, I've had quite enough of that revenge-fest. On a brighter note, I was pleasantly surprised to see 1,860 Google hits for WikiSpeak, with the first one being to here. Fame (of a sort at least) at last. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to it. I (perhaps naively) believe that our history of Empire hasn't been an altogether bad thing, as it has forged links around the entire globe. Singapore is still a member of the Commonwealth, for instance; we share some of the same history and all of the same democratic ideals. Which, to return to theme, is partly why I found Starstylers comments to be offensive. We should all be proud of what we are, but we also need to be respectful that others are rightly proud of what they are too. I've never backed away from a good old ding-dong, but I never have, and I never would, stoop to the kind of nationalistic abuse I saw from Starstylers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Peer Review Request
Hey Malleus Fatuorum, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMatthewT.C.00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest holding back until SummerSlam (2003)'s review is done. SRX seems to be trying to make these wrestling articles more accessible to a general readership, and if he's successful in that goal, then that would be the template to follow. I still think there's a way to go yet though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me?
I hereby formally request you cease and desist any comment, opinion or action regarding an issue which is none of you business and does not concern you. Calling me a "dickhead"- such jealousy is a curse and a sin, Mr Hammer.
Some British may smugly look down their nose at we former 'savage' colonials- but do so in the manner of willfully ignorant, delusionary smugness of the moral onanist petty bourgeoisie.
They conveniently forget the blood upon their hands, the fact we had to violently evict colonial parasites and collaborators from our nation who enslaved, stole and exploit what they had no right nor claim to. Furthermore, the British and the Dutch both actively attempted to destroy our traditional societies by confiscating nobles' wealth, power and lands and handing them over to a pliant, submissive, non-assimilating and exploitative alien: the Hokkien Chinese (who incidentally grew approx one third of opium for their elites to flog to the Chinese mainland for tea). This is not racism- this is historical fact. Penang-Singapore-Medan is their triangular territory of sins.
Furthermore, Britain and the US has a long and documented history of illegal self-serving interference in the politics of my nation. British should collectively shoulder the responsibility of 300,000+ murdered by installation of CIA/Mi6Foreign Office/BBC/preferred puppet Suharto- and the various covert and intel actions launched from your puppet sheriff outpost of Singapore (Raf Tengah, RAF Butterworth, a detachment of Gurkhas, etc- Singapore currently offering the US a nuclear sub base). Nigeria is not the only land were Royal Dutch Shell and BP keenly used violence for their oil.
Indonesians such as myself, from a history of glorious nationalist struggle against our numerous oppressors have no shame in nationalism- it is beyond an ideology- it is our hereditary duty to forever be vigilant against the foes of the indigenous Indonesian people. Our 'hatred' is jusitified as is our perpetual outrage.
I sincerely offer you to be my guest in my wondrous Indonesia. What you will see, will most surely open your eyes to incriminating truths those, some ethnics attempt to hide and censor.
Doesn't look like it. Still, it'll be handy having that "puppet sheriff outpost" in Singapore if I should ever decide to send my fleet of gunboats to Indonesia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL! That was the funniest quip I've ever heard from u to date! Save the hassle of sending your gunboats or even the upcoming QE-class HMS Prince of Wales (CVF) to this former Crown Colony for historic or nostalgic reasons mate. Fyi, there are already numerous well-documented cases of individuals or groups - 'activists', bloggers, writers, foreign media, suspects etc, who were detained while on visit or while on transit via S'pore, and some even got extradited to S'pore under the mutual co-operation & security agreements with Interpol, ASEAN or UN, to face charges of criminal acts, defamation (The SG govt has filed numerous libel suits & have yet to lose a case locally or abroad so far), or under the fearsome Sedition Act or Internal Security Act, for fanning racial or religious sentiments, promoting ultra-nationalism, communism, terrorism etc previously. Despite their respective government intervention pleading for leniency & public vigils, most were later sentenced to spend time at our (in)famous holiday chalet at Changi afterwards, with some receiving lasting painful reminders too, and the worst of all nightmares - death penalty - courtesy of our British-inherited laws & security apparatus that are heavily enforced 'in spirit and to the letter', even in cyberspace today. For some fortunate souls, they were denied entry & was issued a stern warning before being repatriated back immediately, but no doubt will shudder in cold sweat when recalling the 'welcoming reception' they got & regreting their foolish ways years later. Lastly, have u notice that no one has yet to leave any provocative or even bona fide academic comments, even anonymously on this talkpage to date? Still clueless? Read an example here which is self explanatory. Sadhu! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm really pleased about that, although I can't take any of the credit for it. That one's down to Jza84. I just moved a few commas around. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I'm the lead reviewer on the article. I've gotten a bit of push back from the nominator about me being overly critical (it wouldn't be the first time, ha!), but reading through the article it just doesn't seem to have that GA quality. If you wouldn't mind providing a GA review, it would certainly be helpful. Best, epicAdam (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I thought materiel was a misspelling but you wikilinked it further down so I stand corrected. If you want to put it back in and link it I promise not to change it again - honest! (damned Frenchies!)Richerman (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just spotted your note about being tired and fed up of Misplaced Pages... Please, don't let the buggers grind you down. There are some complete idiots on Misplaced Pages, and some nice people too. You have done such great work at GA, FAC etc with projects of your own - as well as helping dozens of other people (me included). I've felt the same way several times here...and eventually it passes. I really hope you feel a bit better soon.-- Seahamlass13:26, 04 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your words of encouragement. I'm going through a phase where contributing has begun to look like I'm staring into a bottomless and thankless pit. There are a few things that I've committed myself to do, and if I'm still feeling the same way when they're done, probably a break will be in order. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
citations
Continuing the discussion, so would I use 'all' {{citation}} throughout (so no cite book, cite web, cite journal etc) - would that still mean I use the harvnb template for the book citations? It all gets confusing from hereon.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That's it. Just change them all to {{citation}}. {{Harvnb}} is only relevant where you want to refer to a page or pages in a book or journal, that you've already listed (using {{citation}} in the Bibliography. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello there! Just wondered if I could twist your arm for a copyedit to Shaw and Crompton? I've just revisited the article and done a major rewrite of some sections. My vocab and writing isn't as good as I'd like. If you feel willing and able, there is no rush. Hope you can help, --Jza84 | Talk 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
And wanting to beg a favor from you. I've got three articles I'm hoping to bring to FAC after I get back (be about August 17 or so until I'm home and able to handle an FAC). They are Stigand, Go Man Go, and William de St-Calais. They've all been PR'd, and basically need good copyedits before I bring them before the slavering hordes at FAC. Can you look them over for jargon, etc, as well as fix my prose? It's not a "must do asap" but it'd help a bunch if they were looked at in the next couple of weeks or so. Ealdgyth - Talk13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I can also look at any of these three if you want me to MF. Let me know here or on my talk which (if any) you'd like me to look at. I'm horrible with refs, but I can find comma mistakes, spellings, wording, etc, pretty easily. Keeper ǀ 7622:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do, I'm sure Ealdgyth will appreciate all the help she can get. I had a hack at the Go Man Go article earlier, but there are some places where I'm not sure if it's a copyediting issue or just a difference between us Brits and you Yanks. So, if you've got the time to take a look at that ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A joke for you..."A bishop, a horse, and a monk walked into a bar...". Just kidding. But seriously, what a random collection of articles! I'll work on the horse one, seeing as it's a Texan, and my bastardized "English" may be of use...starting tomorrow (I'm about to go offline here) Keeper ǀ 7623:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. Ealdgyth's articles are always very well referenced, so no worries on that score. The only thing is, and I know she won't mind me saying this, is that she does have a tendency to write like a medieval history professor. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
If I have offended you in a recent discussion with the use of the word cronies then I am sorry.
I noticed your reply much later. I regret I cannot work on Misplaced Pages anymore due to the difficulties with JZA84 and when I am faced with the difficulties he accuses me of being offensive. However he is both judge and jury having blocked me and issued threats and questioning my integrity.
I personally believe this type of editor is a bully, and if calling him a bully means he will block me again so be it. I have gone beyond the bit were I care. All I looked to do was enhance Liverpool pages and add some others unfortunately every now and then JZA played games and scrubbed my edits. This is the problem I am supposed to work in conjunction with him but he does not. I regret any offence to yourself however I have been bad mouthed a few times in recent weeks by this so called administrator so I have been a bit wary of whom he deals with. I am withdrawing my edits because this fella from Manchester judges he knows more about Liverpool than I do. Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not offended, so no worries on that score. Misplaced Pages's collaborative nature can be difficult to come to terms with, and I certainly found it so. I've come to accept that more often than not articles are improved by the input of others, even where I may not agree with particular changes or additions. I'm truly sorry that you and Jza84 have got off on the wrong foot, as I'm sure you both share the same desire to help build this encyclopedia. In particular I can empathise with your obvious desire to improve Liverpool articles, which, God knows, need all the help they can get.
If I may, I'd like to offer just one word of advice to the wise. Whatever your view of Jza84 may be, it's very easy to win him round in a discussion on content simply by providing reliable sources for the material being challenged. It's really as easy as that. Jza84 is a hard-working editor I have a lot of respect for. To be perfectly honest though, if I had been in his position I would not have blocked you; I'd have been concerned that I might be too close to make a fair assessment. If you feel that you need to, and we all feel that we do from time to time, why not take a short break to ponder on where and why things went wrong between you and Jza84, and then come back refreshed to help build this encyclopedia? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If you get 5 minutes to yourself Malleus, I'd urge you to read through the whole of User talk:Dmcm2008. I think that will outline why I had no reservations blocking this gentleman, and, if there is a repeat of his cycle, why I won't hesitate to enforce a much longer block. This is a user who has not shown any willingness to change, and continued to abuse me for over 8 months. There are several explicit warnings.
That said, I recognise there is a balance to be struck. Dmcm2008 clearly enjoys contributing, clearly wants to contribute and his enthusiam for his locality is admirable. The abuse and silliness about Liverpool's magic boundary just needs to stop. As I've said before, this gentleman needs to go through the WP:ADOPT system, IMHO. If he repeats his cycle without learning, I'm afraid he'll just end up disappointed again, taking out his frustrations via abuse. --Jza84 | Talk 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that you had done anything untoward, simply that I wouldn't have done what you did because, as you say, there's a long-standing history between the two of you. One of the privileges of not being an administrator though, is that I don't have to involve myself in any forensic searches, I can just take things as I find them. Obviously I agree with your position on the Liverpool silliness, and have said so. Hopefully Dmcm2008 will now consider recent events and come back having taken all that's been said to heart. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I was just a little concerned that Dmcm2008's perspective didn't really encompass the dynamics of this... situation. I don't want anyone thinking that this was a snap retaliation (this guy usually posts mass slander about me); I warned this guy in March, and in April and again in June with warnings about civility and citing sources. Anyway, I'd best leave it at that. As I say, I think if Dmcm2008 doesn't reform, and continues to be abusive, he will only find himself cursing me after I've blocked him for 6 months for harrassment. :S --Jza84 | Talk 02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey i've no problem with people checking my history. It is the response thatJza84 has issued which reiterates the bully tactics. But what do I care LET this person have his way.Dmcm2008 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have clarified my oppose here. Asenine 10:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Radium capsules
"A doctor treated the latter by inserting a pellet of radium on a probe into each of Zappa's nostrils—little was known at the time about the potential dangers of being subjected to radiation"
This does sound highly improbably but my family lived near Baltimore at the same time (my father also taught at the Naval Postgraduate School as Zappa's father did, the school moving to California in 1952) and my brother had the same procedures done for his sinuses. When he was an adult, my mother told him about it as there had been a fair amount of publicity that those procedures possibly caused cancer in later years. My brother so far has never gotten cancer, and he was angry at my mother for telling him about those Johns Hopkins procedures. (He would rather not have known.) Therefore, I know the statement in the article is true, though it could most likely be left out if you object. I objected to the sentence originally because it implied that it caused harm at the time, which was not true as far as I know. The editor then modified the sentence and blamed mustard gas for Zappa's problems in Baltimore. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I suspected as much. I think it's interesting material, and I'd keep it, particularly as Zappa contracted prostate cancer in his 40s. I'm really just objecting to the statement that the potential dangers of radiation were little known at that time, when in fact they had been known for decades. Perhaps tone it down just a little? Something like "the potential dangers of radium were not fully appreciated at that time"?
Certainly the dangers for the purpose used - treatment of sinus problems - was not known and was not even considered until years later. My parents weren't trying to harm my brother! On another note, "under-rehearsed"? I have not seen that before. Is that British? Or do I have a gap in my education? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Changed from "under rehearsed", which I don't believe to be correct in either British or American Englsh. Always happy to be corrected though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. I'm quite happy not to touch the article again if you don't want me to, or think my British English is inappropriate for such an article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
That's only because I tend to stick my nose into places a more cautious editor might be inclined to avoid. Plus I'm not an administrator ( as you may know ;-) ), so I don't get those "Can you you block/protect/look at this please" messages. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully someone will expand it – I have no intention of wading through 20,000 google hits looking for sources. I gave it enough to insulate it against the inevitable AfD, but I can't imagine it gracing FAC any time soon. – iridescent21:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Zappa
Despite disagreement over under rehearsed, I wish you would touch the article again. The main editor has done everything he could do during FAC. I don't know much about Zappa and am at a loss as to "legacy". If you would help the main editor, that would be wonderful. He is very obliging and receptive to new ideas (albeit a little discouraged now). I just don't have the skills to help him much at this point. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Zappa's very near the drop zone now (should that be drop-zone, or even dropzone?), but in many ways I like the article. Is there the time left to write even a short Legacy section? I'm not sure. Without it I don't believe the article will succeed ar FAC; with it, I'd be prepared to help with the prose stuff. I do understand how discouraging the process can be, having been through it a few times myself. The only encouragement I can offer is that the article is almost always better coming out of the proces than it was going in, whatever the result. The Zappa article still has legs yet though I think, so I'll wait on a resolution to the legacy issue. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Although any collaboration between the pair of you might well be graced by a flock of flying pigs, you could do worse than ask The artist formerly known as Lara to give it a once-over. You may not see eye-to-eye but she's got a superb record for doing wholesale-improvement jobs on musician articles, from Elvis Presley to Maroon 5. – iridescent21:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I ought to have followed the link before I replied. But what the hell, she only thinks that I'm a dick; who knows, she may well be right. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I copy edited the article because I liked it. I have been defending the article from being forced into a typical rock musician/band format apparently mandatory for musicians/bands 30 or 40 years younger than Zappa and of much narrower interests. I knew little specific about Zappa before reading the article but it drew me in. I am hoping the main editor could put together a simple legacy section (consulting my music books, although they contain Zappa, there is nothing specific about "Legacy") and put the article over the hump with your help on the prose issues.
I'm on your side believe it or not, I don't want to see this article pushed down that road either. With even a short legacy section I'm sure we can get this over the line, but I don't know enough about Zappa to write one. It's not a major overhaul I'm asking for, just a small addition. Musicians who claim to have been influenced by him? The work of his trust? That kind of thing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased to hear that. I've said many times that FAC is a tough gig, and it ought to be tough. But it ought not to be discouraging, so let's see what we can do together to get Zappa over the line in whatever time SandyG's prepared to allow. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realise the articles in question were under renewed scrutiny, and had I known earlier, I would have sorted them out earlier. As such, a couple of them will have to delist, as I have no time to sort them out ahead of tomorrow's deadline. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no deadline. If you're going to be working on them then I'm happy to leave them until you've finished. I really don't want to have to delist any of them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the Q class, N class and Q1 class articles are fine now. If you have noticed, I am slowly working my way through these articles again anyway, getting them up to FA status (an example: LSWR N15 class), or improving them as far as my resources can take them. Anyway, now for the class V (might take that one all the way to FA!) and the LN. I know there are other articles that need sorting out, though time is an issue so please bear with me. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Malleus. I have submitted St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley as a GAC. The reviewer's comments, together with my initial thoughts, are here. As usual with my stuff, the assessor wants some copyediting - can you help here please? I should also be interested to have your comments on my replies to the criticisms (sometimes I think reviewers are dafter than editors (eg, what ARE blue links for if not to explain the meaning of terms which may be unfamiliar to the reader?)). Cheers. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I've addressed all of your GA reviewer's copyediting comments, but if I haven't, then just give me another shout. I shall leave my comments on the other issues you raise for another time. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:CSD#U1 good sir. G7 is for articles. Others would have declined to speedy for such a transgression of procedure. (Seriously! :) - Anyhow both deleted. Pedro : Chat 23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic, I really am. I thought the Zappa article just needed a quick Legacy section, bit of a polish, job done. But it hasn't happened. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's hope so, time will tell. I wonder though whether it isn't a sign that increasing numbers of editors see FA/GA as a service station, where you can get an article fixed for free. Why would anyone in full possession of their faculties want to spend their time reviewing anyone else's work? What's the best that can result? A thanks. What's the worst that can result? A hate campaign. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
... which brings up another matter. How come the community allows personal attacks to stand on FAC pages? If I tangle with the nasties, I can be accused of bias, so I have to read right over it, but I wonder why other editors don't issue warnings, etc. I get really bugged when I see a reviewer attacked, and no one doing anything about it, but I shouldn't opine lest I appear to take sides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Your RfA would be a classic, a story handed down through the wikipedia generations. If someone like you can't get through RfA then there really is no hope for it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You're asking the wrong person. I've failed at it twice, and I didn't find either a particularly agreeable experience. But you're not me; there are things you could do like moving over redirects for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. I forgot. If you apologize to Marskell for being snarky to him on G guy's talk page, and make your peace with Raul, I'll nominate you and vouch for you. We need some adult admins who have a clue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If you've got time, could you copy edit the Sale article please? I thought I'd smoothed a lot of it out, but there are still some kinks holding it up at FAC. Nev1 (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not wasting my time on copy editing FAC any more. This is the second time I have given it up. The first time I was just doing too much really hard writing so the "main" editor could collect his FAC stars. I grew resentful when he copy/pasted my edits out of existence. (I don't like to collect things so I don't understand this passion for article awards, especially since they are not awarded in a fair fashion.) I believe the whole process is fundamentally screwed up. Mature, well-written articles are forfeited for formulaic ones. And those supported by the clique pass as well as those who (pardon me) suck up to those in power. I am not one of the in-group and do not want to be. (I don't like that kind of thing.)
I think I will become one of those editors that adds 100 complaints just as the FAC is about to end, then not lift a finger to help. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that Zappa has failed. That really was beginning to look inevitable though, without that Legacy section. With it, I still think it could have passed. It's nothing to do with any cliques, or sucking up to those in power. If it was, I'd never be able to get an article through FAC (look at Sandyg's comment above).
I don't think anyone would seriously doubt that some kinds of articles are easier than others to get through FAC, but that doesn't make the process unfair. As you know, reviewers are under no obligation to do more than point out what they see as problems, whether that's at the start or the end of the FAC. I hope you'll reconsider your attitude to copyediting though. For sure there's no glory in it—who remembers or even cares who the copyeditors were—but so often it really does make the difference between success and failure. None of us write anything because we want the credit for it, or we shouldn't; we do it because we want to improve this encyclopedia. You're disappointed now, but just think how elated you'll feel when Zappa comes back in a week or two and gets that little star. --
I only care about the star for User:HJensen. The article is superb. The last reviewer's complaint was "I meant there's no mention in the lead of his lyrical themes." As Lame Name said, "...there seems to be a drift towards people with seemingly little knowledge of the subject suggesting that their own limited point of view be included within the article." We had the legacy almost ready to go. I like copy editing when it is for a real purpose, just as I like writing. It is my belief, though, that the quality of the FA articles are, in general, very low; it is much more important to get the ndashes and citations right than to have a worthy topic and to say anything meaningful about it. This problem of disliking bureaucracy is why I couldn't work for the government and had to start my own business.
I do admire, though, how you are able to say "real stuff" but not trip over a rule in SG's rule book and get bashed, a definite talent, since you are not (I don't think) one of her adopted 16 year olds. Well, you have the gift. (I just took a look a your user page, but no clues there.) However, I think FAC deserves to die and be reborn. It is out-of-control horrible currently and would crash and burn if so many people weren't hooked those little stars. Thanks for letting me rant. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I remember being 16, but that was a long time ago now I'm pleased to say. There are certainly aspects of FAC that are tedious, but by and large I think it works tolerably well. As in fact I also think the GA process does, something that SandyG and I would probably not agree on. Most articles emerge from the process in better shape than they went in, including, I think, the Zappa article. User:HJensen made a very good case for the current structure and I don't think that objections on that score would have carried any weight. I really do believe that it would have passed with the Legacy section and a final polish. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it sail through its next nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps GA is more worthwhile. The only time I tried it out was to help an editor with an article on India. But an opposing ethic group of about 10 editors from India trashed the article completely from the beginning. It was given no chance to improve So I gave up on that. I think it is the mediocrity of FAC that is so dull. A camel is a horse made by a committee -- pertains beautifully to FAC. The Zappa case, I think, was a question of teeny boppers taking over. User:HJensen wanted to get on the legacy part, but he expended enormous time for days on diddley squat instead, as requested by those dictators and cronies that run FAC. He had a sandbox legacy article written.
You don't notice how the same editors support each other in a quid pro quo? How the articles of certain editors pass with nary a glance? For a long time I would only edit articles that were forlorn and abandoned, obviously FAC pariahs. It's like high school. The in-group and the out-group. Certain people are going to have enormous energy put into their articles by FAC and their articles improved, but only if the main editor belongs to the sorority or fraternity. Now I am not willing to help even the forlorn, as any help I give results in credibility for FAC. There is no attempt to help those that really need it. I get quite sad watching poor well-meaning articles get ignored. There is no attempt at fairness. I'll just watch the cabal take over. You are in group, so enjoy it! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in, Malleus. Mattisse, I am really concerned with the amount of vitriol here. I solemnly promise, as an FAC reviewer who also writes articles, that I judge each article on its merits and there is no "quid pro quo" except in time given. Yes, it is a fact that some articles don't get a lot of attention, but that often has more to do with the subject matter (we don't have as many reviewers interested in pop culture topics). We can't force reviewers to review articles that don't interest them, and we are suffering from a shortage of reviewers. If you have suggestions on how to improve or revamp the process, please make them - I think all of us would be amenable to something workable that could improve FAC. Karanacs (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
, see Talk:Manchester Mummy for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Million_Moments (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)