Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:52, 5 August 2011

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

Archives

2007 April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2008 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2009 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2010 January • February • March • April • May • June • July  • August • September • October • November • December 2011 January • February • March • April • May • June

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hello

Hey. I have been watching the edits to Mavis. You really are improving it and I need to learn from someone. I have always stuggled to make prose concise. I have a request, which is, can we forget our previous conflict of interest. I actually want to work with you and come away from this review, having learnt how to better my writing. If you have any advice or tips, I'd be happy to hear them. I think a select people on here do not like to ask for the help and just see criticism as an attack. So I'd like to turn into something constructive, because you are older and wiser, I need to learn more.RaintheOne 13:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, water under the bridge. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Salvě! Malleus Fatuorum. Do you wish to do some last minute tweaks to Manchester Ship Canal before I start? Pyrotec (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to go to the library to pick up a book that'll allow me to add a sentence or two to the history section about Manchester Corporation giving up its controlling seats on the board of the ship canal company in the mid-1980s, but that's it, so please feel free to start whenever you're ready. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment I made on Mavis Wilton's GA review, it wasnt anyhting mean, so you dont need to stab me in the back ;( MayhemMario 19:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't stabbed you anywhere. You asked a question and I answered it. That you may not like the answer is no concern of mine. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you havent stabbed me anywhere (duhhh.....) . Look I just thouyght the answer was a bit harsh and mean, so personally I did not like it. Would you? MayhemMario 19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'd stuck my nose in with the kind of unhelpful comment you made then I'd just have to take it, as you do. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's get something straight here. I've spent a lot of time copyediting Mavis when I could simply have failed it. I've asked for second opinions when I could simply have failed it. What have you done exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, soaps-related articles can be a nightmare, as I found at Talk:Steph Cunningham/GA1. Your patience is extraordinary. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mario no need to try and "stick up for me" - He's been great with the copy edit. When I do my next big contrib, all the edits I'm observing atm will be in my mind. Like with the Steph one, Frickative really helped me improve things, where writing is concerned. Malleus - would you coaching me sometime, I need concise writing skills.RaintheOne 12:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lever Brothers is a particular example that's in need of improvement. William Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme is slightly better, though far from perfect. He looks a bit crazed in the picture. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I will look at the outstanding issues tomorrow. I've been out but I have felt like saying for days that... I could kiss you! Eek, that attitude is allowed with your super edits!! I wish everyone could be as clear as you! RaintheOne 23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick look

Hi Malleus. I've provided a bit of suggestions for the CVTC article. Would you mind checking out the lead and telling me just how much more work the context problems need, for the nominator's sake? ceranthor 19:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick, five-minute glance would be appreciated. ceranthor 19:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this the Cliff article referred to above? Where are your comments? Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Belay that, I've found them. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly be a good start to address the points you raise, some of which I brought up in the FAC. There's basically too much of an assumption of background knowledge in the Plot section that most of us don't have. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I assumed was the problem. I think the context has been improved quite a bit by the new addition to the lead, and that a lot of the problems now are just with fine-tuning the prose. Thanks. ceranthor 20:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal

Hi Malleus Fatuorum, I enjoyed reviewing that article, it was quick easy to do (I usually have two browser tabs open: one with the article on and one with the /GA1 page). Some DKYer had caused strong irritation at the time, so I had four browser tabs open, with venom on one (not your two by the way). Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking it on, it's not the most glamorous of subjects. I usually end up with three or four tabs open per review, the extra one or two being Google Books and/or an online source that's been cited. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. As I didn't write all of the article I've listed it for CorenBot to take a look at, something we should probably consider doing for all GANs. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing Nibiru collision at /GA3 so I've asked VM to suggest 10-minutes worth of Duplication detector checks just to see what can be done in that tiem frame. Yes, I see Manchester Ship Canal waiting to be done at Corenbot - I will look at that with interest (not that I expect to find intentional matches). I've done a fair number of geo/place articles, so I suspect that some of them might appear at User:Volunteer Marek/GA copyvio spot checking with copyvios. I do try and check verification but I'm not too good at finding my own errors (other peoples' are far easier to see): and at GAN backlog drives things tend to slip through. Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We can each only do what we can Pyrotec. What I'm finding interesting is the emphasis on the reviewers who didn't spot these copyright violations, as opposed to the editors who introduced them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

GA question

I nominated Chester A. Arthur for GA and another user who had worked on it with me started the review. I told him that it was meant to be reviewed by someone who was uninvolved, so he blanked it, but the page still exists. Are there any admins associated with the GA project who could delete it for me? I thought at first that you were one, but your userpage disabused me of the notion. Thanks, --Coemgenus (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it. ceranthor 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You must be the only person on Misplaced Pages who thinks I'm an administrator Coemgenus. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I was surprised just now to see that your new pages are not "autopatrolled". I'd be glad to change that. Shall I? LadyofShalott 00:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I refuse to have any right that can be taken away capriciously by any individual. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. If you ever change your mind, you can hit me up. LadyofShalott 01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't be changing my mind. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Got it. LadyofShalott 01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruby2010

Hello there Malleus, I don't mean to be probing, but was this really necessary? I'm not going to throw a Misplaced Pages civility link at you because I know for a fact that you've read it and understand everything on it, but really that sort of thing is just uncalled for. We're working towards an encyclopedia together, let's not fight. Thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude 01:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just who the Hell do you think you are to come whining to me about your sanctimonious civility claptrap? Was it necessary? Very few things are ever "necessary". Was it helpful? Well, it was if the dickhead keeps out of my face in future. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you issued a similar warning to your friend for this? No, of course you haven't, because like many others here you can't tell your arse from your elbow. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No-one has appointed me God, I have not acted in a godly way, I was just trying to get you to ask yourself whether that was the best thing to say... but I guess I wasn't listened to. I'm sorry to say that I've put a note about you on ANI. Please believe that I really take no pleasure in it, you seem like a very competent editor. That Ole Cheesy Dude 02:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Have at it. With any luck you'll find yourself blocked for being tendentious, childish, disruptive, and unbelievably sanctimonious. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A block for personal attacks is far more customary. Please stop them. That Ole Cheesy Dude 02:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't begin to imagine why you might believe that I have even the slightest interest in what you think Cheesy. Go enjoy your "reluctant" ANI report; what will be will be. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

<--Hey Malleus, at least you seem like a competent editor--that's already half as good as being one, and no one's ever paid me that compliment. For the record, let me add that I think that you smell like a competent editor. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I decided to ignore that very obvious slight from the faux heroic cheesykid. While continuing to find it strange that so many complain about what they themselves are at least equally guilty of. Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It really wasn't a slight. I was trying to sneak in a compliment, I've seen you around and thought only good things of you until today. That Ole Cheesy Dude 02:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thecheesykid, Malleus is a very competent editor. He's quite blunt, but people value his contributions. I just don't understand why you would make a report to ANI if you truly value his contributions as well. Do you really think his comments are that out of line? ceranthor 02:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That Ole Cheesy Dude 02:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If your intention is to rile me even more then just carry on posting here. The results may not be pretty, but don't say that you weren't warned. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Butting in - Cheesykid let me try to explain: someone submitted a page to FAC that still needs work; that editor is having a hard time listening to the suggestions being offered. Malleus is often extremely patient and helpful, but at some point any sane person has to pull the plug. He reached that point. You'd do better trying to help your friend (?) figure out what needs to be done to make the page FAC worthy. I tried to read it and became confused after the first few sentences, but I don't know the show. Try rewriting for an audience who's never seen the show and is basically stupid. Give it time and elbow grease. That's my suggestion - oh and leave Malleus alone. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I apologize for posting. I should have foreseen that reply. ceranthor 02:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing for you to apologise for Ceranthor, but TK is quite right. I'll help to the point of hopelessness sometimes, but other times a few eggs need to be broken. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's now got to the point where I can set my watch by the monthly "mummy, mummy, Malleus said a BAD WORD thread. As my people say, "oy gevalt" :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like the cheesy one ragequit. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Really? That's such a shame, Misplaced Pages really does need more prissy arseholes like him. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The admin equivalent of Echelon is watching... Parrot of Doom 23:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• beeeeep beeeeep beeeeep* Oh, my popcorn is ready. Hold on.... Okay, go! Lara 13:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are only subject to one of these a month, might we see one on Monday, or are you clear until 30 August?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I guess we can always stir some dramah before then if we get bored. Quick, somebody poke Malleus with a stick! Then we can complain and pretend we didn't know what would happen. Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I should be flattered I guess...? Tanthalas39 was the last person to do a copy too. How unbelievably egocentric of me to make this thread about me, and even more so to comment on the fact that I have just done so, and make this post even more longer and prominent.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably just me being dense, but I don't understand any of that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose Cas is referring to the resemblance between his userpage and Ruby's. Ucucha 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That is, if you're the sort of person who hangs out on people's userpages?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I should not really butt in here, but I feel I have too. Just realise that behind the bluntness... is a genius. I am hot headed, but even I can see Mallues is someone who has the best interests of an article.RaintheOne 00:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The caloric value of what was just slathered on would feed a Somalian province for a week. ;) --Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood why some people get so agitated when you tell them a few home truths. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Raintheone, if possible I'd really like to close this review in my lifetime. Would you have any objection to me commenting out the couple of unattributed quotations in the Storylines section? I realise that plot sections in general don't need to be sourced, as the series/novel/whatever is its own source, but I make an exception to that guideline for quotations. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah sure Malleus. Go right ahead. I think a lot of the storyline section was left present from before I edited the article. I hate storylines - to be fair I would much prefer them not to be there anyway. People in general, love nothing more than writing an acount of what any said character did in the previous week of episodes.RaintheOne 03:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Hi, another greasy-pole-climbing child here. (I've been called worse.) Congratulations on your patience with the Mavis article. I saw that a lot of work had gone into it, and thought I'd help; but the quotidian subject matter meant that I ran out of patience even more quickly than I usually do. You're made of much sterner stuff.

One little question, though. Among your edits, I kept seeing such transformations as from "26 May 2011" to "26&nbsp;May 2011". This puzzled me. I have no problem with

Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem 26

May 2011 accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam

"26" doesn't look lost without "May"; "May" doesn't look lost without "26". Indeed, on the (dodgy) assumption that the lengths of that pair of lines are more or less balanced (which of course would depend on your particular choice of font), I prefer that pair to

Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem

26 May 2011 accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam

Why lock date with month? -- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Because I like to keep the number and the thing it's the number of together. Consider the example of "The theatre was closed by the authorities on 10 ..." What are you expecting to see after the number? A date? But it could equally well be "The theatre was closed by the authorities on 10 separate occasions". Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but I thought that this was why God gave Man the glorious gift of the following line. If this mystery is too great for it not to be solved within the same line, then, well, how about these others:

"The theatre was closed by the authorities on ..."

time(s) or safety concerns?

"The theatre was closed by ..."

authorities, management, earthquake damage, something else?

"The theatre was ..."

closed, renowned, resplendent after recent restoration? -- Hoary (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to keep numbers and units together; you may of course prefer something else. "The theatre was ..." sets up no similar expectation that seeing a number does. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Manchester Ship Canal a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell

I think it's probably me that should be certified, not the article. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hey Malleus. Sorry to be bothering you, but would you mind suggesting a copyeditor for 2005 Qeshm earthquake? I think I've become blind to solutions to the rather blatant issues with the prose of the geology section -- it's probably "strategic distance" I need as Tony puts it. Any ideas for a potential copyeditor? ceranthor 20:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it just the Geology section you're concerned about? I can see issues throughout the article, particularly in terms of flow, if you're aiming for another shot at FAC. I never suggest copyeditors, as (almost) all the good writers I know are busy with their own stuff. A few things jumped out at me on a very quick skim through:

• You have inconsistent hyphenation in "north-south-trending convergence" but "northwest-southeast trending faults".
• In the Geology section you say that the earthquake happened at 1:53, but a few sentences further on in the Damages and casualties section you say 1:52.
• " The director of Tehran's seismological building dismissed tsunami fears, saying that the Persian Gulf was not 'deep enough' for such an incident." It seems really strange to quote "deep enough", makes it seem almost like a scare quote.
• "Thirteen villages were destroyed including Tonban, Ramekan, Gavarzin, Khaledin, Direstan, Kushe, Karavan, Turyan, Tom senati, Gorbehdan, Ziranag, Giahdan, and Gourian ..." You say "including", but then go on to list all 13.
• An Iranian police official, citing concerns about possible looting, said all movement of damaged houses would require prior approval from the governor's office ...". How do you move a damaged house, and what has that got to do with looting anyway?

I'd seriously consider asking for another peer review before thinking about FAC again. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll consider that, thanks. ceranthor 23:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if and when you do and I'll try and help out. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I find I'm better when editing at fine tuning, rather than heavy lifting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus. I think I'll let this article simmer for a few months until I'm ready to rewrite from top to bottom again. I tend to be too careless when writing articles; it's a problem I really should tend to. ceranthor 02:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I often put articles on the back burner for a while, to give me some distance. It took ages to get this to GA for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not super passionate about this particular earthquake, either, which doesn't really help. ceranthor 05:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask; is this any closer? ceranthor 15:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

PNG vs. SVG, yet again

Malleus, would you take another look at User:Mike_Christie/Sandbox4 for me? You recommended I switch to svgs for the issue grids; I did that for Super Science Stories, and I deleted all the pngs. However, when I looked at the article today I convinced myself the svgs were worse than the pngs, and I asked an admin to undelete one of the pngs so I could compare. I put both the png and svg versions at the end of the sandbox, and I specified the png pixel width to exactly match the image size. To my eye this is noticeably crisper than the svg version. I did manage to fix the font issue, so it's not that; I assume there's something slightly imperfect in svg rendering of boundaries.

I don't think I'll be back at FAC with another of these till some time in September at the earliest, but I'd like to have some confidence I have the best option when I do go back. What do you think of the two renderings? (And if there are any TPSs who want to express an opinion, please do.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can be looking at the same thing, because the SVG version looks far crisper to me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I zoomed in as far as I could with Ctrl-+ in Chrome, and took screenshots of the png and svg at that zoom level. Here's what that looks like on my screen: File:Zoomed issue grid png svg.png. The png is on the left and as you can see it's much clearer. I'll post a query at one of the graphics guru pages and see if someone can explain this; I'm baffled. I thought the whole point of svg was to re-render at different scales. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The graphic isn't redrawn by the SVG renderer when you use that zoom in function. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, but the difference in clarity seems the same to me at all zooms, so I doubt if that's the full explanation. I've posted a query at the Graphics Lab; perhaps someone there can explain. If I get time this evening I'll do the reverse -- screenshots at normal zoom, then zoom in on those in a graphics tool to see what the fuzziness looks like in that case. That should eliminate the lack of re-rendering when zooming as an explanation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for the help with Gerard... real life has unexpectedly kinda bit me hard. (I almost gave you the civility barnstar just for giggles, but decided you'd (rightly) see it as a jab and might get offended. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I realise you're pretty busy (and hot). Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. What's a civility barnstar? I don't think I've ever seen one of those. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your outstanding contributions in pushing the envelope of civil discourse to embrace and extend new and hitherto deprecated approaches to communication. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd show you what it looks like. I think I have seen it before, but I can't remember where. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I think. I doubt I'll see another one of those, as it was made very plain to me yesterday that the only thing that really matters here is the happiness of the editors, not the quality of the product, which is clearly where I've been going wrong: "I believe that your departure from GAN would result in ... happier contributors". Time will tell I suppose, let's see. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't attach so much weight to a single comment by an individual editor, nor would I misrepresent it. Geometry guy 22:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

But as I've said before, we're different people, and deal with things in different ways. If you take the trouble to look you'll see that this individual editor claims to be, with you, the powerhouse behind the GA project. Fair enough, let the pair of you get on with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I already took the trouble: the claim concerns only the essay WP:GACN, where WhatamIdoing and I both contributed most of the material. I think it is a good essay (obviously!), but I do not claim any ownership of it. If you or others can make it better, please do. Geometry guy 22:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. That wasn't clear to me, but then I'm only a D-class reviewer who GAN would be better without. That may be true, but I'm definitely not someone you want to be pissing into your tent. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Piss artists are welcome in my tent, especially if I get the proceeds from the auction :) Geometry guy 23:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see whether Whatamidoing's prediction about increased happiness among GA nominators after my retirement from the field turns out to be true or not. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I improved the barnstar. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your vomiting lady seemed quite appropriate; I rarely drink coffee anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll need to give Malleus a barnstar of your own, if you want to provide an illustration of someone having a negative reaction to imbibing tea. I don't like my signature being alongside an image of such a waste of good beverage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that's tea? Seems rather uncouth to be drinking tea from such a large container. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to comment at WT:CITE. I hope that the dispute will be resolved one way or the other before much longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There ought not to be a dispute, the rules are pretty clear. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured writer

I noticed what you said on Tony's talk page. We need to find someone that is important like a Featured Content delegate or something. GamerPro64 02:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we? I thought I was taking the piss. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. But I think I can interview you. But do you really wanna be interviewed. GamerPro64 02:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be interviewed, I was taking the piss. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I do not know what that meant. Sorry. GamerPro64 02:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise, the US education system seems to leave a lot to be desired. Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Gamer, it means that he was kidding; he wasn't serious about whatever the initial comment was. LadyofShalott 03:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

At risk of teaching grandmother to suck eggs, using Ali G's "Is it because I is Black" need not be serious, either .... ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't for Borat and HBO, I wouldn't know who Ail G is. Thanks everyone. GamerPro64 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Forth Valley Royal Hospital

Thanks for your copy edits. I'm sorry this is my first real attempt at writing a full article most have been stubs. I will continue to try and expand over the coming days. However I have been unable to find sources re staff numbers and the photos I have found appear to be subject to copyright. Warburton1368 (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a brief look, and can't find anything on staff numbers either. Which is disappointing, seeing as newspapers all over the world had coverage of the opening, some even including the supposed possible impact of the robots on staff numbers. Incidentally, this source mentions the numbers of robots involved, and talks about the same company planning a similar system in another hospital.

It's possibly less practical in a less densely populated area, but you could try looking for a Wikiproject local (or sort-of-local) to the area, and asking if anyone would be willing to take a photo - assuming you're not nearby yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried emailing the hospital and asking for a press pack? That might contain all the information you require. Also try the local trust's website, and email them too. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for, there's no rush. The review can stay open for as long as you're still working on expanding the article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Could the background be expanded a bit? Why was it felt necessary to replace the existing two hospitals, for instance? Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ive expanded further but will keep searching for sources. Warburton1368 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a grand job. Of course, now that the article's being expanded the lead will have to be expanded as well to summarise all the new material. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the article says that Royal Radio was founded in 1876, which pre-dates radio by a good few years. Should that be 1976? Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah should be 1976 i have changed it. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting to the point with this now that if the lead is expanded to properly summarise the article I think it could be listed as a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No need for any kind of thanks for almost completely rewriting your article Warburton1368, all part of of the unpaid and unappreciated service that we volunteers are expected to provide. I see that Jimmy Wales believes that Misplaced Pages has something like 90,000 contributors, a number that's been in steady decline for some time now but not yet a crisis according to him. But I think if he looked a little closer he'd discover that Misplaced Pages has far fewer contributors than that. Rather few actually write and far too many are concerned with keeping order or pontificating about guidelines. Misplaced Pages in its current form is most certainly dying, and the reasons why surely cannot be a surprise to anyone. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your help. With Forth Valley Royal Hospital Warburton1368 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So you think I just copyedited your article? Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have thanked you for your help you gave it was considerable. If you feel aggrieved then i am sorry but i was genuinely happy with all the help you gave. I am actually hurt with the way you are reacting i have thanked you. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm feeling pissed off as well, after putting a shift in above and beyond the call of duty at your GAN, which I was initially inclined to quick fail. It's nothing personal though, just a general malaise. Thankfully though after some good advice I now realise that happiness is what it's all about, so I'll be upsetting no more GAN nominators by helping them fix their articles. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the below before seeing what's above (I got an edit conflict), so my suspicions are confirmed - Malleus wanted to make a political point. Ho hum, what's new. Here we go:

Malleus, do you absolutely have to make an issue out of something that could be seen as a positive thing? The person who "just copy-edited" the article was me, back in the days when it was a stubbish article headed for DYK. (A few fragments of my copy-edit survive; perhaps eight commas and the list format.) Warburton1368 politely thanked me for doing so on my talk page, but he didn't give me a barnstar for it; rightly so, since barnstars are for major work. Since then, you've vastly improved the article. While you were doing so, Warburton1368 started the talkpage section immediately above this, which he specifically began by thanking you and apologising that he was rather new to this; and you ended that section by implying that he was ungrateful.

I really appreciate the efforts you made for the article, and I was about to award you a (custom) barnstar myself to make that clear. It bothers me that you wanted to rush to an assumption of ingratitude (on anyone's part) just to prove "Jimbo" wrong about something. It's a pity that you couldn't embarrass Jimbo by embarrassing Jimbo, rather than by maligning well-intentioned new article creators. Did Warburton1368 fail to offer sufficiently effusive thanks within a certain number of hours after the article's promotion, and then also commit the grave sin of picking not quite exactly the right barnstar? Is there a sense of proportion problem here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)