User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2007/September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Samuel Brooks

Dear Malleus Factorum. I am very new to Wikipedia. I don't understand why you have unlnked the years when many other articles seem to link them. Could you please p[oint me to a Guideline that will make this clear to me? Thanks Budhen 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking: "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Basically, the link syntax when applied to dates is overloaded, and is really there to allow users with different preferences to see the date in a style they're familiar with—"autoformatted"—rather than as a conventional wikilink.
As you say, many articles do link years; doesn't make it right though. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done, by the way, on creating that new article on Samuel Brooks. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. I get the point. I have also made some changes to Brooklands and Whalley Range. Budhen 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Serpentine (lake) GA review

I suspect you are already aware of this, but that was excellent review. It was the kind of review I'd expect from a top reviewer. Possibly more citations needed though; there's a slight chance that this might not be true "The Serpentine gets its name from its supposedly snakelike, curving shape". Epbr123 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Thanks for taking the time to review my review. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm about to do a complete rewrite of this one (see below), and will whack a citation on it in the process, but I can't really see any doubt on that one - the only other possible reason I can think of for calling something "Serpentine" would be if it was full of snakes, and I somehow can't see that being the case in Hyde Park — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Brooklands

Not a problem!... Though it seems (once I've made the disambiguation) that (according to ONS) Brooklands is actually one contiguous named area split between the Trafford and Manchester metropolitan districts, and also, at a ward level. The OS co-ordinates are exact, but the population totals and other statistics are different! Confusing! Jza84 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This story is old but it goes on

Epbr123 is right, and there is a lot of back story here. No offence to you, but probably we should let it go. Ceoil 23:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I find the GA/FA pissing contest entirely unproductive anyway. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Gillingham F.C. FAC

Hi there

I've now been through the article and (I believe) amended every usage of "the team"/"the club" etc in such a way that there's now no grammatical confusion/stretches. Would you be prepared to take another look?

Best wishes

ChrisTheDude 08:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support ChrisTheDude 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Blimey, kind words indeed, many thanks! ChrisTheDude 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Manchester - FA push

Hello again! Just a nudge about the Manchester article - there's a desire from a core of editors for it to attain FA status. I know you're quite strong on this, and think it'd be great to have your input. Hope all is well, Jza84 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Serpentine (lake)

Can I ask you to extend the GA expiry time by 24 hrs, as I'm going to have a stab at rewriting it completely tomorrow? I intend to expand it into a larger article taking in Long Water as well, as (while I thing LW would be a valid stub) it seems silly to have separate articles on two names for different ends of the same body of water. If it's not done by tomorrow, let the GA fail, as no-one else seems to be showing any interest and I'll be at work from Wednesday on — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with extending the GA expiry by 24 hours, but obviously if I'm still not happy with the article after that extension, then I'll have no option but to fail it.
Good luck. I hope you manage to find the time, energy, and inspiration, to make the article what it deserves to be, whether in this review or its next. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This one I'm not going to lose any sleep over either way, trust me. Just thought it would be nice to do a GA/FA for once that isn't a 75k TL;DR epic. To be honest (as you can see from the talk page) I was hoping once I'd set the ball rolling someone else would take it on — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Warburton Article

I've responded to your concerns on the talk page for Warburton, Greater Manchester. Pursey Talk | Contribs 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You have simply succeeded in compounding them. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Responded again. That should resolve your issues. Pursey Talk | Contribs 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Serpentine (lake) (again)

I've completely restructured this one and rewritten the problematic parts; would you be able to take another look at it? Briefly running through the specific points you raised:

  1. I've split "The lake" (which was a silly section in any case) between the lead & a "Geography" section, & included depth etc;
  2. As most sources relating to its construction are Imperial (for obvious reasons), I've stuck with imperial throughout, and changed the metric measurements accordingly;
  3. I've stripped out the worst of the weasel words & provided citations for those that remain. I'm reluctant to wipe them out altogether as it seems against the Wiki-spirit to invite others to collaborate, then promptly revert all their contributions, but I think it's now reached a stable state;
  4. I've expanded the history section as per your suggestions, and provided a (brief) explanation as to why events stopped happening there after 1851. I don't want to go into too much detail here - or cover events that took place nearby but didn't involve the lake itself - as it will become a content-fork from Hyde Park in that case;
  5. I've hopefully resolved the confusion about the creation date - the dam was built in 1730 and the lake appeared gradually as the river filled the valley;
  6. I agree about the problems with the structure, but I can't see any way around it; a single "recreation" section without subsections would look messy, but I don't know enough about boating etc to offer anything useful in the way of expansion. I've taken the subsections down to level 4 to try to make them less prominent, and added a new section on the Long Water which evens up the lopsided nature of the article somewhat;
  7. I've stripped out all but two of the redlinks, and both of those are (I think) valid redlinks, in that were articles to be written on them they'd pass WP:N;
  8. I've taken out the links to the running & swimming clubs. I think the remaining links are useful enough to remain as they provide further information that's directly relevant & isn't covered elsewhere in Wikipedia;
  9. I think the Serpentine Gallery needs to be mentioned, as - while not on the lake - it derives its name from, and is closely associated with, the lake, and is located nearby. Again, I've kept its mention to an absolute minimum as it has its own page and I don't like content-forking;
  10. I've left the part about frozen water in, as I can't see a better way to say it without an inappropriate lecture on phase-change in fluids (as with virtually every other body of water in Britain, it never gets cold enough for the lake to freeze solid; it just forms a thin crust of ice on top while the rest of the water drops to a constant 4oC);
  11. Even though it means yet another one line section, I've given the solarshuttle a subsection of its own as I can't see anywhere else appropriate to it - it's neither a landmark nor recreational, and since there's no other transport in the park there isn't a convenient "transportation" section to dump it into;

I've also reshuffled the images, and moved a number of them to a gallery at the end; the article was getting swamped, but I know how irritating it is to editors to have their images removed from articles so I'm very reluctant to do so, especially in a case like this where all the images are potentially relevant & useful (except the elephants, perhaps, but I haven't the heart to delete them). I've left-aligned a couple of images (slaps wrist) to avoid a cascade of identically-sized images along the right side, but I've tried to position them so they won't interrupt the text flow — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit on this - I've reverted one change, about Charles Bridgeman; as Royal Gardener is a title (along the lines of Astronomer Royal or Poet Laureate), not just a job description (see his bio on Kew Gardens' website) the capitalisation is correct — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. You've done a great job with this article today. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a kind of intellectual exercise - how much can you find to say about a truly dull topic? (see A215 road for my crowning achievement in the boring-article field) — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That's an awesome piece of work on a road. :) Can you clarify for me whether the area of the Serpentine west of the bridge is called "The Long Water" or the "Long Water"? --Malleus Fatuarum 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be consistent. The Royal Parks Agency website, which I suppose is as close to a definitive source as exists, uses "the Long Water" (lowercase T), which is what I've tried to stick with — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, if you think the A215 is long & dull, have a look at the triumph of mergism that is A1 road (London) — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to feel to will to live slowly draining away ... but I'd better make no further comment on those road articles. Except to say that I can understand having a fascination with the minutiae of a subject though ... I spent ages not too long ago trying to verify how much human nightsoil was dumped into a particular peat bog in an attempt to reclaim it. :)
So far as the Serpentine article is concerned, I'm happy with it now, and I'm going to pass it as a GA. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that! The cleanup was above-and-beyond the call of duty... The two road articles are my own fault; after fervently arguing to keep one of the sub-stubs here, I foolishly assumed that the stubs on the other sections would at least be adequate & would just need some minor cleanup & standardisation once merged together into a single article. This turned out not to be the case. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Star (in two senses of the word)

The Minor Barnstar
For truly above-and-beyond work standardising measurements, names & spelling on Serpentine (lake) — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just hate to see articles fail GA/FA for things that are easy to fix. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case (and no problem if you're not able to) could you at some point take a look at Broadwater Farm? This one's twice failed its GAC for (it seems to me) very odd reasons, and I'd welcome a second pair of eyes looking over it, since I'm obviously missing something - it seems to me pretty close to a model article. The forced image sizes seem to be a particular problem, but they do comply with the MOS in this case, as they're either images with extreme aspect ratios or need to be at that size to show particular architectural details, since architecture played such a key part in the riot. I've also been told both that the section on the riot it "too long" and "too short" (which makes me feel it's about right) - if it gets any longer it'll skew the article too much towards events of a single day, while any shorter and it doesn't cover what's obviously the best known event in its history. (I think that "background" section is necessary to explain just why an ordinary estate suddenly erupted one night.) As I say, if you're too busy/not interested I won't be at all offended — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take a look. I don't know anything about the events that took place on Broadwater Farm, but I can at least be a fresh pair of eyes. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've had a quick look, and made a few minor changes. I think the article has merit, and could be taken to GA with a bit more work, but I don't believe that it's there yet. I'm sure that some of the image sizing will be a problem, but I don't really see that as being a major issue, except perhaps for that plan of the estate -- which I do think is unnecessarily large -- nor the length of the material on the riots. Have you considered retrofitting the article to the WP:UKCITIES guidelines? That might help highlight some of the things that are missing.
Some of the references look a bit dodgey as well. I gathered from the body of the article that there is a broad ethnic mix of residents, and the Demographics section claims that "In 2005, approximately 70% of residents were from an ethnic minority background" Fair enough, but when I clicked on the supporting citation I was taken to a wiki page on Christian Wolmar. Is there no official census data available for Broadwater Estate? --Malleus Fatuarum 23:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That link in the references is (IMO) a flaw in the {{cite}} template; if the author has their own Wikipedia page, clicking on the author's name in the reference takes you to that page; only clicking on the title of the article takes you to the source in question (in the case you mention, this, which is an undoubted WP:RS for the 70% figure). Thanks for all the cleanup, and I agree to some extent about the image size; I'm reluctant to shrink the map much further as the labelling's already at the margins of visibility, and the other large photos are, I think, necessarily large, as they illustrate specific, relevant architectural detail (one to show how the buildings are raised above the floodplain, and one to show where the access decks used to be) that would be lost at smaller size — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You're quite right about that link in the reference, my mistake. I must have been "tired and emotional" when I was looking at it last night. I think the only image I really have a problem with size-wise is the map; I do take your point that if it's any smaller it would start to become unreadable, but anyone who wanted to read it could simply click on a thumbnail and see it in all its glory. I think that the panorama views are justifiable, as you say, although I'd probably be inclined to centre them.
I do admire you sticking to your guns about those image sizes though, whether I'd agree with them or not. A couple of times recently I've refused GA reviewers' requests to put inline citations in the lead for things referenced later in the article. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand. :) Leaving our disagreement about image sizes to one side, I'll happily try and help you get Broadwater Farm through its GA review if I can. An article like that could possibly serve as a model for articles about other estates. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the panorama views would look better centred; however, one of them uses absolute positioning for the captionings (with one eye to the future for possible conversion of the captions to links should the buildings get separate sections or articles), and abs-positioned captions on a floating picture do not make a pretty sight (as the editor somewhere in the edit history who had exactly the same thought found out), and it would look messy to have one centred & one left-aligned. While I don't really want to reduce the forced-width photos for reasons outlined above, you've convinced me about the map, as (while I think it's useful to have it there) it doesn't need to be full-size on the article — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a substantial improvement. But the same point could be made about some of the other images as well. I don't see why anyone interested in the details of the stilts or deck-level walkway in the Hawkinge block couldn't also just click on the thumbnail to see them. I guess don't see why it's necessary for the thumbnail in the body of the text to be big enough to show that kind of detail; it's available for anyone who cares at the click of a mouse. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion (and I know it violates MOS) is that at 180px thumbnail level they're just pictures of ugly concrete tower blocks. Also, at that level, there's the issue that the captions (necessary in these examples to explain what's being illustrated) would run onto four or five lines at lower widths, which IMO is Just Plain Ugly — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that even though the image size criteria is part of WP:MOS, there is a large proportion of users who oppose it and even at FACs there are few reviewers who try to impose the rule on articles due to the large backlash it creates. Ideally, the image sizes shouldn't be defined, but if the main editors of an articles strongly object, leeway is usually given. However, as Malleus Fatuarum is the reviewer here, it is totally up to him whether he thinks the rule should be followed. Epbr123 22:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Err, no, I'm not the reviewer, I'm just trying to help the article along a bit. As it happens, I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue of image size. But I do think that at least some of the captions could be summarised, to address that objection. I'll have a go, and if anyone objects, then feel free to revert. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have read the thread from the beginning :) Epbr123 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I fell at the first hurdle in trying to summarise the captions: "Kenley & Northolt towers, with the shorter Hornchurch block in the foreground." The foreground looked to me like a field, I couldn't see any short blocks in there. But this discussion is almost certainly now best continued on the Broadwater Farm article's talk page, so that other interested editors can have their say as well. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you deserve this

Howdy,

I think you deserve this for your work :)

The Editor's Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your fine edits to the Manchester and Warburton, Greater Manchester articles. Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, and thanks for being civil in your discussions with me. I'm glad there's people around that can disagree without getting too worked up :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm really quite touched that you took the trouble. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn

Thanks for the copyediting you have done on the Runcorn article — it is much appreciated. I should like to keep the article as good as is possible so please continue as you have time and inclination. However I shall not be nominating it again for FA. This produced a string of criticisms and every time you tried to fix one thing someone would come up with another objection; life's too short. Still, for a relative novice it was a good learning experience, especially about referencing. At present I'm working on a series of shorter articles and stubs to fill some Wikigaps. Best wishes. Peter Peter I. Vardy 10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that you did well with that Runcorn article, and I'll certainly try to help in keeping it in the good shape that it's now in. I understand your frustration over the FA reviews. It does seem to be "the luck of the draw". I'm sure that on another day Runcorn could have sailed through its last review. Good luck with your latest project. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Didsbury

Sure. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done - I've also re-done all the refs. It took ages. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Nobody ever said that getting an article through a review was easy. :)--Malleus Fatuarum 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar
This is for almost rewriting every "poor prose" syllable in the Didsbury article. And thanks for all the help you have given me that has helped me to improve the article.

DISCLAIMER:THIS BARNSTAR ISN'T TO INFLUENCE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE GA AND NO BIAS SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH THIS IN MIND

If this disclaimer doesn't make you laugh, then remove it. :) Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It certainly made me smile. Thank you :)
Being the reviewer, my hands are a little bit tied as to how much I can help with the work needed to get this article up to GA standard – beyond sorting out simple MOS issues – without being perceived to have a personal interest in the success or failure of the nomination. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't except any more or any less. I just wanted to say thanks. I've now introduced temps to categorise the article and there hopefully may be some chance that the Wikipedians can bring Didsbury to GA standard. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This is Didsbury's first review; just look at how much better the article is now than it was only a few days ago. Whether it passes or fails at the end of the week doesn't matter as much as the fact that the article has been improved by your efforts. And if it does fail, then you'll have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done to get it through its next GA nomination. Chin up, and nose to the grindstone :) --Malleus Fatuarum 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I've now done all the things you required. Hopefully this is all that will be needed for the pass. Regards, Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC). And once again thanks for all the help.
You mentionedd using WP:GA/R or something similar. I don't think I'll be using this, I believe your call was probably the best the article could get anyway and I appreciate all the time you put into the GA review of the article. Thanks. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 09:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If we keep working together I'm sure we can get it ready to pass its next nomination. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC for Epbr123

Hello, Malleus Fatuarum. There has been an RfC started for Epbr123. One of the major points being brought up in his defence is his work on Good and Featured articles. Most of the editors currently commenting at the RfC have had no interactions with Epbr123 in this aspect of his editing. Since I've noticed your name at the Featured articles in which he has made significant contributions, perhaps you would like to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epbr123? Regards. Dekkappai 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm doomed! Epbr123 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope not. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the input, Malleus Fatuarum. The intent of my request was not to "doom" Epbr123 but to bring some balance to the RfC from editors who have worked with him in his strongest area. I think you have helped to do this. Regards, and happy editing. Dekkappai 16:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Lundy

Hi, Can I ask for another favour... I've put Lundy up for GA & the reviewer has just made comments, including the need for a copy edit, see Talk:Lundy#GA on hold. I will try to address the concerns raised but if you had any time to take a look I'd really appreciate it.— Rod talk 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to help. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your fantastic continuous copyedit work on the Manchester article which should not go un-noticed! Thank you for your great work and we will soon be a featured article! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm sure if we all keep working together we'll get that FA status we all want for Manchester. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Seen as though you are very much involved in the Manchester article now could you possibly contribute to this new discussion at Talk:Manchester#History section? Thanks. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting of the project guideline banner on WP:UKCITIES

Thanks for doing that. I just did the minimal work to get it into shape to allow it to be initially added to the page. It probably means the guideline could be copyedited on WP:USCITY as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, and I'm glad you flagged this issue. Hopefully we've addressed it now, and we can go back to trying to write good articles instead of having to deal with barrack room lawyers. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

With stuff like "sections may be moved around to a different order ..." I'm quite content to leave WP:USCITY to sort its own house out. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunham Massey

I've reworked and greatly expanded the Dunham Massey article and taken a punt at nominating it for GA. I'd appreciate it if you could cast an eye over it and give it a quick copy edit. The only section I'm not entirely happy about is the 'Grade II listed buildings' section which feels a bit bloated and would benefit from some pictures; the problem (and any others to do with clunky prose) with that section results from having to trawl through over 40 web pages for informaion. Thanks in advance. Nev1 14:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the review. I'll see what I can do to help with copyediting, particularly on the section you're not so happy about. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I think for that section I've tried adding too much information, perhaps I should limit it to a few detailed examples? Nev1 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
That section does seem to overbalance the article. I'm sure there's scope for summarising and losing some of the detail on the least important examples. I've tried to summarise some of the stuff on listed residences for instance, all of which seemed to be pretty similar in when and how they were built, and I'm sure we could do more along those lines. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've had a go at copyediting the article, and I've hacked at that Grade II listed buildings section. It's still quite substantial, but Dunham is unusual in having so many listed buildings in such a small area, so I think it's reasonable. If you can't get GA with that article now, then there's no justice in the world. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the copyediting you've done and I think it's worked out great. Thanks again! Nev1 10:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Edumicate me, pls

I am unsure of what it is precisely you are seeking in WP:LEAD. For my own part, I am seeking some sort of phrasing that discourages the usage of citaitons in the Lead unless absolutely unavoidable. Are your seeking something a bit further on the curve than I? (Pls resp to my user page, if that isn't too much trouble).- Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

" I believe that it has"

I also believe that the current wording, while it may need tweaks, basically satisfies things. I didn't come out of nowhere. I've watched LEAD for two years and edited it for one. You'd be surprised at some earlier talk posts. One reacts to the talk environment—I think I'm a moderate, though it may not seem so. Marskell 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything of the history of this discussion around citations in the lead. All I know is that in the course of a recent GA review I was confronted with what I thought was an unreasonable request for citations in the lead, backed up by a reviewer's reference to WP:LEAD. The facts weren't "startling", there were no quotations, and it wasn't an article about a living person. Hopefully, while the discussion has obviously been frustrating for both of us, what's emerged is a better guideline than existed before. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

This is extremely poor form. Marskell 09:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion. And so am I. --Malleus Fatuarum 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Malleus (or do you prefer Hammer? ;) ), I have learned at ruinous cost that one catches more flied with honey than with vinegar. Do you think there may have been a way to handle it a bit better? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No doubt. Just as I think that there would have been a way to handle it a bit worse. But if what you're really asking me is: "If you found yourself in a similar discussion in the future, where your view was being repeatedly misrepresented by another editor in an apparent attempt to avoid engaging with the substance of the discussion, would you adopt a more conciliatory approach?", then I suppose the honest answer would be "No, probably not." --Malleus Fatuarum 17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't suggest conciliatory, but instead 'more politely'. There is nothing in the world so satisfying (except for say, Mallomars or certain interpersonal situations and maybe Christmas) as pimp-slapping another person's opinions so politely that they thank you for doing it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I take your point, but I don't believe that I acted impolitely. On the contrary, I believe that I acted with restraint in the face of some considerable intransigence and occasionally insulting behaviour. We're all different people, and what works for you may not work for me; perhaps it's the mix that makes things work, like the nice cop/nasty cop scenario. :) Much as I'm enjoying our conversation, I'm wondering why you're taking the time to discuss this with me?--Malleus Fatuarum 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
What I was suggesting is that it's extremely poor form to follow an editor from one dispute to a second in which you have had no previous involvement. That's well established on Wikipedia. You had zero previous edits to the cat article and obviously arrived there through my contribution history.
And I'm not understanding your second. You're saying, after the compromise on WP:LEAD yesterday, "but I still want to hold a grudge about this"? Why? Marskell 17:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I really don't know what you're talking about. You brought up the cougar article yourself as an example in the discussion about WP:LEAD; I had no need to look through your edit history, nor would I bother to take the time to do so. And where on earth have you got this idea about "holding a grudge" from? --Malleus Fatuarum 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
From your post beginning "No doubt." If not, good.
You know the line about the "appearance of conflict interest." Perhaps you arrived at Cougar through Google—I can't know. But if you've been disputing with someone, appearing on pages unrelated to the dispute that they're involved with always looks bad. Just avoid it. Marskell 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears that for whatever reason you are continuing with your theme of misrepresenting anything and everything that I say, and frankly I'm getting more than a little bit tired of it. "Appearing on pages ..." is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, suggesting that I "want to hold a grudge ...", based on the fact that I began an answer to a question asked of me by saying "No doubt ". If thought that you had a shred of honesty I would be expecting an apology. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Consider the comment on the cat a suggestion, not an accusation, OK? You did "appear" on the page—you'd never been there before. And I typed "No doubt" only, literally, to identify the post that seemed "grudgelike". Now, your last seems even more grudgelike (you won't even assign me a shred?) so I suppose we should desist. Marskell 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Look. This "discussion" is clearly unproductive. As I said to you last night I am perfectly content with the revised wording that has now been agreed on about citations in the lead, and I do understand that your prior experience with similar discussions may have clouded your judgement. But I will categorically state that I do not bear a grudge against you, or anyone else on wikipedia, and neither would I take the trouble to stalk you or anyone else. You yourself drew attention to the Cougar article as an example of citations in the lead, and when I looked at it I saw that there was a poll about whether the common name of cougar ought to be capitalised or not. I simply added my vote that it should not; I took no part in any arguments or discussions, and I have not knowingly contributed to any other articles that you have been involved with. But if you choose to persist in your allegations that I've stalked you, or that I bear a grudge against you, then so be it, there's nothing I can do about that. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Having reflected on this, I am rather angry and disappointed at being subjected to what appears to me to be bullying from wikipedia administrators. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope you aren't including me in that group, as I didn't consider my posts to be bullying, and I am not an admin (I think one or the other of you suggested I was). Maybe it might be easier if the two of you both left each other alone, editing elsewhere for the weekend, letting things cool down. How I so wish someone had told me to do that before I lost my cool and vented my editorial spleen, sending certain editors weeping into corners from the verbal onslaught. I am not really proud of that, and I am pretty sure that you and Marskell (who I am almost sure is watchlisting your page to watch for responses) are going to feel silly later on for carrying on about this. Just take alittle break. enjoy the weekend. Dunno about the two of you, but here in the Chicago area, this last weekend is going to be rather nice, and maybe you guys should go an do something all non-computer-y. Just a thought. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • No, I wasn't including you in that group. I see that your intention is simply to pour a little oil on troubled waters. Which does you great credit. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to make an issue of anything. Marskell 10:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good, neither do I. So perhaps we can put this little spat behind us now. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bath Abbey

Thanks for your work on Lundy etc. If you had time to turn your copy editing skills to Bath Abbey it would be really appreciated. An editor, hoping to get it to GA, has had a [review] & since asked for help - lots of content & refs have been added but some of the prose MAY need tweaking!— Rod talk 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a hack at the article, which I think looked pretty good anyway. Good luck with the GA review. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett/Archives/2007/September&oldid=1136189946"