::I didn't realize that autoreviewer was something you could request?! I recently ran my cursor over my username and it popped up that I had been granted ar - but I have no idea by whom or why. I honestly didn't think I'd created that many pages, unless they consider FAC/FAR/GAN review pages on the same level as mainspace articles? [[User:Dana boomer|Dana boomer]] ([[User talk:Dana boomer|talk]]) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::I didn't realize that autoreviewer was something you could request?! I recently ran my cursor over my username and it popped up that I had been granted ar - but I have no idea by whom or why. I honestly didn't think I'd created that many pages, unless they consider FAC/FAR/GAN review pages on the same level as mainspace articles? [[User:Dana boomer|Dana boomer]] ([[User talk:Dana boomer|talk]]) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It's supposed only to be granted once someone's created 75 non-redirect articles, or per a specific request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ADana+boomer&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 Looks like someone just got overenthusiastic] in your case. – <font color="#E45E05">[[User:Iridescent|iride]]</font><font color="#C1118C">[[User talk:Iridescent|scent]]</font> 18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It's supposed only to be granted once someone's created 75 non-redirect articles, or per a specific request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ADana+boomer&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 Looks like someone just got overenthusiastic] in your case. – <font color="#E45E05">[[User:Iridescent|iride]]</font><font color="#C1118C">[[User talk:Iridescent|scent]]</font> 18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
== Here's a challenge then... ==
We-ell a second (or third/fourth opinion) - I have had this [[Talk:Illegal logging in Madagascar/GA1|GA review]] open for nearly four months as I have tried to help and think it is a god one to try and make a encyclopedic as possible as realistically it might be aa good model for melding a passionate work into an encyclopedic article. Initially we had a lot of discussion about the scope of [[Illegal logging in Madagascar]], as in whether it should be broader, but I eventually decided to take it at face value to try and review it. My question is, is there still too much detail/emphasis/repetition - the detail ''itself'' sending the article into soapbox teritory. I have trimmed it quite a bit -what do you reckon? [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 22:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:07, 4 June 2010
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. Increasingly I feel that 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've been working on Edmund Evans - a 19th century printer (about which I know nothing) - and quite like the way the article is shaping up, but it's quite short, and I've sucked all I can from the sources. Is it worth trying to bring an article of this size to FA quality or not? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I may but in, the length seems fine to me, but the article is currently deficient on the printing technology side - there are no links to the many (almost too many) articles we have on this. On a quick look some of the terminology does not seem correct; he was not at all an engraver but a wood engraver. The article verges on claiming originality for his printing technique, but the Japanese had been doing it for years in ukiyo-e, and the West had the chiaroscuro woodcut too. The combination of a wood-engraved lineblock and colour blocks may have been new. Also it must use Engvar - "colour" etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's a nice looking article, and at 1,801 words of readable prose easily long enough for FAC. There's no strict length limit anyway, it just comes down to convincing reviewers that the article is comprehensive, and no major sources have been overlooked. In fact, there's a substantially shorter article at FAC right now with 1,437 words. My Manchester Mummy was even shorter, at 1,366 words. MalleusFatuorum14:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I can fix the Engvar, and planned to ping you (Johnbod) next for a specialist view. Am happy to have you add or advise regarding the techniques and terminology. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick thanks to Malleus for letting me co-opt his talkpage with the question above - the article is progessing nicely. Posting to a widely watched page has advantages which are all good for the encyclopedia and those of us working on articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Busy?
Hi Malleus. You're probably bogged down with work right now, but I was wondering if you could review 1916 Irondale earthquake or Mount Tehama (only one, your choice of course) sometime when you were free, say, next weekend or so? I'm in no rush to have them reviewed, but you did an excellent job with Yamsay and I would like to try and get these two to FA eventually, so... ;) Thanks and I'd understand if you were unable. ceranthor13:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found out that the above article is TFA for tomorrow. Would you like to run your eye over it in case there's anything worth picking up / copyediting? I've asked Tony1 as well. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far so good. Thanks for the check-over. As is the way, i told someone about the TFA and they provided me with a heap of new information which i've since been digesting. All good though. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bancroft article
Malleus, I got an edit-conflict with you. Could you break for a minute while I paste mine in, including your two recent ones? Tony(talk)14:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made lots of edits to the article under GA review. Please take a look & let me know if i'm heading in the right direction. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly heading the right way, so keep at it. I must admit I had some doubts as to whether this could be developed to meet the GA criteria during the hold period, but a determined editor can do wonders in a week. I have some reservations about the new Models section though, which at the moment is overpowering the article a little, and making it look like a list. At the very least I'd move it to the end, and start off with the History section, as before. Preferably I'd like to see that section summarised as prose, with just a few of of the significant models highlighted. MalleusFatuorum19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be away for a while from the middle of this week so won't be able to do much with this for a bit. Can you keep your eye on it and make sure nobody reverts what material I've added? Its a mess right now but I've got a few days until I go away, hopefully I'll at least have filled in the blanks by then. Parrotof Doom23:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the infobox image on this article. In fact I hate it so much I may lose sleep tonight. What do you think, should be begone? Parrotof Doom21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You sounded like Hyacinth Bucket then! I really enjoyed writing that article, I may do another. It reinvigorated me a little, I think, I'm getting distraught at not being able to find any more rabbit ladies or cock ghosts. Parrotof Doom21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bouquet, please! I've lost much of my motivation for wikipedia over the last few months, not helped by having to argue with the civility police at WQA again today. Let them guard their piece of unfinished shit if it makes them happy. The image I always have in my mind is the dusty old knight, guarding the wooden Holy Grail. MalleusFatuorum21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much bollocks in the world that sometimes it just make me want to scream out "You're all talking fucking bollocks!" The Ark is a good example. One church claims to have it (Russian Orthodox? can't remember, don't much care) in a purpose-built church that nobody is allowed to go near. Yeah, right. Actually, the Ark is in my garage, but it's taking up way too much space for a piece of fictional nonsense, so I may try and sell it on eBay. MalleusFatuorum22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way the ODNB article for Catesby mentions his head on a spike at the end, so it seems they were probably all displayed after all. Pity nobody kept his skull like Cromwell, otherwise we'd have had a reconstructed face by now. Parrotof Doom22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely certain that they were displayed on spikes, Fawkes's head at Micklegate, for instance. It was the custom, but irritatingly, no reliable source gives the details. MalleusFatuorum22:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks
Telling an editor that "I think you need to grow up", as you did here, is a personal attack. Please review our no personal attacks policy. A negative comment about another editor like that is unacceptable. Please comment on the content not the personality or your opinions thereof. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taken to Wikiquette alerts, here, after a Wikiquette alert search and a look at your block log revealed a history of similar incivility. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, I believe that anyone who goes crying to WQA must be a child, and one who spells "offence" as "offense" is an American child. Bad mix. MalleusFatuorum00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really dude, lighten up. Why act like you are having a bad day and try to make other people's days worse? What's the point? What's it gain you? Acting and speaking to other users in a civil manner just isn't all that hard. You have to make an effort to be rude. Why do it, when you know it's agaist site policy? Yworo (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck these people. And who are they anyway - editing wikipedia is a bit sad but I understand if you have passions you need to share and write about and that certainly applies to me. But to spend your saturdays and sundays forcing people to be nice? Makes no sence. What kind of burned-out fried hippy nonesence is that? Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the eleven threads above this I see an editor nicely responding to queries and helping other editors write an encyclopedia. What's wrong with that? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a shame when an editor who is generally so helpful finds he needs to make negative personal comments about people, telling them to "grow up", "fuck off", etc. So unnecessary. Yworo (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little puzzled. Why do you think it's necessary to conceal the truth? It may make you a little happier to be shielded from your hypocrisy, but that's your problem, not mine. MalleusFatuorum00:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because as clearly described at WP:NPA, refraining from incivility makes the whole project more pleasant for everyone. Therefore the community has set reasonable restrictions on making negative comments about other contributors. As they are nothing more than the usual principles of genteel behaviour, seems it shouldn't be too hard for a Brit (I assume), to get the hang of it. Yworo (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The intention sure was to make this place more plesent, the problem is application, as any casual reader of this talk is fully aware. We are tied to AGF when we know the other person is lieing through their teeth, ecetra ecetra. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Think about this troll. You're giving me a pain in the neck. Your contributions to this project amount to roughly zero. What's your agenda? To chase off every content contributor? MalleusFatuorum01:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you fucked off yet? Who knows, maybe you'll be able to find another talk page more sympathetic to your sanctimonious bollocks. MalleusFatuorum01:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(To Yworo)As I noted on the incidents page, it appears some have difficulty understanding what a personal attack is. "Fuck off" certainly isn't one. It may not be very nice, but it's not an attack, and certainly not personal. Suggesting someone needs to grow up is an opinion, one you may not agree with, but it's not a personal attack. The best way to deal with what you perceive to be a personal attack is to walk away and ignore it and not try to get the person blocked in retaliation. That only causes more strife. Aiken♫01:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yworo you are the worst kind of troll, its the veneer of please and thanks couupled with a moronic mind that makes your words so hard to take. :) Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquette alerts seems to encourage people to come and report it, but I honestly don't know. I personally wouldn't tell someone to fuck off, or anything like that, but I am well aware some are very forthright and are not afraid to let their opinion be known, so I think more should be done to encourage work on articles, rather than working on how long X needs to sit in the naughty seat. Clearly the way Yworo keeps returning here shows he cannot be much affected by your comments. Aiken♫01:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we disagree, but surely you agree it's a violation of the civility policy. And I would have ignored it, if this user didn't have a history of being blocked for personal attacks and incivility. I disagree that we should tolerate rudeness simply based on contributions. Good contributors of content, people who perform admin tasks, and people who Wikignome, even people who occasionally fix capitalization and punctuation on an irregular basis, should all be held to the same standards of civility. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. But thanks for your advice (see how easy it is to respond civilly even to someone who disgrees with you?) Yworo (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be, but bear in mind, what is "uncivil" to some, is just casual conversation to others, which makes it difficult to enforce. You might also bear in mind most of the blocks were overturned. I never said rudeness should be tolerated, but we are not a school, and if you don't like the way someone is talking to you, keep away from them, simple as that! Aiken♫01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Iridescent never fails to point out, I often draw attention to my block for using the word "sycophantic". What was that about? The problem is that those like Yworo just count the blocks, they don't look any deeper that that. Being blocked is bad in their mind, whereas it's too often the suppression of an alternative point of view. MalleusFatuorum01:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed some of your block were inappropriate, I apologize. Incivility sometimes get quickly out of hand here, and reviewing the details of every block can be time consuming. Responding "fuck off" is much more likely to lead to a long pointless discussion like this than a milder or no response. If you hadn't responded that way, I'd not have looked at your block log at all or even watched your talk page. As I said....let's forget it. (In other words, I'm "fucking off", okay?) Yworo (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain as to why you might think I'm at all concerned about your opinion on anything, but whatever it is, please take it elsewhere. MalleusFatuorum01:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the comment? You were blocked nearly 2 hours after making that comment for a week? Well overboard imo! Aiken♫01:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whats that all about ?! That is all about our neighbourhood... can you say such ? Do you know Northenden ? It appears peculiar to mention several places of worship and yet omit the oldest such and withold information about the largest such ! Wythywise (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for fucks sake, I've had just about enough of your "Saint Wilfrids church (CofE) be the oldest such place / building in the area ...". Why can't you write properly, using the vernacular of the 21st century? Do people living in Northenden really say stuff like "There be a pub in the town centre"? Jeez! MalleusFatuorum23:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was a spoof until I checked, so potentially a good candidate, I agree. Chunks of the present article have been copy-pasted from that Times article of course. There seems to be only one major source, Celia Haddon's book, but I'm sure we could find plenty on the social and cultural background. There are loads of second-hand copies of Haddon's book going for 1p plus postage on Amazon, so I've just ordered one. Looks promising, but as we had an English article last it's probably going to be an American one again next year.
I thought I'd come across the perfect candidate a few days ago, when I was browsing through Glynis Cooper's Manchester Suburbs. She had a bit about the Foxtrot Phantom of Alderly Street, in Hulme. Apparently, in 1963, a ghost began banging on the walls of one of the houses in a foxtrot rhythm. The commotion went on for six months, and it was so violent that cracks appeared in the street. Unfortunately the online MEN archive doesn't go back to 1963, and I've not been able to find out anything else about it. MalleusFatuorum13:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Malleus - have you tried ringing the MEN library? If you are certain of the year of the ghost's appearance, they may well have the story on file and will hopefully fax/email/print you a copy. They were extremely helpful when I contacted them last year.-- Myosotis Scorpioides14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth checking with Granada as well; I can't imagine the local news letting the Foxtrot Phantom slip by. – iridescent16:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
I have removed the ability of non admins, or even admins casually, of seeing the contents posted by some trolls to this page. You will see where there are struck out lines in the edit history. I have done this to reduce the visibility that the trolls crave. However, if you are not bothered by what they have said or other people seeing their rubbish I will undelete those posts (as being disregarded is as effective as being discarded). Just let me or another admin know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard for me to know, as obviously I can't see it, but if you're talking about that paedophilia stuff posted earlier, then thanks for getting rid of it. I don't think I was the only one who had similar postings on their talk pages today though. MalleusFatuorum19:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know damn well
...that I do not think there's anything wrong with telling people they should grow up. Nothing wrong with it at all. You know that. Money where mouth is. -GTBacchus(talk)00:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try and state it simply. I couldn't give a monkey's arse about anything anyone says about me on wikipedia; they've got no idea who I am anyway. What I find disgusting is that prissy objections to comments made on a talk page are clearly designed to drive away editors like me, those that the civility police have decided to target. MalleusFatuorum00:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I support your telling people they need to grow up. I think your telling people to "fuck off" is childishly stupid, precisely because any rational person could have easily predicted the fallout, although you failed to predict it.
That guy was very foolish to give you a "civility warning", and you were 10 times more foolish to respond to him the way you did, by saying "fuck off troll".
Um, if you're referring to the incident earlier - my userpage was vandalized in an identical way. It's nothing personal, just some troll. Aiken♫00:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd said to you, "Are you drunk?", I'd be looking down the barrel of a block threat. You, on the other hand can be as abusive as you like, because you're wearing the administrator's cloak of invulnerability. Are you really the dishonest clown that you appear to be, or are you just an idiot? MalleusFatuorum05:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus and I made sweet, sweet normal heterosexual love that made birds sing and deer come into clearings dappled with sunlight. --Moni3 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand on the or something part; inquiring minds want to know how you and Malleus get it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Jesus, Sandy. You've got to help me out here. I've only read about this sort of thing in V. C. Andrews books passed around in middle school. --Moni3 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crap. I starting fooling around and got in over my head with this line of fantasy. Must...resist....visuals...--Moni3 (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've got loads of ideas, but it's probably best I keep them to myself. Did you ever see the TV series Men Behaving Badly in the US? MalleusFatuorum02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once I tried to gross out Mrs. Moni by acting like I was going to drink an entire pan of chicken grease. I ended up gagging. Epic fail. This is kind of like that. Not that Malleus is like chicken grease, but that I got a little too carried away with my evil plans and they backfired. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, FOR THE WIN! Never would I have thought such a dirty thing could have been put to me by the queen of medieval bishops, quarterhorses, and "what makes you think this is a good source?" You are filthy. Come sit by me and let's have a chat. --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you've obviously not been reading those articles.. nothing is more "earthy" than most medieval bishops (most were NOT saints..) nor horses (the discussions in most barns are very down to earth... we can discuss castration techniques without blinking an eye...) and come on.. I get along with Sandy and Malleus! Ealdgyth - Talk16:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moni, Moni, Moni, just what is dirty about a gag reflex? It must be time for a FAC women Wiki meetup. No cameras. No tape recorders!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may have a great gold star on my invisible lesbian chart, but the well-spent time I've shared with gay men over disco, floral arrangements, leather chaps, and righteous political indignation have lent me a wealth of knowledge about blowjobs that I can share with you fine folks. If I wouldn't feel as awkward as delivering the Best Cinematography Award at the next Oscars in a coconut bra and grass skirt with Enya, Julie Andrews, Kate Winslet, and all my exes sitting in the first row, I might be inclined to say I almost may be able to figure out how to give one. Thanks, gay community! And Sandy...you harlot. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Northwest" is probably preferred these days, although I think that "north-west" would be acceptable as well, as in "North-West Frontier Province". MalleusFatuorum12:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Astley is now a GA. Pyrotec reviewed it this evening. Will you please put it on the map for me? Oh and you put little stickers on the others too, I noticed, I thought it was a wikifairy(?) and then I saw it was you :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I didn't think you'd have much trouble with Astley. I've added it to the map. MalleusFatuorum
I will spare you the details of the grief it took to get that little green dot on GAs. Suffice it to say that the battle now having been won, I want to see more and more of them. MalleusFatuorum22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. With thanks particularly to User:Iridia, the article has changed a bit since last you passed by. Of course, one of the consequences of me being involved is that the prose will probably be complete crap again. So. Would you be prepared to take another pass at it? Should be every bit as rewarding as a pass at Moni3. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eating pussy
If you're still looking for some redlinks to expand so you can refuse autoreviewer once you reach the quota, might I recommend The Cat Eaters, which I came across whilst while researching Tarrare—there look to be a number of promising furrows just waiting to be ploughed. While I don't always consider FT reliable, in this case I think it is; Bondeson's a senior lecturer in medicine and consultant rheumatologist at Cardiff, not one of the fly-by-night cranks promoting their pet "insert name was actually a Templar!" theory who infest FT. – iridescent18:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure about Bondeson, he seems to get carried away by flights of fancy sometimes, as with his account of the Manchester Mummy, which seemed rather theatrical to me. But you're right, I must get back to turning a few red links blue, so that I can refuse autoreviewer. I've been wasting my time recently expanding this, but there's two years to go before that becomes topical. MalleusFatuorum18:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that autoreviewer was something you could request?! I recently ran my cursor over my username and it popped up that I had been granted ar - but I have no idea by whom or why. I honestly didn't think I'd created that many pages, unless they consider FAC/FAR/GAN review pages on the same level as mainspace articles? Dana boomer (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We-ell a second (or third/fourth opinion) - I have had this GA review open for nearly four months as I have tried to help and think it is a god one to try and make a encyclopedic as possible as realistically it might be aa good model for melding a passionate work into an encyclopedic article. Initially we had a lot of discussion about the scope of Illegal logging in Madagascar, as in whether it should be broader, but I eventually decided to take it at face value to try and review it. My question is, is there still too much detail/emphasis/repetition - the detail itself sending the article into soapbox teritory. I have trimmed it quite a bit -what do you reckon? Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
