:Good. Then we'll see whether anyone else agrees with you. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 12:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:Good. Then we'll see whether anyone else agrees with you. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 12:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
King of Micro Stubs eh? Better than being a D grade article reviewer who is more interested in boosting his number of GA reviews than actual quality.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#000">Dr. Blofeld</span>]] 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 14:36, 26 January 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.
If you have some time (which I see from the above you might not) would you be willing to cast a critical eye over Somerset Levels? It got to GA in 2007 and I've been meaning to bring it to FAC ever since! I've recently fixed all the broken & dab links etc & now put it up for peer review. I think the content, pics, references etc are all appropriate however you know what my prose is like and I wouldn't want it to fail because of my language skills.— Rodtalk19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I remember looking at that when it was at GAN? Anyway, if you're not in a rush I'll try and get to it towards the end of the week. MalleusFatuorum16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see you in the edit history, but I may have asked you then. No rush I've got plenty of other things I should be doing.— Rodtalk19:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for casting your eyes over it - I'm happy for any questions/discussion to be on the talk page where others may be able to chip in. BTW just got back from Jimmy Wales talk in Bristol:-)— Rodtalk15:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I and some other local editors got to meet him for a few mins before the public event, while he was doing press interviews etc - photo of when I shook hands with him about to go on my userpage. The public talk was excellent - his is a good public speaker to about 700 in the hall & 3,000+ on the web. Webcast by city council & Ushare. He talked about wikipedia's role in society (worldwide) & some directions for the future. I have loads of pics.— Rodtalk15:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its annoying, I think its great. I know my prose is poor & every change or comment you make improves the article. When we finally get there (& I'm still waiting for some tweaks to the map) would you like to co-nom as an appreciation of the time & work you are putting into an article "miles from home"?— Rodtalk10:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This question comes up from time to time. It's true that looking over an article like this one takes time and effort, but my general view as I've said before is that if all I've done is to move a few commas around, or point out to you where a few commas need to be moved around, then I haven't really contributed anything much to the article's content. So thanks for the generous offer but no thanks, I don't feel I'd deserve it. MalleusFatuorum10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work. I'm still waiting for map tweaks & one last page number (book coming from the library) & then I'll go for it.— Rodtalk19:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever one's views on Thatcher's legacy, it is a great pity that an article on such a significant UK politician is in such a poor state. The article has suffered from politicized editing, and would greatly benefit from contributions by editors whose priority is to make the article shine, rather than promote a rosy or damning view of her career. Anyone willing to help? Geometry guy21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shorter bargepoles are available! You did great work on NG, and MR isn't going to generate the same kind of "how dare you present this person in a neutral light" grief. When the flak comes from both sides it is easier to duck and let partisan editors thrash out their differences. Thanks to Malleus for making improvements already. Geometry guy22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I've never looked at that article before. As things stand I'm sure you're right, it will have to be delisted. It's a surprise to me that so little has been done to it since the GAR was posted, but I guess that's a symptom of the lack of activity over the last year or so to adequately address the pov tag. Apart from that, I don't think it's particularly well written and it's pretty unfocussed and rambling in places. This article is going to get a hammering when the Iron Lady decides to quit this mortal coil, so it would be nice if was at least up to GA standard. Hopefully we UK-based editors can pull together, but PoD makes a very good point. MalleusFatuorum23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you Malleus! The lack of interest in the GAR and the NPOV flag reflects a number of factors, including a desire to delist on NPOV grounds, and fatigue with NPOV criticism by at least one editor unwilling to make or suggest positive improvements. In my opinion, irrespective of the past history and GAR, the way forward is to concentrate on the poor sourcing, focus, and prose, with NPOV on the backburner.
As I said in article talk, well done for rising to this formidable challenge. I raised a minor MoS issue about whether degrees and subjects should be capitalized at MoS talk, and I'd be interested to see you contribute there too. As you know I'm a bit of a MoS-wonk and I'll be happy whichever way the MoS conversation goes, except that if it goes the wrong way it means I've been doing it wrong for five years. Oh well, won't be the first time I've been wrong about something. --John (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you as well John for getting involved with this article; it's really too big a challenge for any one editor to contemplate. As for "Chemistry" vs "chemistry", I didn't realise that I was reverting your change, I just thought it was something I'd missed in the lead. I'm happy to go with whatever the MoS gurus decide. MalleusFatuorum02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Happyme22's article originally, and he's semi-retired, just checks in every couple of months. While I am trying to hold the fort on his Nixon article, I really don't have the time or references to work on Thatcher.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking up the stupid error with the adverb and the hyphen. I left a longer reply at my talk to your earlier comment. --John (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We worked that one in beautifully; ultimately it was in my opinion perhaps the most damaging legacy of Thatcher's time, although I am a rail fan and perhaps biased. Interesting that in this capitalist paradise, the railroads are still nationalised. One takeaway for me from the process is that I have a lot to learn about citation formatting. Still want to go for FA? --John (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've still got a lot of tidying up to do, not least with the citations. I suggest that we plug away at that and anything else that looks a bit odd while we let the article lie fallow for a few weeks. I'm always telling people not to rush at FAC after GAN, it's a quantum jump. Also, Geometry guy might be able to offer some insight into the current version of the article, but he's currently hors de combat. So yes, but maybe not for 3 or four weeks. Thatcher's such a vast subject that I'm sure we're going to get at least a few "why haven't you mentioned this?" and "why haven't you mentioned that", so let's take the time to catch our breath and make sure that we're ready. MalleusFatuorum02:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been to FAC before John? It's a bit like RfA with rules, it can get a bit fraught, so we need to prepare the best dish that we can for the piranhas. :-) MalleusFatuorum03:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, nice comparison. I've worked on quite a few articles being prepared for FA but haven't taken a direct role before. Maybe seeing it closer up will give me more faith in the FA process; I haven't always been that impressed with the quality of writing in some FAs in the past. --John (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one will be different, but we need to make absolutely sure that we're ready. Right now Maggie wouldn't get through FAC, although I think she's getting close. MalleusFatuorum04:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily defer to your experience in this. Just give me a shout if and when you want more help on this. I will keep plugging away meantime. --John (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that we could be thinking seriously about FAC in 3 or so weeks time, but we need to get all of even the smallest details right; it doesn't take much to derail a review. The downside of course is that if it passes then it may appear on the mainpage, and TFA is just about the most stressful experience I've ever had on wikipedia. I even got blocked for 3RR twice in one day during one. MalleusFatuorum14:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that we definitely need to do is to check on the quality of the sources, particularly the online ones. I can't really see this (ref #32) getting past Ealdgyth for instance, and it's incomplete in any case. MalleusFatuorum16:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Begging
I know, I know. But I'm begging: [1]. I think it can be salvaged, it gets tons of daily hits, and the prose needs a look. You're the best man for the job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you're here, let me ask you a question about the opening sentence: "Schizophrenia (pronounced /ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness." Are we sure that "disintegration" is the right word here? I'd probably favour something like "disruption". MalleusFatuorum20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is tht it's disintegration because the deterioration continues over time ... still checking sources for you, though (I don't have all sources-- if I can't find the answer, need to ping Doc James or Cas Liber). Thank you, Malleus :) I haven't yet cleaned up the bottom of the article (beyond "History"), so you may find bigger issues there, not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll inevitably have more questions as I go through, I always do. Just ask Ealdgyth. Would you prefer me to put them on the article's talk page or on yours? MalleusFatuorum20:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think keep them here, because Cas has two huge articles at FAC and is swamped, and Doc James is doing all he can everywhere. I'll sort what I can with you here, and then ping one of them if I can't. Working on disruption/deterioration still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was to search our best sources to which uses what, but 1) I don't have most of the sources, and 2) I see I'm going to have to clean up the citations first (some of them include URLs that go to abstracts, not full text). Anyway, I'm not sure, but I think deterioration is better. Disruption signals more of a one-time issue-- with SZ, it's regression and deterioration that continue. Of course, I could be entirely wrong-- what do I know? We'll check this later with others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disintegration can be a one-off event as well, as can deterioration; neither implies an on-going process.
OK, here's another: "... the result of increased physical health problems and a higher suicide rate (about 5%)". I'm not quite sure what "increased health problems means" here; it could mean that pre-existing health problems got worse, or that the number of health problems increased. I guess it means the latter? MalleusFatuorum20:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that one earlier as well-- unintelligible. I'll work on finding a source to sort it. I don't know what the 5% is either-- suicide rate overall, or increased risk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"To minimize the developmental disruption associated with schizophrenia, much work has recently been done ...". "Recently" is obviously a word that will age.
I'm about to cook a curry (or maybe a sweet and sour, can't decide) and eat it while watching Match of the Day, so I'll be back later as well. MalleusFatuorum21:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Positive and negative symptoms
"People with negative symptoms tend to respond little to medication ...". It's surely not the people who respond to medication but the signs/symptoms?
People with prominent negative symptoms often have a history of poor adjustment before the onset of illness, and response to medication is often limited. <-- but have changed it thusly. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Causes
"People who have a family history of schizophrenia plus transient or self-limiting psychosis have a 20–40% chance of being diagnosed after one year." After one year of what?
after the transient or self-limiting psychosis. hence changed to "People with family history of schizophrenia who suffer a transient or self-limiting psychosis have a 20–40% chance of being diagnosed one year later." Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prevention
"While there is some evidence that early interventions in those with a psychotic episode may improve short term outcomes ...". This is ambiguous, as it's unclear whether "interventions" means many on one individual, one on each individual, or something in the middle.
"intervention" here is more of a group noun to cover the gamut of, erm, early interventions - hence "intervention" covers any/all of support, psychotherapy, medication etc. The word is generally used in this way (as a singular/group noun) by early intervention folksCasliber (talk·contribs) 02:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would clearly make more sense to say "While there is some evidence that early intervention in those with a psychotic episode may improve short term outcomes ...". MalleusFatuorum02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanisms
"... which attributes psychosis to the mind's faulty interpretation of the misfiring of dopaminergic neurons". I'm really unhappy about the word "mind" there.
"... which may be a result of increased rates of viral exposures in utero." Is it really the rate of exposure, as opposed to the amount of exposure? Rate implies a velocity.
Environment
"Parenting style seems to have no effect on the risk, although people with supportive parents do better than those with critical parents." This can't possibly be right; either parenting style has an effect or it doesn't. Or is this talking about the prognosis of those with supportive vs. critical parents?
... such sensitivity may cause vulnerability to symptoms". How can you be vulnerable to a symptom?
Medication
"The first-line psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia is antipsychotic medication. These can reduce the positive symptoms of psychosis, taking around 7–14 days to be fully effective." Pretty poorly written; for starters "medication" is singular, whereas "these" obviously refer to a plural subject. The "taking" is pretty awkward as well.
?? - I beg to differ on the use of medication as a singular/group noun here (though of Doc James etc. gang up on me I'll give over :). Agree there should be a more polished word than "taking" Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Medication is clearly a singular noun IMO, but the problem could be avoided by recasting the sentence along the lines of "The first-line psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia is antipsychotic medication. which can reduce the positive symptoms of psychosis in about 7–14 days". MalleusFatuorum02:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"An influential theory, known as the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia ...". A hypothesis is not a theory.
Subtypes
"Where thought disorder and flat affect are present together."; "Where positive symptoms are present at a low intensity only." These aren't proper sentences.
History
"In the early 1970s, the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia was the subject of a number of controversies ...". This reads strangely because "criteria" is obviously plural, whereas "was" clearly refers to a singular subject.
Malleus, I'll have internet access, but will resurface mid-next week; I'm going to ping Doc James to look at these, since he has all the sources. And Cas. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Book
Hi, looks like I've written a book. Compare [2] and [3]. I know what the wiki warning says but I guess I'll give up on anything original if somebody else can profit from it.Not very motivating is it?--J3Mrs (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh MF, don't you think I'm worth it? After all it's a High Class (Start Class) Wikipedia article ;-) What would it be worth finished? I might even find myself referencing myself if I'm not careful.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully some will realise that there's a little pdf creation tool on each article, and that they can have their own copy for nothing. Parrotof Doom00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30p seems somewhat expensive to me when it's here for free. I have some more to add from the Guardian link but I find myself somewhat reluctant to add it!--J3Mrs (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just forget about it. I've been watching a few TV reports about the death of wikipedia this evening, notably a Newsnight interview by Kirsty Wark. It's not at all obvious that wikipedia's model of unpaid and under-appreciated editors subjected to the harassment of an overly self-important admin cadre has any legs; for myself I contribute in the hope that something better will come along, and that our work will be ported over to it. I've given up any hope for this place. MalleusFatuorum00:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been struggling with my involvement here for some time now. I am heartily sick of the social engineering aspects embodied in the cloying civility policy amongst others, so I determined just to do whatever I want, wherever I want, and whenever I want. If that ends up being no engagement at all with the project then the loss will be wikipedia's, not mine. MalleusFatuorum16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you get fed up, it's very easy on here. Doing just whatever you want sounds good to me, and you've said it before!--J3Mrs (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you luck with it, but you've got two unaddressed requests for citation and the lead needs some work to properly summarise the article. Right now I don't think it would pass a GA review. MalleusFatuorum15:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By MOS, the phrase "vector space" must be hyphenated when it is preceded by a modifier, such as in "finite-dimensional vector-space" or "real vector-space" (unless the latter abbreviates "real-vector space" conceivably for "space of real vectors"). I'll check the article for consistency. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered whether saying I'm not scary is "a personal attack" or not, but in truth I have no idea how that stuff works here, so I didn't wonder for long. Has the review stalled? MalleusFatuorum19:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have my sympathies for your similar experiences, and my admiration for your editing with Geometry guy: This is why I tried to recruit you ....
David Eppstein has made a number of great edits, and I suppose that the GA-reviewer is just waiting a day or so for the dust to settle. (I left a notice in December that I would be unavailable for some weeks, and Jakob graciously extended the 7-day deadline.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has fewer hyphens, now, by consensus. At the article's talk page, David Eppstein argued that contemporary mathematical convention should trump the MOS (assuming my reading to be correct), and he directed me to an interesting discussion of hyphens, from which I excerpt this quote:
The author of the style-book of the Oxford University Press of New York (quoted in Perrin’s Writer’s Guide) [... wrote], “If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad”.
The GA review of the Shapley-Folkman lemma (improved the article and) did certify it with GA status. (Jakob also provided good suggestions for improvement.)
Do you think we've addressed the GA reviewer's points now? I didn't agree with a few of them, notably about adding the commas, but that's no big deal. MalleusFatuorum22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell, but I couldn't turn down the invitation to get involved. You were right to nominate it at GAR, probably nothing would have changed if you hadn't, but it's sometimes amazing what can be done in a fairly short period of time. There's still a lot of tidying up to be done before FAC though, so chip in. MalleusFatuorum02:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks to you for accepting the invitation, I just gave it the nudge that was being requested, I have my eye on it, right now, I don't think I could improve it, I will assist as I am able. Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At FAC even the smallest details matter, like inconsistent citations styles, or "p" instead of "pp". The Devil is in the detail with FAC, a fresh pair of eyes is always valuable. MalleusFatuorum02:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are the administrators slacking?
I haven't been blocked since the 15th of October last year,[4] which I think is outrageous given the number of admin wannabes who'd like to see my head on a plate. MalleusFatuorum03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I heard there is a ongoing admin assertion that, "a block is a last resort" Perhaps you are just being good and editing within guidelines.Off2riorob (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, its not really a minor offense, its using your tools against a clear consensus .. I supported the user at RFA, and I am also a bit disappointed in the users actions, and lack of ability to accept and revert to consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps when you get blocked for using a word like "sycophantic", or blocked "preventively" for 10 seconds then you might begin to feel my disdain for the fine but empty words of those like NYB. MalleusFatuorum03:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Malleus. If you have time, perhaps you can take a look at Sentence spacing and its talk page. There have been significant POV accusations in the past few months (much of this has been recently archived) and last night major changes to the article. Instead of reverting or modifying these changes, I thought that perhaps I should ask for some more outside input. As its primary writer, I have to allow that I may not be the best judge of what is NPOV for the article. Since you are a very experienced editor here, and you voted against the article in its first FA candidacy, I thought you would be in an excellent position to judge the POV claims for this article. Thanks for your time. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review my nomination of ZX81 as a featured article candidate. I have responded to the issues you raised in the FAC discussion - could you please review my replies and let me know if you're satisfied? Prioryman (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article could clearly benefit from some work, but that it may be self-written doesn't bother me at all. A few weeks ago I helped to save this new article, written by the artist's husband, after it had been deleted twice. MalleusFatuorum16:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that kind of "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" thing happens all too frequently. Anyway, I've posted a few replies and made a few changes. Just two questions for you:
Am I correct in thinking that the reason that the breed of Lightning Bar's dam isn't given is because it's unknown, or am I misremembering?
Is Louisiana still noted for the breeding of short-track racers?
Della P's a registered Quarter Horse ... I didn't mention it because I sillily (is that a word?) thought it was obvious. I have nothing to show that Louisiana is now noted for QH racing, so past tense is fine. It's folks like this that make TFA such a pain in the behind. Why do folks have to get all angry-nasty about things? Certainly helps a collaborative enviroment! And where are the civility police when you need them? Ealdgyth - Talk18:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've put Lightning Bar on my watchlist for tomorrow, so I'll try and keep an eye on it. I thought you were a photographer? What are you doing hacking out lines of code? I used to quite enjoy some aspects of coding, but definitely not the documentation side, although it did get a lot easier in later years with things like use cases and UML ... anyway, back to work! MalleusFatuorum18:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do contract work for an online game (not a big well known one, sorry) so I fiddle with their proprietary game engine and its code. So this is my "side job"... it's handy in the cold weather when it's hard to photograph. Ealdgyth - Talk18:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say that you've done a good job with that copy edit. Regardless of the merits of the complaint, your edits were certainly an improvement. Hopefully the maniacs with the open proxies (and all the other misguided edits the TFA attracts) won't do too much damage to it tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are some things I don't like, such as phrasing like "his dam, or mother, ...", but IIRC that pretty much had to go in at FAC as some felt that words like "dam" and "sire" were too specialised not to be explained on their first occurrence. I've really grown to hate the pointless and irritating trouble that TFA so often causes. MalleusFatuorum23:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any good sources on Commodore's early days? I feel like doing something completely different and working on Commodore PET. I have a few contemporary manuals and programmer's books, I may even be able to dig out a couple of old reviews (before my mum chucks the old magazines away). Parrotof Doom23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that working on the Pet is a good idea; it so often becomes a bit of nightmare working on articles here, and that one ought to be relatively quiet with any luck. I'm amazed that we got away unscathed with getting Maggie back to GA, touch wood. MalleusFatuorum00:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait for TFA day on that one, especially if it is run right after Maggie goes off to the House of the Afterlife Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The logic of not protecting TFAs passes me by, as all the present approach ensures is that readers are guaranteed to see a vandalised version of the article for a significant part of the day. It would be for others to decide, but I'd not want to see Maggie on the front page, although I suppose it's inevitable that she'll appear on ITN soon enough. MalleusFatuorum14:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, as I see more and more of my FAs take hits on TFA day, I'm starting to agree. Let me put it this way. I've never seen an article better at the end of the 24 hours than at its start.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a certain satisfaction if the article's subject is generally unknown, and if the article becomes popular, knowing that some people will have learnt something from it. Wife selling suffered a lot of vandalism until it was protected but you know a good lot of people read from it and learnt something about history. Parrotof Doom17:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone somewhere (Google it) was selling the entire back-archive of PCW on CD-ROM. If you can rustle that up from somewhere, that's probably your best bet. (If you do, look for the spoof advert for Wild Bill's Computer Rodeo in the April 1982 issue. It still makes me snigger.) – iridescent17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My dad had every copy of PCW between the late 70s and mid 80s. All in the bin, a long while back. They would have made an excellent source. I'll see if I can "find" the CDROM from "somewhere" ;) Parrotof Doom18:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really that sad...
...a character that you trawl through months of my contributions history to find some typos? If so, I can only sympathise. I have already made it clear, it is the promotion of articles in severe need of literary improvement to Main Page standard Featured Article status that I was critical of. If you are unwilling to read my comments, keep your opinions to yurself. Kevin McE (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was merely the work of a few seconds to look through the first few entries in this list. I thought I might learn something from your contributions, and I did. Can you guess what that was? MalleusFatuorum15:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough text edit
Thanks for another pass through, man. All good upgrades. On the mid hyphenation, we actually had a talk page section on it and I researched and linked to some style guidance (not at all meant as wanting it the other way, am totally fine with how we have it now, more as a "we were trying" and "if it intrigues you, it's in archives".
I was just laughing because it has changed so many times over the last few weeks. this is one I totally am willing to let whoever wants it have their way. Like all this crap, I researched it and wrote a little summary of the web guidance. Basically it seems the norm at traditional print sources to use U.S., but there's growing usage of US. I would never contest either.TCO (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wandering by and saw this. AP Stylebook (the book anyway) insists that it's "U.S.", and many newspaper and journal copy editors tell their writers that they have to follow AP whether it makes any sense to them or not. OTOH, most non-AmEng style guides, and also Chicago 16 and other AmEng style guides, now prefer "US". Which means we're guaranteed to see lots of both in modern sources. Not a lot we can do to make this go away. - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I see the ugly brute I'm reminded of reading a pre-war encyclopaedia. The use of US seems sensible just to show the world we are not stuck in the past . Regards, SunCreator(talk)05:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have teased, tormented, begged or cajoled you to do it. You'd be tromping out all crusty, salty FA veteran talking to the Oxbridge Wiki club or what have you. I feel very un-Wiki right now though...what a blast this site is to romp around in! TCO (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus just ask them how much they will pay you! You'll be providing instructions and monitoring for students so why can't they pay like the ones on-site? BTW, I'm a little bewildered why academic students need to have a hand holding. Don't students these days have the ability to work out how to edit Wikipedia? I'm not sure if that it is a bad sign of students or a bad sign that Wikipedia is to difficult to edit. ;-) Regards, SunCreator(talk)01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Waxing serious. It is a bad sign for Wiki that they need to do this. Or that it took them 10 years to get here. But that said, it is an EXCELLENT idea. I almost feel inclined to rock their world and just sign up a gazillion students to write turtle articles in an unauthorized program that "beats them". I'm just feeling very chesty. Like my secret plan to show Sandy canvassing like she had never seen before when I got Lovich and Ernst stomping into the FAC to give it supports. Lie the cavalry in Tie a Yellow Ribbon, TCO (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IOW, the students are fine. They are the same mix of guile and guileless and all that jazz that they ever have been and that they will be 100 years from now (damned kids). Wiki is the one who needs to think strategically. TCO (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus has made it clear in the past he does not wish to be paid. I alluded, as I recall to the possibility of getting grants for books and similar expenses and he was very much against it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstood, then. I'm not motivated enough to pull up the discussion, and I can't remember whether it was here, there, or anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it did. There was talk of grants, and I said something like it would be nice to get the costs of books reimbursed, and you were not in favour.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say that? If I did, what was the context? Regardless, it is not my view that editors must be unpaid; as I said, I have no difficulty with paid editing. MalleusFatuorum13:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I must say I really disagree with your promotion of this article to a GA. I don't mean to be a spoil sport but it really fails "broad in coverage" criteria for a good article. It is a far from being of an acceptable coverage in scope in my view. Its not even B class. Its a start class article at 7.5 KB.. I've opened a reassessment page on it.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld12:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
King of Micro Stubs eh? Better than being a D grade article reviewer who is more interested in boosting his number of GA reviews than actual quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
