::::These are difficult days; the days of men may be numbered. I have delisted a great many articles, although I don't recall the one you're referring to. Anyway, I'm certain I was right to delist it whatever it was. :-) To be serious though, in this case you ought to open a community GAR, not an individual one. The instructions are misleading and often misread. A community GAR is the way to go here unless you want another tongue lashing from the great unwashed. But who knows, perhaps you like being told what a twat you are by a bunch of teenagers, so take my advice with a large pinch of salt :lol: --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#top|talk]]) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::::These are difficult days; the days of men may be numbered. I have delisted a great many articles, although I don't recall the one you're referring to. Anyway, I'm certain I was right to delist it whatever it was. :-) To be serious though, in this case you ought to open a community GAR, not an individual one. The instructions are misleading and often misread. A community GAR is the way to go here unless you want another tongue lashing from the great unwashed. But who knows, perhaps you like being told what a twat you are by a bunch of teenagers, so take my advice with a large pinch of salt :lol: --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#top|talk]]) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::The editor in question says he has to work and will not be able to address my concerns until the weekend. Just to get a glimpse of the level of obsession this editor has over this article, look: [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Attachment+therapy&sinc] I don't care about the tongue lashing as I rather feel like alienating people at the present. I would be uncomfortable in Wiki Niceland at present. Would it be O.K. to list it at GAR so quickly after it's promotion? One of my reasons is, given the level of obsession of this editor over the article, I do not think he can do it alone. I think the problem has been that this is a sole effort, and the editor has lost perspective. The other is that it is listed as a GA with such garbled information. I think it would be a massive job for one person, with no perspective, to fix. I was posting my objections just as the article was passing and got an edit conflict. So by the time I posted, the article had just been passed. —[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 00:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
== [[Brenda Song]] GAR ==
== [[Brenda Song]] GAR ==
Revision as of 00:08, 23 October 2008
I no longer have either the time or the inclination to do more than to dip in to wikipedia from time to time. I will finish what I started, and then work on whatever interests me if and whenever I feel motivated to do so. The child administrators have won; my enthusiasm for the project has ebbed away. Just as I wish that they would.
Old Trafford, Murrays' Mills and 1990 Strangeways Prison riot all passed GAC last month! In previous newsletters, the issue of WP:GM's lack of GAs has been raised numerously, so a large 'well done' to all those who contributed, be it little or large!
Also, Milnrow and City of Salford have been nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to join in with their discussions here and here respectively. To 'obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs' is one of WP:GM's short-term aims, let's hope the City of Salford won't be the last borough with this status.
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on London! Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still flagging a little in GAs and falls behind London by 3. This is the closest we have ever got to taking the lead in local British GAs, if you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
And don't forget that the Manchester congestion charge article will need all input possible to keep it up to date with the government's new legislation (grumble grumble)...
Member News
There are 46 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Our newest member is:
Let's not forget that Jza84 became an administrator this month! Congratulations on your new role.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed..
Obtain GA status for one third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, except for City of Salford being nominated at WP:GAC. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Greater Manchester is, of course, our highest priority article. Mr Stephen posted some milestones to getting this article up to FA status a while back. Please check them out and see what you can do.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but we'll need more if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 12th April, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 151 of our 1551 article unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
It's been three months since the last newsletter, but there's been a lot going on...
Promoted articles:
Greater Manchester is one of our project's top priority articles, the Greater Manchester article comprehensively covers everything to do with the county, from culture and history, to transport and demography.
Manchester United F.C. records and statistics is about the records of one of Greater Manchester's best know clubs, which feats like "the club currently holds the record for the most FA Cup triumphs with 11".
City of Salford is about the local government area and Greater Manchester's second city. Getting Salford to GA is one our the aim's of our project, so hopefully this may help.
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is about the history and modern restoration of the disused canal running through the county. (It's now at FAC, so please improve the article if you can!)
Manchester Mummy is about Hannah Beswick, whose macabre fear of being buried alive lead to her demanding that her body was kept above ground and checked periodically for signs of life.
Milnrow is a small town in Rochdale with a long history. The wool trade was important to the town and was the basis of much of its industry. (It's also the first GA for Rochdale!)
Ordsall Hall is an important Tudor hall in Salford with a reputation for being haunted!
Bert Trautmann is the German goalkeeper who broke his neck playing for Manchester City... and carried on playing!
The Peterloo Massacre appeared on the front page on 16 August! Well done to everyone who contributed to the article about a key moment of Greater Manchester's history and managed to get it showcased.
A new portal has been set up! The Greater Manchester portal showcases some of the best articles to do with the county. Thanks to Polishname for single-handedly getting it up and running.
There is a proposal to move members who haven't edited for a while to an inactive members list, so if you've not been edited recently but still want to be a member let us know!
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 5 on Yorkshire and 11 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 5 more than London and 7 more than Yorkshire! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Although the project has had a lot of GAs and FAs recently, most of the articles covered by our short term aims haven't experienced much activity recently. Baby has undergone some change, but has a long way to go, and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester is very close to FL quality. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Articles such as List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Member News
There are 53 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Since 12 June, the project has gained 7 new members:
Welcome to everyone, and let's remember to make these new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 1st September, we have had 99.5% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 157 of our 1662 article unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
Usually this is where this month's promoted articles are listed, however there is something more important this month. In September, the project was notified which of its articles were selected for a DVD version of wikipedia. The 49 are listed here, although the quality ratings are a bit out of date. Twenty-two of the articles were GA-class or higher, and only five were below B-class. These are articles that have been selected by wikipedia, not simply as the best but the most important, so they require our attention, most importantly those that fall below GA standards. We still have until the 20th October to make changes to the articles, so please if you think you can improve any of them in any way please do so!
In other news, it's been a busy month with plenty going on...
Promoted articles:
The Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is a disused canal undergoing restoration. The canal, which travels between Bolton and Manchester with a branch heading north east to Bury, was abandoned in 1961.
Having previously been described as "bare, wet, and almost worthless", Ashton-under-Lyne rose to prominence in the Industrial Revolution as one of the most famous mill towns in the north west.
Henry Taylor is Oldham's forgotten Olympic hero. He won 3 swimming golds at the 1908 Olympics, a record for most golds in a single games by a Briton until Chris Hoy equalled it this year.
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on Yorkshire and 15 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 5 more than London and 7 more than Yorkshire! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
There wasn't space in the last newsletter, but as of 24 July 2008 the project has a list of articles that have tags on them. As of 14 July 2008, 351 (21.8%) of our articles need a clean-up, although this should have gone down as some have already received attention (the bot does not seem to update the listing often).
In other news, the Merseyside Wikiproject has been set up. If you have an interest in the area or want to help out in any way, head over to the project page and pitch in.
In the past month we've achieved two of our short-term aims! The List of railway stations in Greater Manchester was expertly guided through the featured list process with hardly a problem, and now that Tameside is a GA a third of the county's boroughs are GA status or better. There's still plenty to do, some our our top-priority articles need referencing or tidying up, so don't hesitate to dive in! If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! And please keep an eye on the 49 articles selected for the wikipedia DVD.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Member News
No new members joined the project in September and there are 49 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. A new list of inactive members has been started. Anyone who hasn't made an edit to wikipedia since 1 March 2008 automatically goes onto the list.
If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 4th October, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, 151 of our 1684 articles remain unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
Hi! I'm doing a GAR on Strawberry Panic! and all of the issues have been fixed by the primary editor except it really needs a copy edit. The phrasing seems very awkward and overly long to me and doesn't seem to flow well at all. Might you have time to give it a going over so I can finish up the GAR? -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 16:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I see what you mean. I've had a bit of a hack at that article now; hopefully I haven't changed the sense of what was being said. It still wouldn't pass muster at FAC, but I think it's good enough for GA now. Normally I'd avoid that kind of article, but once I got into it I started to quite enjoy it. Even learned something about fan service (which I'd never heard of before) from it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Malleus Fatuorum, For your support throughout our little piece of Wikipurgatory and for your excellence in copyediting to bring Samuel Johnson to featured status, I pass along to you this most deserved barnstar. It's my favorite: you did come through this trial by fire "still shining", like the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. There were a few times it was touch and go, particularly towards the end, but with your help, contributions and encouragement, wikipedia's two bad boys managed to stay (more or less) good boys. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO, speak for yourself. I remember almost being banned during the editing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have far behind you if you had been banned, believe me. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but notice that "bad boys" and "good boys" sound a whole lot different than "bad girls" and "good girls". I do hope there are lessons learned here; putting my name on a nom, combined with the previous attempts to get Ottava banned from FAC and my defense of him, put FAC in a bad spot. Who would want to be in Raul's shoes on that one? And Ottava, you know I only contributed to two or three paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, would you really have wanted to have my version of the Tourette sections, including rewrite, lead entry, and biographical points be the version in the article? And would you have wanted to see how I would have dealt with people's questioning of it? If you wouldn't have been there it would have been like giving a child access to a nuclear weapons stockpile and told him to "have fun". By the way, "bad boy" and "good boy" are two sound words that are compressed as one sound each, whereas "girl" is a three sound word that is hard to compress, hence the strange sound. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Bad boys" has a bit of a buccaneering sound to it, whereas "bad girls" does sound a bit sleazy, I agree. But to be serious for a moment, I think you're right. It's a sadness that it now seems to have become impossible for you to be involved in an FAC. You've given up a lot in your efforts to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, a shame that you had to give up so much. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is some fascinating literature to bring History of Tourette syndrome to featured status. Colin and I intended to do it a year ago; Eubulides and Tim Vickers could help, and considering some of the really interesting stuff in Kushner's book, it could be fun. But having my name on it would be fatal. And on a personal level, I was stunned at the ignorance that still exists about TS, and how much impact that had on the FAC. I told you all my buttons would be pushed if I had to deal with ignorance about TS: I didn't expect it on the level we encountered. On the plus side, there wasn't a single editor on Wiki who spoke TS when I first came to Wiki; at least know there are about half a dozen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think maybe the answer is to have more than one delegate authorised to close FACs? It's quite a responsibility for one person anyway. Then you could let your hair down from time to time, and rip into a few articles without worrying about who could close the nominations. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have more than one closer (and DrK's post to WT:FAC about Raul closing Parallel computing is incorrect); this FAC was just particularly troublesome for a variety reasons best left undiscussed. No, I have other ideas. All in due time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Congratulations! I was too late to join in the FAC, but it looks like an excellent article, and I think Sandy also deserves the trial-by-fire award for dedication beyond the call of duty to ensure the article is so beautifully referenced :-) Geometry guy 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bwaaaahaaahaaa :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I still hate them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I even noticed who closed the Parallel computing FAC, even though I didn't then and still don't believe that it ought to have been promoted – not saying that's my opinion of the article as it currently stands. Even though I know that I'm always right, I have come to a grudging acceptance that not everyone always agrees with me. To Geometry guy: SandyG most certainly does deserve to be given her own barnstar back again, not least for biting her tongue over the{{Harvnb}} template. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still hate Harvard. ;/ But yeah, Sandy is her own barnstar. I would have listed her on the health DYK and the rest if I wasn't so sure that she would feel the same way as an admin nom. I think her award should be us forcing her onto ArbCom. Mwah ha ha ha. I think I can get at least 200 people to vote for her. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ascertainment bias: clearly some of my fans need to be introduced to some of my enemies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of High Culture and Endurance.
For bringing Samuel Johnson to FA: a Huge Achievement Malleus, its articles like this that make me proud to be part of the project. Well done. Ceoilsláinte 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that Endurance, or just a shipwreck ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its indended as a little bit of both. Ceoilsláinte 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks vey much Ceoil, I never for one moment thought I'd be getting a culture-related barnstar, much less one for high culture. My mother would be proud. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
England would be proud too (screw what Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland thinks). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope Malleus' mother is wiser than you Rima, given the above post. Ceoilsláinte
I got into an argument with someone a few months ago over calling a historic figure "English" or "British", and I basically said "he would spit if someone dared call him British". :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever call me 'british' I'll do more than spit ;). Ceoilsláinte 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice
Hi there Eric Corbett!
Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!
Kind of you to invite me, and good luck, but it's not for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FACR
Malleus Fatuorum, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie(talk) 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland GAR
Today I saw your notification that the article had been demoted. It is rather surprising that no notification that this GAR was even taking place. I would have expected to see such a notification placed at one of these pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board or even at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment. Had such a notification been made, perhaps someone would have addressed the issues mentioned. You placed a GAR notice on the article talk page for 15 minutes which gives no one time to do anything significant to the article. That seem like a very short time to allow editors, who watch the page, to even question your possible reasoning for the GAR, much less discuss or make, any improvements. Surely a time of at least 7-days would be appropriate instead of 15 minutes. ww2censor (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The GAR notice was simply on the article temporarily to generate to review page; that it was there for 15 minutes is irrelevant. Some of the requests for citation had been there for six months. Why had they not been dealt with? I do not believe that the article meets the good article criteria and that the issues needing attention – as listed in the review – are substantial, particularly the lack of referencing. If you do not agree with my assessment then you are free to question my decision at WP:GAR. I would suggest the more productive approach though would be to address the issues raised and resubmit the article at WP:GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dilemma
I am having a real problem with a GAN, Ain't We Got Fun? and want to get some perspective before I take my stance. I am surprised by the bias of the article and the distortion of a commonly accepted reality about the song. You can tell me that I am seeing the article's defects all out of proportion! My main objections to accepting this article as a GA are as follows:
Article has too many quotations. All the real information is in quotes. The editors have put almost no information in their own words.
I know the sources, and the editors have taken every scrap of info on this song in books (which I have) and online. There is not a whole lot written about it as it really is not much of a song. The whole article is trying to make something over a song about which they have found not a whole lot to say. They could explain its context in vaudeville, the orchestration, information about its circulation and popularity, cover versions—information that articles about songs usually have. It seems like they had a bunch of online sources and one relatively recent book on music and politics.
From the lead: "and it appears in some of the major literature of the decade, including The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald and in Dorothy Parker's award-winning short story of 1929, "Big Blonde"." - The Great Gatsby is a far more important and enduring work than Dorothy Parker's award-winning short story of 1929, "Big Blonde". - this is an inaccurate and distorting emphasis on Parker for no reason, for anyone who is not aware of their relative stature in literature. Just an example of the distortions plaguing this article. Never mind the bad grammar.
Considering that almost nothing is written about the song, according to the content of their references, there an absurd number of reference citations. If you look at the online ones, the same paltry information (almost nothing) is repeated over and over in the various citations. For example, these three short sentences (containing two quotes) have a total of five references.
"Ain't We Got Fun" follows the structure of a foxtrot.[1] The melody uses mainly quarter notes, and has an unsyncopated refrain made up largely of variations on a repeated four-note phrase.[2][3][4] The Tin Pan Alley Song Encyclopedia describes it as a "Roaring Twenties favourite" and praises its vibrancy, "zesty music", and comic lyrics.[5]
The article takes quotes out of context.
Critical appraisals vary regarding what view of poverty the song's lyrics take. Nicholas E. Tawa summarizes the refrain Ain't we got fun as a satirical and jaunty rejoinder toward hard times.[2] Diane Holloway and Bob Cheney, authors of American History in Song: Lyrics from 1900 to 1945, concur, and describe the black humor in the couple's relief that their poverty shields them from worrying about damage to their nonexistent Pierce Arrow luxury automobile.[6]
The actual quote says "One chorus shows the tongue in cheek black humor with which many confronted hard times".
In spite of this, there are two relatively long quotes referring to George Orwell, rather an outlier when it comes to musical commentary. If you read the first quote, which is on line, it emphasizes his words out of proportion to his mention of the song, which he does not say carries the weight of his political beliefs.
Yet George Orwell highlights the lyrics of "Ain't We Got Fun" as an example of working class unrest:
All through the war and for a little time afterwards there had been high wages and abundant employment; things were now returning to something worse than normal, and naturally the working class resisted. The men who had fought had been lured into the army by gaudy promises, and they were coming home to a world where there were no jobs and not even any houses. Moreover, they had been at war and were coming home with a soldier's attitude to life, which is fundamentally, in spite of discipline, a lawless attitude. There was a turbulent feeling in the air.[7]
— George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
Then there is another relatively long, hypothetical statement about Orwell's beliefs about the song from a more recent book that seems to be pushing a particular political view, despite the fact that the quote is more about politics and not about music as music. And the reference to "endless cups of tea" sounds like it refers more to Tea For Two.
After quoting a few of the song's lines Orwell refers to the era as a time when people had not yet settled down to a lifetime of unemployment mitigated by endless cups of tea, a turn of phrase which the later writer Larry Portis contests.[7][8]
He [Orwell] could just as easily have concluded that the song revealed a certain fatalism, a resignation and even capitulation to forces beyond the control of working people. Indeed, it might be only a small step from saying, "Ain't we got fun" in the midst of hardship to the idea that the poor are happier than the rich--because, as the Beatles intoned, "Money can't buy me love." It is possible that "Aint We Got Fun", a product of the music industry (as opposed to 'working-class culture') was part of a complex resolution of crisis in capitalist society. Far from revealing the indomitable spirit of working people, it figured into the means with which they were controlled. It is a problem of interpretation laying at the heart of popular music, one which emerged with particular clarity at the time of the English Industrial Revolution.
[8]
— Larry Portis, Soul Trains
The English Industrial Revolution!! (I was under the impression that occurred well before the 1920s.) Of course, without the quotes of and by Orwell, the article would be half its size. What surprises me is that this article is by two well known editors who regularly present articles for GA review. You can tell me to go jump in the lake. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I just saw your edit on the talk page of the editor who nominated Netley Abbey at FAC. You are such a helpful person on Wikipedia, you have all the qualifications for being a decent admin. I know that you are not into that idea after reading your user page but frankly, you are what Wikipedia needs more of. If you ever reconsider adminship, I would like to either nominate you or at least have the chance to vote - I didn't know you were up for consideration before or else I would have filled the page with glowing compliments of your worthiness. I hope I will be given that chance in the future. NancyHeisetalk 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you very much Nancy. I believe I'd have made a good administrator, but I also believe that it's vanishingly unlikely that I'd ever pass an RfA, at least in its present format. I'm certain that one editor in particular has WP:Requests_for_adminship/Malleus_Fatuarum_3 watchlisted, just waiting for the opportunity to sink it. Probably more than one in fact, as I'm not particular about who I upset, and people on here do tend to bear grudges. :-) I didn't especially want to be an administrator and want to be one even less now; I was just offering my help and my offer was turned down. I didn't enjoy the way it was turned down, nor did I agree with the reasoning, but it's water under the bridge now.
Your offer of support should I ever choose to stand again has quite touched me, but I really am serious about never walking over the hot coals of an RfA again. It's one of those experiences that if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger. But it's quite possible to act like an administrator without being an administrator. Had my RfA passed, for instance, I'd probably have been the most reluctant user of the block button in the history of wikipedia, except in the most egregious cases. Much of wikipedia can feel confrontational and adversarial, FAC being no exception, so where I can I like to offer practical help and support, so editors don't feel like they're battling alone. Sometimes the help isn't welcome, but most times it is, and it makes me feel better for offering it anyway. Wikipedia needs to be a personally satisfying venture in which we get pleasure from collaborating, not frustration and disappointment from having to battle with each other, as is too often the case.
Good luck with your own FAC btw. I've got everything crossed that you manage to get it over the line this time. What an achievement that would be! I felt very frustrated during Samuel Johnson's recent FAC, so I think I have a glimmer of what this marathon must have been like for you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire of the above is exactly why that redlink should turn blue, and far more relevantly why you both need and should be given the tools. But there we go. Pedro : Chat 11:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that redlink ever turns blue, you have my permission to shoot me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should salt it for you to prevent any accidental gun related accidents! Pedro : Chat 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have to tell you that some of the most helpful people I have found on Wikipedia were not admins (although some are). The person who got me started here is Ariel♥Gold. This lady was so patient with me when I first began editing, she walked me through everything and watched over my efforts until she felt I had the hang of it all. I would never have been on Wikipedia if it weren't for her initial important help and kindness. Wikipedia would be helped if they granted obviously helpful people like her honorary adminship to encourage and help spread all that good help around. NancyHeisetalk 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know ArielGold, but I do know of quite a few other helpful and trustworthy editors who do a great job and would likely make excellent administrators, but wouldn't get through an RfA. Luckily most of them have had the good sense to stay away from it. It's instructive to look back at some of the early RfAs, when it really was just asking your mates to make you an administrator, instead of the thinly disguised arena for character assassination that it's become. Take a look here, for instance. You may recognise a name or two. Less than 1,000 edits, no experience in admin areas and only two or three supporting votes was once enough to give some currently high-profile administrators what's laughably called community consensus. Still, nothing will change. Too many have subsequently had to go through the hazing, and most of them don't see why everyone else shouldn't have to go through it too. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh where did you ever find that? I think that maybe back in 2003, there weren't as many people on Wikipedia as there are now which might be a reason for differences in the level of scrutiny - possibly? NancyHeisetalk 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that! It certainly puts a perspective on current events. (I keep learning new and astounding information from people around here who are not wearing blinders and still retain their sanity.) Personally, I don't think becoming part of the bureaucracy and hierarchy would feel particularly good. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was too optimistic. After reading the article I think it clearly fails several GA criteria and especially 1(a). Fixing all problems will require a lot of efforts and seems unlikely to happen any time soon. Ruslik (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree; it needs work that doesn't look like it's going to be forthcoming. I would have delisted it myself, but following Lenticel's outburst I thought it better to ask someone else to take an unbiased look, so thanks again for giving your opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think it would've helped a lot of you added in your reassessment message in the article's talk page that you fixed as many problems as you can instead of just listing the problems that you weren't able to fix. It would've clearly shown that you are not simply doing it out of whim. User:Lenticel is quite active in various XfD discussions and I think the behavior there of some people has made him too sensitive to whimsical nominations for deletions. I know you are not obliged to do what I said, but it's all a part of demonstrating good faith, which is part of assuming good faith. --seav (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you're saying that Malleus should have explicitly stated that he fixed a bunch? (I THINK you meant to say "..it would've helped a lot IF you added...") Personally, I would have assumed that the pile of edits showing up on a watchlisted page would have shown that, and I'm pretty sure that's what Malleus assumed also. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out to Lenticel when he first made his charge of harassment that I had made so many changes to the article before I posted the review that I had become the second highest contributor to it. He chose to ignore that, and moved on to charging me with laziness for not spending another hour to fix those things I was unable to fix (and which he himself has not yet fixed), and then most recently today accusing me of goading him. Whatever his problems are I want no further part of them, or of him. I find his behaviour disgraceful for an administrator, but sadly not surprising. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Your suggestion may have had merit if my review had complained about punctuation in image captions, use of dashes, minor spelling or grammar mistakes and so on, things that can easily be changed. It did not, however, instead focusing on incomprehensible text, image layout and missing citations. In other words things not easily fixed by someone unfamiliar with the article's subject or development, but which will result in its GA status being removed if they are not fixed. To equate a GA delisting with an XfD discussion is disingenuous. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Malleus. Pleae re-check for linkrot on Itanium. I tried to fix them all, but I amy have missed one or two. Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, linkrot fixed. Thanks very much for dealing with that so quickly. I'll close the review now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good wishes
Malleus, I was sorry to see the recent changes to your user page. You're immensely valuable to this project, as I hope you realize; the irritations of the occasional bad interaction can certainly get frustrating, but I hope that after some time you'll be able to return to enjoying volunteering here. In any event, best wishes. Mike Christie(talk) 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the Lenticel incident was the last straw in terms of my volunteering for anything beyond what I actually want to do myself. Whether I'll come to feel differently in the future about the negative impact caused by the large numbers of abusive child administrators who are allowed to run amok on this site remains an open question for now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck
I wish you the best of luck in whatever you do, and hope that you ocassionally visit WP:GM. I respect you too much to believe you'll be swayed by my words alone, but had you given any other reason other than real life commitments, I would have tried to convince you to stay. I rate your opinions above those of anyone else around here. I've relished the times we've worked together and think that you are one of the premier contributors to this project. I hope that time allows you to return and that when you do, you will drop by WP:GM. We'll keep a seat open for you ;-) Bon chance Nev1 (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Nev1 (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not disappearing completely, just scaling back and refocusing. I'll still be popping in and out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My enthusiasm has ebbed away in the face of one too many abusive administrators. Just a straw really. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now; Mike Christie gave me some links. I wish I had some encouraging words for you, but I have the same concerns. I don't like to implore people to come back when doing so invalidates real and rational concerns. But I do hope you'll find a way back. Sometimes just walking away for a week or two will do it; knowing that there are good editors doing good work has brought me back several times. You will come back if the joy returns, I hope. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right, hopefully you are, but in the short term at least disengaging, as Pedro quite nicely puts it, seems the sensible option. Until the joy returns. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Snuggles* <-- From an abusive admin!? :p But ya, uhm... :( You're supposed to come to my talk page and talk smack... wtf?! لennavecia 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I insist on my right to be a more abusive admin than others! Seriously, no suprise, sadly. I'm glad to see you're not throwing you hand in totally, and one hopes that your "dipping in" will be at least moderately regular. Wikipedia is the poorer for your disengagement. Pedro : Chat 20:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be chased away; when I leave it will be on my own terms and in my own way, as Keeper76 quite presciently said on his own recent indefinite retirement. For the moment though wikipedia's too often poisonous atmosphere has become unacceptably offensive. I was rather shocked as well at Ceoil's recent block and its repercussions. I know exactly what it feels like to have some daft administrator blot your copybook with a daft block. Ceoil is a massive loss to the project. But the administrators who precipitate these events go Scott free, stripping the project of its ablest editors. Perhaps one day administrators will actually begin to accept that they are janitors, not an armed security force, and will begin to behave with appropriate decorum. Otherwise one day there will be no more editors for them to police. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil's situation was utterly appalling (and that's why I missed your news, by the way, I was busy with that), but the loss of Yannismarou (talk·contribs) for similar reasons is as bad. This is three significant content contributors affected in one week. Are there no adults in the house? Oh, some of the people who caused the ANI feeding frenzy are adults, so we really can't blame this only on the kiddie admin phenom. At this rate, the janitors are going to be left cleaning up crappy articles after vandals, as the FA writers will all be chased out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know! Holy cow, that admin blocked him for three minutes before apologizing profusely. I mean, the other guy (JayHenry) even stated multiple times that it was truly a situation that could be easily misinterpreted, but jeez, what a dipshit admin, right? I mean, that guy must go around looking to stir up trouble and run good editors off wiki by making honest mistakes. I think we should desysop him immediately. Should you start the RfC, or should I? Tan | 39 22:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. You do understand now that you shouldn't have put "prick" in his block log, I hope. End of story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Ya know, the best thing about being an admin isn't the "power" (ha, power) or even the use of the tools. It's not being some part of higher tier - that's a fallacy for sure. It's not having to act like a goddamn fairy anymore ;-) Tan | 39 22:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)"[1] What clearer evidence could there be for the corruption that RfA has become? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yannismarou as well as Ceoil? That's little short of tragic. I didn't see the Yannismarou thing unfold, but Tan39's comment above I think reflects a worrying disjunction between the world of the career administrator and content contributors. Ceoil was quite rightly concerned about the effect of the block on his reputation. The fact that the blocking administrator was not sensitive to that speaks volumes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we be real? Tan appears to have been joking in his comment, and Ceoil does not appear to be worried about his sterling reputation considering the way he often talks to others, myself included. I couldn't give two shits if he's calling his buddy a prick or a twat or telling him to fuck off, but don't claim a tarnished rep from a block over it. Particularly one that was speedily overturned. Be real. The problem is the inability to easily remove bad blocks from a log. That's something the devs need to be pestered about, but again, an overturned block does not a tarnished rep make. لennavecia 12:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will never fail to be amazed at how understanding administrators are of each other's behaviour while at the same time being so quick to condemn the behaviour of mere mortals. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying Tan didn't eff up, I'm just saying that the whole "I'm retiring because my rep is tarnished" is overused and ridiculous. Particularly when the one claiming the sterling rep has a tendency to give the impression he's not worried about it with the way he communicates with others. I'm not a defender of the admin corps. Most of them piss me off, I'm just saying... retiring in protest is worn out. And claiming your rep is damaged over something like this is ridiculous. Retiring in protest does more to tarnish one's rep than having a bad block on your log. لennavecia 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't only Tan that effed up.[2] Too many administrators seem too ready to shoot first, ask questions later, and then walk away Scott free leaving tarnished block logs behind them. Still, that's just the way it is around here, no point in complaining. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(<--) You're right, Mal. And I agree with you. But the logs could be improved if Devs would give us the ability to delete our own entries on someone's block log. And of course, we need a way to bring admins down from their pedestal, but that still doesn't negate the fact that it's a silly reason to retire. I mean, we all contribute here knowing we're surrounded by nut jobs, dumbasses and children. You can't be surprised when stupid shit happens to you, and if you edit thinking "It'll never be me," you deserve to be the next. Taking a break is, of course, totally understandable. I'm just saying, retiring in protest over the dilution of some imaginary newly-tarnished reputation from a bad block is ridiculous. لennavecia 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching the NPOV issue and the "was was" thing that I missed. Wronkiew (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MoS UK
A recent post to the United Kingdom talk page implied that the access date style for references/citations has changed from this. If the preferred style has changed, would you mind providing a link to the suggested style change please? All the reference access dates on the pages I've created are in year-month-day format and I'd rather not amend them all if there's no real need. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of ISO 8601 dates is discouraged, except in special cases. Here's the relevant guideline.[3] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "the originator". Please do not put words in my mouth. I do find it difficult to deal with idiots, so it would probably be best if you avoided my talk page in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I was mistaken, or if I offended you somehow, but was there really any need for that? I found its vindictiveness to be quite shocking. Daicaregos (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bit testy, I'm sorry for that. Just for the sake of clarity though, any changes in date formatting in citations or anywhere else are absolutely nothing to do with me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, my mistake. All forgotten & no harm done. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bridgwater and Taunton Canal
Having read your note at the top & some of the discussions above I'm loath to ask (again) but I value your copy edit skills highly & had just popped in to ask you if you had a minute to look at Bridgwater and Taunton Canal unless you were going to be the GA reviewer (as its getting near to nomination) - but having seen your comments its probably too much to ask?— Rodtalk 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly won't be the GA reviewer, for obvious reasons, but if the GA review stalls for lack of a copyedit let me know and I'll see what I can do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chester Cathedral plan
I hadn't checked your talk talk page, and so hadn't received your message in response to mine with regards to the plan of Chester Cathedral. I see considerable advantage is bringing the numbering into line with the usual standard.
With all due respect, the image is there for you or anyone else to do with it as they will. Nothing to do with me. Not interested. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a very large image. I thought you might have one of higher resolution. You offered to send it on. Amandajm (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check my original and let you know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GA Review
I'm sorry please explain the message on my talk page. Million_Moments (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly fix the damage on the talk page. If I interact with either Million or Peanut right now, there is a fair chance a few people will get blocked. You could, for instance, set up a GAR. Gimmetrow 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be misunderstanding. I have no opinion on the review, or any interest in a GAR. I am simply of the view that you do not have the right to revise history to suit yourself, no matter how upset you may feel right now. You may be interested in this.[4] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell. Please start a GAR and remove that nonsense. Gimmetrow 21:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to be thinking rationally. I said just above this that I have no interest in a GAR. If you or anyone else wants to start a GAR, then feel free to do so. My concern is simply with your attempts to rewrite the article's history. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester Liners Ltd
Thank you for your (very quick!) help with format, dates, etc. Your contributions to Wikipedia are always helpful and constructive. I will be adding further material to the 'ML' article over the next few days. RuthAS (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The Manchester Liners story is one that really deserves to be told. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind invitation to join the Greater Manchester Wikiproject team. Before I take the plunge, can I explain 'where I come from' and my (numerous) limitations! My main interest is in the 'History of Transport' and the impact of Transport on people's lives and the economy. My contributions outside that field would be limited, as I believe in keeping to subjects where I have some knowledge. As a 'latecomer' to the web and Wikipedia, and of 'senior' age status, I have only limited skills in the finer points of Wiki layout etc - as you will have noted! My strength, if any, is in being able to gather material from reference books etc and turn it into non-technical Wikipedia narrative aimed at 'Mr & Mrs Interested-Person-in-the-Street'. If, having read this posting, you still think I could add some thing to the GM Wikipedia project, perhaps you would let me know. Will resume on Manchester Liners shortly - but one has other things to attend to in life as well ...! RuthAS (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your specialised interest in and knowledge of the history of transport would be invaluable. There are so many transport related GM articles crying out for attention, even some of the high profile ones like Manchester Ship Canal, and Port of Manchester, as you already know. One of the GM project's strengths is in the helpful friendliness of its members, so you'd find no shortage of assistance with the finer points of wikilayout, which you'll soon pick up anyway. Every one of us just wants to see the GM articles improved, and you can obviously help with that, as you've already demonstrated. Besides, if you don't write that Manchester Liners article then I'll have to do it myself, so don't be selfish, come and join us. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, Malleus, I'll join and see how things go - dont expect too much from me - but I'll try from time to time! RuthAS (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Malleus! I've tried to add my details to the list of participants, but although appearing in the 'history', they dont turn up in the table of members. Cant cope with pasting or boxes! Can you help, please? RuthAS (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. they're tricky chaps those wikitables. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Malleus! RuthAS (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was just promoted to GA minutes ago. The article has serious content problems. The subject is pseudoscientific in nature. However, the editor has interwoven into the article legitimate medical diagnoses and evidence with this pseudoscientific, discredited therapy that borders on a cult. I have posted to the editor who just passed the article as I was posting my objections in the GA review and I got an edit conflict. So I posted my objections on the talk page as well. (This article has been in GA review since the being of September.) And he has agreed to discuss my objections with the editor. However, if the article does not sufficient disentangle the legitimate from the pseudocience in the article, I am wondering if I could post it to GAR? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not satisfied as a result of your discussions with the reviewer and/or the editor then you should certainly take it to GAR. I've had a look through the article, and to me it fails 3b of the GA criteria in that it doesn't stay focused on this specific therapy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2008
(UTC)
Thanks, once again! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the directions for a GAR, it looks like I should initiate and individual assessment first. Only then, it appears to say, should a community GAR be initiated. Is this what I should do? You delisted a GA article I passed a day or two after I passed it. Can I do the same? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are difficult days; the days of men may be numbered. I have delisted a great many articles, although I don't recall the one you're referring to. Anyway, I'm certain I was right to delist it whatever it was. :-) To be serious though, in this case you ought to open a community GAR, not an individual one. The instructions are misleading and often misread. A community GAR is the way to go here unless you want another tongue lashing from the great unwashed. But who knows, perhaps you like being told what a twat you are by a bunch of teenagers, so take my advice with a large pinch of salt :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question says he has to work and will not be able to address my concerns until the weekend. Just to get a glimpse of the level of obsession this editor has over this article, look: [5] I don't care about the tongue lashing as I rather feel like alienating people at the present. I would be uncomfortable in Wiki Niceland at present. Would it be O.K. to list it at GAR so quickly after it's promotion? One of my reasons is, given the level of obsession of this editor over the article, I do not think he can do it alone. I think the problem has been that this is a sole effort, and the editor has lost perspective. The other is that it is listed as a GA with such garbled information. I think it would be a massive job for one person, with no perspective, to fix. I was posting my objections just as the article was passing and got an edit conflict. So by the time I posted, the article had just been passed. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a note to say that I have set up a GAR for Brenda Songhere. This would seem the right way to air any differences that there may be concerning that article's recent GA review. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the right thing to do. I don't have any opinion on the GA review though. My only concern was the repeated deletion of the article's history, which thankfully now seems to have stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
