::::::Frankly, I hope that you ''do'' decide to care; if you persist, you'll be risking a block for incivility. Is it really worth it? --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Frankly, I hope that you ''do'' decide to care; if you persist, you'll be risking a block for incivility. Is it really worth it? --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Have I persisted? Have you nothing better to do than to hound me because one of your idiot friends is upset at hearing the truth for once? --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#top|talk]]) 10:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
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.
No, I'm not fed up at all. Some random lass writes to you out of the blue about an obscure article and you fix the layout problems and give a huge amount of good advice, plus doing some of the work yourself - you've been great and you've helped me so much. Would you be willing to look over and help me get Netley Abbey to GA standard?Soph (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always happy to help where I can, especially to get an article through GA. Let me know when you think you're done with your current changes and I'll go through the article again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done pretty much everything I can do to it for the moment aside from spotting typos etc so I'm going to leave it alone now until you and Peter I Vardy (who I believe you know from your Cheshire work) have had a look at it. Thanks once again for all your help Soph (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I made another suggestion about the Bibliography on the article's talk page, and I'll take another look through the whole thing tomorrow. I do know Peter from the Cheshire project, yes, and I'd take very seriously any suggestions he has to make; he's an exemplary editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the extra review on Netley Abbey. I've made a detailed response on the article's talk page, but they are all excellent points and I've done the suggested changes, the only thing left now is the two cites missing page numbers. I've contacted the editor (Herthurs) who provided them in the hope that he can help. If he can't I'll delete the references and submit it for GA review in mid August. I agree about Dr Vardy, he's a great editor and I'm taking his comments and changes very seriously. Best wishes, Soph (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
Some topics generate more heat than light, and this seems to be one of them. I'm not really sure what I think about the issue, and I'm going to have to go do some work shortly anyway. I'll take a closer look and probably chip in later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and I share your sentiments. I agree that this is an un-necessary discussion really, and would rather be spending time elsewhere, but owing to persistence, I've found that I'm fighting from the commonsense corner again! I'm trying to close it asap but this is a bit of a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just a comment would suffice here IMO. Hope all is well, --Jza84 | Talk 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well this professional wrestling article is written completely out of universe for all readers to comprehend, but if you can't I understand. Thanks anyways.--SRX17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I tried to make the improvements proposed by you and other FA reviewers, can you reply on the Peer Review page? Thanks. :)--SRX17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again for your help. Part of my motivation was to set a standard for articles in what might be considered to be a tricky area. There is now a witchcraft FA, something that other editors thinking about writing similar articles can now refer to. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I was in the slough of despond a few times during the nomination, but I'd also be the first to admit that the article was significantly improved as a result of comments made by the reviewers. As I've said many times elsewhere, FAC is a tough gig, and so it should be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. If you carry on writing articles on that subject matter, you may get to be known as "The Wicker Man" (I'll get my coat.) DDStretch (talk)
A notice
Hi, due to your casual remarks on my talkpage recently, u have been maliciously accused to be involved in a collaborative 'witch-hunt' on another editor. Out of fairness, I'm informing u on this case, as I find it was an irresponsible & 'ungentlemanly' act (esp to an English) to accuse someone without notifying him of such act, or given a right to comment. See the full details here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre. I think that must be the first time I've been accused of "detailed collusionary and planned conspiratorial defamtory tactics". What a dickhead. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{Putting on a deerstalker cap, smoking a calabash pipe, and speaking with an English accent} "Elementary, my dear Malleus. Could it be your strong obsession with the 'Pendle witch trials' that led to this aforementioned accusation?" 8-P
Perhaps I should put up another warning notice on my talkpage: "Any passing casual remarks posted here is highly hazardous to your reputation & sanity!"
Looking on the positive side, maybe this incident could serve as an inspiration in your next writeup entry for your highly respected Wiki guide (with registered hits in Google!) - Malleus' WikiSpeak next! ;-0
After being posted with a 10-page long warnings (in print preview mode!), he's currently lying low for the moment, but I would advise u to be on the lookout for him in future, lest u may received another 'stab in the back' again, that may affect your high-profile standing in the GA/FA/RfA circles, or your attempt on another 'stab' (pun not intended) for RfA in future. Remember your cuppa mate! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no more RfAs on the horizon, I've had quite enough of that revenge-fest. On a brighter note, I was pleasantly surprised to see 1,860 Google hits for WikiSpeak, with the first one being to here. Fame (of a sort at least) at last. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to it. I (perhaps naively) believe that our history of Empire hasn't been an altogether bad thing, as it has forged links around the entire globe. Singapore is still a member of the Commonwealth, for instance; we share some of the same history and all of the same democratic ideals. Which, to return to theme, is partly why I found Starstylers comments to be offensive. We should all be proud of what we are, but we also need to be respectful that others are rightly proud of what they are too. I've never backed away from a good old ding-dong, but I never have, and I never would, stoop to the kind of nationalistic abuse I saw from Starstylers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest holding back until SummerSlam (2003)'s review is done. SRX seems to be trying to make these wrestling articles more accessible to a general readership, and if he's successful in that goal, then that would be the template to follow. I still think there's a way to go yet though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me?
I hereby formally request you cease and desist any comment, opinion or action regarding an issue which is none of you business and does not concern you. Calling me a "dickhead"- such jealousy is a curse and a sin, Mr Hammer.
Some British may smugly look down their nose at we former 'savage' colonials- but do so in the manner of willfully ignorant, delusionary smugness of the moral onanist petty bourgeoisie.
They conveniently forget the blood upon their hands, the fact we had to violently evict colonial parasites and collaborators from our nation who enslaved, stole and exploit what they had no right nor claim to. Furthermore, the British and the Dutch both actively attempted to destroy our traditional societies by confiscating nobles' wealth, power and lands and handing them over to a pliant, submissive, non-assimilating and exploitative alien: the Hokkien Chinese (who incidentally grew approx one third of opium for their elites to flog to the Chinese mainland for tea). This is not racism- this is historical fact. Penang-Singapore-Medan is their triangular territory of sins.
Furthermore, Britain and the US has a long and documented history of illegal self-serving interference in the politics of my nation. British should collectively shoulder the responsibility of 300,000+ murdered by installation of CIA/Mi6Foreign Office/BBC/preferred puppet Suharto- and the various covert and intel actions launched from your puppet sheriff outpost of Singapore (Raf Tengah, RAF Butterworth, a detachment of Gurkhas, etc- Singapore currently offering the US a nuclear sub base). Nigeria is not the only land were Royal Dutch Shell and BP keenly used violence for their oil.
Indonesians such as myself, from a history of glorious nationalist struggle against our numerous oppressors have no shame in nationalism- it is beyond an ideology- it is our hereditary duty to forever be vigilant against the foes of the indigenous Indonesian people. Our 'hatred' is jusitified as is our perpetual outrage.
I sincerely offer you to be my guest in my wondrous Indonesia. What you will see, will most surely open your eyes to incriminating truths those, some ethnics attempt to hide and censor.
Doesn't look like it. Still, it'll be handy having that "puppet sheriff outpost" in Singapore if I should ever decide to send my fleet of gunboats to Indonesia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That was the funniest quip I've ever heard from u to date! Save the hassle of sending your gunboats or even the upcoming QE-class HMS Prince of Wales (CVF) to this former Crown Colony for historic or nostalgic reasons mate. Fyi, there are already numerous well-documented cases of individuals or groups - 'activists', bloggers, writers, foreign media, suspects etc, who were detained while on visit or while on transit via S'pore, and some even got extradited to S'pore under the mutual co-operation & security agreements with Interpol, ASEAN or UN, to face charges of criminal acts, defamation (The SG govt has filed numerous libel suits & have yet to lose a case locally or abroad so far), or under the fearsome Sedition Act or Internal Security Act, for fanning racial or religious sentiments, promoting ultra-nationalism, communism, terrorism etc previously. Despite their respective government intervention pleading for leniency & public vigils, most were later sentenced to spend time at our (in)famous holiday chalet at Changi afterwards, with some receiving lasting painful reminders too, and the worst of all nightmares - death penalty - courtesy of our British-inherited laws & security apparatus that are heavily enforced 'in spirit and to the letter', even in cyberspace today. For some fortunate souls, they were denied entry & was issued a stern warning before being repatriated back immediately, but no doubt will shudder in cold sweat when recalling the 'welcoming reception' they got & regreting their foolish ways years later. Lastly, have u notice that no one has yet to leave any provocative or even bona fide academic comments, even anonymously on this talkpage to date? Still clueless? Read an example here which is self explanatory. Sadhu! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I'm the lead reviewer on the article. I've gotten a bit of push back from the nominator about me being overly critical (it wouldn't be the first time, ha!), but reading through the article it just doesn't seem to have that GA quality. If you wouldn't mind providing a GA review, it would certainly be helpful. Best, epicAdam (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, I thought materiel was a misspelling but you wikilinked it further down so I stand corrected. If you want to put it back in and link it I promise not to change it again - honest! (damned Frenchies!)Richerman (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just spotted your note about being tired and fed up of Wikipedia... Please, don't let the buggers grind you down. There are some complete idiots on Wikipedia, and some nice people too. You have done such great work at GA, FAC etc with projects of your own - as well as helping dozens of other people (me included). I've felt the same way several times here...and eventually it passes. I really hope you feel a bit better soon.-- Seahamlass13:26, 04 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your words of encouragement. I'm going through a phase where contributing has begun to look like I'm staring into a bottomless and thankless pit. There are a few things that I've committed myself to do, and if I'm still feeling the same way when they're done, probably a break will be in order. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
citations
Continuing the discussion, so would I use 'all' {{citation}} throughout (so no cite book, cite web, cite journal etc) - would that still mean I use the harvnb template for the book citations? It all gets confusing from hereon.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Just change them all to {{citation}}. {{Harvnb}} is only relevant where you want to refer to a page or pages in a book or journal, that you've already listed (using {{citation}} in the Bibliography. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Just wondered if I could twist your arm for a copyedit to Shaw and Crompton? I've just revisited the article and done a major rewrite of some sections. My vocab and writing isn't as good as I'd like. If you feel willing and able, there is no rush. Hope you can help, --Jza84 | Talk 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And wanting to beg a favor from you. I've got three articles I'm hoping to bring to FAC after I get back (be about August 17 or so until I'm home and able to handle an FAC). They are Stigand, Go Man Go, and William de St-Calais. They've all been PR'd, and basically need good copyedits before I bring them before the slavering hordes at FAC. Can you look them over for jargon, etc, as well as fix my prose? It's not a "must do asap" but it'd help a bunch if they were looked at in the next couple of weeks or so. Ealdgyth - Talk13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can also look at any of these three if you want me to MF. Let me know here or on my talk which (if any) you'd like me to look at. I'm horrible with refs, but I can find comma mistakes, spellings, wording, etc, pretty easily. Keeperǀ7622:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, I'm sure Ealdgyth will appreciate all the help she can get. I had a hack at the Go Man Go article earlier, but there are some places where I'm not sure if it's a copyediting issue or just a difference between us Brits and you Yanks. So, if you've got the time to take a look at that ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A joke for you..."A bishop, a horse, and a monk walked into a bar...". Just kidding. But seriously, what a random collection of articles! I'll work on the horse one, seeing as it's a Texan, and my bastardized "English" may be of use...starting tomorrow (I'm about to go offline here) Keeperǀ7623:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Ealdgyth's articles are always very well referenced, so no worries on that score. The only thing is, and I know she won't mind me saying this, is that she does have a tendency to write like a medieval history professor. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! I'm home. Are you as satisfied as you could be with those? I'm ready to do a little work for "me" and not for everyone else at FAC for a change... Ealdgyth - Talk03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I have offended you in a recent discussion with the use of the word cronies then I am sorry.
I noticed your reply much later. I regret I cannot work on Wikipedia anymore due to the difficulties with JZA84 and when I am faced with the difficulties he accuses me of being offensive. However he is both judge and jury having blocked me and issued threats and questioning my integrity.
I personally believe this type of editor is a bully, and if calling him a bully means he will block me again so be it. I have gone beyond the bit were I care. All I looked to do was enhance Liverpool pages and add some others unfortunately every now and then JZA played games and scrubbed my edits. This is the problem I am supposed to work in conjunction with him but he does not. I regret any offence to yourself however I have been bad mouthed a few times in recent weeks by this so called administrator so I have been a bit wary of whom he deals with. I am withdrawing my edits because this fella from Manchester judges he knows more about Liverpool than I do. Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not offended, so no worries on that score. Wikipedia's collaborative nature can be difficult to come to terms with, and I certainly found it so. I've come to accept that more often than not articles are improved by the input of others, even where I may not agree with particular changes or additions. I'm truly sorry that you and Jza84 have got off on the wrong foot, as I'm sure you both share the same desire to help build this encyclopedia. In particular I can empathise with your obvious desire to improve Liverpool articles, which, God knows, need all the help they can get.
If I may, I'd like to offer just one word of advice to the wise. Whatever your view of Jza84 may be, it's very easy to win him round in a discussion on content simply by providing reliable sources for the material being challenged. It's really as easy as that. Jza84 is a hard-working editor I have a lot of respect for. To be perfectly honest though, if I had been in his position I would not have blocked you; I'd have been concerned that I might be too close to make a fair assessment. If you feel that you need to, and we all feel that we do from time to time, why not take a short break to ponder on where and why things went wrong between you and Jza84, and then come back refreshed to help build this encyclopedia? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you get 5 minutes to yourself Malleus, I'd urge you to read through the whole of User talk:Dmcm2008. I think that will outline why I had no reservations blocking this gentleman, and, if there is a repeat of his cycle, why I won't hesitate to enforce a much longer block. This is a user who has not shown any willingness to change, and continued to abuse me for over 8 months. There are several explicit warnings.
That said, I recognise there is a balance to be struck. Dmcm2008 clearly enjoys contributing, clearly wants to contribute and his enthusiam for his locality is admirable. The abuse and silliness about Liverpool's magic boundary just needs to stop. As I've said before, this gentleman needs to go through the WP:ADOPT system, IMHO. If he repeats his cycle without learning, I'm afraid he'll just end up disappointed again, taking out his frustrations via abuse. --Jza84 | Talk 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest that you had done anything untoward, simply that I wouldn't have done what you did because, as you say, there's a long-standing history between the two of you. One of the privileges of not being an administrator though, is that I don't have to involve myself in any forensic searches, I can just take things as I find them. Obviously I agree with your position on the Liverpool silliness, and have said so. Hopefully Dmcm2008 will now consider recent events and come back having taken all that's been said to heart. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just a little concerned that Dmcm2008's perspective didn't really encompass the dynamics of this... situation. I don't want anyone thinking that this was a snap retaliation (this guy usually posts mass slander about me); I warned this guy in March, and in April and again in June with warnings about civility and citing sources. Anyway, I'd best leave it at that. As I say, I think if Dmcm2008 doesn't reform, and continues to be abusive, he will only find himself cursing me after I've blocked him for 6 months for harrassment. :S --Jza84 | Talk 02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey i've no problem with people checking my history. It is the response thatJza84 has issued which reiterates the bully tactics. But what do I care LET this person have his way.Dmcm2008 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified my oppose here. Asenine 10:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Radium capsules
"A doctor treated the latter by inserting a pellet of radium on a probe into each of Zappa's nostrils—little was known at the time about the potential dangers of being subjected to radiation"
This does sound highly improbably but my family lived near Baltimore at the same time (my father also taught at the Naval Postgraduate School as Zappa's father did, the school moving to California in 1952) and my brother had the same procedures done for his sinuses. When he was an adult, my mother told him about it as there had been a fair amount of publicity that those procedures possibly caused cancer in later years. My brother so far has never gotten cancer, and he was angry at my mother for telling him about those Johns Hopkins procedures. (He would rather not have known.) Therefore, I know the statement in the article is true, though it could most likely be left out if you object. I objected to the sentence originally because it implied that it caused harm at the time, which was not true as far as I know. The editor then modified the sentence and blamed mustard gas for Zappa's problems in Baltimore. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suspected as much. I think it's interesting material, and I'd keep it, particularly as Zappa contracted prostate cancer in his 40s. I'm really just objecting to the statement that the potential dangers of radiation were little known at that time, when in fact they had been known for decades. Perhaps tone it down just a little? Something like "the potential dangers of radium were not fully appreciated at that time"?
Certainly the dangers for the purpose used - treatment of sinus problems - was not known and was not even considered until years later. My parents weren't trying to harm my brother! On another note, "under-rehearsed"? I have not seen that before. Is that British? Or do I have a gap in my education? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from "under rehearsed", which I don't believe to be correct in either British or American Englsh. Always happy to be corrected though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's only because I tend to stick my nose into places a more cautious editor might be inclined to avoid. Plus I'm not an administrator ( as you may know ;-) ), so I don't get those "Can you you block/protect/look at this please" messages. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully someone will expand it – I have no intention of wading through 20,000 google hits looking for sources. I gave it enough to insulate it against the inevitable AfD, but I can't imagine it gracing FAC any time soon. – iridescent21:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zappa
Despite disagreement over under rehearsed, I wish you would touch the article again. The main editor has done everything he could do during FAC. I don't know much about Zappa and am at a loss as to "legacy". If you would help the main editor, that would be wonderful. He is very obliging and receptive to new ideas (albeit a little discouraged now). I just don't have the skills to help him much at this point. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zappa's very near the drop zone now (should that be drop-zone, or even dropzone?), but in many ways I like the article. Is there the time left to write even a short Legacy section? I'm not sure. Without it I don't believe the article will succeed ar FAC; with it, I'd be prepared to help with the prose stuff. I do understand how discouraging the process can be, having been through it a few times myself. The only encouragement I can offer is that the article is almost always better coming out of the proces than it was going in, whatever the result. The Zappa article still has legs yet though I think, so I'll wait on a resolution to the legacy issue. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copy edited the article because I liked it. I have been defending the article from being forced into a typical rock musician/band format apparently mandatory for musicians/bands 30 or 40 years younger than Zappa and of much narrower interests. I knew little specific about Zappa before reading the article but it drew me in. I am hoping the main editor could put together a simple legacy section (consulting my music books, although they contain Zappa, there is nothing specific about "Legacy") and put the article over the hump with your help on the prose issues.
I'm on your side believe it or not, I don't want to see this article pushed down that road either. With even a short legacy section I'm sure we can get this over the line, but I don't know enough about Zappa to write one. It's not a major overhaul I'm asking for, just a small addition. Musicians who claim to have been influenced by him? The work of his trust? That kind of thing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased to hear that. I've said many times that FAC is a tough gig, and it ought to be tough. But it ought not to be discouraging, so let's see what we can do together to get Zappa over the line in whatever time SandyG's prepared to allow. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise the articles in question were under renewed scrutiny, and had I known earlier, I would have sorted them out earlier. As such, a couple of them will have to delist, as I have no time to sort them out ahead of tomorrow's deadline. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no deadline. If you're going to be working on them then I'm happy to leave them until you've finished. I really don't want to have to delist any of them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Q class, N class and Q1 class articles are fine now. If you have noticed, I am slowly working my way through these articles again anyway, getting them up to FA status (an example: LSWR N15 class), or improving them as far as my resources can take them. Anyway, now for the class V (might take that one all the way to FA!) and the LN. I know there are other articles that need sorting out, though time is an issue so please bear with me. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus. I have submitted St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley as a GAC. The reviewer's comments, together with my initial thoughts, are here. As usual with my stuff, the assessor wants some copyediting - can you help here please? I should also be interested to have your comments on my replies to the criticisms (sometimes I think reviewers are dafter than editors (eg, what ARE blue links for if not to explain the meaning of terms which may be unfamiliar to the reader?)). Cheers. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all of your GA reviewer's copyediting comments, but if I haven't, then just give me another shout. I shall leave my comments on the other issues you raise for another time. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope so, time will tell. I wonder though whether it isn't a sign that increasing numbers of editors see FA/GA as a service station, where you can get an article fixed for free. Why would anyone in full possession of their faculties want to spend their time reviewing anyone else's work? What's the best that can result? A thanks. What's the worst that can result? A hate campaign. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... which brings up another matter. How come the community allows personal attacks to stand on FAC pages? If I tangle with the nasties, I can be accused of bias, so I have to read right over it, but I wonder why other editors don't issue warnings, etc. I get really bugged when I see a reviewer attacked, and no one doing anything about it, but I shouldn't opine lest I appear to take sides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfA would be a classic, a story handed down through the wikipedia generations. If someone like you can't get through RfA then there really is no hope for it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking the wrong person. I've failed at it twice, and I didn't find either a particularly agreeable experience. But you're not me; there are things you could do like moving over redirects for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I forgot. If you apologize to Marskell for being snarky to him on G guy's talk page, and make your peace with Raul, I'll nominate you and vouch for you. We need some adult admins who have a clue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm not at all sure why you brought up Marskell here. This is the last contact I recall having with him, although obviously I'm not privvy to anything he may say in private. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was remembering something more recent; anyway, let's continue this topic another day (with my usual disclaimer, pls remind me if I forget :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got time, could you copy edit the Sale article please? I thought I'd smoothed a lot of it out, but there are still some kinks holding it up at FAC. Nev1 (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure really, after all I thought it was ok to begin with. If anything crops up that doesn't make sense when you read it and you can't knock it into something that sounds right let me know and I'll read over the sources I have as I've probably missed something out. And thanks for the effort. Nev1 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this isn't super urgent, because I think I'm coming down with a lethal attack of the deadly man-flu, so I probably won't be around as much over the next few days. I'll still try and do what I can though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FAC farce
I'm not wasting my time on copy editing FAC any more. This is the second time I have given it up. The first time I was just doing too much really hard writing so the "main" editor could collect his FAC stars. I grew resentful when he copy/pasted my edits out of existence. (I don't like to collect things so I don't understand this passion for article awards, especially since they are not awarded in a fair fashion.) I believe the whole process is fundamentally screwed up. Mature, well-written articles are forfeited for formulaic ones. And those supported by the clique pass as well as those who (pardon me) suck up to those in power. I am not one of the in-group and do not want to be. (I don't like that kind of thing.)
I think I will become one of those editors that adds 100 complaints just as the FAC is about to end, then not lift a finger to help. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that Zappa has failed. That really was beginning to look inevitable though, without that Legacy section. With it, I still think it could have passed. It's nothing to do with any cliques, or sucking up to those in power. If it was, I'd never be able to get an article through FAC (look at Sandyg's comment above).
I don't think anyone would seriously doubt that some kinds of articles are easier than others to get through FAC, but that doesn't make the process unfair. As you know, reviewers are under no obligation to do more than point out what they see as problems, whether that's at the start or the end of the FAC. I hope you'll reconsider your attitude to copyediting though. For sure there's no glory in it—who remembers or even cares who the copyeditors were—but so often it really does make the difference between success and failure. None of us write anything because we want the credit for it, or we shouldn't; we do it because we want to improve this encyclopedia. You're disappointed now, but just think how elated you'll feel when Zappa comes back in a week or two and gets that little star. --
I only care about the star for User:HJensen. The article is superb. The last reviewer's complaint was "I meant there's no mention in the lead of his lyrical themes." As Lame Name said, "...there seems to be a drift towards people with seemingly little knowledge of the subject suggesting that their own limited point of view be included within the article." We had the legacy almost ready to go. I like copy editing when it is for a real purpose, just as I like writing. It is my belief, though, that the quality of the FA articles are, in general, very low; it is much more important to get the ndashes and citations right than to have a worthy topic and to say anything meaningful about it. This problem of disliking bureaucracy is why I couldn't work for the government and had to start my own business.
I do admire, though, how you are able to say "real stuff" but not trip over a rule in SG's rule book and get bashed, a definite talent, since you are not (I don't think) one of her adopted 16 year olds. Well, you have the gift. (I just took a look a your user page, but no clues there.) However, I think FAC deserves to die and be reborn. It is out-of-control horrible currently and would crash and burn if so many people weren't hooked those little stars. Thanks for letting me rant. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember being 16, but that was a long time ago now I'm pleased to say. There are certainly aspects of FAC that are tedious, but by and large I think it works tolerably well. As in fact I also think the GA process does, something that SandyG and I would probably not agree on. Most articles emerge from the process in better shape than they went in, including, I think, the Zappa article. User:HJensen made a very good case for the current structure and I don't think that objections on that score would have carried any weight. I really do believe that it would have passed with the Legacy section and a final polish. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it sail through its next nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps GA is more worthwhile. The only time I tried it out was to help an editor with an article on India. But an opposing ethic group of about 10 editors from India trashed the article completely from the beginning. It was given no chance to improve So I gave up on that. I think it is the mediocrity of FAC that is so dull. A camel is a horse made by a committee -- pertains beautifully to FAC. The Zappa case, I think, was a question of teeny boppers taking over. User:HJensen wanted to get on the legacy part, but he expended enormous time for days on diddley squat instead, as requested by those dictators and cronies that run FAC. He had a sandbox legacy article written.
You don't notice how the same editors support each other in a quid pro quo? How the articles of certain editors pass with nary a glance? For a long time I would only edit articles that were forlorn and abandoned, obviously FAC pariahs. It's like high school. The in-group and the out-group. Certain people are going to have enormous energy put into their articles by FAC and their articles improved, but only if the main editor belongs to the sorority or fraternity. Now I am not willing to help even the forlorn, as any help I give results in credibility for FAC. There is no attempt to help those that really need it. I get quite sad watching poor well-meaning articles get ignored. There is no attempt at fairness. I'll just watch the cabal take over. You are in group, so enjoy it! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to jump in, Malleus. Mattisse, I am really concerned with the amount of vitriol here. I solemnly promise, as an FAC reviewer who also writes articles, that I judge each article on its merits and there is no "quid pro quo" except in time given. Yes, it is a fact that some articles don't get a lot of attention, but that often has more to do with the subject matter (we don't have as many reviewers interested in pop culture topics). We can't force reviewers to review articles that don't interest them, and we are suffering from a shortage of reviewers. If you have suggestions on how to improve or revamp the process, please make them - I think all of us would be amenable to something workable that could improve FAC. Karanacs (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to say that I certainly haven't noticed any quid pro quo reviewing, except in the sense of giving time, as you say. In fact, my perception would be that by and large reviewers studiously try to avoid giving even the impression of a conflict of interest. I understand how disappointed Matisse must feel right now though, after all the work he put into the Zappa article. I'd feel quietly confident that it's got a very good chance of getting through its next FAC though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Formal quid pro quos like the Awards Center that was shut down exist. The informal ones were talked about in the spring, how certain editors would have a dozen supports 90 minutes after listing the article. Others, like my friend User:Zleitzen who left Wikipedia over FAC abuse, wrote a great article (and he even had past FAs) but because it was a sophisticated article on the culture of ethnic music, there was not one comment. Not one, and he was giving to the articles of others, but if you are not in, then you are not in. That is why he left. There should be some attempt at fairness of subject matter.
"Not one"? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buena Vista Social Club/archive1, and why Zleitzen left: [1] (Jimbo intervened at Che Guevara, placing an NPOV tag, even Yomangani tried to help, and Zleitzen rejected the compromise, left in disgust, hopefully that's the last time Jimbo intervenes in an article). Malleus, I see the RfA thing is troubling you, which is why I made the offer above. Unclear where the GA issue is coming from, but I hope your talk page environment returns so we can talk about it in the clear sometime. In the meantime, I'm going to unwatch here. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your offer above was actually one of the final straws that opened my eyes. As for the GA issue, it comes from your condescending attitude towards those poor idiot GA reviewers who are so stupid that they ought not to try updating your beloved Article History template, because it's so incredibly complicated that only you and your favourite bot can understand it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs says "we don't have as many reviewers interested in pop culture topics"! Is that editor living under a rock? Most articles that are pop topics - video games, new rock groups, young, pop singers, sports figures, entertainment figures, popular songs, and the inevitable academic treatise from someone's college class. Granted Zappa takes some sophistication to understand -- not present in the undergraduate mentality here. I just want to know if there is anyone over 25. FAC, by its obvious bias in subject matter, is helping to drive Wikipedia on the rocks. I think it is called segregation. You don't notice how the range of subject matter on FAC is becoming more narrow by the week? The only articles are the ones that conform to the rigid rules: highway articles, city articles, bird articles, weather articles etc. Once you get the formula down pat, you can whiz them through. For a while there was an India contingent that rammed a bunch through, but they have quieted for the summer; probably their supporters are on break. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's easier to get an article through once the formula for articles of its type has been developed, but that's to be expected. There's still variety there though. I managed to get a wich trial through recently, and I helped with a local newspaper FAC recently as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's also easier when you come to FAC prepared. I try hard to get many folks to read my articles before I bring them to FAC. I have them go through GA, and then to FAC, several peer reviews, folks read them, try to incorporate everything suggested, and it often takes me a good couple of months of hard work to bring an article to FAC. Right now, I have friends who are very helpfully reading and critiquing three articles getting them ready for FAC. Doesn't look like one is ready, so I only have two that will seriously be close to FAC for when I get home. Preparation and not expecting FAC to work like PR is the key. Ealdgyth - Talk19:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) The problem with Zappa was they had a formula and they insisted it had to apply and would not deviate. I can't access the FA review anymore (there doesn't seem to be a way to from the talk page) but several young guitarists and rock bands were presented as a model for Zappa. He is not young, he is not primarily an electric guitarist, he is not part of a band, he is not only a rock musician/composer/ arranger but also a film maker etc. None of this made any difference for the formula. He just does not fit those models and there is nothing to be done about it. I am going to urge the editor not to resubmit it and go through that again. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can access the review from the Article History. The FAC process isn't one-way, as you seem to be suggesting. Reviewers can say whatever thay like, and the nominator is at liberty either to deal with any issues raised or to refute them. User:HJensen had already convincingly made the case for the present structure, that battle had been won. The killer was the missing Legacy section, not the apparent mismatch with some pop articles. I really hope that you don't urge the editor not to renominate, as it would be like giving up on a marathon in the last hundred yards. I am quite convinced that a renomination would be successful. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you access the FAC nomination from the Article History? Usually there is a box on the talk page: "this article was formally a FAC candidate" or some such thing to click on to see the FAC review, but there is none. I looked in the talk page history but it is just talk page entries. I looked in the article history but it is just article edits. Am I misunderstanding? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are not part of the in-crowd. But you have power somehow. I have watched you do and say things that I have been severely punished by the big boss for doing, and with no repercussions to you! You even recently turned down what I would have considered a mandatory suggestion to apologize to someone, and you got away with it! (In the past, when I was trying to be good, I would never have dared to do that.)
Now I don't care. I don't want FA's so the in-crowd can do and say what they want about me. I find plenty to do elsewhere on Wikipedia where the atmosphere is much more friendly and appreciative and the barbs not so frequent. I have been watching FAC for over two years now and I have seen it change for the worse, although the so-called standards may be higher. The referenced and well-sourced creativity is gone, except for the occasional Frank Zappa. It is all formula now. I think you cannot have a dictator and have a pleasant atmosphere. I believe FAC is near collapse and the dictator can no longer afford to alienate someone like you who helps out. That is the difference now. Just my 2 cents. (Should I expect another mean post on my talk page, albeit couched in oh-so-well-meaning wording?) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no power at all. I think some people have just come to accept that I have the encyclopedia's best interest at heart, but that I'm also my own man and I won't back down when I believe I'm right, no matter what the consequences or who I might upset. I'd suggest the same approach to you. Live your convictions and bugger the consequences. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to the ancient texts of Wikipedia: "Between the realms of the Godking of the West and the Monkey God of the East, there're still some 'crouching tigers, hidden dragons' that has yet to be discovered. Their exploits are legendary and even devastating at times, although they do not possess nor desire any admin powers. Such fearsome individuals (even to the admins) are known as the WikiDragons, one of the last of a dying breed, that can traces its proud ancient origins and tradition since the early Age of Nupedia." 8-p -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a fair assessment. There are a couple of things I still want to do though, before I become extinct. When they're done I'll take a break and consider whether I want to continue contributing to this project. The admin thing in and of itself is something and nothing, but having been confronted with the stark realisation that so many find me untrustworthy means that the answer will almost certainly be no. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to explain your malaise, that there is a probability that you become extinct? The only hope for me is the editors like you exist. Email me if you can be clear that way. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that our reasoning might well be rather similar. In a nutshell, I wasted a lot of time effort in a project that it became clear was widely viewed as crap, the GA project. My two failed RfAs have also been hanging on me, and I am no longer certain that I'm prepared to work in an environment in which it has been made abundantly clear to me that I am not considered trustworthy. Those feelings have been bubbling around for a while, but several more recent events have brought them to the surface, not least seeing the saintly editor who through sheer vindictiveness sabotaged my first RfA lie in his own RfA with no repercussions. I'm also sick to death with having to argue the toss with those who interpret assume good faith as "you're not allowed to disagree with anyone". I really am beginning to believe that it's time to leave wikipedia to the kiddies, to do with it as they will. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. Today before reading your post, it struck me full force that the whole thing is pointless. For the very first time I realized Wikipedia is not going to last in any recognizable form. I read your RFA's all the way through (which I hadn't done before) and was surprised at the venom. Now I notice that your talk page is being dewatched... for not having the correct attitude? Agree that assume good faith is totally destructive and that the kiddies are taking over. I hope you don't go away too soon, as I need to talk to you. Please let me. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am, of course, gutted that SandyG has decided to theatrically tell me that she's unwatched my talk page. Not. As I said, there are still a couple of things I want to do before I come back as a WikiHermit, if indeed I decide I want to come back at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got bashed in the head by SG for objecting to the RFC of the editor who seems to have trashed your first RFC. Got badly punished for that. I think you are handing all this very well, but I can see that we are in a similar zone. What exactly does coming back as a WikiHermit entail? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it entails ignoring those corners of wikipedia inhabited by the WikiFossils whose primary purpose appears to be to maintain the status quo at all costs, 'cos this is the best wikipedia of all possible wikipedias. It also entails avoiding the processes that seem to have been designed to generate conflict, ill-feeling and bad Karma, Like the Featured Article of the day process for instance, and to a certain extent even FAC itself; to say nothing of the stupidities of the RfA talk page, where the last sensible comment was made some time around July 2003. The phrase "shit for brains" could have been invented for many of the contributors there. I've been reassessing my view on the GA process over the last few days, and I'm coming back round to the view that on balance, when done well, it has the potential to be encouraging rather than demoralising, whatever the WikiFossils think, so I may try to re-engage with GAN. On the other hand, I may not. I have absolutely no interest in wikipedia's darker and more secretive corners, and I have absolutely no interest in the opinion of any WikiFossil on any subject. So I shall emerge from my hermit's cave only when I want to, to do those things that I want to do, in whatever way I choose to do them. Aldwinteo makes some interesting and relevant points below, which have informed my thoughts. For yourself, I really would suggest that you put behind you whatever went on between SandyG and you in the past. It's only upsetting you, not her. In my own case I have come to the view that editor you refer to is an untrustworthy, vindictive pile of ordure that I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire, so he's best avoided. My mother restates Aldwin's Law of Karma as "What comes around, goes around." No need for me to do anything, and dwelling on it only makes me feel bad, not him. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used to do a lot of copy editing. Then I switched to writing my own articles, really for myself. Recently, I became entangled in FAC and various policy talk pages. This has resulted in me feeling bad. Perhaps I should engage in GAN. I don't really know the ropes of that, but if you would give me some tips, I would appreciate it. I like copy editing in a constructive sense and improving articles, interspersed with writing articles that interest me. With GAN I would not know where to start, but I am interested. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When done well, GAN can be fun, much more productive and much less stressful for everyone concerned than FAC, and certainly a lot more fun than the policy talk bogs. Starting is very easy, and I'll be happy to help you through your first review or two until you feel comfortable with the process. Pop along to WP:GAN and pick an article that attracts your attention, and follow the instructions on that page to tag it as being under review. Let me know which one you pick and I'll take a look at it as well, and make sure that it's been tagged properly and the review page created. For the review itself you check the article against each of the WP:WIAGA criteria, noting those areas where it needs work. You should also feel free to fix any minor MoS copyediting issues you come across yourself. Most times an article will then be put on hold for any issues to be fixed. If you like, I'll take a look at your review before you post it, or after you've posted it if you prefer. Here's hoping that GAN can reinvigorate your wikipedia involvement. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to pull one's hair out, be afraid of stepping on someone's toes, or even going into a self-imposed exile folks. It's a common trend that exists not just in Wikipedia, but also elsewhere online - look at the cyber bullying or pressure groups found in Facebook, online forums, social networking portals too. It get worse, when there're easy rules (by anyone, anytime, anywhere hiding behind a nick or anonymous IPs), poor policing & enforcement due to unclear code of practice, poor leadership (or the lack of), or simply no gentleman's honour whatsoever. No prizes for guessing why I've not participated or keen to be nominated in any of the above to date, although I've garnered enough experience here - DYKs, GAs, RfCs (I avoid unless when requested), fighting hardcore vandals & trolls, sizable supporters (both online & offline), & my 'staffy-like' reputation that has left quite a few hardcore blokes 'badly mauled & limping' after a deserving pit fight. To be a much happier & saner person in the long run, I've learnt not to be too attached to things, as life is short & transient, and to treat them with equanmity instead. If one's intention is good, one shouldn't be afraid to say or do the right thing when the time is given to u (See William Wilberforce), as ultimately, truth & justice will prevail one day as in the Law of Karma. Similarly speaking, for those who committed any unwholesome acts, they too, will received their just desserts one day. With good conscience or passion, one can help as much as we could with reasonable efforts here, but once u think that your task is completed, it's best to take a well-deserved break, or move on to other areas of the project that requires or appreciate your skills & integrity, or simply, return to your mundane life to devote more attention to your family, loved ones, or other worthy community projects elsewhere next. Perhaps, in our later years, we can share with our folks or reminiscence fondly with your favourite cuppa in hand, of our 'pioneering' stories with a smile & satisfaction, that we have once help to contribute, improve or preserve a free vast body of knowledge for humanity, that would most probably be still around (or in other representation, hopefully better) after we are long gone. 8-) -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned on my userpage earlier, I used my life-long passion for writing to create some historical or heritage-based articles that were previously lacking here (which u have read or reviewed previously to your delight), promote them thru' DYK, and improved or expanded them further for GAN next, for the long-term benefit of the respective WikiProject groups. When my primary task is completed last Nov, I went into semi-retirement but do return to help out in other areas as & when I like, or upon requests made by the community or supporters. As such, my experience here has been a rather fruitful & enjoyable one for me. On hindsight, if u had listen to your heart closely to focus more of your time & energy at GAN & its related stuff earlier, instead of FAC, RfA, or in any 'baiting' discussions, I believe u will be a much happier & 'truer' person - a quality which no one here can deny or take it away from u, just like what they did repeatedly to your previous RfA exercise, and as a result, having to endure such negative memories & its associated 'legacy' to this day mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before this old staffy retires to his den again, u may want to read a real life account of a remarkable individual here, who always remain true to his calling despite the various challenges he faced in life & see for yourself who is laughing & smiling in the end. Fyi, I was blessed & honoured to be "suntzunised" by him 10 years ago, when he was a guest speaker for Strategic Management at the renown Singapore Institute of Management (I'm still a professional member of this institute today). Hope my comments & sharing brought some clarity & direction esp in this 'troubled waters' here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't go too far away old staffy, or stay away for too long. It's strange to realize that someone almost half-way round the planet could see so clearly what was troubling me. I'm humbled. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is no special ability - anyone can possess a crystal clarity of mind if they have studied, fully understood & seriously followed the Buddha's Dharma, along with regular Vipassana (Insight) & Samatha (Calm-abiding) meditation, not only for relaxation purposes, but also to tame one's mind in order to gain a deeper insight of oneself & our samsaric existence too. If u are interested to know what I meant, and for Western English speakers like u, u can check out the books or listen to the past Dharma talks of this English gentleman, a Cambridge-trained scientist-turned-Buddhist monk, Ajahn Brahm, who is now residing in Perth as an abbot of the Bodhinyana Monastery:
Just a little note to enquire whether you would like to comment on the copyright of the image used in the SR N15X class article? It is currently halfway through the GA process, but the reviewer seems a little pensive over the copyright of the image. The situation is that it was published in 1936 in the UK (which sorts out the 70-year rule regarding copyright), as well as the fact that the author was anonymous. I have also put a fair use rationale (based upon the one used for the LNER A1 and A3 article). Really I just want someone to check over it, so if you know someone with experience in such matters, could you pass this little conundrum on? That would be of great help in getting this article to GA (don't worry, the bibliography has been properly formatted!). Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, but a little strange that you are claiming non-free use on a image in the public domain. I'd suggest transferring the image to Commons and slapping a {{PD-UK-unknown}} licence on it. There's no reason to have to justify non-free use on a image in the publc domain; all you need to do is to justify the public domain claim. Images with non-free use rationales are getting harder and harder to get accepted, and I don't think you should be relying on that, or need to rely on it anyway. I've copied the image to Wikimedia Commons[4], and all you need to add to the description is what steps you've taken to identify the author, job done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, although I thought it may still be classified as non-free by virtue of the fact that the journal in question is still in existence, albeit in a totally different era! I wish to thank you for your help in this matter.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is to say that you've tried to contact the mag or its publishers in an attempt to establish the author, and add that to the image description on commons. It doesn't matter whether the magazine's still in existence or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the WP image may get deleted, how does one use the Commons version? As you can tell, I'm not a user of the Commons section of Wikimedia, so am at a loss as to how to play around with it. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The commons version will get used by default when the wikipedia image goes, nothing to worry about. In fact, if were you, I'd tag the wikipedia image for deletion right now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earthquake - future Ga
Could you do a quick review of the article before I send it to GAN? i know that your review will make it the best it can be. Thanks, --Meldshal42?16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Malleus. And as for Archangel, this section isn't for that, so I've moved your comment down, along with Malleus's reply. Cheers, --Meldshal42?20:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about posting this before, but I think it is only right:
That's a very kind thought Meldshal42, thank you. I left the GA project back in May though, in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate. I've done very few GA reviews since then, except as part of GA Sweeps, and when I've finished my currently allocated categories I probably won't be doing any more of them either. I've never really done that much as an FA reviewer, and I'll very likely be doing even less in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I suggest you cool your jets and have patience. Theres no need to be melodramatic with your 'edit war' quotes, is there? There are a number of people on here that shouln't be there and they are being removed. Those without references are having them added. Why don't sit on your hands for a while and wait before becoming all dramatic and let the piece be edited as is need (Archangel1 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
I see you've thrown your teddy out of the pram and resorted to name calling on the WikiManchester page by calling me an idiot for not discussing the issue. I am up for a discussion but I've told you to be patient for for the edits. Don't resort to childish behaviour on here. Get a grip of yourself (Archangel1 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
You've seen nothing yet Archangel1. In the meantime, why not try and get your act together? Why not deal with the issues raised on the article's talk page? And just so that there's no doubt, I didn't call you an idiot. What I said was that I did not know how to deal with ignorant idiots. If the cap fits, then wear it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise both of you to stop this and discuss it some other time, when you are not annoyed at each other. Please excuse my intrusion, if you must. --Meldshal42?22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your sensible advice Meldshal42; in point of fact I am not in the slightest annoyed with Archangel1. I have said all that can be said here on wikipedia, but my opinion won't be changing tomorrow, or even the next day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm glad to help with the article -- it's an interesting piece. I like these ones that cover tidbits on a wide range of subjects (a little bit of science, history, mystery, etc.). Good stuff. Anyway... you're correct in your assessment that the rest of the article needs some sprucing up too -- especially the cited references. I plan on rewriting the "bog chemistry" section as soon as I locate a couple of sources. Cheers. CactusWriter20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those kinds of articles are my favourites too. If you hadn't jumped in, I'd probably have gone looking for the references myself rather than delist the article. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I was looking at the FA Peterloo Massacre and wondering why the dates in the opening paragraph aren't wikilinked per Wikipedia:DATE#Date_autoformatting ? I understand having an article deluged with linked dates isn't great, but perhaps there's some scope for at least linking dates in the opening paragraph? I believe you've been closely involved with getting the article to FA status, so thought you might be able to give some guidance on this. Thanks, --Oscarthecat (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autoformatting of dates is now deprecated, see MOS:SYL#Date_autoformatting: "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text." Many current FACs have opted not to use date autoformatting because of the inconsistencies it introduces. The MoS simply demands consistency throughout the article in either using it or not, as it says here: "In the main text of an article, autoformatting should be used on either all or none of the month-day and month-day-year dates. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica is in the public domain. Why would anyone be interested in a site based on an almost 100-year old encyclopedia? I'm certainly not, and I couldn't care less who founded that site, or who owns it. Why do you care? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, you might wish to consider that there is no need or justification for the use of abusive language, such as what you used here, here, here and here. Opinions are one thing, inappropriate behaviour is something completely different. --Ckatzchatspy09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
, see Talk:Manchester Mummy for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Million_Moments (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Colour_Plate_of_SR_class_N15X_January_1936.jpg){kind=link}
