::Seems OK to me; The sentence's parenthetical first part is clearly forward referencing Nikumbh, not his teaching style. What was there before – "An instructor at the Tulips School for young children with [[Developmental disability|developmental disabilities]], Nikumbh possesses a teaching style is markedly different from his strict predecessor, and he soon observes that Ishaan is unhappy and contributes little to class activities" – on the other hand is definitely ungrammatical, and probably rather too rambling. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
::Seems OK to me; The sentence's parenthetical first part is clearly forward referencing Nikumbh, not his teaching style. What was there before – "An instructor at the Tulips School for young children with [[Developmental disability|developmental disabilities]], Nikumbh possesses a teaching style is markedly different from his strict predecessor, and he soon observes that Ishaan is unhappy and contributes little to class activities" – on the other hand is definitely ungrammatical, and probably rather too rambling. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
::BTW. the phrase "animated animals" seems rather strange to me. What's it trying to convey? [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
::BTW. the phrase "animated animals" seems rather strange to me. What's it trying to convey? [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
== new section overwritten ==
Please revert this one-word edit, as it also wiped out an entire new section:
Also, if you agree that the change I've proposed is minor, please make the change, as an IP cannot edit the Project Page.
Thanks, RB [[Special:Contributions/66.217.118.31|66.217.118.31]] ([[User talk:66.217.118.31|talk]]) 20:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:09, 18 December 2010
There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.
Malleus, thanks for cleaning up (I'm not proud of what I produced there--typical hack job based on lots of fragmentary sources). Drmies (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I often look through the DYKs on the main page to see where they might need tidying up a bit. I just wish that the DYK reviewers put their backs a little more into their job and did the same. MalleusFatuorum11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. Hey, in regards to this one, I just put the abbreviation "m" there not really knowing what the MOS had to say (and I was too lazy to look it up--writing the article was tedious enough). Another editor put in those convert templates. Please feel free to adjust/edit/clean up any way you like, if you have the time and the inclination; you are a much more experienced gnome than I am. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here's another one. I'll tell you something that I think is funny: I have argued at my work that the peer-reviewing process at Wikipedia makes DYKs, for instance, akin to peer-reviewed publications--minor ones, of course, and not of the same rank as a journal publication, but also not unlike encyclopedic articles such as those put out by Gale and others. In many cases, you are the peer-review process, for which I thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's my impression, without any real evidence to back it up, that the technical quality of DYKs has risen somewhat over the last year or so. There are still lots with very straightforward problems that really ought to be caught before they reach the main page though. MalleusFatuorum17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your copy-edit of the article I wrote. All the edits improved the article.
Coincidentally, I was about to ask you today if you would have a look at the Peer Review of it! -- Doug (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How could I resist looking at one of the de Briouze's? It seems that peer review has gone very quiet lately, so it doesn't like you're going to get much joy there. From a GA perspective the main thing that needs to be done IMO is to expand the lead to better summarise the article. Probably ought to be a couple of paragraphs I'd have thought. The other thing is that you can't cite wikipedia as in ref #7, because wikipedia is considered to be an unreliable source. Good luck at GAN. MalleusFatuorum16:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful advice and edits. I will revert just one. The delimitation of 4 digit numbers is left to choice (MoS:Dates and Numbers). In English modern usage the comma is rarely used (partly because of its continental European use as a decimal separator). 1000 is more usual than 1,000. Doug (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right in that it's an option allowed for by the MoS where the the number contains only four digits, but wrong in saying that the comma delimiter is rarely used in modern English; it's almost invariably used and in fact is mandated by the MoS for numbers with five or more digits. MalleusFatuorum17:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"almost invariably" is overstating it a bit. In fact the opposite is true. Try putting either 1000 or 1,000 into a Google News search. It comes up with hunndreds of articles all using 1000. I couldn't see any with 1,000 - but I may have missed some. It's not worth an argument but as a professional in the maths area I try to follow the conventions used at present.
We were probably talking slightly at cross purposes; when I replied I thought you were making a general point about the comma delimiter, not just specifically about four digit numbers like 1000. Thanks for the photo. I'll try it out in the scabby one's article. MalleusFatuorum17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done with Walter. Scabby-boy is one of those articles I'm beginning to look at and think "Did I really write that?" Deacon gave it a good jump start though. Alexander of Lincoln it is. BTW, my mother tells me that as a young kid I was so besotted with Bambi that when it was showing at our local cinema I demanded to be taken to see it three times in one week. What my parents must have had to put up with! MalleusFatuorum20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreement
[1] I'd not seen your comments at that RFA when I made mine. Fascinating, our concord. All the more easy for me, being the wrong side of a dubious block of course - something I have not had as much experience at as your good self. Pedro : Chat 21:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, an interestingly similar viewpoint. I suspect that Rich will scrape through, another demonstration that the nonsense about bureacrats weighing the evidence rather than just counting votes is exactly that, nonsense. I count three, possibly four, "Why nots?" and at least three "I see no issues", the latter rather reminiscent of the words of Nelson. But of course they won't be discounted if the result is close; only oppose votes get discounted. The eleven "Good answers to questions" are just eye-poppingly blinkered. MalleusFatuorum21:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the RFA will fail actually, but time will tell. I could not agree more in respect of your opinion of the "why not" supports, and indeed that the mythical "consensus" exercise at RFA is nowt more than looking at the tally. There's a good number of editors closing AFD's that really do read the discussions - somehow it all goes wrong in the admin elections.Pedro : Chat 22:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What doesn't help is the fact that RFAs have numbers, and are tallied up. AFDs, to an extent, are closed by looking at numbers too, but they also look at whether the comments mention relevant policy to back up their argument. As things are, there is no policy requiring admins to have written n FAs, made x edits or whatever, only that they are knowledgable in policy. Other than that, anyone's opinion pretty much goes, and opinions about what makes good admins widely differ. The issue with changing RFA like that though are the sheer number of people that contribute to RFAs. A well-attended AFD may have 50 people - that's probably less than average at RFA. Most AFDs have about five votes, so it's a lot easier to read the consensus. "Why not" votes only really bug me when there are issues raised in the opposition - if they disagree that there are issues, that's ok, but saying "why not" without even acknowledging the issue raised is careless. AD22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly what's been happening at this RfA. Several supporters have also lauded the candidate's many quality contributions, but when I've asked for a link to even one of them they go mysteriously coy. MalleusFatuorum22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed as well that there are a few supporters with surprisingly low edit counts to have discovered RfA, which I have to say that I find suspicious. Perhaps their inexperience explains why they see no problems with the candidate. MalleusFatuorum01:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having been inspired by the recent TV programme on the History of Scotland I've expanded the above article from a stub and will be putting it up for DYK. Do you think you could have a look and make any improvements you think are necessary? I wonder if the lead is long enough and whether it should have more sections. Also I'm sure there are too many commas in places :) Unfortunately there is precious little info available about the guy and I've had to rely rather heavily on the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, so another pair of eyes would be useful to ensure I haven't strayed into copyvio territory. However, I do think Scotland should claim its rightful place in the history of electricity generation from wind power. Richerman (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching that series as well, although I must have missed the episode on Blyth. It's good to see these neglected 19th-century engineers getting the attention they deserve. I think you're right about the lead, probably ought to be about twice its present size. I've been through the article but I haven't yet looked at the ODNB article other than to check the citation details; I'll try and remember to do that tomorrow. Nice piece of work. MalleusFatuorum01:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, asked and done in less than 40 minutes - brilliant! I've just added an image of the second turbine, next stop DYK - would you like to be named as second nominee? Sorry, it was Making Scotland's Landscape. Episode 5 that includes a short section on Blyth towards the end is available on BBC iplayer for the next 12 days here. Many thanks. Richerman (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's your baby Richerman, I'll take no credit for your work. I'll have a look at that episode. It's interesting actually; recently I've probably watched almost as many BBC programmes on iplayer as I have on the telly. MalleusFatuorum02:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're too modest - your help is always invaluable. I tend to use iplayer more and more as well - mostly because my wife often doesn't want to watch the same programmes as me. We recently upgraded to Sky+ but I then found I also need Sky multiroom as the Sky+ box only has one output. Funny how you always have to pay a bit more to get all the flexibility you need. I'm waiting till they offer me a cheap deal on that now. Richerman (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I use iPlayer too, in fact I haven't watched my telly since May this year, so I cancelled my licence (don't need one to watch recorded stuff on the iPlayer). Now being bullied by the TV licence lot, they didn't appreciate it when I told them they couldn't come in my house :) Parrotof Doom12:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No; only if you're watching live transmissions (be it via broadcast or via iPlayer), or recording programmes as they're being broadcast (which includes Sky+ and the like). If you only use your television to watch recordings which you didn't make yourself—either pre-recorded tapes, or post-transmission internet rebroadcasting—technically it's classified as a monitor and a licence isn't needed. Official chapter-and-verse is here. – iridescent14:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange then that the TV licensing people wanted to visit PoD's house, as what could they possibly tell from that other than that he owns a TV set? MalleusFatuorum15:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that, when challenged face-to-face, most people 'fess up to occasionally watching the news/football/I'm a Celebrity live. From their point of view, it's probably worth their while pushing in cases like that, even though it costs them more than they'd raise, to avoid it becoming custom-and-practice of there being a de minimis exemption—otherwise, everyone would just put "only watch prerecorded tapes" on the form. It's the same reason banks pay $500 fees to bailiffs to repossess $200 cars. – iridescent15:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been receiving letters for years, nay decades, from TV licensing, even though I've never owned a television or had a television license in my own name (I have an aerial socket and a computer monitor but have never been tempted to buy cables to connect them). I replied once in the early days, but completely ignore the threatening letters now. The letters seem to presume guilt until proven innocent, as if it is unimaginable that an individual can survive without the XFactor. I have never had a licensing official visit me: presumably they know the earful they will get if they dare accuse me of deceit. So, bon courage, PoD, I salute you! Geometry guy23:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a somewhat similar conceptual problem with these SORN declarations you're supposed to make every year if your car is off the road. We've got a 1975 MGB GT that's been locked away in the garage for probably the last 8 years or more. But if you fail to tell the government every year that it's still off the road they try and slap you with an £80 fine. MalleusFatuorum23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got slapped with the fine for failing to declare SORN for a car that got towed away by the scrappies, i.e. failing to perjure myself by declaring that something I can't visually inspect isn't cluttering up the highway somewhere. DVLA threatened prosecution, then they handed the matter over to a private Enforcement Officer who's now pretending to be a Credit Advisor. DVLA also sent me a logbook for my present car which shows the previous owner to be myself under a slightly different name, but living at the same address. The IR spent years convinced I was two separate people as well- in the end they paid the imaginary person's tax bill themselves. Ning-ning (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My head is getting a bit frazzled trying to get all this stuff done and still have a life. That said, can you teach me the script thingie some time? And is there a bot that checks obvious issues (like did you wikilink the first place, did you link twice?)TCO (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any bot or script that makes the general checks you're asking about, but Access Denied has given you the link to the dashes script I use. Let's hope you'll never be repermabanned. MalleusFatuorum23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, a user at the FAC has requested another copy-edit due to changes made since you last looked at it. Would you mind taking a look at it again? Thanks. :) Ωphois23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting to be a busy time of year, but I'll try and look through it again. One question, what does this mean?
"Ticket sales in Mumbai dropped to 58 percent during its third week, but they climbed back to 62 percent the following week."
What about: "The film's theater occupancy in Mumbai dropped to 58 percent during its third week, but it climbed back to 62 percent the following week" Ωphois00:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, do films have a "theater occupancy"? To be honest, I think that the prose needs quite a bit of work to get through FAC. For one thing it's got a rather "gangly" round-the-houses feel, such as in "Rather than encouraging and helping him to excel, his teachers and classmates instead regularly subject him to cruel acts of public humiliation." How can humiliation ever be other than public? I changed that section to this, which I think is a bit tighter, but you may disagree. I don't want to to edit too much more if you're not going to be happy with the end result though. MalleusFatuorum00:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, your most recent edit changed part of the plot section to: "An instructor at the Tulips School for young children with developmental disabilities, Nikumbh's teaching style is markedly different from that of his strict predecessor..." Isn't that grammatically incorrect, since it implies that his teaching style is an instructor? Ωphois18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me; The sentence's parenthetical first part is clearly forward referencing Nikumbh, not his teaching style. What was there before – "An instructor at the Tulips School for young children with developmental disabilities, Nikumbh possesses a teaching style is markedly different from his strict predecessor, and he soon observes that Ishaan is unhappy and contributes little to class activities" – on the other hand is definitely ungrammatical, and probably rather too rambling. MalleusFatuorum19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
