→Comment on RFA talk page: change |
Balloonman (talk | contribs) →Comment on RFA talk page: See Malleus, I told you that I'd still be here to tell you that you're an ass |
||
Line 276: | Line 276: | ||
Hello. I felt rather hurt by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=263831766 this] comment of yours on the RFA talk page. Your suggestion that I should be removed (i.e. banned) from the project because I think some RFA questions are silly is a personal attack and completely against the letter and spirit of [[Wikipedia:Civility]]. Please be more respectful and considerate towards me and others in future. Really, stuff like makes editors want to leave and is highly detrimental to the growth of Wikipedia.--[[User:Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">c</font>]]</sup> 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
Hello. I felt rather hurt by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=263831766 this] comment of yours on the RFA talk page. Your suggestion that I should be removed (i.e. banned) from the project because I think some RFA questions are silly is a personal attack and completely against the letter and spirit of [[Wikipedia:Civility]]. Please be more respectful and considerate towards me and others in future. Really, stuff like makes editors want to leave and is highly detrimental to the growth of Wikipedia.--[[User:Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">c</font>]]</sup> 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:MALLEUS, I can't believe it... YOU of all people are being accused of incvility??? NEVER!!! It never happens! You are the model wikipedian... I'm going to block you! |
|||
:PATTON, two things. First, Malleus is an Ass, everybody knows that. The best way to deal with him, is dish it back at him in kind, and ignore half of what he says---the other half is usually pretty insightful. Second, I do think you are being a little over sensitive there. Your comment about it being "silly" could similarly be seen as a personal attack.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>[[User:Balloonman/CSD Survey|CSD Survey Results]]</small> 21:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:50, 13 January 2009
|
WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements
- Manchester Mark 1 promoted to FA 28 September 2010
- Manchester computers promoted to GA 23 September 2010
- Trafford Park promoted to FA 9 September 2010
- Hyde F.C. failed at GAN 5 September 2010
- Belle Vue Zoological Gardens promoted to FA 7 August 2010
- Manchester United F.C. promoted to FA 27 July 2010
- 1910 London to Manchester air race promoted to FA 1 June 2010
- 1996 Manchester bombing promoted to GA 17 March 2010
- Chadderton promoted to FA 2 February 2010
- Rochdale Town Hall promoted to GA 26 January 2010
April • May • June •July • August • September • October • November • December January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Father Christmas sent me...
Request for comment (don't worry, not you)
OK, would you say that you were someone Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute who tried and failed to resolve things? I am not fussed if you don't feel you qualify, I am just fed up and tired of her being told. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything to resolve between Mattisse and me. She's made her opinion of me abundantly clear, and I've made it clear that I don't agree with her assessment, or her general attitude, but there's no ongoing difficulty between us that I'm aware of. Mattisse does sometimes seem to do her best to be hurtful, but that's just "sticks and stones ..." as far as I'm concerned.
- That an editor makes the atmosphere here less pleasant than it might otherwise be is probably a charge that could be levelled against a great many of us. My only real concern about Mattisse's recent behaviour centres on the repeated accusations of impropriety at FAC in particular, which I see you've already given an example of from this page. I may add a statement on that subject later. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken, I guess the wording is funny; my take on tried and failed.. is more about folks who have told her to stop her pattern of ongoing niggling comments, slurs etc. which she has ignored, rather than dispute with person X as such. I don't see where to go with this otherwise (well I do really, but hoped it can/could be looked at by more eyes in the community.) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- In Mattisse's defense, she runs about 50/50, meaning that 50% of those she fights with are difficult people that help provoke the conflict, but the other 50% are just people who get caught in the cross fires or were neutral. I can sympathize with her in situations similar to Blueboar, but not in regards to Sandy. Part of her problem is that she connects an individual with all of their associates instead of differentiating. Sometimes, people do work together and should be treated as a group. However, other times do not have such things. I don't care for Mattisse, but I wouldn't support an RfC. Her faults are the same faults that most of us have, and an RfC would only push her further into a corner, which is where all the problems start to begin with. Mattisse needs people to be more encouraging, to take her lack of good faith or minor attacks without attacking back and maybe she can begin to figure out who are really the bad people and who are not. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's probably fair comment Ottava. We're none of us perfect, and I've no wish to provoke Mattisse into anything. In fact I think that she does a great deal of good work that it would be a shame to lose. For myself, I've go no problem with anyone elses's opinion of me; I'm quite happy to ignore it if it doesn't match with own opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- In Mattisse's defense, she runs about 50/50, meaning that 50% of those she fights with are difficult people that help provoke the conflict, but the other 50% are just people who get caught in the cross fires or were neutral. I can sympathize with her in situations similar to Blueboar, but not in regards to Sandy. Part of her problem is that she connects an individual with all of their associates instead of differentiating. Sometimes, people do work together and should be treated as a group. However, other times do not have such things. I don't care for Mattisse, but I wouldn't support an RfC. Her faults are the same faults that most of us have, and an RfC would only push her further into a corner, which is where all the problems start to begin with. Mattisse needs people to be more encouraging, to take her lack of good faith or minor attacks without attacking back and maybe she can begin to figure out who are really the bad people and who are not. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken, I guess the wording is funny; my take on tried and failed.. is more about folks who have told her to stop her pattern of ongoing niggling comments, slurs etc. which she has ignored, rather than dispute with person X as such. I don't see where to go with this otherwise (well I do really, but hoped it can/could be looked at by more eyes in the community.) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
FACs and GARs
Hi, Malleus! I feel we might have got off on the wrong foot at Suntag's RFA, what with my overly defensive comments about Columbia Park, Torrance, California's GAN. I'd agree that a trip to GAR was in order; how "grassy expanse recreational area" got past me twice is a mystery and perhaps endemic of a wider problem with the rest of the article. I'll probably even initiate the GAR, partly for the novelty of being a GAN reviewer initiating a GAR of the same article and partly because I want to get this ironed out before I review any more. I'd appreciate your comments there. I'll give Suntag a longer grace period after failing an RFA before nomming !his GA, because I feel like a nice person at the moment. Don't know why.
I was also wondering if you were planning on commenting further at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Japanese Grand Prix. I'm getting myself into an unfortunate argument with Ling.Nut about this "context" issue and feel a wider set of eyes (?) could help sort it out. See you somewhere, Apterygial 12:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think Ling.Nut makes a valid point about context that could be addressed by a little bit of rewriting. I'll take another look later. Don't beat yourself up about Columbia Park, Torrance, California. We're none of us perfect. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Apterygial. I am so sorry that your efforts to review Columbia Park, Torrance, California were disparaged in my RfA. I learned a lot from you and you should not have been treated the way you were. This "grassy expanse recreational area" matter seemed to have gotten out of control. Google define states that a park is "a piece of open land for recreational use in an urban area." "place or area set aside for recreation or preservation of a cultural or natural resource" "Open space lands whose primary purpose is recreation or passive enjoyment by the public." I posted "grassy expanse recreational area" because the reference called it a "grassy expanse" and "a park", I thought "grassy expanse recreational area" sounded better than the redundant "Columbia Park is a park," and the basic definitions of a park seem to support my wording. Before my RfA, Columbia Park, Torrance, California had been viewed 731 times[1][2] and no one had challenged that material. During and after my RfA, the page was viewed another 232 times for a total of 963 view by the end of December.[3] Despite the scrutiny, no one has saw fit to remove the material. I strive to be accurate but I ain't perfect. I would be happy to make any changes you, Malleus, or anyone else suggests. Again, I am so sorry for the way you were treated. -- Suntag ☼ 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to respond here despite the cross-posting to my talk page. I was vaguely disappointed, not with the criticism of the article, which everyone is entitled to do in a public collaboration such as this, but that no-one attempted to improve it to a point where everyone agreed that it was a GA. It is unfortunate that an RFA can do this; it becomes more of a witch hunt - a way to sink the candidate's contributions to the project - than an effort to identify what problems, if any, need resolving. Ideally, the article does not need to go to GAR, I'm sure Malleus will agree with me here, because addressing the concerns of those who opposed on that basis should occur through a simple copyediting process. Suntag, there is really no need to apologise. Despite what I might have said in your RFA, I am confident in my reviewing abilities, and will ensure that this blip is not indicative of my future reviewing efforts. Apterygial 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, RfA is what it is, and I'm likely to be the last person to defend it. My own oppose was simply down to the candidate claiming credit for a couple of GAs one of which in particular I felt was wide of the mark. That's not a criticism of the reviewer though; articles get edited, and we're none of us perfect. I fairly recently let Gulf Stream through a GA sweeps review when I probably shouldn't have done, so I'm no more perfect than anyone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe I yet have the ability of determining whether something I write is GA quality and I relied on others who rated the articles as GA for their judgment. For the most part, I've been a start/B class article contributor. There is value in the amount of time that passes after an article is rate GA, particularly where the article is improve by several editors. Thanks for the feedback. -- Suntag ☼ 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it is no reflection on you that I did not share the reviewer's opinion that the Columbia Park article met the GA criteria. It's a pity that came out at your RfA though, which I know from personal experience can be a pretty bruising affair without that kind of thing. Who knows, it may be me that's wrong anyway, not Apterygial. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe I yet have the ability of determining whether something I write is GA quality and I relied on others who rated the articles as GA for their judgment. For the most part, I've been a start/B class article contributor. There is value in the amount of time that passes after an article is rate GA, particularly where the article is improve by several editors. Thanks for the feedback. -- Suntag ☼ 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, RfA is what it is, and I'm likely to be the last person to defend it. My own oppose was simply down to the candidate claiming credit for a couple of GAs one of which in particular I felt was wide of the mark. That's not a criticism of the reviewer though; articles get edited, and we're none of us perfect. I fairly recently let Gulf Stream through a GA sweeps review when I probably shouldn't have done, so I'm no more perfect than anyone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Greater Manchester January Newsletter, Issue XIII
The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Agreement
Malleus, we both had a rough patch last October, but recently I find myself agreeing with almost every comment you make. I commend your good taste :-), welcome you back to the fray, and I look forward to working with you to kick this encyclopedia (and one or two of its editors) into shape! Geometry guy 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The back end of last year seemed to get a little fraught. Not quite sure why that was, but a little distance since then has allowed me to put things into a better perspective. It's pleasing that we seem to share a common vision for GA in particular, even if it does sometimes seem like shouting in the wilderness. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is a bit, but there are more than just the two of us, thankfully. I'm glad the break brought perspective. I blame the election for the intensity of October/November, and the rest is history. Geometry guy 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus tends to do that with people... he pisses them off, and then people start to see/appreciate him for what he is.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- ... which is someone who pisses people off? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- No no no. They tend to see you as someone who is correct. That pisses people off until they can come to terms with it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus is usually correct because he usually agrees with me, obviously! On the extremely rare occasions when he disagrees with me, I am merely disappointed in the momentary lapse of judgement, not pissed off :-) Geometry guy 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Be careful. Agreeing with Malleus too often tends to be bad for one's health, and you'll end up being accused of "enabling" him. :-) Good to see you back around MF. I'm still mostly gone, but I'm always around. I only log in to pester people these days. Content work (yes, I do that) is almost 100% IP now. Imagine me trying to get thru an rfa after that admission! Gasp! He logs out to edit! Good thing I'm already an untouchable. Keeper | 76 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus is usually correct because he usually agrees with me, obviously! On the extremely rare occasions when he disagrees with me, I am merely disappointed in the momentary lapse of judgement, not pissed off :-) Geometry guy 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- No no no. They tend to see you as someone who is correct. That pisses people off until they can come to terms with it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- ... which is someone who pisses people off? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
second opinion requested at Talk:Hubert Maga/GA1
- See esp. my very last comment. I'd be winding up to throw a hissy if this were at FAC, but perhaps you and/or G-guy may be in favor of a kinder, gentler GAN. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure G-guy and I would both agree that article needs an awful lot of work to meet the GA criteria. I've added my opinion to the review page. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at the lead and the first sentence which struck me as odd was "Born a peasant in 1916, Maga served as a schoolmaster from 1936 to 1946, giving him considerable influence among the uneducated." Maybe it is time to reveal that Malleus is a sock of mine :-)
- More seriously, the style of the lead is unencyclopedic. For instance there are poor tense choices that tell a story rather than present the facts:
- "There was little foreign investment in the country, and unemployment was rising."
- "Maga's minister-ship was not to last, as he soon was convicted of plotting to assassinate Soglo and corruption."
- On the other hand, these are things that could be fixed by an active reviewer. There's no requirement to do so, but the article does at least have decent print sources, more than many GAs can boast, so I would be in favour of a kinder gentler GAN, if you (Ling) have the energy. Geometry guy 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure G-guy and I would both agree that article needs an awful lot of work to meet the GA criteria. I've added my opinion to the review page. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
← This is the kind of article that I both love and hate to come across at GAN. Love, because there's more than enough to make a good article, but hate because I know that I'll have to do a lot of work to get it to the GA standard, and it would be a minor crime not to help out. No pressure on Ling, of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Gulf Stream
Hi Malleus, As we discussed some time ago, I've put an individual reassessment template on the Gulf Stream article and so I'm informing you as the last assessor. I'm pasting the template below.
Gulf Stream has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Richerman (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully the editors will be able to satisfactorily resolve the issues you've highlighted. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm surprised one of the previous editors placed it up for reassessment rather than editing it himself (the references were easily found.) Nonetheless, all the various tags appear to have been fixed. It's amazing how much work I've put into an article I didn't even push through GA originally. I threw a comment about the reassessment on the original GA editor's talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear it's been fixed, it's an important article. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- And it's been easily fixable, so far. Articles like water cycle need so much help that I've had to allow their failure. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear it's been fixed, it's an important article. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm surprised one of the previous editors placed it up for reassessment rather than editing it himself (the references were easily found.) Nonetheless, all the various tags appear to have been fixed. It's amazing how much work I've put into an article I didn't even push through GA originally. I threw a comment about the reassessment on the original GA editor's talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Manchester Liners
'Happy New Year' to you, Malleus! Nice to hear from you again. The shade of red for the funnel and flag was the best I could do. Putting Ted Gray's 'Manchester Liners' book cover next to the Wikipedia image shows little difference. Perhaps my attempt is a little 'pale' rather than too 'light'. Would be happy for a more artistic person than myself to improve on the image. Also - yes please do turn the rectangle into a flag - I just dont have the know how.
Have just bid on Ebay for a set of ML playing cards with the company flag on the reverse. Had thought of uploading an image if I succeed in the bid. This might also give a hint at the true shade of red. I have not been able to lay my hands on a colour image - the one you inserted is the only one I've yet seen.
When you're ready, would most appreciate guidance from you on what needs to be done to attain 'GA' status. I gather that improved 'quality' rather than 'quantity' is the key!
RuthAS (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have a boxed set of two packs of ML playing cards, made by Waddingtons. What information are you hoping to get from them? Mr Stephen (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you compare the reds in this graphic to the red used in the ML logo? Which is closer? Is either even close? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comparing the image using my uncalibrated monitor to the cards under a 60W bulb, I'd say the top one wasn't far off. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The reds look quite different to me, but that's maybe because we've got our monitor displays set up differently. With your permission then, I'm going to make it look a closer match to this image on the front of Grey's book [4].
- I think we should be thinking of a GA nomination sooner rather than later, so I'll have a look through and see what I think remains to be done. We should also ask at the GM project for any input from other members. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus - yes, please go ahead with improving the funnel colours and flag. Another GM project member has added some contributions earlier this afternoon. The more the better ...
- Haws book on the Furness Withy Group including ML says on page 18 '. . . 1898 May; Acquired Manchester Trader; April 26 (sic) sailed Avonmouth-Montreal-Manchester. She brought the first cargo of grain to the city'. Elsewhere, he says the prospectus for ML was issued on May 10. I now conclude that April 26 should read May 26.
- I now have an image of an earlier ML ship taken circa 1912. Unknown photographer. Whilst I am now able to upload my own photos, I still have not learned to steer round the more unusual Wiki licences. Would you mind if I emailed the image to you, please, for inserting in the pre WWI section? RuthAS (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Image licensing is one of wikipedia's tarpits. I'm no expert, but if you send me the image I'll do my best with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- PS, it's amazing, don't you think, the number of errors and discrepancies you find in published sources when you try to bring them all together in an encyclopedia article? When I was writing the Pendle witch trials I couldn't even find a consensus for how many witches there actually were, pretty fundamental! --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes - I'm very happy with the new image of ML's flag and funnel colours - very professional, Malleus! As you surmised, the photo of Engineer was from a pre-WWI anonymous postcard. Your write-up on it is just fine. Re section headings - I split the period into (I think) logical sections - Pre-WWI, WWI, interwars, WWII. After that, the periods to choose are not so obvious, but can't see much wrong with those chosen - it doesnt have to be the 50's, 60's etc. Will make more input in the next day or so. RuthAS (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy with your choice of section headings as well, they make sense to me. One thing that probably does need a little bit of expansion is the Stoker family's involvement. Bob Stoker is just plonked in at the end, without any context. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Malleus Please see Post WWII ops, first para - I think that covers your point re the second R.B.Stoker. RuthAS (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Malleus - have made a first attempt at expanding the introductory narrative, whilst still keeping it succinct. Is it normal to include links in this section? There is now more 'white space' at the top - is this acceptable? Should we add a 'See Also' section to cover such as Manchester Ship Canal - or are the in-text links sufficient? RuthAS (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- White space at the top is no problem. I personally prefer to have as few links in the lead as possible, as any claims there ought to be substantiated in the body of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, Malleus, will delete links in the lead, review and go for GA! Many thanks for all your help. RuthAS (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Malleus My references sources do not give figures for turnover or employees. Stoker quotes profits/losses for the odd year. The table figures came from the Mergers Commission, which I think you located. Will try to find that reference and quote it. Otherwise, it would need a trip to Manchester Central Library, when I can fit that in, to see if they have any sources. RuthAS (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think a reference to the Mergers Commission report would be fine. It's just that a reviewer will expect to see a reliable source for any statistics like those in the infobox, and they're not mentioned anywhere else in the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Malleus - there is an answer to the 'GRT' apparent conflict, but it may be too erudite for the average reader. Cellular ships (as M/cr Concorde), are able to pack in more volume, and therefore cargo, for any given length of ship. GRT is a measure of volume. It may be better if we substitute statements based on ship lengths, which will now be done. Re conversion of Gross Tons. Ship size is still quoted in GRT, even today. I have no access to any conversion factor, which would presumably be to cubic metres capacity. RuthAS (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're the expert, I'll leave it to you to decide. For myself, I find it easier to relate the length of the ship to the length of the locks. I'll have a think about grt ... --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have searched for a comparable shipping line article, for getting a line on treatment of GRT - but there are none! We seem to be 'trailblazing', as Manchester people often do! In shipping circles and in historical books about shipping, GRT still 'rules'. I propose to leave things as they are. Regards. RuthAS (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Malleus Some other shipping line articles include a listing of their ships. Those articles are not as 'rounded' as ours on ML. A listing of ML's vessels would be very long, and would 'unbalance' the article. To compromise, would it be a good idea to add a brief sub-heading, under which a reference would be made to the ML 'Old Mates' link, indicating that the website includes a full fleet listing? RuthAS (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, we'd never get through GAN with a list of ships like that. I think a better idea than linking to the Old Shipmates Association would be to create a list article, and link to that. We could maybe also add a section drawing attention to significant ships in the fleet, with a link to the main list article at the top of it ... not so certain about that, but the more I think of it, the more I think a new List of Ships in Manchester Liners' Fleet article is the way to go. We could even think of putting it forwards as a Featured List in time. :-)
SG GAN
Xin chào Malleus, my best wishes to you & your family towards a happy & properous 2009, as well as in the upcoming Lunar New Year starting from Jan 26 if it's being observed & celebrated in GM by the Asians over your side. I'm finally back (a bit reluctantly) in the Lion City for the time being, & so taking this opportunity to embark on some ad-hoc GAN tasks on behalf of the SGpedian folks once again. I would greatly appreciate if you, or other experienced GA reviewers of good standing, could review this nominated article. Thank you -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nice to hear from you again Aldwin. We have a very large Asian population here in Manchester, and a particularly large Chinese one, so there are big celebrations in Chinatown every year. Good to see you back in the harness working on more Singapore articles as well. I'm in the middle of another review right now, but if Poh Ern Shih Temple hasn't been picked up by the time I've finished that, I'll be glad to take a look at it next. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- To aptly follow what the folks in Manchester's Chinatown will say to each other during the upcoming spring festival - Gong Hei Fatt Choy! (恭喜發財) Hmm, it bring to mind of a video (Ha Ha!) I saw of some enthusiatic non-Chinese New Yorkers singing a popular Chinese New Year song previously. No problem mate, old Staffy will wait with his trusty bone by his side then - there'll be a few more articles to go before I retires to my den again. Lastly, a suggestion here - u may want to consider to add this link or its template (well said indeed!) to your talkpage banner above. As you can see, you are not alone in having these sentiments too. Very bad karma indeed, in view of this growing groundswell of negative energies here. Sigh! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- If it were just one or two editors complaining about a few bad eggs, that could be dismissed as only to be expected. But there does appear to be an increasing groundswell of discontent with the present system of administration, and in particular the far higher standards of behaviour expected of non-administrators; Silensor has got it about right. Something needs to be done pdq, or else the admins will be left with only themselves to administrate.
- Gong Xi Fa Cai (in Chinese) or Gong Hei Fatt Choy (in Cantonese) which means 'Wishing you good tidings/fortune' or its full version as seen in traditional Chinese couplet: Gong Xi Fa Cai, Xin Nian Kuai Le (恭喜發財, 新年快樂) which means 'Wishing you a happy & properous New Year!', are some of the common traditional greetings used during the CNY. Except for those that I've seen in Asia in countries like HK, Taiwan, China, Thailand, Vietnam etc to date, which are huge & electrifying in mood & celebrations all over, I've never experienced personally what the festivities are like in the West, esp where the Chinese are a minority there. According to our human history, CHANGE usually come in two forms - it may come from WITHIN aka 'Restructuring', or WITHOUT aka 'Revolution'. It's an inevitable reality whether we like it or not. Unless we have a visionary who can make inspiring 'Yes, we can!' speeches here (including equally inspiring MV too), just like what William Wilberforce similarly did against the House of Lords back in the 18th century, I believe the current status quo will remain more or less the same in the foreseeable future. Maybe we should keep our fingers crossed for the return of this legendary King, or maybe this King, for a CHANGE 8P. As for me, I go for this spiritual master's saying: 'Be water, my friend' -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hubert Maga GA review
Thanks for the note. I'll try to look at it soon. I'm busy grading Final Exams at this exact moment. Should be finished tomorrow... later! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Induction
Because you stated that you were not part of any cliques, cabals, elite groups, etc, I wanted to induct you into the Literatia. It is a special sekret organization that promotes 18th century English (note English) nationalists. Through this promotion, we seek to undermine the anti-English Imperialists out there. You are allow in because of your amazing work on the Johnson page, and everyone knows that he was the most hard line, Scottish hating, French mocking individual out there. God save the Queen. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- My first invitation to join a clique, I'm touched! I've been called a member of the Manchester claque before, but I've so far failed to make contact with them, so that I can be paid for my efforts. You've just reminded me about the state of William Harrison Ainsworth though ... :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would make a nice 20 part DYK (... that William Ainsworth, a prolific writer, wrote many works including: -list of major works here-?) lol. I would love to work on that with you. I will start prepping in my sub page. Right now, I am trying to do something similar for Leigh Hunt. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm frankly staggered that Ainsworth, considered in his day the equal of Dickens, and an author with at least one book that has never been out of print to his credit, is so shabbily dealt with in his wikipedia article. I can feel another trip to the library coming on ... --Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll start a subpage next week, list major works in section, and start dumping research. Once we figure out what works have enough information to really go at (there should be quite a few), we can start piecing together pages. Also, I would think that a very large DYK would be good, because the larger the DYK, the more attention it gets. Plus, if Ainsworth has over 10 pages listed on his DYK, he will be near the top of the largest DYK sets, which would make it impossible for him to be ignored in the future. :) It's madness, but it will be wonderful madness. 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Its a simple enough process (or was, unless things changed again on me, hah!) but we will just have to build all of the articles together in basically a 48 hour period. So, prepping them in a subpage tends to help. :) I already have some info on Ainsworth in a subpage, so I will have to start a new one for this task. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll start a subpage next week, list major works in section, and start dumping research. Once we figure out what works have enough information to really go at (there should be quite a few), we can start piecing together pages. Also, I would think that a very large DYK would be good, because the larger the DYK, the more attention it gets. Plus, if Ainsworth has over 10 pages listed on his DYK, he will be near the top of the largest DYK sets, which would make it impossible for him to be ignored in the future. :) It's madness, but it will be wonderful madness. 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm frankly staggered that Ainsworth, considered in his day the equal of Dickens, and an author with at least one book that has never been out of print to his credit, is so shabbily dealt with in his wikipedia article. I can feel another trip to the library coming on ... --Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Olivia, did you tell him the secret phrase? "Oh-wa-ta-gu-si-am"?
Danebury
Hi Malleus Fatuorum, I think I said once before (and elsewhere) your ability for grammatical analysis considerably exceeded mine.Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just a curmudgeonly, pedantic, grumpy old man Pyrotec. It's a nice article, but I wouldn't have passed it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I understand, following the problems highlighted by Pyroctec, I was considering withdrawing it but hoped I would be able to improve it in time. The article can be better and GA isn't about badge collecting. Feel free to delist it, I'll continue working on it as I now have greater access to sources. Nev1 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I went through and fixed everything you mentioned. Wrad (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Saved; thanks for your support. This means all the Grade II* listed buildings in Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire now have articles. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you a cricket player or cricket fan?
If not, I have a question for you. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Living in England of course I played cricket at school, but that was an awful long time ago. I don't even watch cricket on TV, because it bores the pants off me almost as much as snooker does. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
;)
Thanks. — Realist2 16:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Deprod notification: Chris Kirby article
The article had already been proposed for deletion, so I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kirby using the reason from the PROD template. —Snigbrook 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA criticism
In this case, I'm not sure how you can be critical of the process but not critical of individual editors. I'll give two reasons; first, asking the 20th or 30th question on an RfA is a simple lapse of common sense. Whether you believe the process should be governed more strictly or changed or dispensed with completely, you surely agree that there are times when the problem is the behavior of the participants. Of course there are structural (and no-blame) methods of addressing these behavioral problems, but see my next point.
Second, very little improvement to the process has come about in the last two years through any sort of consensus agreement. You've noticed, I'm sure, that many problems are simply cyclical - some seem to go away while others arrive, but before long those unmissed issues return at full power. When they are related to the behavior of individuals - whether nominators, voters, candidates or questioners - the only effective remedy I've seen is (a) the people at fault recognize it and reform and (b) the public airing of their errors warn off others. While saying "ashamed" may have been too harsh a choice of wording, naming names (as opposed to an amorphous 'those other people') seems to be the best option. Avruch T 00:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, to paraphrase Jonathan Swift, "Principally I hate and detest that animal called RfA; although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth." --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Allright, you asked for it!
Dlohcierekim 02:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
FA question
Hello, Malleus. It's been a while, and I hope all is going well with you. I believe you were one of the first !Admins I asked for advice over my first and only experience with FA. (It turned out to the positive). Today an editor began making stylistic changes to the article (Anna May Wong), and I objected on the grounds that this sort of thing had all been worked out during the course of the FA trial-by-fire... If you could look in at the recent edits (and reverts) to that article, and my discussion with the editor here to offer input based on your FA expertise, it would be much appreciated. Dekkappai (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Blimey, Anna May Wong again. I thought we'd managed to put that one to bed. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've taken a look, and it's like the curate's egg, good in parts. First of all I don't understand the nonsense about the repeated change of date format in the lead, and the justification being given for the change is absurd. On the other hand, I do quite like the rejigging of the lead into chronological order, that works for me. Such a change would have no effect on the article's FA status. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right-- I reverted that as part of the date controversy without reading it. I'll change that back... Thanks for looking in. The question remains though (at least in my mind) How much tinkering should be allowed after an article has passed FA? I admit I have little patience with Wiki's "guidelines" of the minute, and have no intention of seeing what, if anything, they say on this particular issue. I go with my gut on this sort of thing, and ask trusted editors for further input. Gut says: Treat an FA as somewhat settled, additions should contribute substance, not stylistic nit-picking. Dekkappai (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- In order to keep up with FA standards, there will need to be some stylisitic as well as substance changes to articles. I don't treat FAs on my watchlist as sacred, but I do try hard to keep out unreferenced additions. Stylistic things aren't such a big deal, if folks like to switch words around and stuff, it's no skin off my nose. (Probably why Malleus will put up with copyediting my research efforts, I don't scream bloody murder when he whacks my prose.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- It has occasionally happened that an editor has objected to my battering of what they believe to be their unimpeachable prose into some sort of grammatical and comprehensible shape. Curiously, on the couple of occasions I can remember it's been non-native English speakers, so I just leave them to it and go do something else. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) In general stylistic nit-picking is discouraged whether an article's an FA or not. Consistency is key though, which is why the date format in the lead ought not to be changed. Period. As to how much an article can be altered after it becomes an FA, well, how long is a piece of string? Certainly I think that the relatively minor reordering of the lead being suggested wouldn't cause any FA reviewer's heart to flutter, and would likely be an improvement IMO. At the other extreme, I'd probably begin to become concerned if whole new sections were being added—particularly if the referencing for any new stuff wasn't up to snuff, as Ealdgyth says—or existing sections removed. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both for the input. I'm generally not one to quibble much over style (other than consistency, as you point out), and welcome improvements to my prose. I do have the feeling that edits to an FA should be either clear improvements or valid additions. (There's a fairly major episode in Anna May Wong's life I left out because of complaints the article was already too long... now I wonder...) But I'll keep the above in mind. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
So we've made it - the first FL for WikiProject Cheshire! Thanks for your help and support. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Great news! I commend you for your patience with the process Peter, which seems just as arbitrary to me now as it did when we were trying to get Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester through. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ainsworth
I purchased a few books that I could track down and were not over 200 dollars. They should arrive next week. However, one of the professors that I was to work with when finishing my dissertation is gone, so I suffered another major real life set back. I will work hard when I can on this (seeing as how this was the third major set back due to staffing for my dissertation). I will dedicate myself even further so I can further my own understanding and hopefully publish some more on my own so I can get over these academic problems. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- It'll probably all work out for the best in the end Ottava. Some years ago I worked with a guy who'd recently completed his PhD. Nothing particularly remarkable in that, except that in the three years or so it took he'd met with his supervisor only four times, and he wasn't even doing his research at the university, but for a small company he'd set up himself. (In case you're interested, his field of study was 3D imaging.) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know of many groups that really care about Keats and his response to the Anglican tradition. :) I will link you with my user subpage of material when I start placing some. Then we can discuss what we will need. Also, I can forward you some access information into various databases when the time comes. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment on RFA talk page
Hello. I felt rather hurt by this comment of yours on the RFA talk page. Your suggestion that I should be removed (i.e. banned) from the project because I think some RFA questions are silly is a personal attack and completely against the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Civility. Please be more respectful and considerate towards me and others in future. Really, stuff like makes editors want to leave and is highly detrimental to the growth of Wikipedia.--Pattont/c 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- MALLEUS, I can't believe it... YOU of all people are being accused of incvility??? NEVER!!! It never happens! You are the model wikipedian... I'm going to block you!
- PATTON, two things. First, Malleus is an Ass, everybody knows that. The best way to deal with him, is dish it back at him in kind, and ignore half of what he says---the other half is usually pretty insightful. Second, I do think you are being a little over sensitive there. Your comment about it being "silly" could similarly be seen as a personal attack.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)