Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:I meant if the threat of a civility block materialised. I've given up on the RfA process, it clearly doesn't work.I won't mention the absurdity of an admin coach not understanding when blocks should be used. Oops, I just did. --] (]) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
:I meant if the threat of a civility block materialised. I've given up on the RfA process, it clearly doesn't work.I won't mention the absurdity of an admin coach not understanding when blocks should be used. Oops, I just did. --] (]) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
::Your choice, of course, Malleus. RfA has lots of problems, no doubt. Admin coaching does too. Don't let The Man drag you down though. You do a lot of good work around here. Be damned whoever thinks admin is the goal or end all. Be damned. ] | ] | ] 22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
::Your choice, of course, Malleus. RfA has lots of problems, no doubt. Admin coaching does too. Don't let The Man drag you down though. You do a lot of good work around here. Be damned whoever thinks admin is the goal or end all. Be damned. ] | ] | ] 22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
::I came here for one purpose and one purpose only to mention that your behavior was inappropriate. I had no desire to turn it into an official "warning." But your response basically left me with no choice... instead of being civil, you decided to be rude and continued being rude after I stopped posting.] (]) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also concerned about a civility issue here, and because this appears not to be on the path towards resolution, I am opening up an RfC on user conduct. — <span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size: 14pt">] </span><span style="font-family:Script MT Bold"><sup>(]/])</sup></span> 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also concerned about a civility issue here, and because this appears not to be on the path towards resolution, I am opening up an RfC on user conduct. — <span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size: 14pt">] </span><span style="font-family:Script MT Bold"><sup>(]/])</sup></span> 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Eric Corbett! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Happy New Year to all our Greater Manchester Wikipedians! The project now has 34 members. 5 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. On behalf of the team I hope they have prosperous and enjoyable usership and wish them well with their forthcoming work!
User:Archtransit and User:Rudget, both part of our team, are current candidates for adminship (see here for Archtransit and here for Rudget). We wish them luck with this persuit and hope they will become our latest project participants with admin status!
Simillarly, the Portal:North West England is now officially a featured portal. User:Rudget has been overwhelmingly involved with this portal and he too is hereby thanked on behalf of the project for his continued contributions to this page and many others.
There have been a number of debates this month, some of which with a high level of potential impact for the project and its members.
Article assessment for the project became a point of contention when around 1400 articles were tagged by a bot. Most of these artcles were on "minor" association football players. The consensus was that in our state of around 30 participants and as a predominatly geography based project, most of these articles should be untagged, at very least for the time being. Of our 1403 articles now tagged however, only (?) 85% are assessed - a drop of 15%!
Perhaps one of the most notable debates this month was the possibility of... scrapping the project newsletter! User:Rudget has written the last three editions (that's all of them!) and has decided that he'd like to pass on the responsibility. It has been proposed that a noticeboard system be introduced to highlight new issues in a near(!)-realtime fashion. I User:Jza84 am writing what could now be the last GM newsletter for a while. If you're a member of the team, but aren't closely involved with the project, then we'd love to hear from you at WT:GM with your views on which system of communication is the right way forwards (if any/both!).
Monthly Challenges
As was stated in last months newsletter, the Greater Manchester remains a key article for the project, and one which has been identified as urgent in our quest for Featured Article status. Sadly, for all our other successes, Greater Manchester has changed little since this time last year] (!) and is still an article requiring expansion and development. The new WP:UKCOUNTIES guide may provide new ways in which to channel our efforts. Although we endevour to have good article status even for our suburbs and hamlets, other articles specifically identified as needing development towards FA include Salford, Stretford and Altrincham.
Many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Rochdale, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard - much lower than we should have. If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these.
One final challenge for this month is for all those with new digial cameras for Christmas, or even digial images stored away on a disc!... many of our place articles are still without a single photograph, and www.geograph.org.uk is running low on quality images. Even those with photographs often have a low quality photograph of the local church. MORE ARE NEEDED! Especially townscapes! If you think you can help, a barnstar is up for grabs for best picture added in the next month or so!
We're always looking for potential new project members and ways for greater communication, collaboration and participation. WP:GM has a strong core of users, but would like to have more input from a wider user-base. If you can think of ways to improve our ways of working, please feel free to mention them at WT:GM. Simillarly, if you notice a new or unapproached user who is producing sound work related to Greater Manchester and its consituent parts, please don't forget to ask them if they'd like to join us, either in your own hand, or by adding {{Welcome WPGM}} to their talk page.
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered on January 5th, 2008 by Jza84. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
Preview Button
Dear Malleus Fatuarum
I was surprised to see that on 18 December you were refining John_Brogden_and_Sons and created 16 permanent new versions of the article in 30 minutes. May I recommend the “Show Preview” button on the edit system? It says, ”Please use this before saving”. It could have been used to check evary change before going on to the next one.
Every version takes up some of Misplaced Pages’s disk space. Disks have to be purchased, they have to be kept running all the time using electricity and all the data must be backed up regularly. Please consider using the Show Preview button to make the best use of Misplaced Pages’s funds and to keep down its carbon footprint.
I hope I am not offending you by mentioning this but I believe we all have the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart and I think this point is worth considering.
I'm not offended, rather I'm surprised. The changes I made were to 12 separate sections, and so it was perfectly reasonable to make them as a series of edits on each section rather than a bigger edit on the entire article.
So far as disk space is concerned, it is only the deltas that are stored, and the same deltas would have been generated and required to be stored whether the edits were made as a series or as a single change, because the difference between the article's initial state and its final state would have been the same in both cases. In other words, it is not versions that are stored, but the differences between versions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I am very pleased to learn that the system stores only deltas and I agree that that makes it fine to save any change so long as it is known to be correct. Budhen (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Truce
I think it's time for yet another truce. I do have a soft spot for you, Malleus, as I've known you for quite a while, but I just can't stand to see your bitterness and aggressiveness to other users. I know it's due to you being a very sensitive person, but you need to realise that it only makes things worse for yourself. I've learnt this the hard way during my time on Misplaced Pages. Please try to be more relaxed and nice to people, for your own sake. I'm sorry for lecturing you, but I hope you consider my advice. I do understand why your upset with me, and I'm sorry. Epbr123 (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sensitive is not something that anyone who knew me in real life would call me, quite the reverse. ;-) Forgive me if I have misunderstood your offer of a truce, but it appears to me to be that if I agree with you that I am "bitter and aggressive" then I will be forgiven for my sins. I hope that you may be able to understand that that doesn't sound like a particularly great deal, more like a witchcraft trial.
Recent events have made me begin to wonder whether it is worthwhile persevering with wikipedia though, so you have certainly given me some additional food for thought. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not the place for what would be a very long litany of wikipedia's problems, one of which would be the farcical RfA process. But so far as you and I are concerned, none of those problems are personal. So, to avoid any misinterpretation that they may be, as I said, I will not make any comment in your RfA, truce or no truce. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to comment at my RFA. You've proven here that it isn't personal. I would like to hear what your problems with me actually are. From the opinions you've been expressing on various pages over the past few months, it surely hasn't anything to do with "incivility". Epbr123 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. What opinions on what pages? So far as your RfA is concerned, I have determined that I will not take part, simply to avoid any interpretation that my inevitable oppose would be a tit-for-tat response to your conduct in my failed RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see. It's certainly true that many seem to see "incivility" where I see robust discussion. But there do have to be limits, and I made my opinion clear at your RfC. My opinion hasn't changed since then. Perhaps in time it would, but my fear is that like so many admin candidates you may just have jumped through whatever hoops are necessary, confident that there is very little likelihood of you ever being desysopped no matter how you conduct yourself as an administrator. If your RfA is successful, then I hope that you will prove me wrong. If it is unsuccessful, then I may even be persuaded to support your next application, given a few months. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you about the difference in acceptable behaviour between admin candidates and admins. I stated such at RFA's RfC, and suggested each admin should have to have a repeat RFA once a year. I'm glad to hear you imagine still being here in a few months. I'd be willing to nominate you for adminship myself in a few months, if you just make a tiny effort to be nicer in certain circumstances. Epbr123 (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Malleus. As the one who pointed you to the RfC, I've felt bad for some time about any negative fall-out your participation in it may have caused to your own request for Adminship. However, noticing your comment at Epbr123's page, I really don't think you should recuse yourself from comment at his RfA. I plan to write one tonight. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It was my choice to comment or not in that RfC, so nothing for you feel bad about. Even I'd known ahead of time what the fall-out was to be, I'd still have gone ahead anyway.
I think that it would not be difficult for anyone who cared to, to pretty accurately guess my opinion on this RfA, but I will stick with my decision not to get involved with it. If I were to express a negative view then that could too easily be wrongly attributed to a desire to get my own back instead of being my honestly held opinion. The truth is that I have little regard for the conduct and probity of many administrators as it is; one more or less really won't make very much difference. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Why have you left now?! God, members are dropping like flies! I didn't read Rudget's reasons for leaving properly, I saw that he wasn't getting along with you and guessed that is the reason. Please come back to the project. There are few members I respect more than yourself and believe your edits are superior to most. └┘talk00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It's just another indication to me that wikipedia and I are incompatible. One values civility, which I do also, but I value honesty more. Andrew suggested that I "must be feeling guilty", presumably for - in his eyes - chasing St Rudget off the project. I am not about to pretend that I didn't hear that just for the sake of a quiet life. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to say it, I'm just hyper on coca-cola, should have kept my gob shut. I don't blame you for Rudget's departure, he left on his own accord and my comments on his talk page were not aimed at you but anybody who had put him off WP:GM. His GM related edits had decreased somewhat of late due to the curse of adminship. He's probably right that it was best he left but I certainly don't feel the same about you. Please come back, even if just for the sake of our magnificent county. └┘talk00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
You truely are one of Misplaced Pages's greatest editors. I really hope you continue to grace the encyclopaedia with your time and edits. └┘talk00:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There are good editors and there are bad editors. You're in the former. If all the good editors go, what's the point in this whole project? Why leave?? You have my support, and others, so it's not like you have odd-ball minority views. You've tried to take on several "big dogs", and admire you very much for that. I totally sympathise it can seem like talking to a brick wall - I've struggled too with our very own Scottish Mafia, but I just plod along.
If I think I know your "wiki-self" well enough, I'm a worried though that you are a conviction-user, and really do mean that you're leaving us. I'd be disappointed though if you didn't reconsider. I'm struggling for a way of asking you to come back without sounding patronising, but there is sincerity in my text when I say come back and help us. You're the one-eyed-man in the kingdom of the blind. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If you recall the text, the outcome was that the seeing person was forced to flee the Kingdom of the Blind, to avoid being blinded himself. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Damn. OK, granted that was a bad example.... But, it's not quite Shakespere, but "there is no fate but what we make"!!! There's no good to come with you punishing (I know you're going to twist that word around) WP:GM. I believe Just don't go. You're a good guy and even better editor. It seems like madness to leave the project that admires you the most :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll think on it. Right now I've just about had enough of the asymmetry that allows Andrew, Rudget, and others, to make the comments that they do, whereas I get hauled over the coals for expressing an opinion far less offensive their own. If this kind of vindictive behaviour is considered to be acceptable, then I want no part of wikpedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages isn't gonna be losing you as a contributor? You're one of the finer GA reviewers and are badly needed. If one particular group of articles and their contributors are giving you stress ... just stay away from them! You'll be doing that anyway if you permanently leave, so just take 'em off your watchlist! Good to see you look like staying. Don't reconsider ... please! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a tad surprise that anything in Archive VIII, much of which comes from months ago, would be enough for some people to override everything else I've done or be seen as a reason not to hand the "mop and bucket", but I wouldn't withdraw it even if there were 8 opposes and 2 supports. The worst thing that can happen is that your potential flaws are pointed out to you! :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi-- I think I'm done commenting directly on the RfA, so do as you will. I just think there's a line between making a clear point and "piling on" unnecessarily that should be respected. Of course, everyone's perception of where that line is will differ, so…I've offered my opinion, and I'll leave it at that. -Pete (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
And I too have simply offered my opinion. To which I will add that I find your "piling on" analogy to be a bizarre misunderstanding of the facts. But each to their own. You live in your world, and I'll live in mine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I regret bringing it up. I think my word choice was poor. I'll admit my understanding of the facts was probably not sufficient to justify commenting on it, I really haven't read it all carefully. I suppose that means it was my choice to use words at all that was poor. -Pete (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I think your article-work is impressive, and of high quality. I want to give you this Barnstar in recognition of your excellent work. Acalamari18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
For the kind words on my talk page. I still plan to edit here, don't worry: I'm not going to leave. :) See you around! Acalamari22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malleus (ha, usually I shorten names to initials, but thought that might be inappropriate here :-) I was wondering if you might reconsider your !vote against Riana (at least for the reason given). I'm asking as someone who was basically of the same mind as yourself during the whole AT debacle (you endorsed my statement here). I just think it's a little unfair to hold that against her, but you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I didn't see Riana advocating on AT's behalf, instead, I think she was just obliging a request for help by other editors. I also didn't see any action, on Riana's part, trying to excuse the poor behavior. Anyway, thought I would leave a note here instead of piling on at the RfA. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll certainly think about it. I agree with you that Riana made no effort to excuse Archtransit's behaviour, but I do not like to see the administrator's club closing ranks instead of dealing appropriately with a gross violation of trust. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Offering mentorship is one way of trying to deal with bad behavior. Sure, there's room for disagreement over how effective it tends to be, but it is one way of trying to fix the problem. Friday(talk)00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not certain that I'm finding this apparently concerted attempt to change my mind particularly edifying. I already said that I'll think about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
One reason I was never that worried about the outcome, was because it was so predictable. There was no way anyone could be that obtuse and not be doing it on purpose. Sure the mentoring thing was a little detour, but ultimately, problem solved. If I remember right, AT tried to keep Riana off of the mentoring short list. . .there's probably a reason for that. Well, I just wanted to let you know my take on things, if you consider it, thanks. If it doesn't sway, well, like I said you are entitled to your own thoughts on the matter. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Another round of issues addressed. I still have a bit of questions. And, I still need help on the lead (may be a bullet pointed list of suggestions telling what is interesting/important to a non-Bangladeshi reader, i.e. you?). Thanks. Aditya15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll make some suggestions on the talk page for what I think should be done with the lead. Good work so far. I'm confident we can get this to GA before the hold period ends. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you're right: you're a very good person to ask for feedback. If you have any comments or criticism about me or my use of the tools, I would like to hear them. Your input is valuable. Acalamari20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I posted a reply on the GA list-thing for Skinner...if you could see if I have the order right, that'd be awesome! I'm going to work on getting that article to GA standard -- was wondering if you'd be interested in sort of 'mentoring' me through the process? Thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help you in any way I can to get Skinner that GA listing. I'm still very much a behaviourist at heart myself. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok -- I'm going to start working on it today a little -- could you sort of give me 'assignments' to start on? I'm really not sure how to begin. Thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you're looking for suggestions ...
I think that the whole structure of the article needs looking at again, but I'd suggest that you might like to start by working on the Biography section. The largest paragraph has very little to do with Skinner's biography, and the whole section is completely unreferenced. Referencing - with inline citations - is really important for GA/FA articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok -- I'll tackle it next -- while I was waiting, I noticed the political views seemed disjointed and just choppy paragraphs (I think someone mentioned that as an issue earlier) -- I tried to fix that...what do you think? B._F._Skinner#Political_views Thanks for your help! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Good work on finding those references. I changed the format to use the {{cite}} template; we need to be very careful to provide all of the information that a reviewer will expect. Having looked more closely at the article now, I can see that the citations that are already there need a good deal of work as well. A lot to do on this article! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to, but I'd strongly suggest that you did. It standardises the format, and makes it clear what information ought to be included. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Misplaced Pages since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Misplaced Pages's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Misplaced Pages is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Misplaced Pages supports both spellings.
Misplaced Pages:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Misplaced Pages:Lead section.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Not a problem. You made a very valid point about GA. I actually used to do quite a few of these about a year or so ago, but had a bad experience once with a Greek editor with poor English skills about an Ancient Grecian military skirmish. The article consisted of an 8 paragraph lead (which didn't explain why the battle was taking place), used one source (admittedly it was repeated over and over) and had an image of an Ancient Roman ditch. When I failed it he went berzerk and got his pal to muscle in who agreed I was a (quote) "baby" and should not have failed it because it was rated (by an anon) as A class by the Military history WikiProject.
I've just made a couple of changes to St Buryan according to WP:UKCITIES layout, but on inspection of the talk page, found there is talk of "consistency nazi" reviewers. Great.
Hey, all good reviewers get death threats from time to time. I had a whole load of abusive emails after I failed the Albigensian Crusade, based mainly on the premise that someone with a science degree had no right to be reviewing arts subjects. I really do hate the "group hug" bollox, but sometimes I think that each of needs to be reminded that we're important and special, no matter how much that we pretend that we don't care. I exclude myself from that generalisation, of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed that article, and, it was a fail. It's my first review in a while. I'm not sure if my standards are too high or feedback is too low, but I think I've given helpful feedback on how to take the article forwards, which is surely what the GA process is all about. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That's in many ways a nice article, but I think that you were right to fail it. And you're also right that the review should give some guidance for improvements, as I think that yours did. Nice job. My fault has been that I'm often tempted to dig in and do whatever's needed to get the article its GA listing, but I'm beginning to realise that life may be too short for that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that quality of digging in from you, though admire it. You put in alot of great work and think you're really beginning to get a reputation for premium reviewing. Myself? I try not to get into these oft time-and-space sucking "blackholes" of reviews and RfAs so much as I just want to get more and more FAs for the GM area. I particularly want to get Salford and Rochdale upto scratch, then I think I'd start to consider winding down some of my activities on here to be honest! I'm not sure though, as I thought that during FAC for Oldham. Certainly I don't feel there are enough quality editors around yet to feel comfortable in leaving outright. I still believe there is so much to do and so many dangers to beat off!
Also, whilst you're about, I've been meaning to share a suggestion with you for a while, although I'm not sure it's your sort of thing or way of working!... At risk of breaching some form of WP:SPAM...(!)... I'd very much recommend a copy of Tradition in Action: The Historical Evolution of the Greater Manchester County for purposes of Misplaced Pages. It's a 300 page hard-back mini-encyclopedia with colour plates, photographs, diagrams and cites its own sources in full! It's a fantastic resource (I've used it on pretty much every FA we've submitted) and is only a few pounds at a rather famous online book store. I've found it very useful and think you would too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion; sounds good, I'll take a look. While we're sharing confidences, I'll admit that I joined wikipedia just to improve the Trafford articles, which is pretty much done now with the major exception of Trafford Park. There are a few other articles I still want to work on, not to do with the GM project, but once they're done, like you, I think I'll be scaling my efforts back to something more sustainable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Question for you
Hey MF, I have a quick question for you regarding your comment on WT:RFA, I'm rather disappointed that what ought to have been a serious discussion about the duty of care that a nominator has at RfA has so degenerated. Disappointed, but not surprised. I'm guilty of levity, agreed and noted. (and stopped). Besides that though, I'm a bit puzzled trying to figure out what you mean regarding "duty of care that a nominator has at RfA". What are your expectations of nominators? I haven't delved too far into nomming (I've only done one), and I'm very interested in your opinion about what you believe a nominator's role is both pre-RfA, during RfA, and (not as much) after RfA. Reply here or there, or not at all. Cheers friend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of situations such as, for instance, a nominator proposing a candidate whilst apparently being completely unaware that there was an ongoing RfC concerning that candidate. In the particular case I'm thinking of, the candidate was warned by another editor about the likely outcome of his RfA and withdrew. In general, I think that a nominator ought not just to be nominating his mates, but ought to have looked as carefully into the candidate's background as those looking at the RfA will, and not subject candidates doomed to fail to run the RfA gauntlet, and perhaps become another wikipedia casualty as a result. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Malleus. I agree with that 100%. I can't imagine nominating someone intentionally whilst knowing that they are the subject of an RfC. That really happened recently? further, I can't imagine nominating someone without digging all the way back through contribs, for my own reputation if not for the stress levels of the candidate. I appreciate your follow up, and I'm of course, extremely curious about what candidate you are alluding to as I don't know. But I can let it go. Or you can tell me. Or I can let it go. Damn. I hope I can let it go. Maybe a quick dig through your contribs will help me.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
zOMG. Thanks for that. I had just started looking through your contribs and felt a need to vomit at the gross incivility, pompous arrogance...ok, you know I'm just messing with you. (I didn't touch your contribs). That being said, you've gotten a bad rap somehow. I don't get it. Robust =/= incivil, IMO. Based on your GA work, most recently my direct involvement here, I think you would be make a fair and balanced terrific admin (I'm aware of your RfA "history" and say meh - I find it to be, frankly, disgusting how you were treated.) I, for one, would support. Ok, enough from me. If you want a nom though, from a n00b, you know where to find me. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I was just unlucky to fall foul of the wrong people early on in my editing, while I was still finding my feet. But that's water under the bridge now. It'll be a long time before I think about going through another RfA, if I ever do. But I thank you for your kind offer nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That's twice now that I've seen you reference pin/stick/eyes. I don't believe you. Let me know if/when you want a run at it. I'll nom. Rudget, who I respect, will oppose, as will others. But, really do you care?. The buttons are tremendously useful and you've been battered around long enough to make use of them and would use them appropriately. I have no doubt that you would use them appropriately, so much so that I'd stake my own tools on it. (Meaning if you were recalled, I'd give up my own.) There, I said it. Now that I've inflated your ego a bit, let me know about that nom. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to thank you for the ego inflation, but I really do mean it. I don't want to name names, but there are those that would consider their opposition to be quite justified, and they're as entitled to their opinion as I am to consider it mischievous or fallacious. Perhaps in a few months, after the scarring has begun to heal, I may feel differently, but for now I really would prefer to stick pins in my eyes.
Your offer to stake your own tools on my potential misuse of admin tools is way above what I was referring to when I talked about a "duty of care". You obviously have a generous heart. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!
This barnstar is awarded for your efforts in helping Greater Manchester to achieve good article status. A great collaborative effort from some of the members of the Greater Manchester WikiProject. Joshii└┘15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, Malleus, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the January newsletter there has been an increase of 5 featured articles/lists, taking our total number of featured entries upto 16 17 (Trafford passed today!).
Although WP:GM leads the way in terms of featured content by a local British project, the Kent and Yorkshire WikiProjects are close to this total, with 11 and 14 featured entries respectively.
Following a somewhat frenzied collaboration at the start of March, and a nomination by User:Joshii, Greater Manchester was promoted to GA status. It's the first metropolitan county to obtain this recognition.
There has otherwise been a reduction in WP:GM nominations for GA status, something which the project has begun to discuss on the talk page.
Having completed all but one of our short term aims set last December, the project would like to look at developing new short term aims. Suggestions have been made here, but there is scope for flexibility. Do you have a entry you would like to see developed?
Two members have left the project however, each for rather different reasons:
Archtransit (talk·contribs) was an administrator, and project member, who was found to have been abusing his editting and sysop privliges. Following investigation, Archtransit was banned indefinately. A report in The Signpost is found here.
Rudget (talk·contribs), also an administrator, decided to leave the project. Reasons mentioned included the demands of admin duties taking over too much time. Rudget helped towards Didsbury's GA promotion, and Portal:North West England's FP promotion.
Thanks
This WikiProject, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
WP:GM is a great project, and is leading the way for local WikiProjects of the UK. However, though the project talk page is a hub of activity, it is regularly used by only a core of 5-6 editors, which isn't making the most of its potential. Indeed, a study, by the University of Minnesota found that "One-tenth of 1 percent of editors account for nearly half of Misplaced Pages's content value". We at WP:GM do not want to follow suit!
There are several editors who have, sadly, not editted since the turn of 2008, and others, which concentrate in areas other than Greater Manchester material (which is quite fine!).
The WikiProject Greater Manchester would like to know if YOU are still around, and if so, if you've like to be more involved, and, if not, why not and what can we do to get you involved and be a bigger part of the team?
Feel free to come by the project talk page and leave us a message on what you're working on and/or what you'd like to see improved. The project is only as strong as its members and we'd like to know if you're still active or if we can help you with your editting.
Images
A picture's worth a thousand words
In our last issue, a plea was made for more images to be submitted to Misplaced Pages/WikiCommons to improve the quality and context of our articles. Many of our Top priority articles are still lacking in quality images, if any!
www.geograph.org.uk is an online resource of photographs of places in the UK, which we can use. Www.flickr.com also has some images we are permitted to use. Do you have a digital camera however? Can you take photographs of townscapes and landmarks in your local area that can be used here? Middleton, Hulme and Rochdale all have examples of images in their lead that help give a sense of place and improve the context to our readers.
Simillarly, many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Stockport, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard with short lead sections and unreferenced sections - a much lower standard than we should allow! If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. There is a list of resources that can help.
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered on March 8th, 2008 by Jza84. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
Cheers
When I logged in today, I was half expecting to see that the article failed. But... yippeee! Beer Anyone? And, you can pick up check too. Long live Sitakunda Upazila and all other obscure places in the world. Aditya03:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Education in Didsbury
We need to find a good solution to developing the coverage of education; in particular to incorporate information on primary schools. Adding details of schools to one of the lists is not a good idea. If you are not happy with details of primary schools being added to the main article then breaking out an Education in Didsbury page seems the way to go. If you are OK with that I'll create it. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with that, and neither am I happy with the redirect you set up, which I was just about to flag for deletion. Primary schools are very rarely notable enough to have their own articles, so their inclusion in the List of schools in Greater Manchester is sufficient in my view, unless there's something special about one particular school. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, most primary schools do not merit their own pages so the practice is to merge them into articles on their locality. There is significant scope to expand education coverage. I don't see your objection to a separate article. TerriersFan (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My objection is a concern that there may not sufficient notable material for a separate article on, let's say, Education in Didsbury, that would justify it being split from its locality. I may of course be quite wrong, so until I see an example of your alternative proposal I'll withold judgment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could make a list of things that you see are wrong with the refs so I can correct them. I will attempt to address your comments and win your support vote if you give me a chance. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My two main complaints are that not every publication with an isbn is in the Bibliography section, only some of them, depending on how many times they're cited, and the parameters inside the cite templates are not used consistently; sometimes id=, sometimes isbn= for instance. I kmow this may seem to be very picky, but we're talking about an article that ought to represent the very best of wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I went through all of the references and made changes to the formats to make them consistent. I also did not put every book used in the reference section since the Misplaced Pages policy stated that section was for books used more than once. Thus, books that are only used once are not included in the bibliography. I would be happy to change that if you could provide a Misplaced Pages policy - I am learning new things as I go along and I admit I can be wrong sometimes. I just want to see a Misplaced Pages policy that I can follow and right now I think the page conforms. Also, papal succession is discussed in the sub-section entitled Apostolic Succession under the section Church and Papal Authority. I did not include mention of a female pope as we are trying to keep the article on task with the most notable events in history. Criticisms of the Catholic Church is a main page see also that is at the top of the Church History section. Criticisms about the crusades and inquisitions are discussed more fully in that article as ours is a brief overview of the most notable events. The picture next to the crusades is about Pope Urban preaching the crusades, hardly flattering. The sale of indulgences and the reformation is discussed and wikilinked in the History section - look for the pictur of Martin Luther and your there! Please come back and take another look, I would really like to win your support. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I am wrong again, I just checked the Misplaced Pages policy its something like WP:FOOT and read further into the style suggestion taking a look at the example and their example does list every book even if its used only once. I am going to go make those changes to the page right now and I hope you come back to reconsider your vote. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have made the changes to the footnotes that were needed. If your not too busy elsewhere I'd like to know what you think about the page now and reconsider your vote. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a pleasure to see we generally agree with each other for once, after our past (regretable) dificulties. Dificulties that were created far more by me than you, I might add. Best Wishes and Happy Editing! Pedro : Chat 21:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No sweat. You said what you thought, and I said what I thought after my failed RfA. It's better out than in, and it's now ancient history as far as I'm concerned. Life's too short to stay bothered about stuff like that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Malleus; I got distracted with the Glittergirl FAC disruptor ... such a timesink, takes 25 mins to deal with every time she pops up ... thx for finishing up at RCC, wish I could achieve some calm there and get things to stay focused on WIAFA. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Help for NPOV on Atheism
Malleus Fatuarum. I have looked at GAR and FAR archives and you are one of the Wikipedians who best fight for Neutrality. Your help is needed at Atheism where the article sounds as an apology of Atheism and worse, it is a Featured Article! The editors are strongly against any change. They are propose a very minor compromise in the form of linking to Criticism to Atheism.
I told them the article on atheism "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." (NPOV)
Thanks for your kind words. I took a break this morning and realized I needed to persevere to the end. The new FA comments seem to be at least something I can address, they arent blanket condemnations with no specifics so I am glad about that. I am presently working on them. Thanks for your note. NancyHeise (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you have nominated Beeston Castle for GA. You have made a vast improvement to this article and I hope it will pass. A few thoughts while it while it is waiting to be considered. It already has enough images but, as so much of the article is historical, I wonder if one of the recent ones should be replaced by something more historical (see ideas on the right). I have copied these from Ormerod (out of copyright). Also I wonder if "See also" should really be "Further reading" (I thought "See also" was for internal links, but I may be wrong).
Middlewich is proving to be somewhat troublesome and I hope your tremendous efforts pay off. I'm not sure that I agree with all the topics raised by Dr. Cash. I'm not making comments on the talk page because I do not want to mess up the current process. But in time it will come up for GA review (if it passes now) and may well get further criticism. I'm not sure that getting rid of "Religion" is a good idea. I know the world is becoming increasingly secular but religion still plays an enormous part in many people's lives. "Religious sites" is now not really separate from "Landmarks" and it leads to repetition about the date of foundation of St Michael's (also mentioned in the lead). Also, when Runcorn was being assessed for FA the article was criticised for its short paragraphs. Middlewich is full of short paragraphs (where's the consistency?). Anyway that can be dealt with in due course.
I should like to get Chester Cathedral accepted as a GA, especially as some excellent photos of its interior have been added recently. If you get time would you like to have a look, improve it, and give advice? Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all those useful suggestions. I agree with your comment about Religious sites not now really being separate from Landmarks, and all I can think to do is to make it a subsection of Landmarks and tidy up the repetition. The short paragraphs would almost certainly be commented on at FA, but I think there's enough in each of them to satisfy the GA criteria, which obviously aren't quite so strict. Well, I hope so anyway. :-)
...and for your ongoing assistance. I didn't think it was a credible FAC without a modern picture, then one suddenly appeared. Any suggestions for further improvements always appreciated. Ben MacDui/Walk09:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done with Middlewich. Bet you need a rest now! After that - - I've had another go at Chester Cathedral, but feel a bit too close to it now. When you're ready could you have another look? User:Joopercoopers is offering more of his excellent photos on Talk:Chester Cathedral. I'd like to use them all, but this would leave it too cluttered; and I'm not that keen on galleries. Perhaps I can persuade him they they should be on Wikimedia Commons and the {{commonscat}} link could take the reader there. What do you think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm childishly pleased about Middlewich. There's still quite a bit I'd like to see done to the article, but the pressure's off now, at least until Beeston Castle gets its review anyway. :-) I'm optimistic that Middlewich can act as a model for other Cheshire towns, and perhaps encourage other editors that GA (at least!) is a realistic and worthwhile goal. I certainly believe that the article improved dramatically during the push for GA in any event.
On the subject of Chester Cathedral, I'm not fond of galleries either, certainly not in an article like that one. Putting them in Commons with a link sounds like a much better idea to me. I understand what you mean about getting too close to the article, so when I've finished celebrating I'll see what I can do to help with the copyediting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL
Not any time soon! To go through what these Guys/Gals go through for the few xtra buttons....No thanks. I have more fun just being me :-) Shoessss | Chat 02:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
:-) Ah, you are still young. Remember that only opinions are expressed at Rfa’s. It is not a judgment of character or worthiness. But rather a popularity contest at any given time. Today, what is ones sweet heart is tomorrows rough. If you come here, to Misplaced Pages, to look for validation of intelligence or wit, sorry to say, wrong place. However, if you are looking to contribute to the dissemination of knowledge, you will be welcomed with open arms by the respected members of the community. And DAMN with the rest. Take care and just remember, do what you think is right – not what someone else may think is right. Shoessss | Chat 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help with GA review, the massive amount of editing you've done, and getting me to put it forward for GA in the first place. Salinae (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I'll not suggest trying for FA just yet, ( ;-) ) as that's a quantum jump, but I hope that what we've done with Middlewich will be a guide for the other -wich towns, and others in Cheshire. You should be pleased with what you've achieved today. I know that I am. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for welcoming me back. I think I am just going to stay out of anything outside the mainspace and only edit articles from now on. That way there will be less chance of me being wound up so much by people which is what got me into trouble in the first place! Still I am sure I gave the trigger happy admin a bit of joy. Joshii└┘00:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I made a mistake by letting Chet's off-wiki actions influsence what I wrote about my oppose. I took his joke the wrong way and I shouldn't've brought it up in the RfA, it was not appropriate. 86.141.39.178 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The canvassing was nothing. As it happens I don't see anything wrong with canvassing if it's done openly. My opposition was entirely based on Sceptre's own behaviour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I do find it somewhat ironic that you chose in the RfA to assume bad faith of many contributors and demonstrate borderline incivility, in complaining about the candidate's alleged failure to recognise or implement exactly those policies/guidelines. I note such issues clouded your own RfA a few months ago, in particular one comment which suggested you had a tendency to be "disputatious without cause", something which from recent contributions in WP space I would tend to agree with. Please make an effort to improve in this area, the balance of your contributions in mainspace is excellent and it devalues them if the first exposure people get of you is something like this. Orderinchaos14:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I consider the behaviour of you and sevaral others in that RfA to be little short of harrassment, and frankly disgraceful for an administrator. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. There are already too many others who appear unable to distinguish between disagreement and incivility. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I seriously object to your characterisation of my remarks as "little short of harassment" - let's have a look. 1 - Voted. 2 - Replied to a remark (3 diffs) in an extremely calm manner, without actually disagreeing with the point being made. 3 - Gave an example of a situation where a variance may come up. 4 - Added a clarifying comment to something which looked highly negative but had considerable relevant background. 5 - Added text to my own vote. 6 - Made a sympathetic comment and additional remarks to another support vote. 7 - Fair comment in response to your reply to 6. 8 - Linked diff and suggested maybe this wasn't the place for the discussion between yourself and myself. Added no comments after this point, archived to talk page some 5 hours later. If you are making allegations against my manner towards you, I'd like you to be specific, or otherwise desist. Your handling of this situation has regrettably not been one of your prouder moments, and I do hope that you consider my comments above, plus those of LaraLove and others on the RfA itself which directly addressed your intemperate and hostile manner there. Orderinchaos18:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with the nomination. I haven't looked at the article much since the GA nomination, so I'm looking forward to see how it's developed since. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments so far, I've responded. (TRM seemed to encourage being pinged about comments :) ) ++Lar: t/c01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not totally clear on the protocol for this, since you commented already, but you would be very welcome to co-nom this FAC if you like, just add your name somewhere at the top... I'd be flattered. Totally up to you. Thanks in any case. ++Lar: t/c20:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
My co-nomination would likely carry even less weight than my support vote. In any case, you and Maralia deserve all the credit for getting the article to FA; I just did a bit of copyediting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, wanted to offer but you have a point. I answered your image related stuff on my talk to keep things together. ++Lar: t/c03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I wasn't serious, I thought you'd come back and say "Your contributions were absolutely crucial. I couldn't possibly have got the article to where it is today without your help. I'll be in your debt forever." (I won't bother with all of the smileys, they would take up too much space.) :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Your contributions were absolutely crucial. I couldn't possibly have got the article to where it is today without your help. I'll be in your debt forever. Or at least a good long time. Slap your co-nom on there and quite trolling for compliments. :) ++Lar: t/c18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
To be serious just for a moment, before I get banned and/or blocked, I haven't done anything beyond mechanical copyediting to the article. You and Maralia added the content, and you deserve the credit. The nom is looking good so far I think, with issues being addressed as they crop up, so fingers crossed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
RfA
Hey Malleus - just a note of thanks for your support at my recent unsuccessful RfA. I'll be back in a few months with more experience and more coaching - I hope to still have your support then. Thanks again - Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that you weren't sucessful this time, better luck next time. And remember, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, but be forwarned, this is a warning about incivility on the various RfA's. If you continue with rude responses, you may be blocked.Balloonman (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Civility blocks don't work. But that doesn't mean that people don't try them. Malleus, you know I have a great deal of respect for your contributions and your talents... do me a favour and don't give admins who should know better the opportunity to do things that don't work but cause upset, ok? You can get your point across without needing to be sarcastic, I'm sure, you are a very good writer. I'd really appreciate it if you didn't get blocked just now, because I need your help! :) ++Lar: t/c18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not much for the "please don't go"/s, but, please don't go. your edit summary said you might leave Misplaced Pages. I hope that's not true. I'm hoping you meant you might leave the RfAs (and for what it's worth, I hope that's not true as well). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant if the threat of a civility block materialised. I've given up on the RfA process, it clearly doesn't work.I won't mention the absurdity of an admin coach not understanding when blocks should be used. Oops, I just did. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Your choice, of course, Malleus. RfA has lots of problems, no doubt. Admin coaching does too. Don't let The Man drag you down though. You do a lot of good work around here. Be damned whoever thinks admin is the goal or end all. Be damned. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I came here for one purpose and one purpose only to mention that your behavior was inappropriate. I had no desire to turn it into an official "warning." But your response basically left me with no choice... instead of being civil, you decided to be rude and continued being rude after I stopped posting.Balloonman (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also concerned about a civility issue here, and because this appears not to be on the path towards resolution, I am opening up an RfC on user conduct. — scetoaux22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. This is a waste of time, Scetoaux. You really don't have much to go on. Malleus is a net positive to this project called building an encyclopedia. Is he crass at times? Sure. Admittedly so. So what. He is a valued member of our little virtual group here and I don't belive you'll get very far with an Rfc. Good luck with that though. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk about damning with faint praise. ;-) I'm quite sure that there will be some support for Scetaux's RfC. I'd be the first to admit that I'm no saint, and I've ruffled a few feathers. Que sera, sera. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you've at least got one admin's support. Do I think you could be more "civil" in RfAs? Sure. Do I think you should go away? Absolutely and unreservedly NO. Que sera. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I thank you for that. I wouldn't bother to try and argue a case in defence of anything that I've said in any RfA, but that doesn't mean that I agree with this charge of incivility. I continue to find it strange that some individuals are permitted to be abusive, whereas I get a slapping for simply saying it as I see it. But I'm old enough to know that nobody ever claimed that life was fair, so the RfA issue has already been resolved as far as I'm concerned. I simply won't be commenting on any further RfAs. I'm not quite sure what an RfC would be intended to achieve beyond my non-participation in RfAs anyway, as a personality-transplant is completely out of the question. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I never said he should go away, or be banned from RfAs, or whatever. The issue here is his incivility, and this is what I've opened this RfC to address. I appreciate that you're telling me that what I'm doing is a waste of time, Keeper76. — scetoaux23:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions
Add topic
