::::Oops, I see what you mean now - I hadn't read the last bit of the conversation on naming. And I have to admit I was once a left-footer too!! Adeste fideles laete triumphantes etc, etc. I hope you weren't a Cardinal Langley boy too? [[User:Richerman|Richerman]] ([[User talk:Richerman|talk]]) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Oops, I see what you mean now - I hadn't read the last bit of the conversation on naming. And I have to admit I was once a left-footer too!! Adeste fideles laete triumphantes etc, etc. I hope you weren't a Cardinal Langley boy too? [[User:Richerman|Richerman]] ([[User talk:Richerman|talk]]) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, I wasn't, I went to Catholic schools in Scotland, but when my family moved down to England I went to a regular grammar school, which I much preferred. I've got half a mind to go back to confession one day, just to get a few things off my chest. "Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It is ... errr ... well ... an ''awful'' long time since my last confession. But that's not why I'm here. I'm here about the stance that the Roman Catholic Church has taken on ..." --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum#top|talk]]) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Eric Corbett! Welcome to Wikipedia! 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)[reply]
I'd like to apologise for my words last night. I was extremely tired (exhausted), and I said some things I really shouldn't have. I think the mistaken taggings are now fixed. I'll work on some code to mass revert mistaken taggings, should anything like this happen again. Sorry for the trouble. Kind regards, Redrocketboy 15:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I understand that you were trying to be helpful, and you probably felt a little surprised and upset when the objections to the tagging started rolling in. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for your copyediting on Shapinsay. It's the first FA I've extensively edited- its a lot harder to get an article promoted than I thought. Lurker (said·done) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly no picnic, so well done on achieving it. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...It does actually display the page number. Go back and check the diff, then look at the page. Rt. 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Rt. 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I will have to leave you to your featured list now. I think that it falls way short of what is required, but I can see that you don't agree. So good luck with it. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. Thanks for your efforts so far. Best, Rt. 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, just to let you know, I've been basing the article on this list... Rt. 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My final suggestion to you would be to exercise a more critical eye. I quote from that article's lead: "Several of the entries relate to more than one listed structure where these have been group together ...". Doesn't make grammatical sense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that you'll understand as well that I now feel it would be prudent for me to withdraw my offer of help with progressing the Didsbury article towards FA. No hard feelings, but life's too short. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Rt. 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd better ask
Eh? As you so nearly say, MF, life's too short to go hunting for diffs, so you'll have to send me a postcard (I'll pick it up in the AM). Probably no. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too many diffs to list, so don't be waiting for the post in the morning. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. As a whole, I think the quality of an article is a function of the number of editors who work on it, and very few publications simply take work and publish it without runing it past an editor. The articles I work on tend to suffer from too little rather than too much copyediting and advice. Keep at it. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish for you to read my statement at the Project talk-page, and I've clarified my position further on my userpage. It is clear to me we should not work in articles together after this point, but I wish you all the best with copyediting on all the others. I'm sure an editor like me should not prevent you (from what you say), from unleashing your knowledge and grammatical correction on en.wiki. Regards, Rt. 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your statement. You need to understand that you do not ownany articles, and that I shall continue to edit wherever I please, as and when I please. With or without your permission. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you intend to, and I do understand I don't "own" any articles, as laid out in the statement. Rt. 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GAR closure
Yes, I realise you would close as delist, and think it is the right decision. My feeling is that this would be accepted if you decided to do so. Geometry guy 00:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm going to be bold and do exactly that. I really can't see anything productive coming from allowing the discussion to carry on. Positions have been drawn, and there's been very little movement. Nobody will die whatever decision is taken anyway, and the article can always be nominated again once the objections have been addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you are a good archivist for this discussion because you have been open to this article meeting the criteria. Good luck summarizing your reasoning and decision carefully in the archive... Geometry guy 01:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still new to making these kind of decisions, which is why I've been tentative. If I haven't done it right, then please let me know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've done fine. It is often good to add a comment to the section of the talk page linking to the GAR, even if it is just another link to the archived review. In a controversial case like this, it is helpful to give some reasoning (even just two sentences) in the explanation of the archive decision. You also need to remove delisted articles from WP:GA, but don't worry about GA numbers: a bot will fix them. Geometry guy 01:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've tried to explain my reasoning on the article's talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing GARs is crap isn't it? I hate doing it (see my comments in this thread). Anyway, I archived Force as renominate, as you suggested. Thanks for sorting out Opus Dei. Geometry guy 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting summary of what appears at first sight to be a simple process, but is in fact pretty tedious. To say nothing of being fraught with vitriol if the "wrong" decision is made. No wonder so many GARs hang around after their sell-buy date. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I desperately want to simplify GA. I know how to automate some of it, but the will to simplify seems to be lacking among GA regulars who are familiar with the many complex processes and like them: my latest try fell largely on deaf ears, I'm afraid. Geometry guy 00:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Would you be kind enough to take a look at Brympton d'Evercy. The primary author has previously had a bad experience with putting this article up for GA, but I think it is there or there abouts & we have been discussing the merits (or otherwise) of GA nomination on the talk page.— Rodtalk 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sympathetic to that kind of bad experience, so I'll take a look as soon as I can, and I'll try and do what I can. May not be until after Xmas though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cromer railway station
If you can be tempted to the opposite side of the country from your usual remit, could you have a look at my rewrite of Cromer railway station & offer your thoughts? This "current and former stations together" format is a departure from the traditional "lots of stubs" approach to railway station articles, and I'd be interested to hear your opinions on whether it works, as it's a formula that could be used to merge a lot of sorry stub articles into good-quality longer ones. (My nominating it for GAC 30 seconds after posting it isn't quite the rush-job it appears, as I've been fiddling with it in a sandbox for quite some time.) — iridescent 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At first sight I like the look of that article very much, and the format does have the potential for merging a lot of articles about closed stations, as you say. I'm probably not going to be around much until after Xmas, so I may not get a chance to look at it carefully for a few days. I do have one initial comment though. I haven't checked the MOS for half an hour or so, so there may be some breaking news that I'm not aware of, but the last I read was that the wikilinking of standalone years was no longer recommended. Hopefully I'll have something more intelligent to offer in a few days. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I left them like that because they were in that format in the stubby articles which it grew from, and I couldn't see any particular reason to de-link them. (For all I know, someone might have a burning desire to look up 1923.) If no-one raises any objections to merging articles in this way, I can see lots of other areas the format could be applied to (multiple borderline-notability buildings in a street being the obvious one - though hopefully not to the level of my personal bugbear, Gray's Inn Road) with the separate sub-stubs changed to redirects to the appropriate sections. Reddish South railway station and its brothers are firmly in my sights as well after Christmas (although I'm sure it would cause howls of protest from the trainspotters). — iridescent 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're prepared to take on the trainspotters, then you're obviously a braver man than me. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually done a u-turn on Reddish as it would contradict my argument a couple of months ago for every open station being notable enough to warrant its own article. The sheer ludicrousness of the Reddish situation (two stations 200 yards apart, one of which is only open for one day a week) is, I suppose, notable in and of itself. — iridescent 12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to have you back
Good to have you back. I've tried myself to have a good old wikibreak, but I'm too nervous to do it. Quite sad eh? Hope all is well though. Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester is coming along nicely. Also, it'd be nice to get an image into the infobox for Chat Moss. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :)
Images for Chat Moss are a bit problematic, as it's just a flat, featureless bog really. I've asked the Manchester Museum about the possibility of getting a picture of the facial reconstruction they did of Worsley Man though, so I'm hoping that if they come up with something, then that would maybe make a good pic for the infobox. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I echo the welcome back & intrude on your talk page to say if you search for "Chat Moss" at http://www.geograph.org.uk/ you get several CC licenced images - are any of those any good?— Rodtalk 19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rod. I'm already using one of the geograph pictures in the article, but now you've reminded me I'll take another look through and see if there's anything else I can nick - with all the appropriate attributions, of course. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And don't be afraid of sifting through http://www.flickr.com/ (it has a CC only search option) either, for Chat Moss or any other place. I've contacted several users in the past asking them to release their copyright images to CC or PD, and I've had some great success. I have an account (for the purposes of asking others for their photos), so if you see anything, let me know and I'll ask. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me about Flickr, and for your offer to help with permissions. I have now found a picture of peat workings that I think is suitable for the info box, with a cc licence, so I've added that now. Bogs are really difficult places to get interesting pictures of though, as they tend to be, well, pretty flat and boggy. :) I'm going to pop into Manchester Museum over the Xmas break and see what I can do about getting a picture of Worlsey Man, but after that I'm a bit stumped for pictures, so any more suggestions are very welcome. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ramsbottom
Hi Malleus, Your last edit on Ramsbottom seems to have got history mixed up with topynomy - could you have a look if your still around? Richerman (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry, that's the way it's supposed to be - seems a bit odd to me though as the topynomy heading seems to cover the whole section. Do you think it would look better if the sub-heading was taken out?Richerman (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a fan of having a subsection called Toponymy, but as you say that's the way that it's supposed to be. I do think though that in the case of a short History section like the Ramsbottom one it's better just to have it as one section. So if you haven't already, then I'll delete the subsection now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good man that man - I couldn't even get the spelling right anyway! Richerman (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I compare thee ...
It's no deal-breaker, but in British English we really do use "compare with" when we measure the difference between things. The meaning isn't lost, and I understand your intent, but just FYI. American English is different (surprise!). Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that you are correct in what you say, and neither do I believe that it's anything to do with American vs British English. According to Fowler, which is just about as British English as you can get I suppose, we use compare to to suggest a similarity, as with your Shakespearian quote. Whereas "compare with", is used for a detailed comparison of both the similarities and the differences. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The former means liken to, the latter means make a comparison: so unless you are specifically likening someone or something to someone or something else (eg Nothing Compares 2 U), use compare with.
The lord chancellor compared himself to Cardinal Wolsey because he believed he was like Wolsey; I might compare him with Wolsey to assess their relative merits"
This has raised a question in my mind though. I'm assuming the background to this topic is a change I made to an article earlier today, which originally said: "Altrincham has a high rate of self employment (22%) compared with the rest of Trafford (16%) and England (17%)." I changed that to "compared to", on the basis that there was no evaluation of both the differences and the similarities. I still think that I was right, in that "compare with" implies an evaluation of the merits of the comparison, not just a one-sided comparison of either the similarities or the differences, but as John Wayne said in Rio Bravo, "I wouldn't wan't to have to live on the difference." :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Altrincham, in comparison, has a..." - sidesteps the whole problem neatly. — iridescent 18:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, that's maybe the best approach in this case, as the comparison was to differences, not similarities. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edited to say) I still think I was right, but maybe sometimes it's better to avoid the problem rather have to trip over it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest Geography, as the area is named on maps. Does the question mean that it's going to pass, or is that hoping for too much? :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I told 'ya I'd have to kill 'ya :-) Happy New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a New Year's present! I'm chuffed to bits. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hyphen help
Hi, As you may have spotted on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset the latest reviewer is saying that several things "should be hyphenated as compound adjectives". Can you advise or point me to the bit of MOS I should use for this?— Rodtalk 09:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the relevant bit of the MOS. Applying the rules can be a bit complicated though, so you might also find it helps to look at this as well. I agree with one of the examples the reviewer gave - "purpose-built" - but not the other - "much reduced output" - as that isn't being used as a compound adjective. Nobody would write the equivalent "very-reduced output", for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this & your other edits. I think "a bit complicated" for these hyphen rules is a bit of an understatement - I will never understand English grammar I went to a grammar school!— Rodtalk 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somerset - incendiaries dropped on the correct location were doused wherever possible" is surely stating the bleedin' obvious?
Perhaps it is, but there is a balance between not saying it, saying in a convoluted manner, and saying it in a precise manner. I was trying to balance precise against convoluted. The convoluted reason is two fold: to fool the bombers into dropping their load in the wrong location (thereby preventing further damage); and to put out the fire, thereby preventing further damage. I've changed douse to smothered; the incendaries may have been burning magnesium so dousing (with water) was not a good idea.Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making was that incendiaries would have been doused/smothered wherever possible wherever they were dropped. Except, presumably, in these decoy towns. So it seems a little obvious to say that incendiaries dropped on Bristol were put out wherever possible. Indeed it would have been worthy of mention had they not been. Were special measures put in place to douse/smother incendiaries dropped on Bristol more quickly than in any other town/city for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct to surmise that incendiaries dropped on the decoy towns were not smothered; but I can't answer the question posed, may be it is unverifiable. I have been provided, earlier tonight, with a book reference that refers in more detail to this subject; so I will obtain a copy. I have visited one of Glasgow's decoy towns; and I knew (as of last week) that Birmingham had decoys; and I believe Manchester had some (you can probably deduce where they might have been located). What I mean, is not always what is written; and others often see that first. My point was the edit summary, itself; perhaps wikistress was present.Pyrotec (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of decoy towns - and the other devices used to divert bombers during WW2 - is an interesting one, worth an article in its own right. I came across a reference to sulphur burning fog generators supposed to have been installed near to where I live in Manchester, but I haven't managed to find one of them yet.
It wasn't my intention to cause you any wikistress, and I'm sorry if you felt that my edit summary reflected my opinion of your efforts to improve the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took your advice and pinged Tony on whether the article now meets his standards. Thanks for your review, and for your help with copyediting. I also really appreciate the kind words—I'm pretty proud of the progress the article has made :) Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should feel proud of it, it's a nice piece of work. I really hope that it gets the support it deserves. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about Travis's rank. I looked that up (he was a major), and added it into the article. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. 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 (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
Did I shoot myself in the foot? I did not get an admin coach (see your comment under oppose). RFA was spur of the moment that I only thought of in the last 2 days or so. Archtransit (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was making a general point about admin coaches, but you obviously hadn't realised that the open to recall issue has become a bag of worms. So no, I don't think that you've shot yourself in the foot at all, and I'm pretty sure that you'll sail through, so don't worry. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recall
I appreciate what Lar is doing, but it looks awfully complicated. I'll have to review his process before doing any comments on it. I still haven't actually thought through a process in my own mind yet. Thanks for the info about what he's working on. Corvus cornixtalk 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar's point, I think, is that every admin ought to be clear about the precise conditions under which they will be agree to subject to recall, and what will happen once those conditions are met. One size probably won't fit all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity
You are a true hater of any attempt to improve this project. When a clear and concerted effort was in progress, a real attempt to improve this article was being undertaken, you just killed the process with out consensus. I have spent months trying to improve many articles/portals/projects/etc. and you destroyed everything I belived the whole wiki-thing was about by "calling" this article finished when it clearly wasn't. If it is just that easy to crush so much work while it is in progress I will not use any more of my life on this. -- SECisek (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather a misrepresentation of the facts. I simply closed the GA review as it was clear to me the consensus was that the article was not a GA and still required substantial work. When that has been done it is a very simple matter to put the article forwards for another GA nomination. The purpose of the GA review is to attempt to establish a consensus as to whether an article meets the GA criteria or not, not to pass any other kind of judgement. To suggest that I "am a hater of any attempt to improve this project" is quite simply hyperbolic rhetoric. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peterborough
Hello again,
Adminship going further and further out of reach now.... I just wondered how you felt about Peterborough being an FA? A cursory glance through the article highlights alot of (admittedly fairly minor) breaches of MOS, grammatical redundancy and some mild peacock terms.
I've raised some concerns at the talk page where another user has asked if more users from WP:UKGEO would be able to make some commentary/judgement. I thought of you (and User:Rodw). Hope you get a chance to fly by. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the FA review I'm a bit surprised that it was promoted in the first place. It certainly doesn't look like an FA to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Much appreciated as ever! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salford
The fact that one folk singer refers to Salford as 'Dirty old town' doesn't mean that it 'has been given the nickname', it means that one folk singer wrote one song. The citation doesn't go beyond these simple facts. As a long term resident of Salford, I have NEVER heard anyone use this as a nickname - EVER - resident or visitor. Most people in the area are aware of the song and its history and it is rightly mentioned later on in the article and I can see no problem with this. If you can come up with convincing evidence that this has ever been a nickname, (in the way that Londoners call London 'the smoke' or New Yorkers call their town 'The Big Apple' then please do, you will be hard pressed to find any reference which is not in a copy of the WP page or mentions the song. I have no personal axe to grid here excepting that this reference has already been made in the article, and to repeat it seems derogatory.StaceyGrove (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference comes from a book about Salford, not from one singer. Did you check the citation before you decided that it was "irrelevant"? I do not consider the fact that you have never come across the term to be especially relevant in the face of evidence to the contrary. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, Malleus Fatuarum! Since you've assessed quite a few good articles and contributed to them, I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:
Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable sourcecitations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.
If you have the time, it'd be great if you could review those articles and assess their strengths and weaknesses. And if you wish to submit feedback, go to those articles's talk pages and follow the links. Thanks, and a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I'm not really the right person to ask about films or any other arts topics really. I'm much happier looking at a statistical result than I am about weighing up the opinions of ephemeral critics. I'm often reminded of a probably apocryphal story about the 1990s visit of a Chinese envoy to France; when asked what his opinion of the French revolution was all he had to say was: "Too soon to tell".
I'd be happy to pop along and give you my opinion on how well those articles are written though, content aside. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dashing about
Thanks for tidying up Trafford, I really need to look up guidelines on dash usage etc, you've done a lot of work because I didn't get it right first time. Any ideas where I find that? Nev1 (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSDASH is the place to look. But the thing that seems to trip lots of editors up is that the same same MOS rules apply to references as well, so it's a bit of a minefield. To say nothing of the hyphenation "rules", which could drive a saint to drink. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. My favourite part is "en dashes are stylistic alternative to em dashes" as if it wasn't complicated enough already. Nev1 (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bath GA review
No I always find your contributions constructive. I'd also like Bath to get to FA (again) but need to get Somerset & Exmoor over that hurdle first!— Rodtalk 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out a few things I missed in the review. I appreciate your help, and keep up the good work! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
adverbial construction
Hi, another favour. In the latest reviewers comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset a reviewer states: "Drainage started in Roman times, and was restarted various times: - odd as times is a now in the first and part of an adverbial construction in the second. maybe reword?" - I have no idea what an adverbial construction is - could you look at the sentence?— Rodtalk 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look and see if I understand it any more than you do. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Albin of Brechin
Thanks for reviewing the article. I was like "whoa, nice! I never saw that!". I'll keep working on it, and thanks for the support. Green caterpillar (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned on RfR about only needing to use rollback occasionally. Well, it doesn't really matter how much you use it: it's how you use it. If you only perform one or two rollbacks a day (or even a week), as long as rollback is used to revert vandalism and not to edit war, then there's nothing to worry about. :) Good luck. Acalamari 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) Acalamari 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Brassey GA
Malleus. Many thanks for your involvement in the Thomas Brassey article. I am of course pleased that you have accepted it as a GA, but more than that I am grateful for the way you have done it - no putting it on hold to deal with minutiae, etc. I was keen to get this article accepted as as a GA because Brassey is an important unrecognised Cestrian (and by the way it's good to have you as a participant in the Cheshire WikiProject). I have been persuaded by Doug Haynes (and others) that he deserves more credit than he has received to date. I shall deal with the points you raised in the next day or two and will place any comments on the talk page. Best wishes - and Happy New Year. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brassey is an important Cestrian, as you say, and one who's been surprisingly forgotten. You wrote an excellent article, so it would have been churlish of me to deny the little green dot just for the sake of a very few minor points, which I had full confidence that you would address anyway.
I hope to get more involved with the Cheshire project this year, but I'll be careful to stay away from articles that I might be asked, or want, to review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somerset FA & prose
Hi again, If you had a minute could you look at the comments of the last 2 reviewers on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset & see whether you think the changes suggested are reasonable?— Rodtalk 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By and large I don't think that they're reasonable, no, and you and the other editors have probably already done all that can reasonably be expected to be done to deal with them. Several of the comments seemed to display an ignorance of the subject and its context (the metric/imperial nonsense again) and others were verging on I don't like it, like the demand to get the maps redrawn as SVGs. I have to say that I'm really not keen on that ugly Americanism, Transportation either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've done the last 2 pages of everything, rewent through your list, and I'm pretty sure I've made improvements to the article. It used to sound like this scholarly textbook-type thing that would definitely make me fall asleep. Anyway, I hope it is good enough to make GA now, and please let me know if there's anything else needed to get there. Thanks again for your dedication to the nomination. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very substantial improvement.Nice job! A couple of the references (12 and 14) are broken though, so you might want to take a look at those. User:Deacon of Pndapetzim has indicated an intention to make some further changes, so as one of the GA criteria is that an article should be stable, I propose to wait for a few more days before deciding whether or not to list this article. I'm happy to extend the hold period in cases where the article is being worked on satisfactorily, like this one is. Looking pretty good so far though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into how the broken references work. Anything I can do to help stability? Green caterpillar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on what changes User:Deacon of Pndapetzim plans on making now. If they're fairly minor, no sweat. But if they're more substantial, adding lots of new information, significantly restructuring the article, well ....
I'd suggest that you contact User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, and come to some agreement between you on what version of this article you want the final GA assessment to be made against. But whatever the outcome, you should be pleased with the work that you've done in transforming this article from one that definitely would not have passed to one that's now got a fighting chance. I'm sure that if we all work together in good faith we can get that little green dot for Albin. Keep up the good work!. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rudget!
Dear Malleus Fatuarum, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Edgar Wood
Thanks for that. I hoped to get a run on St George's too (more info there), but had to settle for St Thomas' Church, Stockport, about which I have nearly nothing. Ah well, time for kip. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we'd agreed on the naming convention Church of St Mary tbe Virgin, Prestwich? Rather than Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, Prestwich? If I've got it wrong, then I apologise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I apologise regardless. I should have noticed that you'd turned the link blue and not touched it. My fault. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal, I thought we were doing church or parish church depending on which it was. Anyway I'm off to bed now as I'm knackered. No more red-linking while I'm gone!!:-) Richerman (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try my best not to make things worse while you're gone. I'll be gone shortly myself anyway, so that limits my potential for causing any more collateral damage. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see what you mean now - I hadn't read the last bit of the conversation on naming. And I have to admit I was once a left-footer too!! Adeste fideles laete triumphantes etc, etc. I hope you weren't a Cardinal Langley boy too? Richerman (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't, I went to Catholic schools in Scotland, but when my family moved down to England I went to a regular grammar school, which I much preferred. I've got half a mind to go back to confession one day, just to get a few things off my chest. "Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It is ... errr ... well ... an awful long time since my last confession. But that's not why I'm here. I'm here about the stance that the Roman Catholic Church has taken on ..." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
