User talk:Eric Corbett

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements

• Manchester Mark 1 promoted to FA 28 September 2010
• Manchester computers promoted to GA 23 September 2010
• Trafford Park promoted to FA 9 September 2010
• Hyde F.C. failed at GAN 5 September 2010
• Belle Vue Zoological Gardens promoted to FA 7 August 2010
• Manchester United F.C. promoted to FA 27 July 2010
• 1910 London to Manchester air race promoted to FA 1 June 2010
• 1996 Manchester bombing promoted to GA 17 March 2010
• Chadderton promoted to FA 2 February 2010
• Rochdale Town Hall promoted to GA 26 January 2010

Somerset Levels

If you have some time (which I see from the above you might not) would you be willing to cast a critical eye over Somerset Levels? It got to GA in 2007 and I've been meaning to bring it to FAC ever since! I've recently fixed all the broken & dab links etc & now put it up for peer review. I think the content, pics, references etc are all appropriate however you know what my prose is like and I wouldn't want it to fail because of my language skills.— Rod ^talk 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I remember looking at that when it was at GAN? Anyway, if you're not in a rush I'll try and get to it towards the end of the week. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see you in the edit history, but I may have asked you then. No rush I've got plenty of other things I should be doing.— Rod ^talk 19:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for casting your eyes over it - I'm happy for any questions/discussion to be on the talk page where others may be able to chip in. BTW just got back from Jimmy Wales talk in Bristol:-)— Rod ^talk 15:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What was that like? Did you get to meet the great man? Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I and some other local editors got to meet him for a few mins before the public event, while he was doing press interviews etc - photo of when I shook hands with him about to go on my userpage. The public talk was excellent - his is a good public speaker to about 700 in the hall & 3,000+ on the web. Webcast by city council & Ushare. He talked about wikipedia's role in society (worldwide) & some directions for the future. I have loads of pics.— Rod ^talk 15:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its annoying, I think its great. I know my prose is poor & every change or comment you make improves the article. When we finally get there (& I'm still waiting for some tweaks to the map) would you like to co-nom as an appreciation of the time & work you are putting into an article "miles from home"?— Rod ^talk 10:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This question comes up from time to time. It's true that looking over an article like this one takes time and effort, but my general view as I've said before is that if all I've done is to move a few commas around, or point out to you where a few commas need to be moved around, then I haven't really contributed anything much to the article's content. So thanks for the generous offer but no thanks, I don't feel I'd deserve it. Malleus Fatuorum 10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. I'm still waiting for map tweaks & one last page number (book coming from the library) & then I'll go for it.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Hi Malleus and those watching here (especially the many UK based editors who frequent this page). Margaret Thatcher was nominated for Good article reassessment a week or two ago: as the state of the article suggests, it is likely that the reassessment will result in delisting the article.

Whatever one's views on Thatcher's legacy, it is a great pity that an article on such a significant UK politician is in such a poor state. The article has suffered from politicized editing, and would greatly benefit from contributions by editors whose priority is to make the article shine, rather than promote a rosy or damning view of her career. Anyone willing to help? Geometry guy 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

After the grief I received for trying to improve Nick Griffin, I wouldn't touch that article with a 90-foot bargepole. Parrot of Doom 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Shorter bargepoles are available! You did great work on NG, and MR isn't going to generate the same kind of "how dare you present this person in a neutral light" grief. When the flak comes from both sides it is easier to duck and let partisan editors thrash out their differences. Thanks to Malleus for making improvements already. Geometry guy 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've never looked at that article before. As things stand I'm sure you're right, it will have to be delisted. It's a surprise to me that so little has been done to it since the GAR was posted, but I guess that's a symptom of the lack of activity over the last year or so to adequately address the pov tag. Apart from that, I don't think it's particularly well written and it's pretty unfocussed and rambling in places. This article is going to get a hammering when the Iron Lady decides to quit this mortal coil, so it would be nice if was at least up to GA standard. Hopefully we UK-based editors can pull together, but PoD makes a very good point. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

PS to Geometry guy: I'm always stepping where angels fear to tread. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good for you Malleus! The lack of interest in the GAR and the NPOV flag reflects a number of factors, including a desire to delist on NPOV grounds, and fatigue with NPOV criticism by at least one editor unwilling to make or suggest positive improvements. In my opinion, irrespective of the past history and GAR, the way forward is to concentrate on the poor sourcing, focus, and prose, with NPOV on the backburner.

You make a good point about the ticking clock, and I also hope UK based editors will follow your lead. Geometry guy 23:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said in article talk, well done for rising to this formidable challenge. I raised a minor MoS issue about whether degrees and subjects should be capitalized at MoS talk, and I'd be interested to see you contribute there too. As you know I'm a bit of a MoS-wonk and I'll be happy whichever way the MoS conversation goes, except that if it goes the wrong way it means I've been doing it wrong for five years. Oh well, won't be the first time I've been wrong about something. --John (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well John for getting involved with this article; it's really too big a challenge for any one editor to contemplate. As for "Chemistry" vs "chemistry", I didn't realise that I was reverting your change, I just thought it was something I'd missed in the lead. I'm happy to go with whatever the MoS gurus decide. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was Happyme22's article originally, and he's semi-retired, just checks in every couple of months. While I am trying to hold the fort on his Nixon article, I really don't have the time or references to work on Thatcher.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the stupid error with the adverb and the hyphen. I left a longer reply at my talk to your earlier comment. --John (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work! But British Rail isn't the best example to choose for Thatcher and privatisation as it was done under her successor in 1994. --John (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

True, perhaps best to just deop that particular example. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We worked that one in beautifully; ultimately it was in my opinion perhaps the most damaging legacy of Thatcher's time, although I am a rail fan and perhaps biased. Interesting that in this capitalist paradise, the railroads are still nationalised. One takeaway for me from the process is that I have a lot to learn about citation formatting. Still want to go for FA? --John (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We've still got a lot of tidying up to do, not least with the citations. I suggest that we plug away at that and anything else that looks a bit odd while we let the article lie fallow for a few weeks. I'm always telling people not to rush at FAC after GAN, it's a quantum jump. Also, Geometry guy might be able to offer some insight into the current version of the article, but he's currently hors de combat. So yes, but maybe not for 3 or four weeks. Thatcher's such a vast subject that I'm sure we're going to get at least a few "why haven't you mentioned this?" and "why haven't you mentioned that", so let's take the time to catch our breath and make sure that we're ready. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you been to FAC before John? It's a bit like RfA with rules, it can get a bit fraught, so we need to prepare the best dish that we can for the piranhas. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah, nice comparison. I've worked on quite a few articles being prepared for FA but haven't taken a direct role before. Maybe seeing it closer up will give me more faith in the FA process; I haven't always been that impressed with the quality of writing in some FAs in the past. --John (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This one will be different, but we need to make absolutely sure that we're ready. Right now Maggie wouldn't get through FAC, although I think she's getting close. Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll happily defer to your experience in this. Just give me a shout if and when you want more help on this. I will keep plugging away meantime. --John (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think that we could be thinking seriously about FAC in 3 or so weeks time, but we need to get all of even the smallest details right; it doesn't take much to derail a review. The downside of course is that if it passes then it may appear on the mainpage, and TFA is just about the most stressful experience I've ever had on wikipedia. I even got blocked for 3RR twice in one day during one. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing that we definitely need to do is to check on the quality of the sources, particularly the online ones. I can't really see this (ref #32) getting past Ealdgyth for instance, and it's incomplete in any case. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Begging

I know, I know. But I'm begging: [1]. I think it can be salvaged, it gets tons of daily hits, and the prose needs a look. You're the best man for the job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I kind of resolved not to get involved in any more FARs after what happened with Simon Byrne, but as it's you ... Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

While you're here, let me ask you a question about the opening sentence: "Schizophrenia (pronounced /ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness." Are we sure that "disintegration" is the right word here? I'd probably favour something like "disruption". Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is tht it's disintegration because the deterioration continues over time ... still checking sources for you, though (I don't have all sources-- if I can't find the answer, need to ping Doc James or Cas Liber). Thank you, Malleus :) I haven't yet cleaned up the bottom of the article (beyond "History"), so you may find bigger issues there, not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll inevitably have more questions as I go through, I always do. Just ask Ealdgyth. Would you prefer me to put them on the article's talk page or on yours? Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think keep them here, because Cas has two huge articles at FAC and is swamped, and Doc James is doing all he can everywhere. I'll sort what I can with you here, and then ping one of them if I can't. Working on disruption/deterioration still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disruption
  • So I was right then? I've noticed that I very often am. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • My intent was to search our best sources to which uses what, but 1) I don't have most of the sources, and 2) I see I'm going to have to clean up the citations first (some of them include URLs that go to abstracts, not full text). Anyway, I'm not sure, but I think deterioration is better. Disruption signals more of a one-time issue-- with SZ, it's regression and deterioration that continue. Of course, I could be entirely wrong-- what do I know? We'll check this later with others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Disintegration can be a one-off event as well, as can deterioration; neither implies an on-going process.

• OK, here's another: "... the result of increased physical health problems and a higher suicide rate (about 5%)". I'm not quite sure what "increased health problems means" here; it could mean that pre-existing health problems got worse, or that the number of health problems increased. I guess it means the latter? Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I saw that one earlier as well-- unintelligible. I'll work on finding a source to sort it. I don't know what the 5% is either-- suicide rate overall, or increased risk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Are you sure that you need me on the article? Despite what you say, you're no prose slouch. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sign and symptoms

• "To minimize the developmental disruption associated with schizophrenia, much work has recently been done ...". "Recently" is obviously a word that will age.

• Bad, bad sentence :) I'm going to have dinner-- will catch up later with you, and really appreciate you doing this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm about to cook a curry (or maybe a sweet and sour, can't decide) and eat it while watching Match of the Day, so I'll be back later as well. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Positive and negative symptoms

• "People with negative symptoms tend to respond little to medication ...". It's surely not the people who respond to medication but the signs/symptoms?

People with prominent negative symptoms often have a history of poor adjustment before the onset of illness, and response to medication is often limited. <-- but have changed it thusly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Causes

• "People who have a family history of schizophrenia plus transient or self-limiting psychosis have a 20–40% chance of being diagnosed after one year." After one year of what?

after the transient or self-limiting psychosis. hence changed to "People with family history of schizophrenia who suffer a transient or self-limiting psychosis have a 20–40% chance of being diagnosed one year later." Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Prevention

• "While there is some evidence that early interventions in those with a psychotic episode may improve short term outcomes ...". This is ambiguous, as it's unclear whether "interventions" means many on one individual, one on each individual, or something in the middle.

"intervention" here is more of a group noun to cover the gamut of, erm, early interventions - hence "intervention" covers any/all of support, psychotherapy, medication etc. The word is generally used in this way (as a singular/group noun) by early intervention folks Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Then it would clearly make more sense to say "While there is some evidence that early intervention in those with a psychotic episode may improve short term outcomes ...". Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mechanisms

• "... which attributes psychosis to the mind's faulty interpretation of the misfiring of dopaminergic neurons". I'm really unhappy about the word "mind" there.

yeah, that one needs a bit of thinking about. I'll go read the source Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Prenatal

• "... which may be a result of increased rates of viral exposures in utero." Is it really the rate of exposure, as opposed to the amount of exposure? Rate implies a velocity.

Environment

• "Parenting style seems to have no effect on the risk, although people with supportive parents do better than those with critical parents." This can't possibly be right; either parenting style has an effect or it doesn't. Or is this talking about the prognosis of those with supportive vs. critical parents?

The second clause is talking about course over time...but there are also some interesting political issues here :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Psychological

• ... such sensitivity may cause vulnerability to symptoms". How can you be vulnerable to a symptom?

Medication

• "The first-line psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia is antipsychotic medication. These can reduce the positive symptoms of psychosis, taking around 7–14 days to be fully effective." Pretty poorly written; for starters "medication" is singular, whereas "these" obviously refer to a plural subject. The "taking" is pretty awkward as well.

?? - I beg to differ on the use of medication as a singular/group noun here (though of Doc James etc. gang up on me I'll give over :). Agree there should be a more polished word than "taking" Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Medication is clearly a singular noun IMO, but the problem could be avoided by recasting the sentence along the lines of "The first-line psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia is antipsychotic medication. which can reduce the positive symptoms of psychosis in about 7–14 days". Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah, it'll do me fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Neurological

• "An influential theory, known as the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia ...". A hypothesis is not a theory.

Subtypes

• "Where thought disorder and flat affect are present together."; "Where positive symptoms are present at a low intensity only." These aren't proper sentences.

History

• "In the early 1970s, the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia was the subject of a number of controversies ...". This reads strangely because "criteria" is obviously plural, whereas "was" clearly refers to a singular subject.

Malleus, I'll have internet access, but will resurface mid-next week; I'm going to ping Doc James to look at these, since he has all the sources. And Cas. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Manoj-Babli honour killing case

Manoj-Babli honour killing case passed its GA review! I got some comments from Fetchcomms (here), and will be working on those. Meanwhile, can you copyedit the article for prose? I remember you said that there were still problems with it. I want to take this article to FA! Codedon (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FAC is a big jump from GA, so take your time, don't rush it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article nomination comments

Thank you for taking the time to review my nomination of ZX81 as a featured article candidate. I have responded to the issues you raised in the FAC discussion - could you please review my replies and let me know if you're satisfied? Prioryman (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

self done BLP, should I care?

Mel Chin TCO (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The article could clearly benefit from some work, but that it may be self-written doesn't bother me at all. A few weeks ago I helped to save this new article, written by the artist's husband, after it had been deleted twice. Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, man. (I'll probably end up linking to it.  ;-0)TCO (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We actually have a sentence on his sculpture now in Myrrha. It got a NYT article in 1984. TCO (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lightning Bar...

And this is why I despise TFA day. Can you deal with this? I have a major project that HAS to get done, and I did not need this distraction. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that kind of "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" thing happens all too frequently. Anyway, I've posted a few replies and made a few changes. Just two questions for you:

Am I correct in thinking that the reason that the breed of Lightning Bar's dam isn't given is because it's unknown, or am I misremembering?

Is Louisiana still noted for the breeding of short-track racers?

Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Della P's a registered Quarter Horse ... I didn't mention it because I sillily (is that a word?) thought it was obvious. I have nothing to show that Louisiana is now noted for QH racing, so past tense is fine. It's folks like this that make TFA such a pain in the behind. Why do folks have to get all angry-nasty about things? Certainly helps a collaborative enviroment! And where are the civility police when you need them? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And thank you. Only about 60,000 lines of code to go... and then I get to write the documentation for it... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've put Lightning Bar on my watchlist for tomorrow, so I'll try and keep an eye on it. I thought you were a photographer? What are you doing hacking out lines of code? I used to quite enjoy some aspects of coding, but definitely not the documentation side, although it did get a lot easier in later years with things like use cases and UML ... anyway, back to work! Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I do contract work for an online game (not a big well known one, sorry) so I fiddle with their proprietary game engine and its code. So this is my "side job"... it's handy in the cold weather when it's hard to photograph. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that you've done a good job with that copy edit. Regardless of the merits of the complaint, your edits were certainly an improvement. Hopefully the maniacs with the open proxies (and all the other misguided edits the TFA attracts) won't do too much damage to it tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There are some things I don't like, such as phrasing like "his dam, or mother, ...", but IIRC that pretty much had to go in at FAC as some felt that words like "dam" and "sire" were too specialised not to be explained on their first occurrence. I've really grown to hate the pointless and irritating trouble that TFA so often causes. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you've any suggestions for reducing the trouble, I'm all ears. It would mean I could do something useful in the early hours rather than cleaning up after lunatics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got none I'm afraid, it all seems so predictable. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Pet again

Do you have any good sources on Commodore's early days? I feel like doing something completely different and working on Commodore PET. I have a few contemporary manuals and programmer's books, I may even be able to dig out a couple of old reviews (before my mum chucks the old magazines away). Parrot of Doom 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I might have some old magazines; I'll check and let you know if I find anything. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that working on the Pet is a good idea; it so often becomes a bit of nightmare working on articles here, and that one ought to be relatively quiet with any luck. I'm amazed that we got away unscathed with getting Maggie back to GA, touch wood. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wait for TFA day on that one, especially if it is run right after Maggie goes off to the House of the Afterlife Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The logic of not protecting TFAs passes me by, as all the present approach ensures is that readers are guaranteed to see a vandalised version of the article for a significant part of the day. It would be for others to decide, but I'd not want to see Maggie on the front page, although I suppose it's inevitable that she'll appear on ITN soon enough. Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, as I see more and more of my FAs take hits on TFA day, I'm starting to agree. Let me put it this way. I've never seen an article better at the end of the 24 hours than at its start.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've occasionally seen a few minor improvements, but nothing that goes any way towards justifying the grief. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a certain satisfaction if the article's subject is generally unknown, and if the article becomes popular, knowing that some people will have learnt something from it. Wife selling suffered a lot of vandalism until it was protected but you know a good lot of people read from it and learnt something about history. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling suffered from being an April 1 TFA to be fair; never again. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone somewhere (Google it) was selling the entire back-archive of PCW on CD-ROM. If you can rustle that up from somewhere, that's probably your best bet. (If you do, look for the spoof advert for Wild Bill's Computer Rodeo in the April 1982 issue. It still makes me snigger.) – iridescent 17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My dad had every copy of PCW between the late 70s and mid 80s. All in the bin, a long while back. They would have made an excellent source. I'll see if I can "find" the CDROM from "somewhere" ;) Parrot of Doom 18:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look through my old computer magazines but I've got nothing before 1995, so not much use as far as Commodore goes I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking. I'm going to hunt down a half-decent book on the subject I think. I spent my formative years messing around with Commodore's products, and many frustrating hours trying to tape-to-tape games :( Parrot of Doom 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There were a number of "this is what a computer does!" books by Robin Bradbeer in the late 70s/early 80s—they may be worth tracking down; Manchester may be one of the few places where the libraries actually hang on to such things, thanks to the legacy of UMIST. (Bradbeer went on to greater things, writing Sinclair's instruction manuals.) – iridescent 19:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you really that sad...

...a character that you trawl through months of my contributions history to find some typos? If so, I can only sympathise. I have already made it clear, it is the promotion of articles in severe need of literary improvement to Main Page standard Featured Article status that I was critical of. If you are unwilling to read my comments, keep your opinions to yurself. Kevin McE (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It was merely the work of a few seconds to look through the first few entries in this list. I thought I might learn something from your contributions, and I did. Can you guess what that was? Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough text edit

Thanks for another pass through, man. All good upgrades. On the mid hyphenation, we actually had a talk page section on it and I researched and linked to some style guidance (not at all meant as wanting it the other way, am totally fine with how we have it now, more as a "we were trying" and "if it intrigues you, it's in archives".

Again, thanks for the work. Onwards! TCO (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens were invented to drive us mad. And I'm mad enough as it is anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing I read said to do hyphenation wrt mid if the word after is capitalized. TCO (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardware

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded to Malleus Fatuorum for all his help in making Painted turtle a Featured Article. We could not have done it without your renown scrutiny. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You probably wouldn't, no. How arrogant is that? No, don't tell me, it was a rhetorical question. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to push US or U.S. (its all cool)

I was just laughing because it has changed so many times over the last few weeks. this is one I totally am willing to let whoever wants it have their way. Like all this crap, I researched it and wrote a little summary of the web guidance. Basically it seems the norm at traditional print sources to use U.S., but there's growing usage of US. I would never contest either.TCO (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I get pushed by reviewers all over the place on that one. My attitude on it is, the trophy goes to those who care.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wandering by and saw this. AP Stylebook (the book anyway) insists that it's "U.S.", and many newspaper and journal copy editors tell their writers that they have to follow AP whether it makes any sense to them or not. OTOH, most non-AmEng style guides, and also Chicago 16 and other AmEng style guides, now prefer "US". Which means we're guaranteed to see lots of both in modern sources. Not a lot we can do to make this go away. - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We here in the UK long ago made the right decision. How many times do you see "U.K.? It looks so ugly, as does "U.S.". Malleus Fatuorum 05:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

When I see the ugly brute I'm reminded of reading a pre-war encyclopaedia. The use of US seems sensible just to show the world we are not stuck in the past . Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 05:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what. Change it.  :-P TCO (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're free...

Could you look over Hygberht for me? Check to make sure it's comprehensible, etc etc.? I'm still waiting on an article for Broad Ripple Park Carousel, so might as well get something small and quick up ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have a horse article close to ready for FAC, so you could display your knowledge (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I have no intention of applying for anything here on wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd have teased, tormented, begged or cajoled you to do it. You'd be tromping out all crusty, salty FA veteran talking to the Oxbridge Wiki club or what have you. I feel very un-Wiki right now though...what a blast this site is to romp around in! TCO (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus just ask them how much they will pay you! You'll be providing instructions and monitoring for students so why can't they pay like the ones on-site? BTW, I'm a little bewildered why academic students need to have a hand holding. Don't students these days have the ability to work out how to edit Wikipedia? I'm not sure if that it is a bad sign of students or a bad sign that Wikipedia is to difficult to edit. ;-) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Waxing serious. It is a bad sign for Wiki that they need to do this. Or that it took them 10 years to get here. But that said, it is an EXCELLENT idea. I almost feel inclined to rock their world and just sign up a gazillion students to write turtle articles in an unauthorized program that "beats them". I'm just feeling very chesty. Like my secret plan to show Sandy canvassing like she had never seen before when I got Lovich and Ernst stomping into the FAC to give it supports. Lie the cavalry in Tie a Yellow Ribbon, TCO (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

IOW, the students are fine. They are the same mix of guile and guileless and all that jazz that they ever have been and that they will be 100 years from now (damned kids). Wiki is the one who needs to think strategically. TCO (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus has made it clear in the past he does not wish to be paid. I alluded, as I recall to the possibility of getting grants for books and similar expenses and he was very much against it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not all the case, not sure where you got that idea from. I've always been in favour of paid editing, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 12:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, then. I'm not motivated enough to pull up the discussion, and I can't remember whether it was here, there, or anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

... or perhaps it never took place at all. Malleus Fatuorum 12:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it did. There was talk of grants, and I said something like it would be nice to get the costs of books reimbursed, and you were not in favour.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

When did I say that? If I did, what was the context? Regardless, it is not my view that editors must be unpaid; as I said, I have no difficulty with paid editing. Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It was several months ago, Malleus, I do not recall the exact context. And I suspect the idea of the "amateur" WP editor will one day go the way of Avery Brundage.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I forgot to express my appreciation with Royal Maundy, now safely promoted. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld is probably poring over that one even as we speak, looking for any reason he can to have it delisted. Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jutland (horse)

Hi. I must say I really disagree with your promotion of this article to a GA. I don't mean to be a spoil sport but it really fails "broad in coverage" criteria for a good article. It is a far from being of an acceptable coverage in scope in my view. Its not even B class. Its a start class article at 7.5 KB.. I've opened a reassessment page on it.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good. Then we'll see whether anyone else agrees with you. Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

King of Micro Stubs eh? Better than being a D grade article reviewer who is more interested in boosting his number of GA reviews than actual quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop now, before your mouth runs away with you entirely. You have behaved like a complete pratt, and I'd prefer that you did it elsewhere, out of my sight. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, actually I had a very valid point about you promoting an article with six sources and less content than many of our start class articles as a good article. It is you who has shown yourself up as unwilling to accept criticism of your reviews. If you can't accept the occasional questioning of your article reviewing and a reassessment without insulting me as a "King of Micro stubs" then don't pass yourself off as a credible reviewer. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Go away, you're becoming even more tedious than normal. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looking at a version of the article from the 24th, I can not find any weight your position that the article is not broad in coverage. It seemed to cover all the information a person would want on the subject. A simple counting of sources can't show what the article says. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's a well-written and concise article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked in detail, but the article seems to ticks the boxes. --Philcha (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I'm glad that's settled...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hola

Malleus you have my word of oath on this I genuinely didn't even look at who reviewed the article and it didn't even register who you were (even after posting here initially) until I saw your response on Dana's page. Sure I'd heard the name but I really am frightfully ignorant of what other people are up to on wikipedia and know very little about you. Actually I regularly view recently created and promoted content, DYKs and recently promoted Good articles as it inspires me with good faith at how the project is developing and that other people genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia to a level of high quality. I honestly don't look at who reviewed it, I am more interested in what the article has to offer and the passion of the people who write them. I think its exciting to see good quality across a diversity of subjects. I was viewing the recently promoted GAs rather idly but the Jutland horse article stood out to me because it seemed unusually short/low on number of sources than I am generally accustomed to seeing and a Jutland horse initially seemed a subject I was convinced could be covered in much more detail. It seems though that in this instance the main/core most important details are already present in the article and that is sufficient for a GA. If you think I'm going to make a habit of picking holes in every review you do and intentionally finding in fault in you in particularly and having some kind of grudge against you, that really is the last thing I'd do. I want to make it perfectly clear that we need as many people who are passionate about Good articles writing and reviewing as possible. After all we seem to be having an increasing demand for reviews. So long as you review to the best of your ability and use your experience I would be the last one to impede your progress. Note though that how I treat others is always a reflection of how they treat me. If we had a mutual respect for each other as competent individuals who are genuine assets to the project rather than the trolls and people who are genuinely time wasters, hampering growth on here by causing trouble, then I'm certain we could be on much better terms. Best of luck editing.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I'm happy to accept that. Let's never mention this episode between us again. :-) BTW, I've posted an addendum on AGK's talk page, as I really don't think he had any reason to threaten you, even if you had posted here in the last hour or so, which you didn't. Best of luck to you as well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Group hug! TCO (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Thankyou Malleus for your message to AGK. I am sorry if I caused any offence and upset. I've also learned a lesson about the GA article process and the true requirements and that is it better to speaker to the reviewer/article writer personally in future if there are any concerns rather than inflaming the situation unnecessarily with a sort of threat of delisting. Let the fact Malleus that you've never had a single one of the reviews thrown at you reversed to date as you say, so that should hold you in good stead and give you some sort of positivity that you are doing a good job.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that maybe GA ought to have a rule similar to the one recently introduced at FAR, so that any concerns have to be raised first on the article's talk page, and the GAR initiated only if they're not dealt with satisfactorily with a week or so. At least for community GARs anyway, as there are obviously some shocking promotions that ought to be reversed on sight. Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That would indeed be a better solution. I had no previous experience of GAR but in this instance a lot of things could have been avoided if discussed first without a threat of delisting.. It is certainly something you should propose, and I'd fully support you in doing if you let me know once you've done it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've given up proposing changes here, on anything. I'm not the most patient of people, and the ensuing interminable discussion just bores me rigid. People can find more reasons not to do something that you could ever possibly imagine. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with "reversing on sight" anything that has gone through a considered process. That doesn't mean that process was not wrong, or that the article should not be de-listed in the end. Maybe even that some people can tell on sight that it should get delisted. Doesn't matter. Given that the thing went through some time-intensive process, the nomination to delist ought to be substantive (in its own content). The de-list procedure should have some hurdles in it (the talk page discussion is fine, and also requiring a substantive [long] and good faith [this is the work plan to fix it] review).

This damned project spends so much time chasing its tail. We need more content and better prose. Less debates. I see this on MOS talk all the time. People will fire from the hip with their take on some style question, but can't be troubled to take 10 minutes and do a google search and read some web articles on the topic and dash off a summary of the different schools of thought. And I really don't want 56skidoo tossing in paragraph-long FARs on all the turtle articles maliciously.

I don't know the Good Article as opposed to "good article" requirements, but it wouldn't hurt "Jutland (horse)" to dig into the Danish sources. When we cover small topics or foreign ones, it just becomes necessary to go to greater efforts of research to "get the story".

But yeah, expect a bunch of low value (we've already discussed that) or (we don't do it that way) objects to any change.TCO (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reversing on sight is occasionally necessary. Quite recently I delisted a GA after it became apparent that it had never gone through a proper GA review, or apparently any kind of a GA review. I'd expect the number of cases like that to be pretty low though, admittedly. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dig into the Danish sources for the Jutland horse by all means, any article can be improved, even the best. But once again I come back to the law of diminishing returns. Has anything added to the article since this storm-in-a-teacup blew up really improved it all that much? Did the lack of it really mean that the article didn't meet the GA criteria? Obviously you can probably very easily guess what my opinion is, but just in case I think we're now chasing trivia, like "the biggest horse statue in the world". Really? What exactly does that tell me about the breed? Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't like the statue. However, it's a notable statue within Denmark--first reaction of our Danish editor. It was listed as one of the two most famous statues by the artist who had a 100 year career and specialized in horse statues. It has ove 100 flickr photos. Species articles are not purely biological.

If it is a Danish topic, we need to dig into Danish sources. Especially if it is an obscure one. Keep the plus sign, I don't care. You could say of any topic, what do we really want to know and then just favor articles that were lead sized. However, given we have a system that uses leads, the article below can go into more substantive coverage.

Your point about diminishing returns is a good one and if Dana wants to work on other breeds that are in worse shape, more power to her.

I don't see why reversing on sight is "necessary". It's not like we are talking about a BLP concern or someone putting Tubgirl vandalizing in. What's it gonna hurt if it carries a plus sign a couple days longer? We have procedures to make a hurdle to granting the plus and should have procedures to delisting the plus. (Or at least for FAR, my concern is there.) If you allow delist on sight, then it will not just be used for articles that deserve it but for those that don't. And nothing would have stopped you from writing a longer delist nomination. It's just work. And the instructions for review say it's supposed to have a purpose of fixing the article. I think the gravitas of the delist requires at least the level of detail that I would give someone who asked for a friendly "how do I upgrade this piece of meat" review. TCO (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't see why it's sometimes necessary then you weren't at the little green blob battles a few years ago; it's a matter of credibility. GAN depends on a single reviewer, unlike FAC. which makes it necessary in very clear cut cases like the one I was referring to. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so. Would you agree that FAR proposals should have a solid initial review?TCO (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking about FAR, I no longer take part in it. I was talking about GAR. And in this particular case the editor of the article had decided to add the GA icon him or herself without ever nominating at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, man, I wasn't being sarcastic with the "maybe", I was ready to take it on faith...the maybe was positive. I was asking about FAR as the situation might be different, but the problems similar.TCO (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Then speaking of FAR, of course any proposals should be solidly based on the FA criteria. Just as any GAR proposal should be based on the GA criteria. Not sure what you mean by "solid initial review" though. To become an FA the article would have been reviewed to the satisfaction of the delegates, so almost by definition it's had a solid review. If at some time later standards change, or any editor has good reason to believe that the article no longer meets whatever are the FA criteria at that time (or even perhaps never did, as the reviewers missed something) then the proper thing to do is to initiate a discussion of the perceived weakness(es) on the article's talk page. If after a reasonable period of time no progress has been made towards addressing those concerns, or it seems unlikely that the concerns are going to be addressed, then a FAR becomes increasingly inevitable. It's not necessary for the FAR's nominator to carry out another complete review of the article though, just to express his/her concerns succinctly with a few examples. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Robust disagreement

This is wonderful:

I'm not some delicate flower that needs to be protected from a bit of robust disagreement. Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

May I use it on my talk page? Bielle (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free. I have no copyright on anything I write here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand; none of us does. I have always thought it polite to ask, nonetheless. Thanks for your response. Bielle (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Most ingenious.... At least we now know you're not a wilting daffodil LOL...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In botanical terms I would think of myself more as some kind of a thistle. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cactus. The species' power of preservation against all odds seems more apt. The spikes, too, seem to add to the metaphor. Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thistle is good though. People try to get rid of em, but they just keep coming back! In any event, better to be prickly than spineless like the smelly, hairy, fly-infested Stapelia. I took this silly quiz. Apparently I'm a type of Canna. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Being half-Scottish I chose thistle deliberately. An English rose really wouldn't have been appropriate, not even a red one. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

I thought I'd let you know that I've renominated Olivia for GAN. If you have time for it, much appreciated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's get that job done. I've got to warn you though, I'm no pushover. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I know - you're a prickly pear. I don't mind if you push - with good reason. I've reinstated the cuts, so it's in shape for trimming, if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll start looking through tomorrow, but don't worry, I'll be gentle. We've both had enough grief here recently, neither of us needs any more. Besides, I'd have Ceoil at my back anyway if I stepped out of line. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Another one headed down the rails

We are working to get List of U.S. state reptiles ready for FLC. Love to have you stop by and contribute and help. In particular, my third para in lead (on genuses) am not satisfied with. Even considering cutting whole thing. Talk page has a list of what we (think) we need to get done before FLC. Come join!TCO (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me TCO, but there are things I want to do here myself. Malkin Towers is very sadly neglected, for instance, I've promised to review Olivia Shakespear, and those Green children of Woolpit need a good seeing to. I'm not the best person to ask about lists anyway, never really got into them. User:Peter I. Vardy is your man for lists; his border on the exquisite. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the referal and will go talk to him. Just didn't want you to miss out! ;-) TCO (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)