User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

I feel that I'm getting close to the end of my time here. 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. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site,

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

Conversion therapy

Hello, Malleus Fatuorum. I don't want to bother you if you are busy, but if you could have a look at the conversion therapy article and say how you think things are going, it would be much appreciated. I am trying to focus on getting the formatting there right, but I am finding that rather difficult, and any help or comment you could offer would be welcome. Born Gay (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through. When I saw that it was a delisted GA I wondered who had delisted it, and why, and when I checked I found that it was me. :-)

Anyway, from my brief look through the article is certainly in better shape than before, but I still don't think it's quite there yet for GA. This statement in the lead, for instance "The organizations respect the client's right to self-determination", seems both out of place and somewhat subjective. I notice as well that in the subsection on Richard von Krafft-Ebing there are a number of quotations almost all of which are uncited; all direct quotations must be cited to their source. Is it really necessary to have 17 citations at the end of the lead's first paragraph? Is this information not cited in the body of the article?

My final comment is to do with the expanded World trends section. I really can't see this working. How many countries are there in the world where this therapy is, has been, or will be employed? Will the info be kept up-to-date on all of them? Where there's something significant to say about the therapy's use in a particular country then I'd expect to see that at the point in the article where its importance is described. Good work so far though. If you've got any specific formatting you're having problems with then I'll do what I can to help you restore the article's GA status. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, and for editing the article; you've corrected a number of things I had overlooked. I'll take a look through the article's sources, and remove the reference to self-determination if I can't find a source for it, or replace it with something more appropriate. I'll also look up Psychopathia Sexualis again and find the page references for the quotations from Krafft-Ebing. Can these all be added to the one reference for this book, or is there a different method that needs to be followed?

I don't think the World Trends section is as problematic as you think. Several countries (Germany, Austria, the United States, the United Kingdom, and, to a lesser extent, France) have played a more important role in the development of conversion therapy than others, and clearly they should receive the most attention. The main thing that might be prolematic in the World Trends section is excessive detail for the other countries. If that situation ever arises, the information might be shifted to more appropriate articles. Keeping it up to date is not a problem in principle, since the sources required should become available when and if there are significant developments.

I only recently found out what formatting was, and while I think I will be able to get the formatting more or less consistent with some effort, I'm not sure that I can do it to the high standard required for a GA. I've already got the formatting basically consistent where books are concerned, but I'm fumbling with the rest of it (eg, citing the web, journals, and news). I just don't have a clear enough idea of what I'm trying to do here. I'm not even sure exactly what is meant by 'accessdate', for example, or whether the format information needs to be included for web pages that don't contain PDFs. I'm worried that getting this sorted out might require collecting information I'm not sure how to get (month of publication for journals and web pages, etc). This has become especially significant, since I'd like to get this part sorted out before dealing with the article's other problems. Born Gay (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the formatting of citations, I understand now. The GA criteria are significantly more relaxed than the FA criteria with respect to citations, but I'd always recommend aiming high even at GA; saves time and effort when you decide to go to FAC. The "accessdate" is simply the date you looked at the web page; the idea is that if the link ever goes dead (and it will) it gives others a clue as to what you were referring to, and how to locate a copy.

My personal preference is to use the {{citation}} template instead of the various {{cite}} variations, that way you only have one template to learn. As well it fits nicely with the {{harvnb}} template for book/journal citations.

Specifically with this article for GA the Krafft-Ebing quotations don't strictly need to be cited to a specific page number, but they do need to be cited to something, a book or a paper for instance. Doesn't matter if they all come from the same source. If you're not sure how to do it then just give me a couple of the page numbers from whatever the source is and I'll put them in as an example you can follow for the rest. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(butting in) If you think you might EVER want to go for FA with this article (or any article) I strongly urge putting page numbers in. They are pretty much a requirement at FA, and should be at GA too. There is nothing worse than going BACK and finding page numbers. Much easier to put them in as you write. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Even for books I thought I was pretty familiar with, trying to go back and find page numbers is a nightmare. That's one of the main things I meant by "aiming high". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus, I looked up the page references for Psychopathia Sexualis. There are eight direct quotes from Krafft-Ebing in the section on him, and the page references, in order, are 299, 299, 300, 299, 308, 306, 306, and 307. I'll try and find as many page references as I can for the other books used as sources.Born Gay (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, although it may not be apparent, all the information in the Krafft-Ebing section is intended to be sourced, to Psychopathia Sexualis. It's source number 31, immediately following the words "the individual himself." Born Gay (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added all of those page numbers now to the Krafft-Ebing section; hopefully that's given you the idea of how to do the rest. My strong preference is to separate all of the books and journals into a separate Bibliography section, as I've done with Psychopathis Sexualis, even when the book or paper is referred to only once. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to do this with the books. I'm not sure if the result is exactly what you're after, though. Do things still seem to be going in the right direction there, or not, in your view? Born Gay (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So far so good, but you've now got the books listed twice, in the bibliography and in the notes. The notes should contain the Harvard citation to the book, which should appear only in the bibliography. I've fixed citation 44 (Marmor) to show you what I mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've followed the example you gave with the other book references. What would you say are the next things that need doing? I'm sorry if I'm coming across as dumb here, but no one is born knowing how to edit the Wiki. Born Gay (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be coming alomg nicely now, the citations look much better. From the perspective of a GA reviewer I see two potential stumbling blocks, the most serious of which is that there are still large parts of the article uncited. The Gunter Dorner section, for instance. What's the source for all that information? As a general rule of thumb, a reviewer will expect to see at least one citation per paragraph. The other, probably less important thing from a GA perspective, is that in some places the article consists of what appears to be a series of short, disconnected paragraphs, the last half of United States, for instance. Perhaps that section and maybe one or two others are a bit too long as well? Maybe some subheadings would improve their organisation? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources for the information on Dorner are primarily Simon LeVay's book Queer Science and secondarily Gunter Dorner's Hormones and Brain Differentiation. I'll alter this to make it clearer, and will do the same for other parts of the article. The United States section requires both expansion and some re-writing, to solve the problems you mention. I'll be dividing it, and the United Kingdom section, into subsections when there is enough information to warrant this. Do you think the journals need to go in the bibliography section, like the books? I'm not sure how to do this exactly. In other cases, I think I should be able to follow the examples you've given. Born Gay (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that journal articles should be handled in the same way as books. It's done pretty much just like with the books, but in case you're uncertain I've moved ref #38 (Stakelbeck & Udo) as an example. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there electric-shock therapy to cure heterosexuality? I believe it should be available on the National Health. :-) Tony (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it Tony. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 10:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just sayin'

Of course you do a great deal of hard work. I wouldn't suggest otherwise. Yet the size of this project means everyone has to prioritize. And every area has slightly different needs. Over at featured sounds we once had a fellow who wanted to completely rewrite the process criteria; a hard worker who had never actually nominated a featured sound himself. We just sorta rolled our eyes when he opposed a featured sound candidate over an en-dash. Been meaning to do a couple more FAs, myself, but so far I've only done two of 'em, so except with regard to images it probably wouldn't go over very well to lecture the FA folks how to run their gig. Especially my particular hatred of en-dashes. ;) Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Likely you're referring to a different case, since Tony did want to (use his ample ce skills to) rewrite the criteria, but he didn't oppose over an endash. As I recall, he had a valid criticism, but the sound was promoted on two votes anyway ... so surely you're speaking of a different case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No one wanted to call any individual out by name, but in case there's any unclarity here the nomination is Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/The Carnival of the Animals. The active editors walked away from the process for two months to avoid the disruptive individual, as an alternative to conduct RfC. Looking up the name of the featured sound director, am pretty sure that person has not commented to this thread. And for what it's worth, the nomination was promoted with five supports while the disruptive indivual was the sole opposer. Durova^Charge! 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Disruptive", here, is being used for political purposes. Opposing for the fizziness of the recording is not disruptive, unless it disrupts Durova's wish to have the nomination promoted. If that's the case: sure, I'll "disrupt" that until the nomination is good enough. That you would countenance an RFC because a reviewer opposes your nomination is tantamount to a personal attack. On the issue of allowing nominators (how ever many there are—one, two, three) to vote support in their own nominations, I'm surprised you don't have a better grasp of conflict of interest. Tony (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI

Delivered on 3 June 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

wt:rfa

Hey Mall, how you doin today? Hey, I was just going back through that discussion about DYK on the RFA talk page. You brought up a few good points I hadn't really thought about. Are you thinking that DYK should not be on the front page? Do you think it should be made clearer to the viewers that it's not our best work? .. It does have that one liner about "From our newest articles". Are you saying the whole DYK thing needs to be overhauled? Hopefully you don't think the whole DYK thing should be just scrapped - cause I'd have to strongly disagree on so many fronts there. I'll admit, there's been some stuff that's made it to the front page via DYK that could be considered a bit embarrassing ... I'm just not sure where you're headed with this though. — Ched :  ?  14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue of DYKs on the front page needs to be examined, but perhaps not on WT:DYK where everyone is pro DYK and defensive about change. I use DYK to get a bit more exposure for articles I think are important or interesting (Derwent Valley Mills, a World Heritage Site was recently featured, although I have on occasion submitted boring DYKs and it just felt wrong). Perhaps the role of DYK shouldn't be to exhibit our newest articles, but to display genuinely interesting facts to interest readers. They could be chosen from any article, regardless of age, but I think the best source for these interesting facts would be the nearly 7,000 Good Articles which would ensure that the articles on the mainpage are of a decent standard (6 hooks with 8 hours display times, each article could appear on the front page in 389 days; at the current rate of GA promotion, by then there would be nearly 3,000 extra Good Articles. And why shouldn't articles appear more than once if they've got more than one interesting fact). Having poorly referenced stubby (although technically DYKs are not allowed to be stubs) articles on the mainpage doesn't do wikipedia's image any favours. Nev1 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think those who so vigorously defend the status quo at DYK are completely misguided; it's called Did You Know, not Most Recent Articles. Take a look at today's main page, for instance. Can you honestly say you find any of those hooks interesting? Might as well be called Who Gives a Shit. I very much agree with what Nev1 says above, the focus ought to be on interesting facts from article that have been through some kind of independent review process. The present system is an embarrassment, but it's my impression that there's no will to change so I intend simply to ignore it. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no impetus for change within the DYK regulars (insular communities usually only change through outside influences), and the rest of wikipedia doesn't seem to care enough about DYK. Which is a shame as it occupies a significant amount of the front page. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen arguments that DYK is intended to motivate people to improve stubs and poor short articles that can be fixed w/o e.g. the amount of work required to raise one of these to GA. While I sympathise to a degree:

• The DYK team need to make sure the "hook" fact is rock solid and that the rest of the article contains no dubious "facts", POVs or noticeably poor prose.
• The 5x5 criterion (create or expand 5x in 5 days before nomination) encourages hasty work. It also creates a "dead" zone of articles that are too large to expand 5x but need work.

Who controls the front page? If anyone wants to change the DYK system, that's the way to go, bypassing the "DYK regulars". --Philcha (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said "bypass the regulars", but what I meant by "perhaps not on WT:DYK where everyone is pro DYK and defensive about change" was that opinions from other people need to be introduced. The opinions of the DYK regulars are of course important, but they are not the only ones that should be heard. Nev1 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit, the first time I looked over the DYK stuff - I right away thought about #NOTTRIVIA. I like the project, it encourages users, especially new users, to jump in and contribute. They even get that pretty brown banner on their talk page. I hadn't really thought about the issues there could be with the front page. And it's not so much the "Who gives a shit" that concerns me, but the fact that poorly written, or more to the point, poorly reviewed/audited material doesn't exactly showcase our best work. There's a lot of good folks over at DYK helping and encouraging folks along - I see that as a very positive thing. I wonder if a DYK pulled from GA or FA to use on the main page would be feasible? Mal, I'm gonna watchlist your talk page here - I like the direction this is going. I think you brought up some really good points, and maybe shined a light on a rather unlit situation. I don't really care about it from an RfA point of view - people are going to vote the way they are going to vote, and telling them that DYK, or edit counts, or anything else isn't a valid perspective isn't going to change their minds. — Ched :  ?  16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently raised this topic with Geometry guy; you might be interested to read what his take on DYK is.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - interesting read. Let me know if any kind of centralized discussion gets going on this. — Ched :  ?  18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've given up on it. Trying to get anything changed here is just too frustrating to be bothered with, and just makes you enemies. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the best way to change things is to raise the bar and create a top standard. Having society put forth a written expectation does nothing. Doing your best and putting out a lot of effort does a lot - people look to the good and strive to follow after it. Look at my recent DYK set - it will be about 16/17 pages and all be on a serious topic, dealing with multiple major critics, and covering far more per page than most DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't do everything. I'm just going to forget that DYK even exists. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You won't be the first: the easy, award-seeking format furthers plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Leading by example is good in principle, and noble, but I think is unrealistic. I doubt that anyone who saw list of castles in Cheshire (FLC while featured on DYK), Mellor hill fort (GAC when featured on DYK), or Derwent Valley Mills (C-class and preparing for GAC when featured on DYK) (and hopefully Maiden Castle, Dorset which is a current GAC and looking likely to feature on DYK) on DYK will try to imitate them. The articles of a high standard of definitely a minority at DYK and not given enough prominence. Perhaps a compromise would be achievable? The lead hook with image could be something genuinely interesting from a GA or FA and the rest could be the current standard. That way, the audited content is most prominent, but we're not deceiving the readers into believing that all wikipedia's articles are GAs/FAs. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My focus for some time now has been on GA/FA, because I think they're two of the most important projects on wikipedia, and I think I can do a little to help there. I don't even spend much time at peer review, much less DYK, because I'm really not interested in helping with an article unless it's either at or being prepared for GA/FA. My difficulty with DYK as it presently operates is that it's very often little more than a cheap shiny bauble awarded to a poor quality article that will never be developed further. There are of course honourable exceptions, I'm speaking generally. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Something else that bothers me about DYK is the "created in the last five days" criterion, which discourages collaborative editing, as it means that pretty much anything substantial has to be worked on in private. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put stuff up for DYK, but more often I'm reworking something stubbish, than actually something new (although I do new stuff through there too). I always find the process vaguely ... silly. There's too much entrenched thought that it has to be "NEW NEW NEW" not a substantial rework of old useless stuff. Some of what i've done would never make DYK, like Wilfrid say, because it just takes too long to get it up to a decent standard. But I have to admit feeling that the stuff I put through DYK is probably head and shoulders above most of it. Poor Awa's still trying to convince folks that IMDB isn't a valid reference there... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A good point, especially as sometimes it's best to ignore the article and start from scratch. Then, even though it's technically all new material it might not make the 5 fold increase mark. I think there should probably be a sliding scale so as not to discriminate against articles that start off longer. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit's doing sterling work over there, and I say that even though she turned down my last effort at DYK. She was probably quite right though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of collaborative editing - the largest hook (16 part) was worked on by 5 people. Other hooks of mine that are 5+ parts have been worked on with other people. My hooks on Ainsworth will be worked on with you, Malleus. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting thar there isn't some gold among the dross, just that there's too much dross. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

dross? .. had to look that one up. Felt silly cause my dad worked for J&L Steel for 30+ years. ;-/ — Ched :  ?  16:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ever hear of Shakespeare? Have you heard about all of the lesser playwrights that produced works at the same time? You'd probably be surprised by the large amount of them and the large amount of their plays. True gold shines for all to see regardless of its surroundings. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare's one thing, but I defy you to get excited about this offering. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"This pattern continues for several miles, with PA 171 passing a large pond." Sounds good to me...Ning-ning (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house :-) --Philcha (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember having to struggle through Shakespeare back in high-school. Great mind, but much of the verbiage was lost on me at the time. Taming of the Shrew was one I recall, and ... the "Pound of flesh" one .. but I may be confused on authors here. Don't know if you researched, but actually I 70 isn't far from where I live. A real "wreck" of a road if you'll pardon the pun. I'll be honest, when it comes to roads and such ... WP isn't where I'm looking ... MS Streets & Maps or Mapquest for me. — Ched :  ?  19:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember being taken on a school trip to see the Burton & Taylor version of The Taming of the Shrew, which I thought was excellent. The film wasn't bad either. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh - you know exactly what my metaphor meant - there will always be crap. 99.9% of all things will for the most part be crap, and that last .1% is still iffy. That is how the world works. However, there will always be truly great stuff and it will always outshine everything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I made it my mission to create an interesting DYK for you yesterday. [2] --Laser brain (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An interesting and worthy subject, but why did you make me read almost to the end before telling me that it was a kind of trumpet? That's just teasing. ;-) Actually I found this on today's main page to be quite interesting as well, I just wish that DYKs were ... better. And there aren't nearly enough on witch trials, black magic, or Fortean phenomena in general. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I can die happy if this ends up on The Eighth Most Visited Page On The Internet. (No doubt some Defender Of The Wiki will refuse it, but worth a shot.) – iridescent 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably get slated for that "due to" ... ah no, it's DYK, I forgot, anything goes. Interesting fact for once though. I'm amazed at how fragile so many bridges are. I remember quite recently watching a tv programme about one suspension bridge where microphones had been installed in the sheath supposedly protecting the supporting cables from corrosion, to listen for the twang when another of them snapped. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Haha, Iri. Have I mentioned ilu? I need help with my newest article. I want to get it on the main page for DYK, but I can't figure out how to make it longer. I'm running out of days, too. Can I get some help with Bavarian Pigeon Corps? لennavecia 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you and Iridescent can't make 1,500 characters out of that gem then I'll be bloody amazed. Just a short background section with a brief history of aerial photography until then would be more than enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're the only editor; {{db-g7}} it, and resubmit it when it's big enough. Don't they teach the kids anything in Cynicism School these days? (Hint 2: all those 1909 postcards are {{PD-US}} if you upload them to en-wiki rather than Commons.) – iridescent 23:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong suggestion – ask one of these characters (Fut Perf maybe?) to have a look through German Google. By definition there will be more there. (Just which enemies were these pigeons used against, anyway? AFAIK Germany wasn't involved in any war between 1870 and 1914, and by 1914 they already had a perfectly good air force.) – iridescent 23:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just remember not to mention The War if you ask for help. Nev1 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the English language sources, that one looks unexpandable as although it's mentioned lots of places, it seems to be the same few facts repeated over & over. Can't see what can easily be done without access to German language sources. – iridescent 16:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It only needs to be expanded by a couple of hundred characters, easy! --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the help, Malleus. I've been dealing with BLP crap and helping out a friend most of the morning, so I haven't had time to work on it. Eep. لennavecia 18:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's now 1,529 characters. Enjoy yourself at DYK. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

List Bavarian Pidgeon Corps soon. As long as the June 1st day is still above the line, then it is viable. I just checked the page so it should pass, and if no one checks it off, I will check it myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Listed. Thanks. لennavecia 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bavarian army really ought to be moved to Bavarian Army. I'd do it myself, but well, you know, I'm not trusted to do stuff like that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In any "Wikipedia's worst articles" list, Bavarian army surely has a spot in the bag. – iridescent 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not one of the best I've ever seen, but at least it could have the correct title. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done – iridescent 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel happier now. What's so difficult about moving over a redirect that plebs like me aren't allowed to do it? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You have some of the noisier denizens of WP:LTA to thank for that – one can create one hell of a mess moving Article A over Article B and thus merging the histories. Imagine the fun of manually unscrambling (say) the history of George W. Bush and WT:RFA if some bright spark thought it would be funny to merge the histories? – iridescent 23:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so. Kind of hard to swallow that I am no more trusted to move a page than those reprobates though. Still, just the way it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much a cast of "trust", but "assume stupidity" – I can easily imagine, for instance, an overenthusiastic cleaner-upper moving City of Manchester over Manchester City. There's also the issue that, because the history of the "target" article is wiped (you'll look in vain for the previous edits to Bavarian Army), it would be a way to perform "back door" deletions. – iridescent 16:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I'm trusted but I'm stupid. I can take a hint. Didn't realise that admins had to take an IQ test as well as get baited for a week. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say here as well thatI was a member of MENSA for several years, which I think may explain why I so often feel like I'm pissing in the wind here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Eh, you were talking about bad/trivial articles. What about Never mind (Saturday Night Live) Ling.Nut (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

At least that has references. My personal lowlight at the moment is Southborough, Bromley, which makes Bacon, egg and cheese sandwich look ready for its FAC. – iridescent 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently someone thought your Southborough, Bromley gem was good enough to move to the Hindi Wikipedia. Ling.Nut (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't write the thing! I only write important articles, like Cats That Look Like Hitler. (Anyone want to AFD that crap, feel free; I expected there to be more to say than there is.) – iridescent 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

Hey, I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at the Oklahoma City bombing article. I plan to nominate it at FAC soon, and am currently requesting feedback from various editors to determine if there are any major issues (or minor ones) that need to be addressed. Hopefully I can avoid having too many issues to face at the nomination itself. I would appreciate any feedback, but if you're busy with other projects, no worries. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. That's a pretty significant topic and an important article. I remember thinking at the time that it may give Americans a taste of what it was like to be subjected to IRA bombings here in the UK, and perhaps make some of them think about the wisdom of their support for that organisation. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. I was seven years old at the time, and still remember some of the following events in Oklahoma. There were several sources that I saw that stated the same thing about the the UK's issues with the IRA. I still don't know too much about the IRA, so I know what my reading material for tonight will be. Thanks again for helping and let me know if you need assistance with anything. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a bigger job than I'd bargained for, but worth it because it's a significantly important topic. I could continue hacking away at it for ever, but I think it's now in a good enough state that the FAC lions and tigers can at least now be fought off. I'll watchlist the nomination and help where I can --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the extensive copyedit. I've always been known for my wordiness (the only way to meet my college paper length requirements!). I fixed a few errors on your part (the only way to feel better about you fixing all of mine!). Out of curiosity why do the inline citations need to come before the bibliography? I figure that since some of the sources include page numbers for the books, that the readers would want to see the full details on the book first (they may not scroll down and see the books). Is there some policy that recommends this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy, just the way it's always done, as you can see from any FA. Anyway, whaddya mean "my mistakes"? I don't make mistakes! ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason it's done this way – a long forgotten policy says that the first appendix should be a list of works by the subject of the article, and having a bibliography immediately following the list of works could potentially cause confusion. – iridescent 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me, it's not that big a deal. I'm likely going to nominate this week. I'm trying to get a source for the Libertarian quote (looks like it was added by a blocked sockpuppet so I can't get the details from him/her). I sent a message to one of the party's outreach people so hopefully I get a reply on that. If I hear nothing soon, I may remove it and then readd it once a more qualified source is found. I was glad today to hear back from one of my other requests: a free image of McVeigh being led out of the courthouse. I thought it was worth a shot to send a request, and was happy to see that the author was interested in letting us use it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll stand a good chance with this at FAC so long as that bastard Tony doesn't turn up.</joke> --Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, besides getting extensive copyedits and adding sources for every statement under the sun, I've made other preparations. I purchased an assortment of fine chocolates, as well as withdrew my life savings from the bank. I'm going to be taking the bribery route, I heard it works well... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentor/monitor/advisor

If you continue to be willing and able to act as an advisor/mentor (whatever the term), then I would greatly appreciate your contribution to my plan to put forth to ArbCom. Currently the proposals are being work on in the following places.

• User talk:Mattisse/Plan
• User:Mattisse/Plan
• User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom
• User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom

Thank you! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm still willing to do whatever I can to help you through this Mattisse, but I think you have to develop the plan, not me or anyone else. I've got no more idea what might be acceptable to ArbCom than you have, so just go with whatever you yourself feel comfortable with; if you're not fully engaged with the plan then it won't work anyway. As I think I've said, I'm more than willing to act as a sounding board and even as an advocate whenever you find yourself in a sticky situation, but I'm most definitely not a policeman providing round-the-clock cover. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If I haven't already done so, let me lay it out plainly. I believe you're a female, but I'll state my position in male terms nevertheless; I don't want to see you emasculated and submitting to the will of almighty ArbCom by agreeing to childish block lengths, monitoring, or whatever. That's for kids. What I want to see from you is a clear and straightforward statement about where you accept that you've gone wrong in the past and how you plan to address similar situations in the future, perhaps by making use of your panel of advisors, perhaps by simply disengaging. You're an adult, time to behave like one. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, I don't mean it to be, but neither do I want to see you being treated as if you're a naughty child. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I accept that I made flip remarks that I should not have made, that I became defensive and made personal attacks, that I made too many comments and was pointy, that I should have detached and disengaged, that I took the actions of others personally and became hostile and suspicious of others, that I sought to drive other editors off my talk page and was antagonistic. I regret that behavior and deeply apologize. However, I don't think I can be an effective editor at Wikipedia and exercise my critical judgment regarding articles if my statements are not accepted in good faith and treated with respect by others. I believe that the problem was in the way I communicated rather than the substance of my critical judgment in the cases regarding FAC, FAR, GA, GAR that have been brought forth as "examples" of my problems; my initial judgment was correct and the article was either fixed significantly or delisted etc. It would be good if you would help me learn to communicate more effectively on these issues. I am sorry I took your comments personally when I ineffectively attempted to reach out to you via email and you made me to disclose the contents. Your critical judgment is stellar and I value it highly. My hope is that we can get by this and work together effectively in the future on the encyclopedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just one voice Mattisse, generally considered to be an untrustworthy rogue here on wikipedia at best and a loose cannon at worst; I doubt my opinion will make any difference to anyone, least of all ArbCom.

Believe it or not though I do share your feelings of isolation and lack of respect, and everything I've said is related to how I would respond if/when placed in your currently difficult position. Without making any judgement at all as to whether your current predicament has been at least in part caused by provocation from others—which frankly doesn't matter a damn now—what's needed is a clear recognition that things have gone wrong (without trying to pass the buck) and an even clearer commitment from you to avoid similar problems in the future by doing ... what exactly? I'm no diplomat, I just say things as I see them Mattisse, and I'm not seeing that yet.

Remember that if I did not value your contributions then I would not be taking the trouble to say what I have. I too hope that we will be able to work together effectively in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't much commented on this and the parallel discussion at plan-talk, but Malleus has been making thoughtful and insightful comments. If they are interpreted in the spirit in which I believe he makes them, the famous copper-bottomed clause almost certainly applies :) Geometry guy 21:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the "thoughtful and insightful comments" G guy, I've got a reputation to worry about here. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a radical, ill-thought-out and entirely disruptive response to my comment, Malleus. You should know better by now. :-) Geometry guy 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I will never "know better". I am what I am, warts and all, and I ain't gonna change now. Mattisse and I both have what some may consider to be rough edges. Mine are perhaps a sometimes overly arrogant insistence on the obvious truth of my opinion, and a complete disregard and disdain for the civility police. Mattisses's though are in some ways the complete opposite; a lack of self-confidence, leading to a feeling of rejection, leading to ... for someone like me who pretty much thinks I'm always right it's kind of hard to understand. We're just complete opposites. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me as well that as a lapsed Catholic I'm quite accustomed to the ritual "Bless me Father, for I have sinned" cant so often demanded here, but as a lapsed Catholic I reject it completely. No sins on either side, just a straightforward acknowledgement of a problem and a straightforward strategy for avoiding similar problems in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic God forgives sins though. Arbcom is more an Old Testament God. – iridescent 23:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to make a similar observation myself. Perhaps Mattisse ought to be given 15 Hail Marys, a stern talking to, and sent on her way. I often was. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 Monaco Grand Prix

Hi Malleus. I just wanted to check whether you were still intending on taking a look. If you're too busy, that's fine. Happy wiki birthday for tomorrow, by the way. Apterygial 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I completely forgot.

My first impression is that the article looks pretty good, a very plausible GA candidate. I'll take a more detailed look through tomorrow, but in your shoes I'd probably be nominating it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to skip GAN and go straight to FAC, and I don't really want to nominating until I'm satisfied with the quality of the copy. Apterygial 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll be tougher on it then than I was intending to be. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I had no idea it needed that much work! :) Since I doubt the Background section isn't perfect either I'll assume you're not finished, but wow. Thanks. Apterygial 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Only just started. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is just about ready for FAC now. I'll keep an eye on it and try to help if any prose issues come up. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'll go through the diffs and write my next article along those lines. Since you now have more edits to the article than I do (I do big edits), would you be interested in a co-nom...? :) Apterygial 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A generous offer but no thanks; I just moved a few words around, you wrote the article. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Entire"

There was a logic behind this (although it doesn't make much difference either way); that is to say, it was closed completely, rather than closed to cars but kept open to pedestrians. Usually when bridges are closed, they try to keep at least one footpath open (which is why, when they do close them altogether, the temporary bridge, with which readers of these articles are probably becoming all too familiar, is generally hauled out). – iridescent 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Might have been better to say something like "entirely closed" then, rather than "entire bridge was closed". But as you suggest, no big deal. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're in a stylistic mood, can you think of a way to reword this without the multiple redundancy? Ideally it needs clearly to convey the timeline

1. Queen Victoria crosses bridge
2. Queen Victoria formally opens bridge
3. Queen Victoria names it "Victoria Bridge"
4. Queen Victoria formally opens park
5. Park opens to the public
6. Bridge opens to the public

in that order, with minimum repetition of the words "Victoria", "bridge" and "park". So far, two Victorias, three bridges and two parks is the lowest I can get it. – iridescent 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Howzat? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly better – as I said to Tony at the FAC, this is a topic it's impossible to avoid repetition of "bridge" on. (BTW, just testing.) I do have high hopes for that Chelsea one; once the rough edges are knocked off, I think it'll be the most interesting and best looking so far. (Bikers with shotguns, bare knuckle boxing, football, a gunfight between the Prime Minister and the Earl of Winchilsea, and a thousand foot strip of LEDs – what more could anyone ask? Like the 19th century equivalent of Nuts magazine.) – iridescent 21:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the point you made. It's relatively easy to knock out "professional, even brilliant" prose on some topics, but others are much harder, especially when you're trying not to sacrifice precision for style. All of which is made much more difficult than it would otherwise be by the increasingly onerous citation requirement, which is pretty much now down to one for every sentence containing a fact or an opinion. Understandable, but it kinda cramps the style. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially as few reviewers don't understand that the Chigaco MoS is only a recommendation and hence putting refs after punctuation is optional. Likewise other editors are quite likely to "improve" an artcile so it follows that CMoS rule. Rigid application of that guideline distorts sentence structure just so that one can introduce punctuation to "guard" a ref in the right place. --Philcha (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For more on my opinions of rigid enforcement of the CMoS, see here. Bring sandwiches; that's a long one. – iridescent 19:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Youk

FYI, I've nominated Kevin Youkilis for a GA, which I understand is the preferred way to seek a reassessment. Tx for your time.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It certainly improved during its reassessment, but I'm not sure it's quite there yet. Anyway, it's down to your GA reviewer now, not me. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

SECR N class

Hello, Malleus. Just to let you know that the above article has now emerged from its peer review, and is now up for FA, so if you would like to review the article from an FA point of view, your comments will be greatly appreciated, as usual. Thank-you in advance, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll be along shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at your initial observations, and hope they are to your satisfaction. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking good. I'll take a more detailed look later, probably not until this evening, as I've got some real (by which I mean paid) work to do now. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also had a go at looking at the tense of the lead paragraphs as a result of these changes, and I have re-jigged some of it to suit the new situation. I may end up reverting it back to your last edit if it doesn't read very well! Anyway, regards. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw the problem and have now dealt with it. Now someone has pointed it out, it seems simple! Anyway, hopefully it is more to your liking. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback flag

FYI, I've removed your rollback flag per your request at Iridescent's talk page. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

You've made personal attacks at User_talk:WebHamster#Rollback_removed, which aren't allowed. Please don't make personal attacks. I know this could open me up to attacks from you, which I won't mind, but if you attack any other editor following this warning, I'll block you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No I have not. Please go away and find something useful to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have blocked you for personal attacks like this. Owing to earlier blocks for personal attacks and incivility, I have blocked you for one week. Moreover, having unblocked you in the past and in so doing, having asked you to be more civil, I find your behaviour worrisome and harmful to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, you said you would block Malleus if he attacked "any other editor following this warning", but the diff you link to was nearly three hours ago. Am I missing something? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Malleus make any personal attacks after the warning? Or is this block something unrelated? Majorly talk 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Might as well make it indef, just for the hell of it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's often difficult to see that criticism is a constructive contribution. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't really criticism. Majorly talk 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This was posted by Malleus after the warning, along with the ec above. Personal attacks aren't allowed on this website and are never helpful or constructive. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But neither is blocking for incivility. It just makes the target even angrier. Majorly talk 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not really uncivil. A bit rude, perhaps, but not enough to justify a block IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a sycophantic wannabee is a personal attack. I'd unblocked this editor in the past following a civility block and an undertaking to be more civil, only to find that the behaviour is harmful as ever. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)