Hello Eric Corbett! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year to all our Greater Manchester Wikipedians! The project now has 34 members. 5 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. On behalf of the team I hope they have prosperous and enjoyable usership and wish them well with their forthcoming work!
User:Archtransit and User:Rudget, both part of our team, are current candidates for adminship (see here for Archtransit and here for Rudget). We wish them luck with this persuit and hope they will become our latest project participants with admin status!
Simillarly, the Portal:North West England is now officially a featured portal. User:Rudget has been overwhelmingly involved with this portal and he too is hereby thanked on behalf of the project for his continued contributions to this page and many others.
There have been a number of debates this month, some of which with a high level of potential impact for the project and its members.
Article assessment for the project became a point of contention when around 1400 articles were tagged by a bot. Most of these artcles were on "minor" association football players. The consensus was that in our state of around 30 participants and as a predominatly geography based project, most of these articles should be untagged, at very least for the time being. Of our 1403 articles now tagged however, only (?) 85% are assessed - a drop of 15%!
Perhaps one of the most notable debates this month was the possibility of... scrapping the project newsletter! User:Rudget has written the last three editions (that's all of them!) and has decided that he'd like to pass on the responsibility. It has been proposed that a noticeboard system be introduced to highlight new issues in a near(!)-realtime fashion. I User:Jza84 am writing what could now be the last GM newsletter for a while. If you're a member of the team, but aren't closely involved with the project, then we'd love to hear from you at WT:GM with your views on which system of communication is the right way forwards (if any/both!).
Monthly Challenges
As was stated in last months newsletter, the Greater Manchester remains a key article for the project, and one which has been identified as urgent in our quest for Featured Article status. Sadly, for all our other successes, Greater Manchester has changed little since this time last year] (!) and is still an article requiring expansion and development. The new WP:UKCOUNTIES guide may provide new ways in which to channel our efforts. Although we endevour to have good article status even for our suburbs and hamlets, other articles specifically identified as needing development towards FA include Salford, Stretford and Altrincham.
Many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Rochdale, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard - much lower than we should have. If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these.
One final challenge for this month is for all those with new digial cameras for Christmas, or even digial images stored away on a disc!... many of our place articles are still without a single photograph, and www.geograph.org.uk is running low on quality images. Even those with photographs often have a low quality photograph of the local church. MORE ARE NEEDED! Especially townscapes! If you think you can help, a barnstar is up for grabs for best picture added in the next month or so!
We're always looking for potential new project members and ways for greater communication, collaboration and participation. WP:GM has a strong core of users, but would like to have more input from a wider user-base. If you can think of ways to improve our ways of working, please feel free to mention them at WT:GM. Simillarly, if you notice a new or unapproached user who is producing sound work related to Greater Manchester and its consituent parts, please don't forget to ask them if they'd like to join us, either in your own hand, or by adding {{Welcome WPGM}} to their talk page.
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
So, I've done the last 2 pages of everything, rewent through your list, and I'm pretty sure I've made improvements to the article. It used to sound like this scholarly textbook-type thing that would definitely make me fall asleep. Anyway, I hope it is good enough to make GA now, and please let me know if there's anything else needed to get there. Thanks again for your dedication to the nomination. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very substantial improvement.Nice job! A couple of the references (12 and 14) are broken though, so you might want to take a look at those. User:Deacon of Pndapetzim has indicated an intention to make some further changes, so as one of the GA criteria is that an article should be stable, I propose to wait for a few more days before deciding whether or not to list this article. I'm happy to extend the hold period in cases where the article is being worked on satisfactorily, like this one is. Looking pretty good so far though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into how the broken references work. Anything I can do to help stability? Green caterpillar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on what changes User:Deacon of Pndapetzim plans on making now. If they're fairly minor, no sweat. But if they're more substantial, adding lots of new information, significantly restructuring the article, well ....
I'd suggest that you contact User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, and come to some agreement between you on what version of this article you want the final GA assessment to be made against. But whatever the outcome, you should be pleased with the work that you've done in transforming this article from one that definitely would not have passed to one that's now got a fighting chance. I'm sure that if we all work together in good faith we can get that little green dot for Albin. Keep up the good work!. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rudget!
Dear Malleus Fatuarum, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Even though we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, and in the end I abstained myself from voting in your RfA, I'm sure that you'll make a good admin. So I wish you the very best of luck in your new role. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edgar Wood
Thanks for that. I hoped to get a run on St George's too (more info there), but had to settle for St Thomas' Church, Stockport, about which I have nearly nothing. Ah well, time for kip. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we'd agreed on the naming convention Church of St Mary tbe Virgin, Prestwich? Rather than Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, Prestwich? If I've got it wrong, then I apologise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I apologise regardless. I should have noticed that you'd turned the link blue and not touched it. My fault. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal, I thought we were doing church or parish church depending on which it was. Anyway I'm off to bed now as I'm knackered. No more red-linking while I'm gone!!:-) Richerman (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try my best not to make things worse while you're gone. I'll be gone shortly myself anyway, so that limits my potential for causing any more collateral damage. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see what you mean now - I hadn't read the last bit of the conversation on naming. And I have to admit I was once a left-footer too!! Adeste fideles laete triumphantes etc, etc. I hope you weren't a Cardinal Langley boy too? Richerman (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't, I went to Catholic schools in Scotland, but when my family moved down to England I went to a regular grammar school, which I much preferred. I've got half a mind to go back to confession one day, just to get a few things off my chest. "Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It is ... errr ... well ... an awful long time since my last confession. But that's not why I'm here. I'm here about the stance that the Roman Catholic Church has taken on ..." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA Thanks
Hi Malleus Fatuarum - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. I will try to prove myself to be as sensible and reasonable as you found my answers to the questions and editing history. The RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your second review. I know that this article's GA process is probably rougher than most, and I've seen many who just rate it and don't give it a second thought, and you have just put a lot of time into this, so, um, thanks :). Anyway, when's the new on hold date for resolving with Deacon and making the second set of changes? Would it be 7 days from you posting on my talk page? Thanks again. Green caterpillar (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said this Friday midnight on the talk page, but if things are still progressing then, and it's looking promising, I'm quite open to extending the end date a little more. GA reviews are a little variable, I agree. I guess you just drew the short straw. :-)
To be serious though, if GA is going to be worth anything, then it's got to be more than a quick look through and a yay or a nay. I don't think I'm being especially tough, but if you or anyone else does, then we can always ask for a second opinion and I'll abide by that. And if the result of the review isn't considered acceptable, then there's always WP:GAR. So it's not all just down to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My strength as a wikipedia editor is my knowledge and the research I do; I'm delighted that someone will take their time to teach me more about making these articles more readable and professional. As for the GA process, it's rather random and the GA award isn't really anything to me other than a signal that it's close to being ready for FA, which doesn't matter if there's no intention of going down that route. However, I'm gonna use GA more from now on because, like FA, it's a pretty fine way of getting people to review articles without straining friendships. FA noms are the only guaranteed way for this, but GA noms give a chance for it too, as Malleus and Albin demonstrate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to say that. The research that you've done is really impressive; all I've tried to do is to make it accessible to more readers in the case of the Albin article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
A belated thank you for your RFA support! Archtransit (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm certain that WP:3RR wouldn't be applicable here, as this is a fairly clear case of vandalism removal. Middleton is on my watch list, but I spotted it late! Hopefully the warning on his/her talk will halt this.
I only have one thought, and that's also astonishment. A strong oppose based on a misunderstanding of the difference between a footnote and a citation is quite simply incredible. The experience has left me convinced that the FLC process is fundamentally flawed, and I would be very reluctant to get involved with it again. A cursory glance at almost any of the current featured lists makes the point I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G'day mate! I wld greatly appreciate if u cld assist me in reviewing the above article. Fyi, the article was reviewed & left in limbo state despite my replies, follow-up edits (See also my talkpage) and gentle reminders sent earlier. I wish to seek closure on this case as my personal responsibility & accountability to the SGpedian community which has supported my contributions all these while. Thanks! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you again. The article seems to be languishing at GAN, so I'll try and take a look at it over the weekend. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank u for your time & kind assistance in reviewing the abovementioned. As per your review, I've completed the necessary follow-ups & my reply on the talkpage here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His user page explains some bizzare happenings which occurred within the last 24 hours. According to the note, there was a hoax made about Rudget by a cousin of his... after a small hullaboloo, this seems to have prompted him to leave the project. A great shame of course, but we (well, particularly you!) get a personal thanks which is nice.
However, subjectivity aside, yet another case of a user acheieving adminship, only to leave the project shortly after. As they say round here, "it's a bad do". -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a bad do. Whatever the particular circumstances surrounding Rudget's departure, there are too many users disappearing after they've got those few extra admin buttons. Job done in their minds I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to think not, but my heart and head says yes, this seems to be the case all too often. I know this phenomina has been discussed at lengths in the past too. Rudget was always extremely keen to be an admin, of course, and it is therefore a double disappointment to the project that once achieved, and following some silly incident, he felt the need to depart.
I would've liked to have shared my opinions with him that had this incident occured before synopship I doubt he would've left, whilst also, it seems to have wasted a great deal of user's time, efforts and contributions (considering all the coaching, polling, feedback, promises made and expectations raised). Alas, his talk page is protected and unless he get a chance to monitor this, well, he'll never know. That's that I guess. I'll remove him from the participants lists at WP:GM. Onwards and upwards I guess. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My RfA
Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't feel too badly about the experience. I know that RfAs can be a little unsettling, but being an admin is no big deal anyway. Self-nominations generally seem to be given a rougher passage anyway. Good luck for next time. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Whatever happened to consistency?
It's absolutely crazy. It really is. I mean, why would someone oppose such a stunning article??? Granted, we obtained some constructive feedback that was overlooked by us (naturally), but three opposes including a strong oppose based on factors that cannot be addressed! It's madness.
This list is superior to a great many other featured lists. I really stand by that. I can't see any issues. It is frustrating. Do you have any ideas? Perhaps withdrawing the nomination and re-starting it will help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I'm all out of ideas for the moment. We've produced an elegant looking and useful list that is way better both technically and aesthetically than many of the current featured lists, yet it gets opposed on the basis of ill-informed (or worse) personal preferences.
I'm not sure about withdrawing and then restarting the nomination. I suppose I'd probably just let the nomination take its course and then think about what to do next if it fails. Having said that I've got no ideas, one has just occurred to me. What about asking the main editors of some of the present FAs to pop along and given an opinion? Without, of course, any encouragement to support, just to give an honest assessment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noting your edit summary. Complex stuff, obviously, but have you actualy noted that I'm saying that by removing discretion at RfA the 'crat's "job" become diluted? Have you noticed that by indenting under a comment it refers to the previous comment? Have you actually noticed that I made no argument (in the true sense of the word) but an observation instead. Have you noticed that since my oppose on your RfA, and my attempt to reconcile because of that, your initial gentle reply and then four or so hours later an outright tirade against me, that funnily enough your snarky comments and edit summaries are not actually making you look so clever? I'm going off-line now, because I'm so irritated at the way you assume bad faith and can't seem to help but snipe at me. Try and remember I'm a human being, a volunteer, and believe in this project. I know you are the same. Why must you relentlessly bring up bad blood? Pedro : Chat 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that you need to calm down a bit, and consider that not everyone who disagrees with you does so because of what you call "bad blood". It may simply be because you're talking bollox. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::Or maybe, and I quote from your words "Your argument would carry so much weight if you could point to even one example where a candidate passed RfA with less the 50% of the votes" is a load of bollocks, when it is utterly without context and you still have provided no diff's when I mentioned 50%. I'd be delighted if you could provide the diff so that we can work on the conversation. Pedro : Chat 08:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful to a colegial atmosphere. Struck with apologies. Pedro : Chat 08:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this straight. Your argument appeared to be that if RfA became a vote then we might as well promote 1,000 admins to bureaucrats. My counter-argument was that RfA is already a vote in all but name, hence my challenge to produce an RfA that had passed with less than 50% of support votes. I never said that you had mentioned 50% anywhere. If you insist on seeing that as a personal remark motivated by some imaginary "bad blood" then so be it. My opinion remains unchanged. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I failed to make my argument clear, and apologise, but and am still mystified how on earth you get your logic. Assume, for one moment, that I was arguing in seriousness that if RfA is a vote then we can make all admins 'crats as there is no longer a need to determine consensus. It is a mathematical decision only. Okay, we've done that. Now move to - you feel RfA is already a vote in all but name. Okay, I'm happy with that. Now move to - so Pedro, you give me an RfA that has passed at 50%. That is you self declared counter-argument Eh?? You might as well have said, so Pedro give me a chicken that has turned into an elephant. It's a total non-sequiter. That's why I I felt this was based on previous (sadly) negative interaction. You replied with a line of logic/reasoning that was so far out to sea. Now, I'm sorry I shouldn't have come running to your talk page, but can you not see that your "give me an rfA that has passed at 50%" is so wildly of base and nothing whatsoever do do with my comments and thoughts?Pedro : Chat 12:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't. And I believe that your running to my talk page accusing me of bearing grudges against you because I disagreed with/misunderstood your position is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Let's once again be clear. I believed your opposition to my RfA to be based on your misunderstanding of events. My only grouse against you was that when your misunderstanding was pointed out to you, you dug your heels in and refused to face the facts. I had already made that point perfectly clear to you, but so far as I'm concerned it is now water under the bridge. Just a pity that you can't also see it that way. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If I was expected to take what you say seriously, then I would also require an apology for your accusation of "outright tirade", "snarky comments", and "sniping". Of course, I don't really expect an apology, as the rules for civil behaviour appear to be very different depending on who you are, and who you had a disagreement with within living memory. But am I bovvered? Does this face look bovvered? In point of fact, I think that you did me a favour in opposing my RfA, which I was very reluctant to undertake in the first place. It forced me to re-assess why I wanted to be involved in wikipedia, and the answer had nothing to do with a few extra buttons that I would probably only have used rarely anyway. The new rollback function meets my needs in reverting obvious vandalism easily and quickly very well. So, far from bearing you a grudge, I'm actualy quite grateful to you in a perverse sort of a way. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy, if you're happy so am I. I apologise, of course, for those comments detailed above if they have hurt you or just proved bothersome. They were wrong of me, poorly said. I still feel you have not even vaguely explained your logical leap from RfA is a vote to > give me an RfA that passed at 50% but let's not worry about it. No biggie. Glad you are "enjoying" the rollback tool. Pedro : Chat 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred it if you had simply apologised for your comments because they were both untrue and unworthy of you. But no big deal, let's move on. I will be quite content if the next time I happen to make the mistake of disagreeing with you that you do not automatically assume bad faith on my part. On that basis I am happy prepared to accept your apology. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opus Dei controversy section
Thanks for GAR comments regarding this. If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Kindly comment on this. Thanks. Marax (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big problem, but ...
pls use subst: when leaving warning messages - then the actual text gets added to the page, otherwise vandals get into template space. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to remember to do that in future. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheshire articles for FA
Thanks for your interest and encouragement. I have made a brief holding reply to your message on my talk page but am replying here in more detail to express my personal thoughts. I am in more than one mind about working Runcorn and other articles towards FA, partly because of previous experiences (including near-abuse) in the process. This leads me to ask what Wikipedia is for. Is it for individual editors to get some sort of medal, or is it to provide information to the readers out there who consult the articles? Does an article have to jump the hurdles to pass as a FA in order to be useful to the reader, or does it just have to be "good enough" to be good enough? I think the Runcorn article, as it now is, gives a good account of the town. Does it matter that much to the reader that some sentences are too short? Since Runcorn was "failed" I have spent time on filling gaps in the content of Wikipedia with short to medium articles, fully referenced, aiming at the reader rather than at a WP assessor. Perhaps this is more effective than scoring FAs - I don't really know. But I enjoy writing shortish articles, or improving existing articles, rather than taking flak from rude commentators. Sorry if that sounds a bit negative but I see no point in contributing to WP if I don't enjoy what I am doing.
Thanks for your encouraging remarks elsewhere about the Cheshire WikiProject. But my experience is that very few so-called participants are doing anything. Ddstretch set it up but seems to have his finger in multiple projects; Espresso Addict was becoming very active, then disappeared for a couple of months and has just returned; Salinae has been struggling to get Middlewich to GA but seems to have given up; otherwise not a lot. I am jealous of the degree of activity by the editors of WikiProject Greater Manchester and very impressed by the recent successes at FA. The members have been very encouraging about my articles on Greater Manchester churches. I fear that the energy and enthusiasm of the Cheshire editors (other than of course your good self!) may not be adequate at present to drive the idea forward. Sorry to be so negative (again!); I await with interest the response (or otherwise) to your suggestion on the Project Talk Page.
To change the subject, would you be so kind as to have a look at John Douglas (architect) and Edmund Sharpe; I have expanded the former article and started the latter. Do you think this is a reasonable model for articles of this type? I am rather concerned that the Douglas tables are so big (which reflects his activity) and wonder if they should be placed in a separate list (as Thomas Brassey and List of structures built by Thomas Brassey). (Sorry I am much more interested in doing this sort of thing than polishing articles for FAs.)
But having got all that off my chest, perhaps if one or two selected Cheshire articles could be presented to the "team", who could return to Cheshire editors for matters of content, so that they (the "team") could take the "FA flak", it might be worth doing. Which I think was the idea anyway, wasn't it? Sorry if this is a bit rambling. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have been inactive in the project for a while. I'm not all that active in other projects, except the WP:UKGEO one. At the moment, I don't have much time for serious wikipedia article writing, as I am battling the UK Immigration authorities to allow my wife and son to remain with me in the UK (they are Chinese citizens), as well as dealing with a few other family-related problems brought about by having increasingly elderly relatives, and so real-life is taking a greater priority. I would welcome extra help with Cheshire related articles. At the moment, I am trying to expand my work on completing the coverage of Cheshire civil parishes, and also exapnding various history-related issues to Cheshire. Thanks for the words, Peter. I appreciate that you feel few of us are engaging in Cheshire things at the moment. This explains some of the reason why I have been more silent recently, but I think your message will help me realise that I should concentrate on the Cheshire project for a while. DDStretch (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your reluctance to re-enter what did appear to be an FA bearpit with the Runcorn article. The idea of the team, as I understand it - I'm not a member, so I probably ought not to speak on its behalf, but I will anyway - is to energise projects into becoming confident and capable of producing FAs, and then to move on. So I think that proposing an article or two and then having one or more members of the Cheshire project standing by to deal with content issues is exactly what they're looking for. They'll deal with all the copyedit/MoS issues.
The idea also, I think, is that a Cheshire Project success, say, will lead to increased participation in the Cheshire Project, perhaps a bit like what happened to the GM project last year. The first FA was very dificult, but success breeds success. There's always a tension between writing a lot of useful and informative articles and writing a fewer number of GA/FAs, and I've often felt that myself. I've come to the conclusion that it's a matter of balance though, and we ought to be doing a bit of both. You mentioned the Middlewich article, and Salinae perhaps having given up on it because of the frustration of not getting it through GA. With a little bit of guidance, and a few examples to follow, that could have been a GA today and Salinae still an active editor. That's an article that I'd certainly like to see listed as a GA, and if nobody else does then I may pick up the baton on it.
I feel a bit guilty for not helping out more with Cheshire; I've got my eye on a few articles that I think could be good GA candidates, and I'm very tempted to try and finish off the job that Salinae started with Midlewich. In the meantime, of course I'd be very happy to take a look at John Douglas (architect) and Edmund Sharpe and give you the debatable benefit of my opinion. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thank you for your time and effort. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. You wrote an excellent article on an important subject in art history that I was very pleased to see get that little gold star. Well done!. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't threatening anything. (and I'm moving this here - feel free to move it back to BN if you feel it isn't off topic.). It made an honest suggestion to start a discussion on (controversial v noncontroversial) based on the thread directly below that one (basically, "what is controversial, anyway, 'crats?"). What did I type that you took personally? I'm asking seriously. If something I typed (I refuse to type "said" as you cannot hear my non-raised, non-emotional tone anymore than I can hear yours) was offensive to you, let me know, I'll strike it. Seriously. Keeper | 76 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat. It's difficult without being able to see body language and hear tone of voice to understand what someone is really saying. I took what you said for an accusation that I was in some way focusing my general concerns on Rudget. I see now that I was mistaken in thinking that, and I apologise for having believed otherwise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted (even though I would have said apologize, not apologise). :-) I wish my PC had a "tone checker" in a similar sense as a "spell checker" as it would certainly save us from needless grief. And I also apologi<z/s>e, FWIW. If ever a general subject is raised (by you or by some other) regarding resysopping under "ambiguous controversy", I would like to think that this particular (admittedly unusual) circumstance could be the catalyst and good example for such a discussion. If ever you see one, let me know? I think you and I would likely agree more than we disagree. Moving along.... Keeper | 76 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, I think we probably would. I really had no idea before this that there was such a controversy surrounding how "controversial" was interpreted in these situations. Wikipedia can be a minefield for the unwary.
As an aside, British English allows both apologize and apologise. I chose apologise because I think it looks a little more elegant. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it's us damn Americans that are the bastards, as we see apologise not as elegant, or even acceptable, but as snobbish aka uppity. Damn you America, with all your warmongerin', aid givin', world leadin', money sendin', peacetalk hostin', technology innovatin', import-lovin', immigration welcomin', Disneyworld promoton' selves....Damn YOU (SA)!!! :)Keeper | 76 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying nothing. I don't want to make your economic recesssion any worse that it already is. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that made me laugh out loud. Glad I'm not a real estate broker, or should I say Estate agent... And with that, I'm done with this place until tomorrow's sun brings new optimism, new projects, and new speedy deletions....Cheers, Keeper | 76 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
I'm conducting my first GA review, on Railway stations in Cromer. We've had a few issues come up, that I'm not sure how to best address. Iridescent suggested that you might be a good person to ask for a second opinion. Do you mind? I think everything's pretty well spelled out in the last few sections of Talk:Railway stations in Cromer, but if you want a breakdown, just ask. Thanks, -Pete (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to give you a second opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thanks from Happy-melon
I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated, and thanks also for your thought-provoking question; I had never really organised my general thoughts into a clear position before. Happy‑melon 09:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Thank you for the welcome back Malleus. I'm still likely to struggle for editting time for the next week or so, but I'm really encouraged that the project hasn't fallen apart without me (!) (instead I've seen that there have been a few attacks hurled my way for being, seemingly, too bold with a few things - I wish folks would leave me a message for me at my talk page as feedback rather than use discussion pages!). I think the break has done me well and not to take things quite so seriously! It also allows a breather for some pages I tend to watch like a hawk!
Well done on battling out the Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester! That's fantastic news! I've also noted you're drive for Cheshire/Middlewich... I think one of my side-projects - Neilston - has met the "water supply" editor you mention on the talk page.
Now... If I could just finish those darn county maps for the infoboxes... Thanks again though. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I give full credit to Nev1 for getting that Grade I listed building article over the line; I'd pretty much given it up as a lost job, but he stuck with it. You mention Middlewich, which I'm quite sure we (the Cheshire project) can get to GA pretty soon now, but have you also seen my drive to get the Pendle witch trials at least to GA? It's a subject that's a little bit more literate - by which I mean there's a bit more scope for expression - than say an article about the Naysmith steam hammer. A change can often be as good as a rest. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man utd fans in Salford
Please stop adding the irrelevant and unencyclopedic information to the Salford article that many people who live in Salford are Manchester United fans. Many people who don't live in Salford are also Man U fans.
Well state the obvious why don't you, no one is saying that isn't the case.
And why is it irrelevant? The article is about sport in the city the fact that the majority of Salfordians are fans of Manchester United I would say is extremely relevant concerning sport in Salford.
You asked for references and I provided you with them so what is your problem? I'm not adding anything to the article only reverting edits you for some reason keep making.
Also unencyclopedic? What the hell is that supposed to mean its not even a real word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.40.244 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to sign your comments, and I would suggest registering for an account. You said yourself that the section is about sport in the city, but in the City of Salford, not Manchester.
By unencyclopedic - which is a real real word - I mean this. It is quite clear that many people in Salford are likely to be Manchester United fans, just as they are likely to be in Old Trafford or Stretford. And it is equally likely that many are likely to be supporters of Lancashire County Cricket Club, or Manchester City. But even if it were true that most people in Salford were MUFC fans - highly unlikely - how would that inform us about Salford, which is, after all, the subject of the article? The subject is not the tribal allegiances of Salford's underclasses.
If you want to continue this discussion, then I suggest doing so on Salford's talk page, where a wider range of views is likely to be forthcoming. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not the tribal allegiances of Salford's underclasses.
You my freind are not qualified to talk about Salford in any way if that is your view of Salford folk.
And no unencyclopedic is not a real word - I mean this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.40.244 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to avoid ad-hominem arguments, and discuss this issue on the article's talk page as I suggested earlier. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belated thanks
Was on a short wikibreak when the FA star came through for Wormshill. Just wanted to pop by and say thanks for helping out on the FAC and the article in general. Exhausting but enlightening. Cheers Dick G (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did a good job on a very small village, so Wormshill is now a guide for anyone else who wants to write a village article, which I think is one of the important things. You would have enjoyed the end of the FAC; it was restarted and pretty much just got nodded through, because all of the issues had already been addressed. Impresssive job! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the AfD feedback
At the point it went crashing to the ground, I figured, "what the heck" and decided to address some of the falsehoods stated about me/Wikipedia. I stand by everything I said, but phrasing will have to wait until the next RfA. Thanks for the support. — BQZip01 —talk 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the pupose here is to discuss the actions of hdt83. It appears that he is acting as several users who are all Admins. When I try to edit a post (correcting errors) he not only changes it back to his old post then he blocks me. It appears that he is also Gogo Dodo among others. Please look into this as it hurts wiki. Think about what happens when one person can have access to 5 or more admin accounts and changes correct posts to his only incorrect versions.
If what you suspect is true then it certainly needs to be looked into. However, I am not an administrator, and I have no personal knowledge of this matter. I suggest that you raise your concerns at WP:AN/I, where I am sure that they will be properly investigated. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actions of hdt83
Hi, the purpose here is to discuss the actions of hdt83. It appears that he is acting as several users who are all Admins. When I try to edit a post (correcting errors) he not only changes it back to his old post then he blocks me. It appears that he is also Gogo Dodo among others. Please look into this as it hurts wiki. Think about what happens when one person can have access to 5 or more admin accounts and changes correct posts to his only incorrect versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.241 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please not he has left this same exact message with about 6 users so far. Looks like a possible vandal/spam account. Be careful. Tiptoetytalk 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not spam.... this is real, please act. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.239 (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment and support
Hi Malleus, :) Thanks so much for your comment. Much appreciated indeed. I just saw it for I didn't check till now the discussion page of the fork I made. I was just alerted by Geometry guy of the said page. I've posted the new controversy section and added new criticism. Will continue to work on this. Thanks again for your comments and support. I will definitely re-propose the article later for GA. Marax (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's run
Replying to this here since it's getting off-topic for the RFC page... I agree altho I'd nitpick words and say that it's really the way it isn't run that's the problem. Here, there's unusually clear consensus that this new admin shouldn't have the tools anymore, yet there's nobody actually in a position to do anything about it. Well, there may be one person but he's got other fish to fry and why should he care to get personally involved in some minor little issue like this?
I don't know if it's much of a solution, but I've personally been trying to encourage the notion that the crats should have a community mandate to unpromote admins in cases of obvious mistakes like this. I've tried to encourage a couple crats to do this but they're understandably reluctant to be so bold- there would certainly be cries of "OMG crat power grab!" if they did it. The other way to approach it is to encourage arbcom to step in with a quick ruling in cases like this. So far neither idea has any real traction. Arbcom occasionally de-sysops bad admins, but one case I recall took several months after it was painfully obvious that the tools needed to be removed. I don't see an obvious solution yet but changing the community's collective mind to a "removing adminship is no big deal" approach seems like a useful start. Too many people stick up for their friends rather than impartially evaluating the situation. Too many people think that the desire to do the right thing is all that matters, and they forget that being competent is a requirement too. Friday(talk) 16:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right; the way it isn't run is more accurate. I find it incomprehensible that so many people can trot out the "admin is no big deal" mantra without realising that if that were true then its reverse would also be true.Instead, they cling onto their administrator status like limpets, proving that for them at least, admin is a very big deal indeed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly- that particular sacred cow needs slaughtered. I've seen no easy way to do this, so far. The entire rest of Wikipedia operates on the principle of "what's easily done can be easily undone; mistakes are no big deal." Yet, when it comes to adminship, this rational thinking flies out the window. Honestly, I think a big chunk of the problem is that we have tons of teenagers around here. I think they see adminship as a trophy- "Look at me, I'm just a kid yet I'm trusted with a position of responsibility!" So, there is huge resistance to any notion that we should remove adminship when we see someone isn't competent with it. People also tend to think "admins are all on the same side, so we should stand up for each other".. this is slightly off the mark. What we should do is stand up for doing the right thing, rather than rooting for some specific team of people. A good admin can easily make a bad call. There should be no shame in pointing out the bad call, but many see this as somehow un-wiki-patriotic. I think the teenage mindset tends to lump the world into "good people" and "bad people", but real life is not so simple. We should judge each situation on it's own merits, rather than on the basis of which teams were on which sides. Friday(talk) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitated to make a rather similar point myself for fear of an accusation of being ageist, as I have seen others being severely criticised for, but in truth I heartily agree with you once again. That there are now so many teenage administrators has not been a wholly healthy development for wikipedia I don't think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with being openly ageist. If more people were, maybe the problem would be reduced somewhat. Cultural definitions of adulthood do vary, but the entire rest of the world accepts without controversy the idea that adults tend to have better judgement than kids. That such an idea is unpopular on Wikipedia only demonstrates the extent to which the project has been overrun by children. Friday(talk) 17:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. As am I. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And on another note
The conversation between you and Friday (above) is hilarious in it's seriousness. Unless you and Friday happen to know each other IRL, there is absolutely no way that you (or he) can be certain that the other typist is not in fact a 12 year old girl. I laughed out loud. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, to quote a rather well-known Monty Python sketch, in return I "emptee my noze all over yoo". I do not know Friday any more than I know you, but if if I had to pick one of you as being a "12 year old girl" I'm afraid that it would be you on present evidence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HA! I've been called much worse than that. No, I'm in fact not a twelve year old girl. The only word from that phrase that fits me is old. But I guess you'll just hafta take my word for it because I can't prove it. Cheers, Malleus F. I'm glad you're here. You are a great contributor to this project and I hope you stay. I mean it. Don't let the ludicrousy of this place drag you down. You know what I'm talking about. As for the above, I just don't like the drama that will likely come from your phrasing of that question. I brought it here to specifically avoid said drama. (Now you have proof, BTW, that I'm not a 12 year old girl. What pre-pubescent girl would say avoid drama ? Proof. Cheers my friend. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you've convinced me. You're probably not a 12 year old girl. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add, that it's very refreshing to come across someone like you who can discuss things in what some might consider to be a robust manner, without them running off home to Mama complaining of "incivility". So I'm doubly convinced now that you're not a 12 year old girl. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And on third thought, you're probably right about my phrasing of that question. I'll change it. I ought not to allowed one bad apple to spoil my barrel. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MF. You rock. (oh, shit, that sounds like something a teenager would type. Shit. Strike that.) By the way, you might enjoy WP:SCREAMBOX. Or maybe you find it superficial. Either way, the link is yours. Cheers friend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not seen WP:SCREAMBOX before. It isn't for me though; my role model is Commander Data. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Liar! If you're role model was Data, you'd have said I had not seen, not I'd not seen. Liar! </joke> Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody Hell, you're right! Data famously can't say "can't". What on earth was I thinking of when I posted that garbage? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cripes! That's the first argument I've been victorious in today. Shit. I still think you would enjoy the screambox, at least before it gets MfD'ed. Cheers, MF. I'm outta here til tomorrow. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOS mess
Thanks for your supportive words, Malleus. Tony(talk) 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat. Let's see if wikipedia can be saved from the children who appear to have taken it over. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Since your oppose based on style issues, the article has had a few editors take a peek at it. I would appreciate your visiting the article again. I tend not to try to pressure editors to support when I invite them back to view the article, but this FAC has gone on for 6 weeks at least. Please keep in mind style and syntax can by subjective. If you don't think the article should be featured due to poor quality, by all means keep your vote as oppose. But writing style can't be perfect for every reader. I know you are an experienced FAC reviewer because I have read your comments to other FACs. For some reason, I felt I had to say this... Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know how frustrating the FAC process can be, particularly when it drags on as this one has done. Just for the record, I wouldn't agree with your characterisation of my oppose as being based on style issues, which I agree are necesarily subjective, as opposed to basic prose quality issues unconnected with style. But I don't like to see any article fail to get over the line, so I'll be happy to take a second look and consider whether I still believe that my oppose it valid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You asked for clarification of one of the clarification tags at Christianity - I think the text "According to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was conceived [clarify] by the Holy Spirit and born from the Virgin Mary" is the one you are referring to. The clarification that I feel is needed there is due to the dual meaning of the word conceived. Presumably the sentence is intended to mean "The Holy Spirit thought of the idea of Jesus, and the Virgin Mary gave birth to him"? I presume it doesn't mean conception in the biological sense, but as some readers could interpret it that way, I added the tag? SP-KP (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean; can the imacculate conception be considered as a biological conception? As it resulted in a biological birth I'd probably be inclined to say that it could. But I concede that there may be grounds for a more explicit statement one way or the other in the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
