User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2007/October

RE: Santikhiri

Thank u for your recent review on the above article. Pse refer to my reply on your earlier comments here . -- Aldwinteo 07:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WPGM New Monthly Newsletter

Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! er} 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)If you do not wish to receive this monthly distribution please put two * by your username on the project mainpage

RE:I am sensing...

I don't understand if you mean, this diff and the talk page responses, that is certainly not what I believe. I thank you for all the effort you've put into Didsbury, and I would not want it to stop until GA. In fact, I'd prefer it to be the opposite. I'd love you to carry on editing Didsbury, because you're not only improving the article but giving me new tips on copyediting and grammarfixing all the time. Please carry on. Regards, Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! er} 14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mulling over what you said. I think it's too early to reget Didsbury back up. I'm sure like with the diff you provided that overediting is bad, so considering this I would like to request that all editors (including me) stop "overediting" on the article. Thanks and Regards, Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! ed.rev.} 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Didsbury is very close to GA now, and doesn't need much more work to get it there, so why stop now? There's no "over editing" going on, as there wasn't with the article I quoted. What's going on is improvement. Be a shame to stop that. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. On the article you seem to have done exactly what I did but rejigged the words. And I think another user, Jza84 I think, showed that the article used some of the format of other pages in its layout, but now you seem to have reverted my actions directed by you under the final GA review. And why is it taking so many edits for the removal of words? Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! ed.rev.} 20:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you compare the current Education section with what was there before, to test whether your hypothesis that I have simply "rejigged the words" is a plausible one. Why is it taking so many edits? Because there was a great deal that needed to be changed. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my support from the GA campaign. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! ed.rev.} 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but the job's 95% done now, might as well complete it. If I may say so, I think that you might be suffering from some ownership issues with the Didsbury article? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Didsbury article going to be compromised by the reverts we operate? - I withdrew my support but received encouragement from both you and User:Jza84 to carry on, but now you seem to be reverting my edits. Is it going to carry on like this or should we call a ceasefire and none of us edit the article in question? Onnaghar talk.review 19:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just try to get the article right? I explained to you in the edit summaries why I reverted your placement of the reference, titles of reference and so on. The article is not compromised when breaches of the MOS or blatant inaccuracies are corrected. I will stop editing the article when I feel that it is accurate, well-written, sufficiently broad in its coverage, suitably referenced and ready for another GA review. I would prefer to have your assistance in trying to achieve that, instead of any further negative comments. But I will continue with or without your help. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips

Always good to have a second pair of eyes. I've responded to your suggestions on Talk:Edward Low, I've done all bar two of them. Neil ム 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, many thanks for the help - article is at FAC now, and we shall see! Neil ム 09:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ping!

I've responded here. Maralia 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replied there. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory errors

FYI, [1], pls see instructions at {{ArticleHistory}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry about getting the category wrong. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Buildings and architecture of Bristol

Of course I don't mind your edits & responding to the FA reviews. I was off line for 36 hrs - but you've done a better job than I would have anyway. Re: Old Market - the source just says "the area directly outside the castle where the troops mustered" - would the "troops from the castle" help at all? I would presume what sort of troops would vary with the centuries!— Rod ^talk 19:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. I'll change it to something like a mustering point for troops then, to get rid of that pesky "the". --Malleus Fatuarum 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

John Brunner

Many thanks for your involvement with the article on Sir John Brunner, 1st Baronet – and not least for promoting it as a GA. I much appreciated the reasonable and sympathetic way in which you made your comments; it has not always been my experience in Wikipedia to be dealt with kindly – on some occasions reviewers have been not much removed from rude. As you will have realised, my career was not involved with writing articles so my prose is not the best and your copyediting is much appreciated; the sections you have amended now read much better. Getting a full copyedit is not easy. When Runcorn was peer reviewed, it was recommended that it should be copyedited; someone referred to its "strange prose". I took someone's suggestion I that I should choose someone low down on the list of members of the league of copywriters, who should be new and keen. So I selected a retired American professor of English. He split the article into short sentences and when the article was submitted as a FAC it was criticised for its "choppy prose". The article is now sitting patiently waiting for someone else to pick it up (it at number 40). Still there's no rush; I do not intend to submit it as a FAC again – too much aggro!

Regarding your query about Brunner's world trip in 1886, I don't really know. I have returned the Koss book to its owner and I don't remember any motive being stated. To guess, as his business was going well with his managers doing the day-to-day work, and having lost his parliamentary seat, he saw what might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to travel, and took it. Does that make sense? Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 11:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Given the speed at which you're racking up barnstars from all corners — and the fact that you've demonstrated a clear understanding of WP policy, an ability to reach consensus with some of Wikipedia's more colourful characters, an ability to cool down Heated Debates (if the thread a few above this is any guide) and an unmatched ability to clean up other peoples' messes — it seems to me that you're ideal material for a Wikipedia admin if you wanted. If you're ever interested, let me know and I'll be glad to nominate you. If you don't feel you're ready/able yet but might be in future, consider this a standing offer. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

When I saw the orange band at the top of the screen I thought, "Oh no, someone else is going to complain about something I've done/not done". So I was absolutely gobsmacked to find this. It rather took my breath away and I'm very flattered. I've never given adminship any thought, as my focus has simply been on trying to improve articles. It would certainly be useful on occasion to have some of the admin tools, but those occasions thankfully have been very few and far between.

I thank you very much for you kind and unexpected offer to nominate me, but I still feel very much like a newbie, still trying to find my feet with wikipedia. Perhaps some time in the future ... --Malleus Fatuarum 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider it a standing offer (if you do decide to go for it, it probably wouldn't hurt to get some experience at WP:AFD, to demonstrate you understand when it is & isn't appropriate to delete things altogether). — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know when you do go for adminship; I shall certainly support a nomination. In fact I sort of thought you were an admin although it did not say so on your user page. Regarding my reviewing articles for GA, I do not yet feel comfortable enough to take it on (yet). There is a lot of work to be done on writing new articles and improving existing ones, particularly those relating to the Cheshire WikiProject, and I want to concentrate on these. Maybe one day I shall take on more responsibility. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion. Peter I. Vardy 09:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd certainly have my vote too! I believe you're really proving to be amongst the cream of the crop of late!... on another note, I contacted User:Onnaghar about Didsbury and hoped to have changed his mind about the article and GA review process. Hope all is well, Jza84 18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I really meant it. I think you're strength has been diplomacy and a real desire to make a difference. You're also very thorough, and engage well with others (one thing I've struggled with over my usership). I believe the adminship process is quite tough, and you need to point to times of conflict/disagreement and how you dealt with it, as well as a major contribution/sucess you've had with the project, amongst other things. I'd give it some real thought! Jza84 19:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no shortage of conflicts or disagreements to draw attention to, and I doubt that any active editor would. As to how I've dealt with them, well that's for others to judge. I'll certainly give some thought to this idea, but to be truthful I really don't want to get involved in any of the admin issues that aren't directly related to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Protecting articles, perhaps blocking editors, that kind of thing, OK. I know that someone has to do all the other stuff, like WP:AFD, but it really isn't something that I feel I want to get involved with. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of Churche's Mansion

Thanks for your immensely constructive and helpful approach to Good Article reviewing, and not just because the eventual outcome was a pass. If you're Cheshire born, can we tempt you into the Cheshire project? (Or perhaps we shouldn't as then you might not be able to review Cheshire GA candidates!) Regards, Espresso Addict 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As it happens I am Cheshire born; I was born in Crewe and I lived there throughout my teens :) I'll certainly be tempted to join you in the Cheshire project at some time in the future, but for the moment I think I might be able to be of more help to the project if I stay at arm's length. Once again, congratulations on producing what really is a very good article; the whole process is so much easier with a dedicated, knowledgeable and responsive editor like yourself. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrets

Hello, Malleus Fatuarum. I see you immediately reverted the edits I made to the article on ferrets in an attempt to reduce some of its redundacy and disorganization, as well as attempt to reword portions that appear too much like a "How to..." manual, qualities you complained of on the talk page. You stated that even if those opinions were sourced, which they aren't, they hardly read like an encyclopedia article. If you don't like the edits I've made, I'd appreciate you discussing the issue or making appropriate changes as you see fit rather than simply reverting all my efforts. When another person invests time, effort, and energy in trying to improve an article, it is unreasonable to summarily revert something without any explanation. I think the article was improved by the changes and if you think otherwise, we should discuss it; the speed with which you acted leads me to believe you barely examined it. I will wait for you to have a chance to reply and discuss the items before I proceed further. -- AzureCitizen 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss the matter with you, but I see that you have once again gone ahead with the edits to which I objected. No matter, the article was a mess anyway, so statistically I suppose that you weren't able to do that much damage. I'll leave it other editors to say whether they agree with your "improvements" or not. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Malleus, you replied with "Please feel free to take whatever the problem that you have with my reversion of your recent edit to this article as far as you like." That struck me as indicating you weren't interested in discussing the items that were changed, and were instead implying whatever problem I had, that was my problem to handle in whatever fashion I might. Are you saying that you were instead inviting discussion? Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I thought you were being dismissive. What were you trying to say when you said "take it as far as you like?".

I meant exactly what I said. That you can make whatever complaint you choose to about my reversion of your edit wherever you like. In other words, I don't believe that your complaint has any merit, but you may to choose to formally ask for me to be censured anywhere you consider to be appropriate; I'm indifferent as to whether you do or don't. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so I did understand you correctly the first time - you were not interested in discussing the merits of any changes, you simply immediately reverted without any explanation and your remark was somewhat of a challenge, i.e., "go ahead and try to have me censured for reverting your efforts without comment, I don't care." That's fine, and needs no further comment. -- AzureCitizen 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I did read the reference from Webster's on the origin of the Latin Furritus (and also took three years of Latin); I agree "little thief" is the correct translation, though many will commonly interpret it as "little furry thief" (as may be seen here and here). Probably what I had in mind when I entered the text the other night then added the citation today. -- AzureCitizen 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Others may or may not mistranslate furritus, but that is not an excuse for you to do so as well. BTW, I also studied Latin; that's how I knew that "little furry thief" was incorrect. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You studied Latin too and you knew, yet you clearly missed this mistranslation the first time you read it when you inserted the "citation needed" remark, and only caught it after the Webster's reference was inserted and you followed the link? A little disingenuous, but we should let it go. Changing topics, do you translate your handle as "Fool's Hammer" or "Foolish Hammer"? -- AzureCitizen 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not disingenuous at all, simply avoiding another argument with you about reverting. You had to admit the translation was faulty when you were asked for the citation and couldn't find one. Job done. I'm not interested in trading petty insults with you over my user name, which you ought to know perfectly well how to translate if you did indeed study Latin for three years as you claim. --Malleus Fatuarum 14:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to trade petty insults; I really did come up with that translation, i.e., Malleus, the hammer, and Fatuarum, usually interpreted as fools or foolish. I'm being sincere here, and thought you'd deliberately chosen that user name in symbolic significance of something, which sparked curiosity; I think you're misinterpeting me as attempting to attack your name. I can refer you to Latin-to-English translation references on the web that reach the same translation if you think I'm making this up or trying to fool you; if you disagree that the intepretation is not "Fool's Hammer," what is your latin interpretation/translation for "Malleus Fatuarum"? Enlighten me if I've made a mistake...

On my suggestion that your comment about furritus was disingenuous, you did miss that the first time through and if you "knew," you would have caught it the first time, that's all I was saying there. There is nothing wrong with being wrong; we are all wrong part of time, a lot more than we would like. -- AzureCitizen 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Have it your own way, believe whatever you like. This is clearly not a productive way for either of us to be spending our time, so please stop wasting mine. --Malleus Fatuarum 14:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oldham article; some good, some bad and some ugly

Hello again. Having passed Shaw and Crompton at FA level now for a while, amongst other things, I've been trying to bring the Oldham article upto (at very least) a B or A class standard. As it currently stands, I believe there is some real high quality content, particularly the earlier Lead, Early history, Industrial Revolution and cotton, Governance and Geography sections. However, there is some really bad, and down-right ugly content towards the latter end of the article!

My reason for sharing this? - Just wondered if, rather than a full on copy-edit, you could give it a quick interim read through and let me know you're thoughts so far, and see if you spot anything too horrible to keep any longer. You may also have some pointers which I'd be more than happy to hear. If I can return any kind of support back to you to facilitate your ideas, please do let me know. If you can help, please do note there's no rush. Jza84 21:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took a very quick look. I have to say that my heart sank when I read the first sentence: "Oldham is a large town within Greater Manchester, in North West England, which rises high amongst the Pennines ...". So North West England rises high amongst the Pennines, you learn something every day. :)

I don't see anything obviously too horrible to keep, but I do see an awful lot of work needed, as I'm sure you do as well – you must be feeling revitalised after your heroic efforts with Shaw and Crompton. I agree with you about the content, there's some good stuff there, but the presentation is god-awful. If it were me, I'd try to focus down on just one section, and get that right, to set the standard for the others, instead of trying to fix systemic problems in the whole article. But I know I'm teaching my granny to suck eggs, that's what you'd do anyway. If you're seriously thinking about tackling that article to get it up to B or A class, then I'll do what I can to help with the writing. I can't promise to help much with the research though. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Before I finally get round to replying in full, would you be so kind as to share your thoughts regarding the latest discussion at the WP:UKCITIES talk page. Jza84 18:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal Info

MF, have you revealed your personal information of your own voliation here in Wikipedia, or is Flydb5 trying to out you? Shot info 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

FlyBd5 knows nothing about me; the only personal information I've given out on wikipedia is my first name and the town I live in. His assertion that I know nothing about ITIL v3 may or may not be true, but he certainly has no way of knowing whether it is or not. What's happening now is pretty much a replay of what happened a couple of months ago when I first came across the ITIL v3 article. It looked like an advert; when I deleted what looked to me like spam, Flybd5 got on my back and he hasn't jumped off yet. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MF, have you ever used (or revealed) your real name here in Wikipedia? Refer to [2], [3] Shot info 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my initial user page said that my real name was Eric, which it is. That, and the area I live in, which can be seen on my talk page and on Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester, is the only personal information I've given out on wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You can still ask that he not use it. The Community will back you up on this regard. But that is your call. I personally don't like personal information being used in WP only as there has been enough wackos using it, which makes me paranoid. Your call though. Shot info 23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, I changed my user page as a direct result of Flybd5 using my first name on the ITIL v3 talk pages, as I found it to be patronising. I'd really prefer that he didn't use my name, as I don't use his, even though I know what his full name is, as he's advertised it often enough on wikipedia. I'm with you on the wackos front, so I'll ask Flybd5 not to use my name again. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ask him not to use it. If he continues (I notice he uses it all the time in reference to MF) to use it, report him to AN/I. If necessary, admins can remove (permanently) references to your personal details (ie/ earlier versions of your user page). Being through this before with User:Fyslee and it was ugly. Best to nip it all in the bud. Shot info 23:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Jumping in there before either of you get a misconception - admins can't remove edits from the history. A very few high-ups of the Wikimedia Foundation can remove them in very exceptional circumstances, listed at WP:RFO (mainly things like personal phone numbers or serious libel), but you need to email the foundation with the circumstances — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I did mean RFO, but at the time I couldn't remember, so I typed the magic catchall "admins" rather than look it up. Sorry for the confusion. Shot info 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's reassuring to hear. I certainly wouldn't consider getting involved in anything like that over someone using my first name. Which I did, after all, once have on my user page. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Also jumping in here, you would need to carry out the instructions given in WP:RFO to get any edits permanently removed from wikipedia. I had to do it within the last year when a user attempted to "shut me up" in a discussion over some historic counties rubbish by searching out details of my mother's maiden name and then posting it and my own name in full after making use of information I had on my own page to "track me down" and then look at my birth certificate online. It worked for me.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That was clearly an outrageous thing to have done; my case is rather trivial in comparison. If Flybd5 persists in using my first name in discussions in spite of my asking him not to then he does. No skin off my nose, I'll live with it. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ping!

I dropped you an email this morning - thought I'd leave you a note here, in case you don't check it regularly. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralia (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to admit that I hadn't even noticed that there was an email facility, so you'll have to give me a clue; how do I get to see my email? :)

It gets sent to whatever external email address you set in the 'my preferences' tab. Hope that helps! Maralia 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! I though it might be some wikipedia facility I wasn't aware of. I haven't checked my email today, I'll check it now. Thanks. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Maralia 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've responded. Thanks again. Maralia 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ping again! Email incoming. Maralia 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC Golden Film

User:Iridescent suggested to contact you about my recent nomination of the article Golden Film as a featured article candidate. If you are interested, maybe you could help copyediting or commenting to it. – Ilse@ 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll take a look at it later. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied to your comments. – Ilse@ 11:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not upset. – Ilse@ 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'm trying to say it as I see it. FA reviewers can be a pretty tough crowd. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In the sentence: "The audience for Dutch films as a percentage of the total cinema audience in the Netherlands increased from 5.5% (ca. 1.0 million visitors) in 1999, to 5.9% (ca. 1.3 million visitors) in 2000 and to 9.5% in 2001 (ca. 2.3 million visitors) and 10.5% (ca. 2.5 million visitors) in 2002." the data from 1999 and 2000 are before the award, and 2001 and 2002 are after the introduction of the award. Do you know a way of adding this info without further complicating the already long sentence? – Ilse@ 09:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. See if you think it's any better now. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I think it's more clear now. – Ilse@ 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for improving many of the article's sections by copyediting them. In the section Response to the award you made only one minor change. Do you think this section, that consists of several quotes, still needs more copyediting? – Ilse@ 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that section could be improved with a bit more fettling, yes. I'll try and have a go at it later. Most of the rest of the article seems to read quite well now – not that it didn't read well before, you know what I mean. I think maybe the lead could do with a bit of a polish as well now that I've read it again. On another topic, I notice that you've (quite correctly} added the {{nl icon}} tag to indicate that the references are in Dutch, or you've alternatively use the language parameter in the {{cite}} template. I'd recommend using one or the other consistently, probably the {{nl icon}} tag. I also notice that not all the references have been tagged yet. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I used {{nl icon}} everywhere now. – Ilse@ 19:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at that section again and I've made a few changes. There are still a few areas I'm not happy with, and I've left a message on the article's talk page explaining what they are. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now done as much as I'm prepared to do on that article. You have now more than once reverted what I considered to be substantial improvements to the prose. No matter, and no hard feelings. Good luck with your FA review. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SS Christopher Columbus failed a GA nom

Thanks very much for your comments on the talk. Other editors have made a fair number of edits since it was first reviewed, and I replied to your feedback as well. I'm interested in any further comments or suggestions you might have, if you have the time. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're there. If you get a chance, take a look at the talk and the article. I'll renom when you say the word. Goes without saying I really appreciate your efforts. ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, it's nommed. I mentioned that you had already indicated you'd be doing the review. I am at a loss about the pic arrangement... as I say, no one has yet come up with a good arrangement and there have been a lot of tries so far. Take a crack if you want! ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mall Wood Green

If you get the chance could you have a look at The Mall Wood Green? I've sent this up to GAC; I suspect it'll fail as too short, but I'd be interested in any comments, as in light of your cleanup work on Trafford Centre you presumably don't have the "every article about a shopping mall is always spam" mentality that the - er - "character" who nominated this for AfD last month has. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, I don't have that opinion. I'm quite happy with articles about shopping malls so long as they aren't blatant spam and are written from a NPOV. As you say, I've been quite happy to do some work on the Trafford Centre, which is a pretty important part of our local economy here in Manchester.

So far as The Mall Wood Green is concerned, I've had a look and I think it's a nice little article. I can't see that a GA reviewer would have much to complain about. Certainly being on the short side shouldn't be a problem as the article seems to cover the subject pretty well, which is all that's required. I took the liberty of doing a quick copyedit on the article, mainly to remove some of what I though was over-wikilinking; just because there's an article on "customers", for instance, doesn't mean that it has to have a link. I find too many blue links to be distracting, but that's a personal thing, so feel free to revert anything I've done that you don't like. I'll put the article in my watch list, so if any issues come up in the GA review that I think I can help with, then I'll do what I can.

PS, I haven't forgotten that we still need to get Broadwater Farm Estate up to GA as well :) --Malleus Fatuarum 19:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving BWF on the back-burner since so many people seem to have problems with it, and I think it's gone as far as it's going to go. Ironically, it looks likely to be the next showcase article for Portal:London. Thanks for cleaning up TMWG - you do seem to have a knack for making things look less boring then they deserve. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that in the way that I'm sure it's intended, particularly as it comes from someone who manages to find the motivation to write articles on roads. But, perhaps like you, I've always thought that boredom comes from within, it's not a property of the subject. Good luck with TMWG article, I really can't see any reason why it ought not to succeed in its GAN. I'll be watching it anyway, and helping where I can.

GA articlehistory

Just a note, if you get a chance, pls review the instructions at {{ArticleHistory}}; I've been fixing these at the rate of several a day on GA passes. Only completed processes are added to articlehistory; adding blank events causes them to populate the error category.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my message came across that way, Malleus; on the other hand, I do wish GA would address this matter in house, as I'm cleaning up many GA errors daily that show up in the error category. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're in good company; tough day here as well. I had to comment out a big chunk of my talk page and am still recovering from the fright. I'm sorry if I was short earlier. I just made a change to the GA instructions, hoping that will help over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

pull!

Thanks for your help in getting the good ship SS Christopher Columbus to Good Article status. She would have been sunk without everyone's help, it's really swell how we all pulled together.

anchors aweigh!

You went WAY beyond the call of duty on this one, thanks!! ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

tweaks to your user page

Hi, I saw your post on User talk:Phaedriel and came to see your page. I have just made a few syntax changes to it — and presumably they should be made to whatever page you based it on… The specific changes I made, removing four instances of 'px' from html attributes, are correct; the 'px' unit is only appropriate on CSS values. --Jack Merridew 13:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for tidying up. --Malleus Fatuarum 14:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Papa Stour

I reviewed this article before you placed your 'GAReview' tag on it, and my comments are on the talk page. It is currently on hold pending some minor revisions. Feel free to add additional comments as you see fit. Dr. Cash 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

BR Standard Class 6 article

I believe I have undertaken the relevant changes you have suggested, and look forward to any further comments. Thank-you.--Bulleid Pacific 13:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It just so happens I have a few references with me regarding my Dissertation, so a bit of extra-curricular activity does not go amiss. Anyway, why not take a glance at the other articles? I've put a few improvements in them after doing the Clan Class article... Once again, cheers.--Bulleid Pacific 14:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Somerset

Hi, After all your great copyediting work I wonder if I could ask another favour. Folks at WikiProject Somerset have been doing some major edits to get the Somerset article ready to be nominated for GA (& hopefully later FA). I think the content, referencing etc is all there but the prose will let it down. If you had time to take a look that would be great - but if you are likely to be the GA reviewer please ignore this message, as I wouldn't want you to look too closely before we are ready to nominate it.— Rod ^talk 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article's talk page, it seems as if you've identified pretty much everything that needs to be done to the article to get it listed as a GA. The lists will likely be a problem, the prose could stand a good copyedit, and some sections aren't adequately referenced: the Arthurian legends bit for instance. I'll help in whatever way is most likely to get this article up to GA. If you and your fellow editors are thinking of nominating it imminently, then I'll volunteer to do the GA review, and we can work on the problems together during the hold period. Otherwise, I'll chip in with the copyediting and someone else will do the GA review. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We've now done the things on that list & I've nominated it for GA.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Impressive work with that article. All that will hold it back from going on to reaching FA now is the prose I think. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough and Blyth

Hello again Malleus Fatarum! I hope all is well.

Firstly, having just revamped my userpage, I'm a little jealous that yours is much more uber than mine! It looks great!.... I wanted to share a few thoughts and bring your attention to a couple of things. Blyth, Northumberland is up for FA nomination, and as your a strong reviewer, thought you may want to take a look at it (I think it's quite good). Also, I'm a sucker for consistency, but I'm trying to persuade editors of Peterborough of using a standard layout (they have Geography last!). I've produced a lovely WP:UKCITIES version in my sandbox (which is only a tiny reshuffle), but it's being opposed. I'm I being too brutal with this standard?? What do you think?

I think WP:MANC is good at gathering pace, and we've got some great editors, but I'm still concerned that we aren't furthering Manchester fast enough (it's missing alot of content!). I'm thinking we should aim to complete Manchester (which I'm hoping to make a local map for the article like that in Oldham) before moving onto Greater Manchester as a project, wouldn't you agree? Finally, just wondered where you were upto with thinking about adminship?? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Blyth, Northumberland article looks pretty good; I wouldn't support it as it stands, so I'll make some comments at the FA review later.
• I don't have any doubt at all that the version of the Peterborough article you've developed in your sandbox is significantly better than the present one, and I simply don't buy any of the arguments I've seen for not adopting the WP:UKCITIES guidelines. Not just at Peterborough, but also at Rugby, Leamington Spa ... I guess I've come to the view that rather than argue the toss about structure on the article's talk page, the best way to persuade editors to adopt the guidelines is for them to see them widely applied in GA/FA articles, and start to see comments/objections being raised in those review processes because of the idiosyncratic layout of their articles.
• The Manchester article does seem to have stalled a little recently. I'm in two minds whether that's a bad thing or a good thing though. In some ways, I thought that maybe too much effort was being spent on the FA push; the article looks pretty good now, and there are so many other poor articles about settlements in GM. And coming back to the guidelines issue, if some groundwork was done on many of them it might avoid later disagreements over structure. I was really pleased when Nev1 and I (with a lot of help from Epbr1) managed to get all of Trafford's major settlements up to GA, and it would be nice if we could do something similar for the other GM boroughs.
• I'm still mulling over the admin thing, developing a slight tendency to go for it in the next month or two. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. As ever you raise valid points. I'm waiting for some books to arrive about Oldham so I can continue developing its content. I'm pleased with the textile and geography sections, but the rest is quite weak. That said, I hope it serves as another GA pass for GM alongside your work for Trafford's settlements.

I'm still struggling with Peterborough. I could just change the article, but I sense WP:OWN is at play and the positive changes will be reverted. There's nothing in the argument against WP:UKCITIES that has any depth or quality, it's just one or two user's localised preferences. Very frustrating, but I'll continue to engage in discussion.

Maybe you're right about Manchester for the time being. Perhaps it's nearly time for a new WP:MANC newsletter to generate new points of need. You may be keen to know that it's last editor, User:Rudget has been nommed for adminship, whom I've supported! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Last editor? Is User:Rudget not still the editor then? --Malleus Fatuarum 13:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understood that the newsletter could be written by any user. He certainly wrote the last, or rather, first and only newsletter, but I'm not sure if he considers himself as the current editor of further editions of it. Maybe I should ask?! -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

BR Standard Class 7 article

I believe I have undertaken the relevant changes you have suggested, and look forward to any further comments. Thank-you.--Bulleid Pacific 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A few further comments on the talk page. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken them on-board, and think I have explained things a bit better. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BR Standard Class 8 article

Once again, I believe I have undertaken the relevant changes you have suggested, and look forward to any further comments. Unfortunately, the write-off of a single locomotive in terms of Princess Anne did leave a gap in the 8P roster, as the demand for 8P locomotives on the route was high. Thank-you.--Bulleid Pacific 23:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment left on the article's talk page. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Content review workshop

Malleus Fatuaraum, I just wanted to drop a note here to ask you to reconsider your decision to leave the workshop. I think you have made valuable contributions, and I would be sorry to have the workshop lose a productive member. An additional reason is that the workshop was formed with the hope of building trust among groups of people with experience in different content review processes, in order to enable us to work together on new ideas. I would like us to find ways to move from disagreements to more collegial behaviour, rather than see participants take offence and leave. One of the problem statements on the front page directly addresses the acrimony that so easily flares up in these discussions; I want to see us fix that problem. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, of course. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to have you back. Please let me know any ideas that occur to you to make the path smoother for all of us. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Just an note to say thank you for reviewing three articles on the trot, you have done a great job. Keep it up, and I hope you enjoy reading other steam/railway-related articles. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 18:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be able to help. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Didsbury Promotion

P :P :P :P Rudget _{Contributions} 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means, but I'm just as pleased as you are that we managed to work together to get Didsbury through its GA review. In fact I'm more pleased that we managed to work together than I am that Didsbury got through its review. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment I made was excitement at two months work. I was surprised he didn't want us to change the lead, but if that's what floats his boat, then... Rudget _{Contributions} 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a very fair review, but then I suppose that I would. GA isn't the end of the road, it's just a stopping off place, to reflect and to take a breather. The lead could certainly stand a little bit of work, but then what couldn't. By definition, every GA article can be improved. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks ever so much for the Barnstar! I didn't expect to get a barnstar... well... at least until I'd finished all the maps for counties if I'm totally sincere! But I am really greatful for your kind gesture! I still have some way before catching up to you yet though! hehe!

I'm sure it won't be long before you yourself recieve one of the new Greater Manchester barnstars! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting a Barnstar doesn't mean that you can take your foot off the pedal – get those maps finished. <smiley>I'm missing emoticons here, because I want to make it absolutely clear that I was just making a little joke. Still, I managed to say it instead. :) </smiley>

The maps are quite possibly the most laborious things I've ever had to do! I can't tell you how much they pain me! I do think they are good though, even if I do say so myself! There's about 15 counties to do, then people have requested ones for the major cities.... joy. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't undersell yourself. Your maps are excellent, top quality, and they've improved so many wikipedia articles ... and then there's your work with the UK infoboxes ... and ... if anyone deserved that Barnstar then you did. As I said, I was just amazed that your work on the geography articles hadn't been rewarded before in some way. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Low

What's wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You are making very poor edits to an article that is a current FA candidate. Apart from that, nothing. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There. Done. I think I answered everything. Ok, a few like the "was said.." was faulty; other than that, it's better overall. Leranedo 00:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I like to inform that I am well aware of what NPOV is, and that the link you provided offered nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Low&diff=167739773&oldid=167738874

That's what happens when you changes things. It happens. I don't see how it calls for a "Jeez Louise." I think you're being ridiculous. Leranedo 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Political niceties

As recommended, I'm practising the art of "political niceties". Here's a cookie for you too. Cookie. Leranedo 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go!

It is done. I've found a GA candidate to start with, and gotten his/her okay for a joint review. The article is Mayslake Peabody Estate; I'll be starting on it shortly. Maralia 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. It's past my bedtime now, so I'll catch up with you later. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had the chance to spend some time looking over the article now, and I'll very interested to know what your initial thoughts are. I've sent you an email. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Airborne Real-time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance

I believe I have addressed your GA comments by expanding the article and explaining the changes at Talk:Airborne_Real-time_Cueing_Hyperspectral_Enhanced_Reconnaissance#GA_review. Please have a look, and add any follow-up comments. Thanks. Dhaluza 10:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)