User talk:Aiken drum/Archive 2

Nick Robinson
Alright, I had a look at your article. I did some clean-up and copy-editing, but there are a few more things to point out. 1) You've got no less than three dead links (ref 6, 7, and 8 as it stands) 2)the prose needs polishing, and I'm not the best with good prose. 3)I've left a couple hidden questions in the text, you should find and clarify those. 4)the section about George Bush needs a complete rewrite. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense as written. Hope that helps. Courcelles 02:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look over it.  Aiken   &#9835;   12:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

re: Your edit summary
I was refering to this edit which shows you clearly removing a pre-existing reference, which is vandalism. And it's libel, not slander (which again, it's not, as it's not true).  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was slander, you said I vandalized when I most certainly did not. You don't understand what vandalism is if you think it's removing an entry because it's not a street, and naturally, there's no point in leaving the reference if it's not referencing anything. I clearly explained what I was doing in the edit summary. See what WP:VANDALISM says about it, if you think I'm a vandal. You also claimed I made the edit to disrupt Wikipedia, which is complete nonsense also. I explained clearly on the talk page why I removed the nn entries.  Aiken   &#9835;   14:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed a valid reference, which is vandalism. Now repeat that back to me nice and slow, so I know you understand.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously? What type of vandal am I then?  Aiken   &#9835;   17:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * accuse me of disrupting Wikipedia, being a vandal Which you did, per the clear example already given. Unlike you, it seems, I'm trying to get on with things what, by sending articles to AfD and not attempting to expand them in the meantime? What edits did you do prior to the AfD closing that were anywhere near useful on this article? The correct answer is none, BTW.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would I expand an article I want to see deleted? Completely illogical...
 * You still haven't answered my question. What type of vandal am I?  Aiken   &#9835;   18:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" - it appears think that Aiken was editing in good faith. You are both reasonable individuals who edit with the good of the project in mind, can we consider a reboot here? – xeno talk 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it appears Lugnuts missed that part when he read the policy - if he actually did read it, that is. As for a reboot, I was perfectly content until I noticed that Lugnuts called me a vandal, accused me of disrupting Wikipedia and continued using needlessly provocative edit summaries in his responses to me. I'm not bothered by childish namecalling normally, but I don't like being accused of something I did not do.  Aiken   &#9835;   18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandal fighter proposal

 * Thanks. I was well prepared for naysayers - anything that might possibly improve things around here is pretty much shot down as a rule. I've spent all day arguing about it and hope that other people will be able to figure something out with it now. I'm pretty tired of repeating the same points and addressing the misconceptions over and over.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I felt that way during the CDA thing. And it was pretty much the same group of naysayers then. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

List of streets in Manchester
One of the reasons I've been so keen to write, and to help others write, articles in new areas and to take them to GA/FA is to establish a proper precedent for how those topics ought to be covered. It seems like with the list of streets articles they're just justifying each other's crapiness. The major problem I see here though is the criteria for inclusion. Articles could be written on pretty much any street, but unlike buildings, there's no external body to grade streets. A determined editor could expand this list 10-fold in not very much time, and there's no end to it until every street is covered, which is plainly ridiculous. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the problem sure as Hell needs to be addressed, instead of random streets being continually added to a never ending and ill-defined list. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I argued in the AFD that streets can be individually notable (for example, no one can argue Downing Street is "just a street"), but just not as a collection. The issue here for me was "is it appropriate to list notable things, even if the concept isn't very notable?" Streets are everyday things, and in general are unremarkable. Unlike your example of buildings, which could form a list such as List of Grade I listed buildings in X, there is nothing to base the list upon - who determines the inclusion criteria? The list would just be continually added to (or removed as the case may be) and will never be completed. Incomplete lists, in my opinion, don't really help the reader effectively. Many are just trivia. I argued the same a few months ago with bus routes. There were editors determined to keep individual route pages, despite the fact they weren't in the slightest bit notable. Again, I argued that some routes were absolutely notable, but most were not, but they pointed to an obscure mention in a single sentence on a Google book and that was that. I sometimes think people confuse Wikipedia for being a website to put information about everything that every existed. I would never call myself a deletionist, but sometimes a stance like that is needed to get rid stuff that just doesn't belong here. As someone said on the AFD, on keeping this article we could very well start a list of bus stops and post boxes in Manchester too. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if someone did, and then argued to keep it at AFD.  Aiken   &#9835;   23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm a bit surprised that there isn't already a List of post boxes in Manchester. There's clearly no joy to be had in trying to halt the tide of trivia "List of ..." articles though, so perhaps best to stand back and watch this one get so absurdly large that the page begins to take geological time to load. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My Revert
Aiken I got your message. Malleus isn't a stranger to incivil behavior, a lite prod wasn't too far out of line. KoshVorlon Naluboutes,Aeria Gloris
 * Trying to censor perceived attacks, and basically replacing them with your own is, in my opinion.  Aiken   &#9835;   12:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Court of King's Bench (England)
Thanks for the review; all points have, I think, been addressed. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your GA reviews
Hey Aiken, thanks for the recent GA reviews you've done! I just have a quick suggestion - it would be really helpful if when you pass an article, you fill in the "|topic=" field in the GA template with the appropriate GA category (Arts, History, etc) and, if there are any WikiProject templates, you also update the "|class=" parameter to GA. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought a bot did that. I will next time.  Aiken   &#9835;   13:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:Woohoo
See the first user who reviewed did not know how to properly review articles and passed it without going through everything needed. Then the second user took over the review and then ceased it after they did not have time to finish it. Candy o32  14:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi, Aiken drum. I'm sorry to hear about your health issues. Many thanks for your your review of Direct grant grammar school; I've responded to your comments on the review page, but there's no hurry: this is insignificant in comparison with your health. Kanguole 00:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Remixes for the Damned
In March you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

New DNB WikiProject
For information: I have set up WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, since the time has certainly come when there should be a place for collective discussion of the DNB adaptation effort. Please come and participate. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Dancing mania
I've had a first pass through, and if you're not too horrified by what I've done to your prose I'll have another pass through probably tomorrow. A couple of things struck me:
 * "Typically those affected displayed similar symptoms to dancing mania". My understanding of "symptoms" is that they're what the patient complains of, rather than what's seen by an observer.
 * There are an awful of "participants" in the article, particularly in the Characteristics section, so I think we need to introduce a little bit more variety in places.

In general though I really enjoyed it, and I don't see any reason why you couldn't get this through FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I came to you hoping you'd edit it - thank you very much! As for your points: I agree with your first point, the sentence would need redrafting. I can't really think what would work well though. The second point: originally, I used the word "victim" in places, but decided against that as many probably weren't victims. I'll have a read through it now you've made your changes and It should be simple enough to introduce some variety into it. Thanks again, you're most helpful. Aiken (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am. And very much under-appreciated here, especially by administrators. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you were probably a bit too quick out of the blocks with this FAC, but I suppose that faint heart never won fair lady. With a bit of hard graft you ought to be able to make it, so good luck. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but after about the 24th I expect my activity levels to be reduced as my workload increases. Aiken (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All you need to do is to keep on top of it really. Iridescent's right about some of the prose though, Tony1 would have a field day. I'll try and go through it again before he shows up. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)
Thanks Aiken for the lovely support vote. I really admired the logic you put across about the connection between admins backing up the tagged csds :) It apparently worked :) Thanks again and kind regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone watching this page?
Is anyone watching this page? Could a kind person please help me set up an archive? Thanks! Aiken (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See User:MiszaBot III. There is a link at the bottom to instructions about how to set it up. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK have done - it's not showing up though. Should it be? Is it ok? Aiken (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be working...  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Cheers, Aiken (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I notice you too have changed your signature :):) Peer pressure :)   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  04:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, back to basics is best!! :-) I might have to change it again, I don't like it not linking on this page... Aiken (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There. Aiken (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural FAC
Hey, thanks for your support for No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural). SandyGeorgia has asked that supporting reviewers give their opinion about two of the sources used. Here is the link. Thanks. Ω pho  is  14:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dancing mania.
Ooh, brilliant. I'll be sure to check later, as I'm rather busy at the moment (writing a paper on monetary/fiscal policy in Norway... *sigh*). I always intended to try to improve that article to FA, but ended up retiring for a couple of years instead, go figure. I imagine you already copyedited extensively, but would you mind if I have another go-through? · Andonic  Contact 15:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, did you? It's been copyedited by several people, but another go through wouldn't hurt, particularly as concerns with prose were raised. Thanks, Aiken (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you blame me for encouraging this article's (in my view) premature nomination at FAC, but probably it's at least partly my fault for not making it clearer that I thought it could become a plausible FAC candidate, not that it was one in its then state. I don't think that it stood a snowball's chance in Hell of getting through this time around, but with some robust copyediting it could easily make it next time. Please don't be discouraged. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Would be better to be less hasty on my part. Aiken (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, don't get too discouraged...you'll do better next time. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Witch Way GA
Left some comments at Talk:The Witch Way/GA1. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood
Thank you for your support of this FAC. Ucucha has asked a question about the legacy section. Could you chime in with your thoughts? Thanks.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am no longer participating at FACs. Regards, Aiken (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Broomhurst Hall for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Broomhurst Hall, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Broomhurst Hall until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Aiken (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, why don't  you  just  do  a G7? (creator, or major contributor request  for deletion). Cheers,-Kudpung (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought as there were other edits it might be more appropriate to get more opinions. I don't see the harm in that. Thanks, Aiken (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No Rest for the Wicked FAC
Hello. You participated in a recent FAC for No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural). The article has since been renominated here. Thanks. Ω pho  is  19:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the FAC has restarted, previous votes are no longer counted. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks :) Ω  pho  is  19:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still early days. I'll have a look in a week or so, if no one else has. Aiken (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

30 Rock - Australian ratings
Hi - I really don't think the 30 Rock page needs a random chart of Australian ratings for just the third season - none of the other countries do and it looks a bit untidy. Also, it doesn't actually correspond to what the article says about improved rebroadcast ratings. I've re-merged the section with the broadcast info for the other seasons. I hope this isn't a problem. RM-47 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I only undid your edit because you left no explanation in the edit summary. Aiken (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RFA
Hi Aiken, you've had a tough few days at RFA, my first attempt was a bit of a trainwreck too - though I don't think things were quite as bad two years ago as they are now. Please remember that most Wikipedians don't go anywhere near RFA and will have nothing but sympathy for someone who has, and that if you run again in four months having paid attention to any serious issues raised by the opposition you will probably be surprised at how easy RFA can be.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit more of a pessimist than that, and would recommend more than four months, unless you really improve dramatically. But note that I say that to everyone, even people who just scored a hair below passing level, and I have been proven wrong: User:J04n is a good example of an editor who went from barely 50% in his first RfA to nearly 100% in his second RfA just a few months later.   —  Soap  —  13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see it end like that, but Soap and WSC offer good advice. Think back 10 months to my first RfA, which was a train wreck (in no small part due to my own idiocy), but 4 and a bit months later, I succeeded on my second attempt. I was going to go neutral on yours, but my internet connection went down as I was typing. I think you have the potential to do a good job with the mop, there are just a few small concerns that, hopefully, you'll address those and try again in a few months. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning re: Nick Robinson
Heh! Bet that heading worried you, eh?! ;-) . Damn bots... TFOWR 14:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha it did actually! I think it's probably the bots that need reprogramming, if anything, but it might be difficult. Perhaps if they could recognise when a page was ambiguous it would help. Aiken (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC
Hey, would you mind reviewing the film Taare Zameen Par for FA here? Thanks. Ω pho  is  22:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal but I don't want to have anything to do with FAC right now. Very sorry. Aiken (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks anyways. :) Ω  pho  is  00:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A Visit from St. Nicholas
Hi. I see that you have a source for the information you added to this article, which I had reverted, and that's great. My one concern is with the word "legend", in "According to legend..." Did the source use this wording, or is there some other way that it was expressed that can be used? The "According to legend" formulation grates on me, and I'd be happier with an alternative. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The source refers to it as "according to ... tradition", but other sources refer to it as a story, possibly because many skeptics doubt its authenticity. It grates on me too, but it's only a temporary thing as I hope to bring the article up to good article quality so will be working on it significantly for the next few weeks. Aiken (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I look forward to seeing your work. (Maybe you can change to "tradition" in the meantime?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I could do, but that might be a little too close to the source. With the "plagiarismgate" currently ongoing I want to be particularly careful with how I'm wording stuff. Aiken (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Blofeld
was just about to do what you did. Some admins have no respect. Trans-Dniestr (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ACE2010
I've answered your ACE2010 question here. Feel free to ask for a clarification. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Little Barrier Island
Thanks for your response to my comment on Malleus's page, but I just checked the move log for Little Barrier Island, and I must be missing something, but it doesn't seem to solve the mystery for me at all. Could you fill me in on the background a little more deeply? Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See the deletion log of Hauturu/Little Barrier Island and all will become clear. – iridescent  20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that when a page is moved, users watching it will automatically remain watching the resulting redirect page. When Little Barrier Island was moved to the Main Page (don't know how, but it was), it seems that when it was moved back it brought back with it all of the Main Page's watchers too. AD 23:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The main page used to just be a page like any other, until someone (take a bow, Maxim) decided to see what the warning was when one tried to delete it (because obviously, the WMF wouldn't be stupid enough not to put some kind of protection on the sixth most visited page on the internet). It is still actually possible to delete it, but it now requires quite a bit of work. – iridescent  23:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much for defending JC when he was attacked for doing an admins job, it was good of you to take the time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Gail Platt and Fiz Brown
I was coming to explain anyway, so I'm not really rude, sorry if you did not know about the page naming thing or I made any confusion there. Plus one user already explained in their edits. When naming pages we go by WP:COMMONNAME. .. which is the name they are most refered to as.. Using a search engine is one way to establish this. Fiz has been known as brown for years, it's a work of fiction, we can't change names just because they marry as part of storylines, it's mentioned in the lead anyway... Like in Gail's article it lists all her names. RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 13:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The space is the box when you move the article is where you explain, otherwise it looks like you're just reverting, which it did in your case. I can just about understand Fiz Brown, but Gail has been known as five different names, including Tilsley which she had as long as Platt. It's confusing to readers having a title of the page that's completely different to the article. This is why we have redirects. AD 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do know what the edit summary space is for, I've used it so many times. I just thought it was aready explained. Certainly no edit war. With Gail, as I said, which ever search brings in the most hits. Platt. That isn't why we have redirects at all, they aren't in place to not confuse readers. I really don't see how having a different page name is confusing? So for example should George H. W. Bush's page be called "George Herbert Walker Bush"? Demi Moore's page be changed to Demi Guynes Kutcher, because she got married? Changing the names as these fictional characters marry is only in the interest of fans. I'm just going by the set guidelines art the end of the day though. RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 14:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bush and Moore have never actually been known as those names. They aren't really comparable as they are real people, whereas we are discussing characters. AD 15:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, you're right. They haven't been known by those names. Just like Fiz isn't axactly known as Stape in the real world. RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 16:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, she is. She's named as Stape in the end credits, and ITV's profile is Fiz Stape too. Google hits are higher because that's all she was known by for 8 years. Now she's only known as Stape. No one on the street refers to her as Brown either. AD 16:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note that her actual name is Fiona Stape, but she has never been known as Fiona, which is why it would be absurd to name the article with that. However, she is well known as Stape, and the article should reflect what her name actually is. AD 16:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

She is only well known in on Coronation Street as Fiz Stape.. not on Google, not in past books, not in most news sources, not on Wikipedia. The problem here you may be confused about the guidelines for writing about fiction. The credits and the serial's official website are not notable because they're essentially in universe objects... We wouldn't name the article with Fiona because it's never been used. Her being credited as Brown for eight years is one of the factors that make the page name point to this. RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 17:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)