User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2007/November

Santikhiri Reloaded
Hi again, after much painstaking research earlier, I've done my best to rewrite & expand the abovementioned as promised. Kindly review and comment if necessary. Thanks. -- Aldwinteo 09:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done. I look forward to having a look later. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking for a formal GA review, or just my comments on the article? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a request for a formal GA review as per follow-up mentioned in our previous discussion. As I've put in my best effort in rewriting & expanding its content recently, I wish to see a final closure on this issue too. Thanks. -- Aldwinteo 15:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. You nominate it, and I'll pick up the review. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to inform that I've follow-up with the nec edits as per 2nd GA review for the above. Thks. -- Aldwinteo 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NR copyedit
Ya Lerenado is a joke; apparently he has taken on a mission of making FACs difficult. Anyway, thanks for at least checking it out and giving me your thoughts. Best, Happyme22 01:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Isaac Newton's religious views
Hi, I read your comment. I think it's supposed to change the tag on the talk page and put failed or on hold tag instead. Also you can remove the article from WP:GAN or put a tag which shows your viewpoint. (Sa.vakilian)-- Seyed(t-c) 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done that. --Malleus Fatuarum 11:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That was rude
What you said was really demeaning and humiliating to me. I wasn't trying to hurt you, but you had to point out every little thing I did wrong. I just had an idea and was really trying to communicate it. Apparently it was dumb, but you didn't have to act the way you did. If you want to point out my grammatical problems at FAC, fine, but doing it on a talk page is rude and demeaning and belittling and serves no purpose at all. You knew what I meant by "more vital". Everyone did. Thanks for crushing my spirit today, even if it was inadvertently. Wrad 05:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps next time you'll think twice before using phrases like "How hard is that to understand?" when trying to explain your ideas in that case. I hardly consider that was intended to be motivational. It wasn't your grammatical errors I was drawing attention to, it was the errors in your logic. --Malleus Fatuarum 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly seemed to me that you were trying really hard not to understand something that was apparently very simple to everyone else. Next time, try to help, not hurt, with your criticism. Okay? But apparently you have a reputation for not being very nice, so what I'm saying isn't going to stick anyway. Wrad 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now who's trying to be motivational and helpful with their criticism? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so I suggest that you might consider setting a better example for those "not very nice" editors like me. It's always a shame when someone resorts to personal remarks in the way that you have just done. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries
Thanks for your understanding. Jokes don't always work well over Wikipedia, and mine can be particularly lame. Oh well... Geometry guy 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My jokes are no better. :) No offence taken or intended. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ping!
You've got mail :) Maralia 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-ping! Also, I've start the review at Talk:Mayslake Peabody Estate. Maralia 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WPGM Newsletter - November 2007
Rudget Contributions 17:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Kersal
Thanks for your suggestions about the Kersal article, don't worry, none of them seemed negative at all. Actually a few that you mentioned were things that had been put in by other editors that I should have changed as I didn't like them, obviously I should have been more bold! Some of them were mine though - all the ones from the Monty Dobkin book in particular. It's a bit difficult when using a book like that to know how often to reference it, so I'll look at the articles you mentioned to see how it's done. And I must say, it's refreshing to meet someone who's even more picky about use of English than I am. :-) Richerman 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Have an ASCII barnstar for your help in getting Edward Low to featured article status!   *     Neil   ☎  14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very glad to hear it made it all the way. It's an excellent article and well deserves its new status. Congratulations! --Malleus Fatuarum 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fanfare please!

 * That's a very kind thought. Thank you very much, it's much appreciated. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates as leads
I asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about this, but got no response. I am now spamming people whe participate in MOS with this request: would you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football and tell me what you think? - Peregrine Fisher 07:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Blyth, Northumberland FAC
Thanks for your support and comments.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 19:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oldham and Salford
Hello again! Thanks for the contact, I hope all is well!

I've just "finished" my work on Oldham (by which I mean all statements now have an appropriate source).... I'm just working on getting hold of a free-to-use version of this painting for use in the article (its a public domain image, but that website own the copyright of the photograph of the painting, which is really petty!). Once I have that, I'll be really happy with the quality of the article then!

I'm not sure about bypassing GA and going straight to FA. Do you think it breaks some kind of convention? My concern is that if I nom it for GA, it could take 2, 3, 4, or even 5 weeks to get a review (there are significant amounts of articles from early October at the nommination page!). I do realise that it is much more akin to FA than GA though as I've researched and written it with that intended outcome.

With regards to Salford, which I agree is in a terrible state (despite its council being quite comprehensive in publishing literature online), it should still use the Infobox UK place. The City of Salford should be served by the Manchester-type infobox because it is a local government district, whereas Salford should keep its current infobox (but be modified).... it is possible to make "UK place" look more grand however, if you take a look at Edinburgh or Belfast.

Other cities also use it, like Carlisle and Bath, Somerset. After Oldham is at FA, I have a personal to-do list, which includes Milnrow, Greater Manchester, Chadderton and... Salford. Perhaps once we have Manchester at FA we (as a project) could turn to Salford to push to GA???

I must say, and this will be unpopular, I'm a little concerned about calling Salford a city. All places lost their borough and city status in England due to the Local Government Act 1972; the new districts had to reapply for charters (including Manchester!). Salford's was passed to the City of Salford district.... however, I'm really not sure how we'd go about tackling that one in the article.... anyway I'm waffling. Get back to me if you can! -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean about that city status. A lot of references I've seen talk rather glibly about the metropolitan borough "inheriting" the city status. But I suppose we can cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it would be a great idea if the project got involved in getting Salford up to spec; in the meantime I'll take a look at the examples you mentioned to see if I can make the infobox look more grand, and keep plugging away at it, bit by bit. Even if we only managed to get it to GA that would be a vast improvement.


 * So far as Oldham is concerned, it's not at all uncommon to go straight to FA without going through GA first. And I really do think that there's nothing to be gained by a GA nomination given the work you've done and the state of development of the article. I really would recommend going straight for FA just as soon as you're happy with the article. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's my poor sentence structing getting to me! I know what I meant to say, but didn't actually say it, which is why I'll never be a copy-editor! I've actioned your request though! Finger's crossed for Oldham now!... I should have the image I want by Wednesday at the latest, which I think will help. The article could get turned down from a very strict reviewer on the basis it's had so many major edits to it of late, and thus might fail Citerion 1 (e). Who knows?


 * I'm becoming more inclined to make Salford more of a personal priority too! There's loads of material about it online (much more than Oldham) and I don't think it'll be hard at all. It seems strange too that we don't have a WP:MANC participant from Salford. We could get Salford's former COA too which always make articles appear more official! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a lot to be said for quick wins in a project, and as you say, there's so much material about Salford that getting it to GA ought to be something that our GM project could achieve fairly quickly. (I'll get that COA into the article - along with an appropriate fair-use rationale, obviously - asap.) --Malleus Fatuarum 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem with regards to looking at Chat Moss! At a first glance it seems fairly clear it is a GA article, but I'll go through with a find comb once I've finished replying here. I actually saw it fit to mention Chat Moss in the new, revamped lead of City of Salford; simillarly I built upon your lead for Salford where I thought it needed a mention of its status with its sister next door.


 * Thanks also for your continued work on Oldham. It's looking even better now! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Two (or more) heads are always going to be better than one. :) I think the strength of the GM project is in the number of people willing to work together. What's been achieved so far is just remarkable, long may it continue. So far as Oldham is concerned, I guess it may never be sexy, but at least its article can try to do it justice. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bramall Hall
I have made some comments at talk:Bramall Hall. As a recent contributer to the article, you may wish to comment further. Regards, Mr Stephen 14:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just seen your comments, for which thanks. I've responded on that article's talk page. --Malleus Fatuarum 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Regards, Mr Stephen 11:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you returning...
Hello. I just wish to say thank you for returning to the BR Standard Class articles and improving on them! --Bulleid Pacific 19:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

UKCOUNTIES?
Hello ! I Hope all is well. I'm contacting you as part of your close involvement with the development of the WP:UKCITIES standard.

In addition to some cosmetic upgrades I've made/requested for the UK Geography project, I'm considering a draft upgrade of the WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties guide, so that it is much more user friendly and at a standard more akin to the WP:UKCITIES standard.

Of course I'd like to have you involved from the start. If you have any concerns or ideas, I'd be grateful if you could leave them at my talk page, where I'll pool together some ideas from some other users and then report back with them. My initial thoughts are they should inline with the existing policy on counties as well as allow for flexibility for ENG/SCO/WLS/NI. Hope you can help, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry it's a little impersonal - It's a bit of a cut and paste job to save time! -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Gorgosaurus
Hi Malleus,

Thanks for your recent GA review of Gorgosaurus. I really appreciated your comments and suggestions for improvement. I've made a few adjustments since your review, and am leaving a note here to make sure that the adjustments made are satisfactory, and are what you had intended for the article. Further input or ideas are more than welcome. Thanks again.

Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  05:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Those changes are exactly what I had in mind. A really excellent article. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

SR Merchant Navy Class
I don't know whether you are interested, but the above article is currently under the FAC procedure, and I am wondering whether you would like to undertake an impartial review of the article and place your findings on the nomination comments page? I am asking as you have reviewed other rail-related articles, and it is useful to get a non-railway point of view on an article that helps it to educate the layman as well as the enthusiast. Thank you for your understanding, --Bulleid Pacific 13:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'll try and take a look at it later. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you manage to take a look at the article? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks (on behalf of the article!!!) for the support. But were there any issues you wished to raise? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a few small copyedit changes, but other than that, no. The article seems fine to me, and I don't see any reason why it ought not to be successful in its FA nomination. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?
I know you've already resisted this above, but would you like me to nominate you for adminship. I'd be glad too. Regards, R udget zŋ 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really touched that you've made that thoughtful and generous offer, but I truly don't think that I'm admin material just yet, perhaps not even ever. I haven't involved myself even in areas like AfDs, and I'm not sure that except in exceptional circumstances I would ever want to. The only admin tools I'd ever be likely to use would be in support of articles being degraded, but I'm not sure that I'd ever have the time or patience for all of the ensuing wiki huff and puff. I admit that's copping out in a way, which is why I haven't ruled the idea out completely. When and if the idea feels right, then maybe. :)


 * I see :) Alright, well thanks for replying anyway. You'll make a great admin anyday. Best, R udget zŋ 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate that my original offer still stands as well. It's surprising how often the buttons come in handy, even when you think you'll never use them - even the little things like being able to read & recreate deleted articles are useful surprisingly often. —  iride  scent  20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have slowly come round to the idea, and I can certainly appreciate that having those few extra buttons could be handy from time to time. So I've decided that I would like to take you up on your offer. Thanks for your confidence in me. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 Iridescent would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Iridescent to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Urmston
Sorry for the repetition of the etymology, I had two sources on the etymology being "Urm's village", both place-name books. I'll mention that at the talk page. --Solumeiras talk 15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum
You need to send it live - add to the top of the list on WP:RFA, and change the "scheduled to end" date & time to exactly 7 days from the moment you do so. —  iride  scent  19:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I was wondering if I should do that, or if I had to let you do it. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whichever - I can do it if you want —  iride  scent  19:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done it now. Hopefully I've done it right. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * zOMG!! You didn't tell me about this! :) R udget talk 16:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to be accused of canvassing. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (Taps head) Oh...   R udget talk 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case m'lud. But I might as well have told you, as I got accused of canvassing anyway. C'est la vie. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, don't be too put off by the opposes - generally, opposers flood in at the start and then slow to a trickle, unless someone uncovers a "smoking gun", whilst the supports come in slow-and-steady. WP:WATCH shows you currently on 65%, with 75% (ish) the generally accepted winning post (although between 70-80% a lot depends on the closer's opinion). —  iride  scent  20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll admit to be being rather taken aback by the initial flood of opposes, especially as I felt that some were completely without foundation. But then I remembered that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I offered to help with some of the nitty-gritty admin tasks, to help keep wikipedia running smoothly. I didn't do that lightly, and if my help is not considered to be competent or trustworthy then so be it. I'll just keep doing what I do. Being an admin is no big deal. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a real pity mate. But one thing I have noticed in these RFAs is that anyone you've ever had an argument with comes out of the woodwork and does their best to trash your chances. There were some opinions passed there that were well out of order and biased as hell. Obviously it's up to you whether you want the job or not, but in the mean time "fuck 'em" they ain't worth the stress. From what I've seen admin just means that you have a target on your back and a fully nappy in the hand. Admins do a shitty job for no appreciation, you make one mistake and the vultures start cleaning the silver, look at what happened to Durova. Meanwhile you're doing a bang-up job here with the rest of us proles. I know I've said it before, but it's always worth a second outing... fuck 'em!!! -- Web H amster  22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm led to believe that being an admin "is no big deal", so I'm really not that bothered. I just thought that I ought to offer to help out. I've offered, and my help isn't wanted. No big deal, and I'll not be offering again; I'll keep on doing what I think is important, in the way that I think it ought to be done. I'm quite happy being a prole, and thanks. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm so sorry to have seen that you want to withdraw your nomination for admin, but I really do understand why you feel you need to do this. I, too, was taken aback by the reaction to your nomination from some, and I hoped my opinion made a very small contribution to outweigh that. I see that at least one other person also shared my viewpoint: that too many editors think a robust, yet civil, difference of opinion in order to arrive at the best course of action, is an example of uncivility or of a quarrellsome or fractious editor. It is not, and if that also makes me unsuitable to be an admin, then I'm glad to be in that excluded group! Although we must assume good faith where possible, one sometimes has the fleeting idea that revenge in some misguided belief of the need to settle old scores was at work at times in that whole discussion. Once again, keep up with the good editing work, and don't lower your standards! Best wishes. DDStretch   (talk)  23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Thanks
I must agree. Requests for adminship is an area I will definitely wait to be nominated for. When I took "the plunge" I self-nominated and it worked for a time. I wouldn't regret taking the oppurtunity to go to RFA, it gives you invaluable experience, and for the most of it, I'm glad. I've built better "editorships" with the editors that voted on both sides. In my opinion, do not withdraw, because you never know what will happen. In you case, opposition could stop at 7 and the support go up more and more. Best, R udget talk 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interests of your request, I'd like to draw your attention to this. Best, R udget talk 17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

South West Coast Path
If you had a few minutes to cast your expert eye over South West Coast Path that would be great. I think it is approaching GA but has been written by a committee! & it shows in places.&mdash; Rod talk 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to take a look. You lot are doing some amazing stuff down there in the south west. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about your RfA
Hello. I'm sorry our RfA didn't succeed. The criteria which people choose as important are strange sometimes! All too often anyone who loses a discussion resorts to accusations of incivility and I have a suspicion that the slightly brusque manner we have 'oop north' sometimes doesn't translate well to our American cousins. Anyway, chin up. Nick mallory (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think that you may be right, but I doubt that my "slightly brusque manner" will be much affected by this RfA fiasco. Each to their own. Some people have told me that I can learn from this experience, and that they may support my next RfA. Well, I have learned something, and my next RfA will coincide with hell freezing over. I wish to God I'd never allowed myself to get dragged into this administrator crap. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. There are many people who will remember something you did in good faith that made them look stupid (usually because they were being stupid), and then will oppose on a specious reason and stick to opposing no matter what.  If you hadn't withdrawn, I have a feeling you would have ended up scraping through.  Irrespective, I wouldn't let yourself be soured over one RFA. My first one failed, and so did a lot of other admins'.  Give it a few months, and if you would like, and if Nick hasn't, I would be happy to nominate you (I'm 100% at the moment on my nominations :) )  You'd definitely pass.  Neil   ☎  09:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but until there's a change in the laws of thermodynamics that results in hell becoming exothermic then I'll be very reluctant to re-enter the Alice in Wonderland world of RfAs again. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maellues, I hope you appreciate that my comments regarding "without prejudice" were sincere. When you've had a couple of tussles with people within the three months preceeding the nom, opposes will inevitably arise. I notice one of Epbr's links refers to a "ho hum" edit summary. Perhaps you picked that up from me? I used it thrice in our discussion on LEAD. It's pert and dismissive and I shouldn't do it. Sometimes two and three year editors do become brusque in discussions with newer editors, without realizing it. While I believe I was in the right wrt to policy, insofar as I came off as needlessly curt, I'm sorry.


 * I'd also be happy to nominate you in a couple of months. I'm at 50%: a successful self-nom, and a failure with Mr. Neil right above me. I waited two years to become an admin. No rush. Marskell (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that you made your comments in good faith, and I have no beef with you. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * These reply will be coming for days yet, but I must agree with Neil. I would be happy to nominate you next time, as a few threads above would suggest, I'm glad you haven't took this too bad and reacted like some others who get a big opposition. To be honest, that "incivility" was founded upon the, ironically, the incivility towards you. I may also note that "rudeness" towards other editors who have given it to you is never the way to react, but from evidence, I didn't think you were that bad, or even bad at all. I respect your decision to withdraw, and I hope once again you will go through RFA, maybe in February or something. &mdash; Rudget contributions 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) But it's very unlikely that my personality will have changed significantly by February.  Web H amster  summed up my view nicely when he said that "one doesn't deal with conflict by bending over and puckering up", so I'll have to be content to remain a prole. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed your RFA after it was withdrawn. Sorry about that! I would have supported you without a shadow of doubt for your calm and patient manner. Also some of the reasons for opposing we're pretty "crap" like "lack of experience with admin tools", how can a member have a good experience with admin tools when none of us have them! Shame really as I think you would make a great admin. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Brownhills
Many thanks for your copyediting and support! ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Great Job!
Thanks! Hopefully, I'll be able to get it up to FPO. But if not, no biggy. Oh, I need to ask you a question. As a reviewer, are you allowed to fail an article on first sight, even though it may not violate: stability, NPOV etc? &mdash; Rudget contributions 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are allowed to yes, if you you think that the amount of work needed to get it up to standard would be too much to be done in the review period (I'm assuming that you're asking about GA), or in exceptional circumstances like personal attacks and so on. Is there a particular article that you have in mind? --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to add, it's always my preference whenever possible to work with the editors to get the article through GA, rather than fail it on sight. But then, you already know that. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I know. Yeah, I meant GA. But, I've been referring to this article. I've failed it, but hopefully my reasons for it have been sufficient enough. See, I'e never failed an article before and wasn't sure what to do. Thanks anyway. Best, &mdash; Rudget contributions 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what's done is done. If the editors feel that your review was in any way unfair I'm sure they'll take it to WP:GAR, and then you get second, third, fourth ... opinions. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote
I mean it when I say I think we should come to a consensus on the FAC thing rather than a vote; but, oddly, that means I would accept it if the consensus were for a vote. Could you offer a model for a vote that we could consider? I did think about this at first, but a number of complexities occurred to me. Firstly, if we elect to this job as a "post", we would need to re-elect Raul as well, to be consistent. Also, in order to vote, we would need more than one candidate, in case Sandy did not reach the required percentage (what that would be, I don't know, but it seems to be about 70%). If the vote were opened across Wikipedia, it is actually possible that Sandy would fail to be elected, because she has enemies (I won't give diffs for my word "nasty" because I don't want to raise old stuff, but some of the criticisms I have seen of Sandy have been unnecessarily personal, and that's putting it politely). I can see your point about inviting those disillusioned with the FAC to have their say, but there's always the risk that they may use the vote as a vote on the FAC itself or a vote on its reform, thereby focussing on Sandy as a scapegoat for the system. This could leave us without the thing we need, which is someone to help Raul with the FAC work. Not that I don't think a discussion of the reform of FAC wouldn't be useful.qp10qp (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have to admit that you're asking me this question at a bad time, but that's the truth.
 * I fully understand why Sandy would not want to be subjected to the RfA kind of humiliation, but what's sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Or we could perhaps choose to spare the gander what happened to the goose. qp10qp (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We could. And to be honest, in Sandy's case I'd be inclined to do exactly that. But there is a more general issue that needs to be addressed, I remain deeply unhappy about appointments between "friends", when they're done almost in secret.


 * I don't expect that my opinion will carry much much weight, and I wish Sandy well in her new role; I just think that the process stinks. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just read your rfa, and I'm sorry it went that way. It seems to me that one enemy torpedoed the vote by posting diffs; the same could happen if we vote for Sandy—such votes are subject to that sort of distortion, whereby a string of people are persuaded to believe something that is actually not true. The method is inherently political. One difference with FAC is that we have other admins but we don't have anyone else, except Marskell, who invests as much time as Sandy in FAR and FAC gruntwork and who watches so many processing articles. To vote just doesn't seem to me the best way to proceed; and I have to say I'm surprised that your experience at rfa hasn't proved to you that consensus and discussion would a better way to proceed than voting and confrontational remarks from drive-by pundits. One reason I dislike voting is that for me it just doesn't go with voluntary activities. And I don't regard talkpage consensus as secret any more than the editing of articles is secret; the number of people involved is limited to those interested, that's all; invite those who are not interested and you get uninformed input. However, please do not feel unwelcome to make your points. Above all, we must continue talking about how to improve FAC, no doubt about that. qp10qp (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've given my opinion. I'm not in the business of trying to push my POV, and my opinion hasn't changed. The RfA process is voluntary, nobody is forced to go through that process, and one is often reminded that being an admin is no big deal. But this is a far bigger appointment that we're talking about here. And I say this in the full knowledge that disagreeing with anyone in the three months before an RfA nomination will result in a fail. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear...
Hello Malleus,

I'm sorry I missed your admin nomination a few days back (which of course I would've supported you with); I have had a computing disaster and crashed my PC beyond repair - I now have a new one. I'm doubly sorry however that the nomination went the way it did.... there was clearly a focussed attempt to undermine the quality of your work, and assassinate your character, both of which were so very disappointing to me. I think you did the right thing withdrawing in such circumstances.

An "admin badge" doesn't make you any greater a contributor though; it's merely a tool for to oversee some of the more mundane and contentious issues. If anything, I think it would restrict your very strong and much needed abilities in article development and writing - certainly two things which are the most enjoyable and worth while things to do on Wikipedia anyway.

Don't be crushed by this. I'm not - Turn this big negative for Wiki-adminship into a big positive for great article writing. I urge you to keep going! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll admit to having been a little taken aback at first, but I'm not at all bothered by it now; I believe that it shone rather a poor light on certain other editors, but what's done is done. It would have been useful to have the better revert button, but I'll live quite happily without it. Having had the opportunity now to reflect on the episode, I think I'll be more likely to stick pins in my eyes rather than go through that fiasco again. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that although I'm much more learned in the ways of Wikipedia now, if someone was to scrutenize my most early periods of contributions in an RfA like they did with you, I would more likely be blocked than anything else! I'm glad you see that process for what it was though. Really, it is a case that admins need you more than you need the badge; you're no less a contributor without it.


 * On another note, on my lovely new PC, I've noticed your talk page is sprawling to near Bibilcal proportions!!! Just thought I'd give you a nudge about archiving some of it - I don't want to crash another PC anytime soon!!! I'm glad all is well, -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC strangeness
I started a topic - Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates and I dearly hope you contribute to it.--Keer lls ton 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)