User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2008/March

Sitakunda Upazila
I have posted updates on the GA review to Talk:Sitakunda Upazila, and have posted a few questions and requests as well. Please, take a look and reply to that page. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm off out now, so I'll take a look this evening when I get back. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another round of issues addressed. I still have a bit of questions. And, I still need help on the lead (may be a bullet pointed list of suggestions telling what is interesting/important to a non-Bangladeshi reader, i.e. you?). Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make some suggestions on the talk page for what I think should be done with the lead. Good work so far. I'm confident we can get this to GA before the hold period ends. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Italic text

Newcastle town wall GA
Thanks for the review & pass, very much appreciated.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

On Friday's talk page
Actually, you're right: you're a very good person to ask for feedback. If you have any comments or criticism about me or my use of the tools, I would like to hear them. Your input is valuable. Acalamari 20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't dream of doing any such thing, I was just being facetious. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you ever have anything to say, let me know. :) Best wishes to you. Acalamari 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

B. F. Skinner
I posted a reply on the GA list-thing for Skinner...if you could see if I have the order right, that'd be awesome! I'm going to work on getting that article to GA standard -- was wondering if you'd be interested in sort of 'mentoring' me through the process? Thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to help you in any way I can to get Skinner that GA listing. I'm still very much a behaviourist at heart myself. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok -- I'm going to start working on it today a little -- could you sort of give me 'assignments' to start on? I'm really not sure how to begin.  Thanks!  Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're looking for suggestions ...


 * I think that the whole structure of the article needs looking at again, but I'd suggest that you might like to start by working on the Biography section. The largest paragraph has very little to do with Skinner's biography, and the whole section is completely unreferenced. Referencing - with inline citations - is really important for GA/FA articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok -- I'll tackle it next -- while I was waiting, I noticed the political views seemed disjointed and just choppy paragraphs (I think someone mentioned that as an issue earlier) -- I tried to fix that...what do you think? B._F._Skinner Thanks for your help! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A good start. I made a few MoS/copyedit changes, but we still need to deal with those two fact tags. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work on finding those references. I changed the format to use the template ; we need to be very careful to provide all of the information that a reviewer will expect. Having looked more closely at the article now, I can see that the citations that are already there need a good deal of work as well. A lot to do on this article! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor referencing will sink even the very best of articles at GA/FA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

must I use the cite templates? I'll work on this soon Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to, but I'd strongly suggest that you did. It standardises the format, and makes it clear what information ought to be included. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Echo back from the wilderness!
Not a problem. You made a very valid point about GA. I actually used to do quite a few of these about a year or so ago, but had a bad experience once with a Greek editor with poor English skills about an Ancient Grecian military skirmish. The article consisted of an 8 paragraph lead (which didn't explain why the battle was taking place), used one source (admittedly it was repeated over and over) and had an image of an Ancient Roman ditch. When I failed it he went berzerk and got his pal to muscle in who agreed I was a (quote) "baby" and should not have failed it because it was rated (by an anon) as A class by the Military history WikiProject.

I've just made a couple of changes to St Buryan according to WP:UKCITIES layout, but on inspection of the talk page, found there is talk of "consistency nazi" reviewers. Great.

Been working on Salford and Rochdale in the meantime, which I've enjoyed however. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, all good reviewers get death threats from time to time. I had a whole load of abusive emails after I failed the Albigensian Crusade, based mainly on the premise that someone with a science degree had no right to be reviewing arts subjects. I really do hate the "group hug" bollox, but sometimes I think that each of needs to be reminded that we're important and special, no matter how much that we pretend that we don't care. I exclude myself from that generalisation, of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed that article, and, it was a fail. It's my first review in a while. I'm not sure if my standards are too high or feedback is too low, but I think I've given helpful feedback on how to take the article forwards, which is surely what the GA process is all about. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's in many ways a nice article, but I think that you were right to fail it. And you're also right that the review should give some guidance for improvements, as I think that yours did. Nice job. My fault has been that I'm often tempted to dig in and do whatever's needed to get the article its GA listing, but I'm beginning to realise that life may be too short for that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that quality of digging in from you, though admire it. You put in alot of great work and think you're really beginning to get a reputation for premium reviewing. Myself? I try not to get into these oft time-and-space sucking "blackholes" of reviews and RfAs so much as I just want to get more and more FAs for the GM area. I particularly want to get Salford and Rochdale upto scratch, then I think I'd start to consider winding down some of my activities on here to be honest! I'm not sure though, as I thought that during FAC for Oldham. Certainly I don't feel there are enough quality editors around yet to feel comfortable in leaving outright. I still believe there is so much to do and so many dangers to beat off!


 * Also, whilst you're about, I've been meaning to share a suggestion with you for a while, although I'm not sure it's your sort of thing or way of working!... At risk of breaching some form of WP:SPAM...(!)... I'd very much recommend a copy of Tradition in Action: The Historical Evolution of the Greater Manchester County for purposes of Wikipedia. It's a 300 page hard-back mini-encyclopedia with colour plates, photographs, diagrams and cites its own sources in full! It's a fantastic resource (I've used it on pretty much every FA we've submitted) and is only a few pounds at a rather famous online book store. I've found it very useful and think you would too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion; sounds good, I'll take a look. While we're sharing confidences, I'll admit that I joined wikipedia just to improve the Trafford articles, which is pretty much done now with the major exception of Trafford Park. There are a few other articles I still want to work on, not to do with the GM project, but once they're done, like you, I think I'll be scaling my efforts back to something more sustainable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for you
Hey MF, I have a quick question for you regarding your comment on WT:RFA, ''I'm rather disappointed that what ought to have been a serious discussion about the duty of care that a nominator has at RfA has so degenerated. Disappointed, but not surprised''. I'm guilty of levity, agreed and noted. (and stopped). Besides that though, I'm a bit puzzled trying to figure out what you mean regarding "duty of care that a nominator has at RfA". What are your expectations of nominators? I haven't delved too far into nomming (I've only done one), and I'm very interested in your opinion about what you believe a nominator's role is both pre-RfA, during RfA, and (not as much) after RfA. Reply here or there, or not at all. Cheers friend, Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of situations such as, for instance, a nominator proposing a candidate whilst apparently being completely unaware that there was an ongoing RfC concerning that candidate. In the particular case I'm thinking of, the candidate was warned by another editor about the likely outcome of his RfA and withdrew. In general, I think that a nominator ought not just to be nominating his mates, but ought to have looked as carefully into the candidate's background as those looking at the RfA will, and not subject candidates doomed to fail to run the RfA gauntlet, and perhaps become another wikipedia casualty as a result. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Malleus. I agree with that 100%.  I can't imagine nominating someone intentionally whilst knowing that they are the subject of an RfC.  That really happened recently?  further, I can't imagine nominating someone without digging all the way back through contribs, for my own reputation if not for the stress levels of the candidate.  I appreciate your follow up, and I'm of course, extremely curious about what candidate you are alluding to as I don't know.  But I can let it go.  Or you can tell me. Or I can let it go.   Damn.  I hope I can let it go.  Maybe a quick dig through your contribs will help me....   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll put you out of your misery. It was Epbr123, during the time of his RfC, back in November. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * zOMG. Thanks for that.  I had just started looking through your contribs and felt a need to vomit at the gross incivility, pompous arrogance...ok, you know I'm just messing with you. (I didn't touch your contribs).  That being said, you've gotten a bad rap somehow.  I don't get it.  Robust =/= incivil, IMO.  Based on your GA work, most recently my direct involvement here,  I think you would be make a fair and balanced terrific admin (I'm aware of your RfA "history" and say meh - I find it to be, frankly, disgusting how you were treated.)  I, for one, would support.  Ok, enough from me.  If you want a nom though, from a n00b, you know where to find me.   Cheers,   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I was just unlucky to fall foul of the wrong people early on in my editing, while I was still finding my feet. But that's water under the bridge now. It'll be a long time before I think about going through another RfA, if I ever do. But I thank you for your kind offer nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's twice now that I've seen you reference pin/stick/eyes. I don't believe you.  Let me know if/when you want a run at it.  I'll nom.  Rudget, who I respect, will oppose, as will others.  But, really do you care?.  The buttons are tremendously useful and you've been battered around long enough to make use of them and would use them appropriately.  I have no doubt that you would use them appropriately, so much so that I'd stake my own tools on it. (Meaning if you were recalled, I'd give up my own.)  There, I said it.  Now that I've inflated your ego a bit, let me know about that nom.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to thank you for the ego inflation, but I really do mean it. I don't want to name names, but there are those that would consider their opposition to be quite justified, and they're as entitled to their opinion as I am to consider it mischievous or fallacious. Perhaps in a few months, after the scarring has begun to heal, I may feel differently, but for now I really would prefer to stick pins in my eyes.


 * Your offer to stake your own tools on my potential misuse of admin tools is way above what I was referring to when I talked about a "duty of care". You obviously have a generous heart. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Generous heart", "snookered". Tomay-to, tomah-to. heh...let me know. I'll be here in a few months. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, Malleus, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers
When I logged in today, I was half expecting to see that the article failed. But... yippeee! Beer Anyone? And, you can pick up check too. Long live Sitakunda Upazila and all other obscure places in the world. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Education in Didsbury
We need to find a good solution to developing the coverage of education; in particular to incorporate information on primary schools. Adding details of schools to one of the lists is not a good idea. If you are not happy with details of primary schools being added to the main article then breaking out an Education in Didsbury page seems the way to go. If you are OK with that I'll create it. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with that, and neither am I happy with the redirect you set up, which I was just about to flag for deletion. Primary schools are very rarely notable enough to have their own articles, so their inclusion in the List of schools in Greater Manchester is sufficient in my view, unless there's something special about one particular school. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, most primary schools do not merit their own pages so the practice is to merge them into articles on their locality. There is significant scope to expand education coverage. I don't see your objection to a separate article. TerriersFan (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My objection is a concern that there may not sufficient notable material for a separate article on, let's say, Education in Didsbury, that would justify it being split from its locality. I may of course be quite wrong, so until I see an example of your alternative proposal I'll withold judgment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
I was wondering if you could make a list of things that you see are wrong with the refs so I can correct them. I will attempt to address your comments and win your support vote if you give me a chance. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My two main complaints are that not every publication with an isbn is in the Bibliography section, only some of them, depending on how many times they're cited, and the parameters inside the cite templates are not used consistently; sometimes id=, sometimes isbn= for instance. I kmow this may seem to be very picky, but we're talking about an article that ought to represent the very best of wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I went through all of the references and made changes to the formats to make them consistent. I also did not put every book used in the reference section since the Wikipedia policy stated that section was for books used more than once. Thus, books that are only used once are not included in the bibliography. I would be happy to change that if you could provide a Wikipedia policy - I am learning new things as I go along and I admit I can be wrong sometimes. I just want to see a Wikipedia policy that I can follow and right now I think the page conforms. Also, papal succession is discussed in the sub-section entitled Apostolic Succession under the section Church and Papal Authority. I did not include mention of a female pope as we are trying to keep the article on task with the most notable events in history. Criticisms of the Catholic Church is a main page see also that is at the top of the Church History section. Criticisms about the crusades and inquisitions are discussed more fully in that article as ours is a brief overview of the most notable events. The picture next to the crusades is about Pope Urban preaching the crusades, hardly flattering. The sale of indulgences and the reformation is discussed and wikilinked in the History section - look for the pictur of Martin Luther and your there! Please come back and take another look, I would really like to win your support. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am wrong again, I just checked the Wikipedia policy its something like WP:FOOT and read further into the style suggestion taking a look at the example and their example does list every book even if its used only once. I am going to go make those changes to the page right now and I hope you come back to reconsider your vote. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made the changes to the footnotes that were needed. If your not too busy elsewhere I'd like to know what you think about the page now and reconsider your vote. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all of the work you've done on the referencing. I've now switched to support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. I have to go do a few cartwheels to get over my joy at your support vote! You made my day. NancyHeise (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreement
It's a pleasure to see we generally agree with each other for once, after our past (regretable) dificulties. Dificulties that were created far more by me than you, I might add. Best Wishes and Happy Editing! Pedro : Chat  21:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No sweat. You said what you thought, and I said what I thought after my failed RfA. It's better out than in, and it's now ancient history as far as I'm concerned. Life's too short to stay bothered about stuff like that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Too true. And thank you. Happy editing! Pedro : Chat  21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Knighton, Powys
Thanks for your help. --MJB (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, Malleus; I got distracted with the Glittergirl FAC disruptor ... such a timesink, takes 25 mins to deal with every time she pops up ... thx for finishing up at RCC, wish I could achieve some calm there and get things to stay focused on WIAFA. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Help for NPOV on Atheism
Malleus Fatuarum. I have looked at GAR and FAR archives and you are one of the Wikipedians who best fight for Neutrality. Your help is needed at Atheism where the article sounds as an apology of Atheism and worse, it is a Featured Article! The editors are strongly against any change. They are propose a very minor compromise in the form of linking to Criticism to Atheism.

I told them the article on atheism "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." (NPOV)

The discussion place is here. Please help. Kleinbell (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quantock Hills
Hi, I've just put Quantock Hills up for GA but wondered if you had a few minutes to cast a copy editors eye over it?&mdash; Rod talk 15:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks&mdash; Rod talk 14:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC
Thanks for your kind words. I took a break this morning and realized I needed to persevere to the end. The new FA comments seem to be at least something I can address, they arent blanket condemnations with no specifics so I am glad about that. I am presently working on them. Thanks for your note. NancyHeise (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Elderly Instruments
Hi there, just letting you know that Hurricanehink has copyedited Elderly Instruments. If you are so-inclined, please revisit your opposition. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL
Not any time soon! To go through what these Guys/Gals go through for the few xtra buttons....No thanks. I have more fun just being me :-) Shoessss | Chat  02:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that the pain of my own failed RfA is still too recent for me to think of the process as being "fun". :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) Ah, you are still young. Remember that only opinions are expressed at Rfa’s.  It is not a judgment of character or worthiness.  But rather a popularity contest at any given time.  Today, what is ones sweet heart is tomorrows rough.  If you come here, to Wikipedia, to look for validation of intelligence or wit, sorry to say, wrong place.  However, if you are looking to contribute to the dissemination of knowledge, you will be welcomed with open arms by the respected members of the community.  And DAMN with the rest.  Take care and just remember, do what you think is right – not what someone else may think is right. Shoessss |  Chat  02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Elderly Instruments redux
Thanks for all your help and input on this FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Guinness. Nice and cold, just the way I like it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Middlewich GA review
Thanks for all the help with GA review, the massive amount of editing you've done, and getting me to put it forward for GA in the first place. Salinae (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'll not suggest trying for FA just yet, (-) ) as that's a quantum jump, but I hope that what we've done with Middlewich will be a guide for the other -wich towns, and others in Cheshire. You should be pleased with what you've achieved today. I know that I am. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for welcoming me back. I think I am just going to stay out of anything outside the mainspace and only edit articles from now on. That way there will be less chance of me being wound up so much by people which is what got me into trouble in the first place! Still I am sure I gave the trigger happy admin a bit of joy. ┌ Joshii ┐└ chat ┘ 00:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to get dragged into all of the other wikimadness, so your plan sounds good to me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

GAs
I see you have nominated Beeston Castle for GA. You have made a vast improvement to this article and I hope it will pass. A few thoughts while it while it is waiting to be considered. It already has enough images but, as so much of the article is historical, I wonder if one of the recent ones should be replaced by something more historical (see ideas on the right). I have copied these from Ormerod (out of copyright). Also I wonder if "See also" should really be "Further reading" (I thought "See also" was for internal links, but I may be wrong).

Middlewich is proving to be somewhat troublesome and I hope your tremendous efforts pay off. I'm not sure that I agree with all the topics raised by Dr. Cash. I'm not making comments on the talk page because I do not want to mess up the current process. But in time it will come up for GA review (if it passes now) and may well get further criticism. I'm not sure that getting rid of "Religion" is a good idea. I know the world is becoming increasingly secular but religion still plays an enormous part in many people's lives. "Religious sites" is now not really separate from "Landmarks" and it leads to repetition about the date of foundation of St Michael's (also mentioned in the lead). Also, when Runcorn was being assessed for FA the article was criticised for its short paragraphs. Middlewich is full of short paragraphs (where's the consistency?). Anyway that can be dealt with in due course.

I should like to get Chester Cathedral accepted as a GA, especially as some excellent photos of its interior have been added recently. If you get time would you like to have a look, improve it, and give advice? Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all those useful suggestions. I agree with your comment about Religious sites not now really being separate from Landmarks, and all I can think to do is to make it a subsection of Landmarks and tidy up the repetition. The short paragraphs would almost certainly be commented on at FA, but I think there's enough in each of them to satisfy the GA criteria, which obviously aren't quite so strict. Well, I hope so anyway. :-)


 * I'll be happy to take a look at Chester Cathedral and let you know what I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Skerryvore - many thanks. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  19:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and for your ongoing assistance. I didn't think it was a credible FAC without a modern picture, then one suddenly appeared. Any suggestions for further improvements always appreciated. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  09:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done with Middlewich. Bet you need a rest now!  After that - - I've had another go at Chester Cathedral, but feel a bit too close to it now.  When you're ready could you have another look?  User:Joopercoopers is offering more of his excellent photos on Talk:Chester Cathedral.  I'd like to use them all, but this would leave it too cluttered; and I'm not that keen on galleries.  Perhaps I can persuade him they they should be on Wikimedia Commons and the  link could take the reader there.  What do you think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm childishly pleased about Middlewich. There's still quite a bit I'd like to see done to the article, but the pressure's off now, at least until Beeston Castle gets its review anyway. :-) I'm optimistic that Middlewich can act as a model for other Cheshire towns, and perhaps encourage other editors that GA (at least!) is a realistic and worthwhile goal. I certainly believe that the article improved dramatically during the push for GA in any event.


 * On the subject of Chester Cathedral, I'm not fond of galleries either, certainly not in an article like that one. Putting them in Commons with a link sounds like a much better idea to me. I understand what you mean about getting too close to the article, so when I've finished celebrating I'll see what I can do to help with the copyediting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's current RfA.
I made a mistake by letting Chet's off-wiki actions influsence what I wrote about my oppose. I took his joke the wrong way and I shouldn't've brought it up in the RfA, it was not appropriate. 86.141.39.178 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The canvassing was nothing. As it happens I don't see anything wrong with canvassing if it's done openly. My opposition was entirely based on Sceptre's own behaviour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I was concerned because of the big argument (for want of a better word) with Riana, regarding Che's actions. 86.141.39.178 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do find it somewhat ironic that you chose in the RfA to assume bad faith of many contributors and demonstrate borderline incivility, in complaining about the candidate's alleged failure to recognise or implement exactly those policies/guidelines. I note such issues clouded your own RfA a few months ago, in particular one comment which suggested you had a tendency to be "disputatious without cause", something which from recent contributions in WP space I would tend to agree with. Please make an effort to improve in this area, the balance of your contributions in mainspace is excellent and it devalues them if the first exposure people get of you is something like this. Orderinchaos 14:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider the behaviour of you and sevaral others in that RfA to be little short of harrassment, and frankly disgraceful for an administrator. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. There are already too many others who appear unable to distinguish between disagreement and incivility. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I seriously object to your characterisation of my remarks as "little short of harassment" - let's have a look. 1 - Voted. 2 - Replied to a remark (3 diffs) in an extremely calm manner, without actually disagreeing with the point being made. 3 - Gave an example of a situation where a variance may come up. 4 - Added a clarifying comment to something which looked highly negative but had considerable relevant background. 5 - Added text to my own vote. 6 - Made a sympathetic comment and additional remarks to another support vote. 7 - Fair comment in response to your reply to 6. 8 - Linked diff and suggested maybe this wasn't the place for the discussion between yourself and myself. Added no comments after this point, archived to talk page some 5 hours later. If you are making allegations against my manner towards you, I'd like you to be specific, or otherwise desist. Your handling of this situation has regrettably not been one of your prouder moments, and I do hope that you consider my comments above, plus those of LaraLove and others on the RfA itself which directly addressed your intemperate and hostile manner there. Orderinchaos 18:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I seriously don't give a monkeys what you think, and I would request that you cease your campaign of harrassment forthwith. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hey Malleus - just a note of thanks for your support at my recent unsuccessful RfA. I'll be back in a few months with more experience and more coaching - I hope to still have your support then. Thanks again - Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that you weren't sucessful this time, better luck next time. And remember, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A star for you



 * I'm not sure what to make of that, but for sure it's better than being called a dick . So thanks, I think. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarified. Sorry about that. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:40 23 March, 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, a little joke. Still better than being call a dick though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

SS Christopher Columbus is a FAC
I have (self) nominated this article at Featured_article_candidates/SS_Christopher_Columbus. As one of the significant editors of this article by number of contributions, as well as a participant in its GA candidacy, your input would be valuable. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck with the nomination. I haven't looked at the article much since the GA nomination, so I'm looking forward to see how it's developed since. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments so far, I've responded. (TRM seemed to encourage being pinged about comments :) ) ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally clear on the protocol for this, since you commented already, but you would be very welcome to co-nom this FAC if you like, just add your name somewhere at the top... I'd be flattered. Totally up to you. Thanks in any case. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My co-nomination would likely carry even less weight than my support vote. In any case, you and Maralia deserve all the credit for getting the article to FA; I just did a bit of copyediting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, wanted to offer but you have a point. I answered your image related stuff on my talk to keep things together. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I wasn't serious, I thought you'd come back and say "Your contributions were absolutely crucial. I couldn't possibly have got the article to where it is today without your help. I'll be in your debt forever." (I won't bother with all of the smileys, they would take up too much space.) :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your contributions were absolutely crucial. I couldn't possibly have got the article to where it is today without your help. I'll be in your debt forever. Or at least a good long time. Slap your co-nom on there and quite trolling for compliments. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To be serious just for a moment, before I get banned and/or blocked, I haven't done anything beyond mechanical copyediting to the article. You and Maralia added the content, and you deserve the credit. The nom is looking good so far I think, with issues being addressed as they crop up, so fingers crossed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

civility
Malleus, I believe your conduct at some RfA's (namely Requests for adminship/NorthernThunder) is inappropriate. Please retain civility, your rude response are not appropriate.Balloonman (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm uncertain why you believe that I have even the slightest interest in your beliefs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but be forwarned, this is a warning about incivility on the various RfA's. If you continue with rude responses, you may be blocked.Balloonman (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What a surprise. Not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Civility blocks don't work. But that doesn't mean that people don't try them. Malleus, you know I have a great deal of respect for your contributions and your talents... do me a favour and don't give admins who should know better the opportunity to do things that don't work but cause upset, ok? You can get your point across without needing to be sarcastic, I'm sure, you are a very good writer. I'd really appreciate it if you didn't get blocked just now, because I need your help! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got no intention of taking any further part in the RfA process, threats of civility blocks or no. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much for the "please don't go"/s, but, please don't go. your edit summary said you might leave Wikipedia. I hope that's not true. I'm hoping you meant you might leave the RfAs (and for what it's worth, I hope that's not true as well). Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant if the threat of a civility block materialised. I've given up on the RfA process, it clearly doesn't work.I won't mention the absurdity of an admin coach not understanding when blocks should be used. Oops, I just did. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your choice, of course, Malleus. RfA has lots of problems, no doubt.  Admin coaching does too.  Don't let The Man drag you down though.  You do a lot of good work around here.  Be damned whoever thinks admin is the goal or end all.  Be damned.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I came here for one purpose and one purpose only to mention that your behavior was inappropriate. I had no desire to turn it into an official "warning."  But your response basically left me with no choice... instead of being civil, you decided to be rude and continued being rude after I stopped posting.  And my initial comment was polite and friendly.  You are the one who got defensive.Balloonman (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My response left you with no choice other than to threaten me with a block for incivility, something that even a tyro admin candidate would know is inappropriate? Please do me the courtesy of not taking me for a fool. Civility is demanded from both sides, not only from me to you, but also from you to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I came here to let you know that your comments were rude. READ uncivil.  Your response was, "I'm uncertain why you believe that I have even the slightest interest in your beliefs." which is a statement that you don't care that you were uncivil.  Thus, with a blanket statement that you don't care and had no intention of changing, that caused me to elevate the statement from a simple "friendly gesture" to a spelled out warning.  If you had said anything else, hell if you had said nothing, I would have been done.  Instead you showed the same hostility here that you showed in the RfA.Balloonman (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it so hard to believe that I meant what I said? I don't agree with you and I don't care what your beliefs are. I see nothing rude or "uncivil" in being straight with you and telling you that. Insubordinate, perhaps. Is that your problem? That I don't take your authority seriously? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned about a civility issue here, and because this appears not to be on the path towards resolution, I am opening up an RfC on user conduct. &mdash; scetoaux (T/C) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You must do whatever you think is best, but I will not be taking any part in it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is a waste of time, Scetoaux.  You really don't have much to go on.  Malleus is a net positive to this project called building an encyclopedia.  Is he crass at times?  Sure. Admittedly so.  So what.  He is a valued member of our little virtual group here and I don't belive you'll get very far with an Rfc.  Good luck with that though.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk about damning with faint praise. ;-) I'm quite sure that there will be some support for Scetaux's RfC. I'd be the first to admit that I'm no saint, and I've ruffled a few feathers. Que sera, sera. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you've at least got one admin's support. Do I think you could be more "civil" in RfAs?  Sure.  Do I think you should go away?  Absolutely and unreservedly NO.   Que sera.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)I thank you for that. I wouldn't bother to try and argue a case in defence of anything that I've said in any RfA, but that doesn't mean that I agree with this charge of incivility. I continue to find it strange that some individuals are permitted to be abusive, whereas I get a slapping for simply saying it as I see it. But I'm old enough to know that nobody ever claimed that life was fair, so the RfA issue has already been resolved as far as I'm concerned. I simply won't be commenting on any further RfAs. I'm not quite sure what an RfC would be intended to achieve beyond my non-participation in RfAs anyway, as a personality-transplant is completely out of the question. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said he should go away, or be banned from RfAs, or whatever. The issue here is his incivility, and this is what I've opened this RfC to address. I appreciate that you're telling me that what I'm doing is a waste of time, Keeper76. &mdash;  scetoaux (T/C) 23:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Scetoaux. I will be clearer.  It is not a waste of time to you because you feel it will somehow....shoot, I don't know what you think it will do.  I feel it is a waste of time because of what I specifically said above that it won't do.  It will not help build an encyclopedia.  It's drama for drama's sake.  It's trying to ascertain what one person's "tone" is by reading words on a screen (and using your own internal tone).  Malleus is direct, calls spades spades (and sometimes calls them fucking spades).  And then he goes back and writes incredible articles.  GAs.  FAs.  Net positive.  This is a distraction, an unnecessary one, and therefore, a waste of time.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with this summary of the situation. Thanks to Keeper for writing it so clearly. I do not think that anything good will come from this RfC.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care how many GAs or FAs he's written. It does not give him the right to be rude and/or uncivil.  Your tone here is somewhat questionable in of itself.  If I were you I'd check my words as an administrator.  Your job is to help resolve disputes, not add to them by questioning others that attempt to resolve them. &mdash;  scetoaux (T/C) 15:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Put him on a charge! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of doing so. &mdash; scetoaux (T/C) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken again above Scetoaux. My job is what I do to pay my mortgage.  My job is to make sure my 2 year old son gets food for dinner.  Telling me to "check my words as an administrator", as if an admin is somehow better than an editor at large, is a veiled threat Scetouax, especially starting with the phrase "if I were you".  You are not me,  and shouldn't pretend to be.  Half the problem here is that you are trying to get conformity to something that "you feel should be happening."  You think Malleus was rude.  Others do not.  Let the RfC run if, as Malleus says, it somehow makes you feel better.  And how exactly do you know what my tone is?  You can't hear me talk.  You can only see me type.  That's exactly what I said in the post above that was causing the problem.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not continue to discuss this with you, since it is clear that you are not willing to hold a peaceful discussion with me on this manner. I in no way threatened or provoked you.  Your tone, however, is downright hostile and confrontational.  I interpret your tone based upon the manner in which you present your ideas in type, which is the same thing you did in your interpretation of my words above as a "veiled threat."
 * I apologize for any inconvenience, but this RfC will run to conclusion, and already has support from two other users, including an administrator. If you would like to contribute further to this discussion of incivility, please do so at the RfC. &mdash;  scetoaux (T/C) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself. I'm sorry you feel that anyone who challenges anything you say is a threat.  I, for example, thought we were holding a peaceful discussion. In the Rfc, so far, you have the "support" of balloonman, who I highly respect (and co-admin coach with no less), and epbr (who, by the way, has a long history of disputes with malleus, so how he can call his view of the dispute an "outside view" is beyond me.) I have no interest in the RfC, but I will watchlist it for humor's sake.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should add your sentiments above to the RfC's talk page, Keep. Tan   |   39  15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah. Life's too short.  Unless it gets really ridiculous, which I'm sure it won't, I'm not going to bother with it.  Let me tell you how it will likely turn out though.  Nothing.  Maybe a "topic ban" that says MF can't comment on RfAs? Yeah right, that would be highly unorthodoxed.  He already said he's done with them anyway.  So, the only possible "sanction" is what?  "Be more civil"?  Don't we have an article to write somewhere?  Oh, wait, that's what MF is probably doing right now while we clutter his talkpage.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To paraphrase Stephen Redgrave, if anyone sees me comment at another RfA they have my permission to shoot me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a waste of time at all, if it lets you and Balloonman get whatever's bothering you off your chests. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're free to give your side of the story at your RfC. Your choice. &mdash; scetoaux (T/C) 13:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything further to say on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Caps at FAC
Malleus, re Featured article candidates/SS Christopher Columbus, when you cap your commentary, please add your sig to the subject line of the cap so I know it was capped by you. Otherwise, I've got to step back through the diffs to make sure that it was you who capped and that your concerns are resolved (sometimes nominators cap comments, when they shouldn't). Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to get it right next time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply:
I withdrew my statement. You have yet to do the same. &mdash; scetoaux (T/C) 19:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have yet to do the same as what? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To withdraw your inflammatory, uncivil statements. Sorry to tread on your cult of personality here, but RfC is only one step away from ARBCOM. Initially I decided that this situation would not escalate to that level, but now I'm not so sure. Your behavior will determine if this gets taken to ARBCOM or not.  I no longer withdraw from the RfC. &mdash;  scetoaux (T/C) 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You must do whatever you think is appropriate. I'm quite sure though that you can guess what my opinion of your behaviour and attitude is without me having to spell it out for you. I simply gave you my entirely civil comments on what I perceive to be your own inflammatory and uncivil statements. My opinion has not changed since then, and it is highly unlikely ever to change no matter how many threats you or anyone chooses to deliver. I really think that you ought to reflect that RfCs cast light on the behaviour of all the concerned parties, not just the accused, and to consider whether this is really reflecting well on you. I am a little surprised that your admin coach has not offered you the same advice. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you have any standing to accuse me of incivility when you refuse to be civil yourself. I understand that RfCs cast light on my behavior as well as yours, and as I said in the RfC runs a risk of compromising my prospects for adminship, but hopefully some uninvolved editor will see this from a true outsider's perspective (which so far none have) judge the situation from an unbiased perspective. &mdash;  scetoaux (T/C) 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case I hope that you will understand why I do not believe that it would be productive to continue this discussion. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed. If you want to escalate things even further then be my guest; I won't be losing any sleep over it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) I withdrew the RfC (for the last time) for personal reasons as brought up by Tanthalas39 on my talk page. &mdash; scetoaux (T/C) 19:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for this entire debacle. Understand that I still do not believe that your behavior that led me to file this RfC in the first place was appropriate.  Yet I understand that nothing I can do will change anything, and in this case I believe this simply reflected badly on all sides involved.
 * This may not make a difference to you, but also please understand that I do not dispute your contributions as a whole to the encyclopedia, and even through our personal differences, I respect these contributions, especially including those Good and Featured Articles.
 * Please accept my humble apology. All I wish is to put this behind us now, and continue on as before (but just a little bit wiser). &mdash;  scetoaux (T/C) 20:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting it behind us sounds good to me. I know that you expressed concerns about the effect this "debacle" may have on your forthcoming RfA, but for all my faults I don't bear grudges. I certainly wouldn't be opposing you over this incident, even if I was still commenting on RfAs, but unsurprisingly I would be very unlikely to support you either. Others will have to make their own minds up. I believe that you displayed poor judgement, but you'd be in good company. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We did it, SS Chris is a Featured Article!
What can I say? Your helping get this article to GA after it failed the first time convinced me that maybe the old girl had what it took, and you pitched in on the FA to boot, commenting and fixing things too. Amazing. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, great news! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Last subheader relating to "that which no longer exists"
Regarding this post, the last paragraph, consider it done. Looking forward to never having to do that. Nice work on the above subsection, BTW - FAs go down smooth with a nice kick. Cheers, Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)