User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2007/December

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm just alerting you to this. I don't really have any strong views on it, so I'll backup whatever your opinion is. Epbr123 19:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I probably ought to have AfD on my watch list. :) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you have joined the project. We need you and more like you to do necessary work on some of the important (and at present poor) Cheshire articles. Sorry you missed adminship; but what is their loss is Cheshire's gain. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy 15:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I look forwards to getting my hands dirty on some of the Cheshire articles soon. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I’ve had look through the Chat Moss article and it looks very good, this was all I could come up with:

• “peat bog that makes up some 30% of the City of Salford” sounds informal, but this could easily be solved by changing ‘some’ to something like ‘approximately’.
• I think there needs to be a sentence or two on how the moss was formed after the first paragraph in the ‘Geography and ecology’ section.
• Also for the ‘Geography and ecology’ section, would it be possible to get an aerial photograph to show the scale of the moss’ coverage?
• In 'History' it might be a good idea to add a reference for the old Celtic word for wood, but I don’t think it’s too important at GA if you can't find one.
• “In 1895, Manchester Corporation purchased Chat Moss from Sir Humphrey de Trafford, with a view to using the moss as a refuse disposal site” would this de Trafford be Sir Humphrey de Trafford, 3rd Baronet who became Baron in 1886, in which case he should probably be linked.
• For the ‘Economy’ section, would it be possible to give some ideas of how many farms were in the area at the high of agriculture or some details on the ammount of land used?

I’m sorry I couldn’t raise more points, but I hope this is more because this is already a pretty comprehensive article rather than my lack of inspiration. The points I’m raising are obviously only minor and the overall article strikes me as very good, I can’t see why it shouldn’t be passed and it would certainly receive my support if it went forwards as an FAC.

On a different note, I’ve been browsing through Greater Manchester related articles doing my bit to assess some and came across the History of Reddish; I’ve not had a chance to look closely at this article yet, but at a glance it appears very well referenced, broad in its coverage etc. and generally close to GA. So much so that Jza84 assessed it as A-class though it hasn’t been through the GA process (it’s since been put down to B-class for this reason). I think this is a prime candidate and wonder what you think? Nev1 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You said you nominated Chat Moss for GA yesterday, but I checked on WP:GAC and couldn't find it there, are you sure it has been nominated? I wouldn't want you to be twiddling your thumbs waiting for a review until the the cows, sheep and pigs come home :) Nev1 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please ignore my last message, my tyoing let me down and I'd been looking on WP:GA. Sorry. Nev1 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions, for which thanks, and I'll see what I can do to address them.

I've not had a chance to look at the History of Reddish article yet, but if Jza84 has rated it as an A-class then I'll definitely be taking a look at it sooner rather than later. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

– The referencing is certainly A-class, and its much better than much of our project's content, though concede that there is some B-class prose in there too! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned Chat Moss possibly becoming FA, but I've noticed that there hasn't been any editting on the article since it was promoted to GA. Do you intend to put it through FAC or peer review? Nev1 (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to put in at least a photograph, and maybe a map, before I think it would stand a chance at FA, but I've been away for the last week or so. Hopefully I'll be able to finish it off next week. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Worsley bog body is genuine; it's Romano-British but apart from that I'd need more time to find stuff out. Definately something interesting to put in the article though. Nev1 23:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What you've added looks good. Sorry I wasn't of more help, my access to my usual sources has been rather limited. If I get a chance I'll have a look anyway to see if there's anything I can add. Nev1 14:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! It has been recommended that I ask you to have a look at an article that I am attempting to get to FA status, London congestion charge, for copy editing and other purposes. I wondered if you could take a look at the article and suggest any improvements that could be made. Many thanks for your help. Regan123 (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look, although I may not have the chance until tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for any help you can give. Regan123 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say thank you again for your copy editing. I can small an a FA nomination coming if we can sort out a map...Regan123 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish you luck with it. I'll do what I can to help if you nominate it, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had a moment to look at History of Somerset I would appreciate it - but I've just nominated it for GA - so if you are likely to be the GA reviewer please ignore this request. I'm also working on Exmoor but that still has merge & {{fact}} tags to be dealt with.— Rod ^talk 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't be the GA reviewer, as in the light of recent events I've decided to take a little break from it. So I'll be very happy to look over the History of Somerset article. I really don't know how you find the time to produce all of these GAs and FAs. :) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I must point out the writing is not all me, I just polish & add refs etc. To have the time I try to stay out of all the politics - but I do have sympathy for your recent experiences.— Rod ^talk 21:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked a question at Talk:York Museum Gardens#number format and would be interested in your comments! Thanks. PamD 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue III - December 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news The project now has 31 members. 3 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. Andrew has also created another template for your talk page (even though this links to your userpage) which displays for all to see that you are a member of the project. You can add it to your page by including {{WPGM Talk}} to the page. It may be difficult to see the true effects of these welcoming messages, but I'm estimating that since the introduction of these that 12 new users have joined, all 100% have accepted their invitations, and therefore they are 100% successful in their aim. Greater Manchester Article News Once again, the project has been subject to much praise from three newly promoted featured articles, and one more good article. Oldham (nom), Manchester (nom), M62 motorway (nom) and Chat Moss (review) have all passed with flying colours. Featured articles now make up 0.03% more of the overall articles that there are relating to the project, than last month. Of all 791 pages which are tagged with this template, 100% have been assessed with the new scale which was introduced last month. It may also be worth noting two others pages that are undergoing transformations are: List of companies based in Greater Manchester and Belle Vue Zoo. Current Debates There was a lengthy debate over Manchester Airport this month, which lead to three article for deletions, second nominations viewable here and deletion review viewable here. Basically, what happened was there was quite a great misunderstanding of what the purpose of the lists actually were. They were to compile a list of the destinations served by each terminal and linked along into a sub-page, where it would seem the overview page (i.e. Manchester Airport) would look less cluttered, as was the suggestion at the peer review. Some participants at the first AFD, stated that reviews shouldn't be carried out upon unless there is consensus, and as they are not authorative should only be used as a guide. It was soon sorted though and all three daughter-lists were deleted. There has also been a change to the projects aims, which took a dramatic overhaul this week following the FA pass of Manchester. The change was performed by Jza84. It is now recognised that we should bring not only top importance articles to FA standard but also ones that have been long-since reviewed, like Altrincham and Stretford. And if you're wondering why Salford is there it's due to the fact that there is a consensus among the project members that as Salford is in such close vicinity to the City of Manchester, that it's our "duty" to help promote it. The change came about about after this discussion. Monthly Challenges New this month, we have to get Greater Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as FA-Class and the proposed "skipping" of the GA process, it may not be too long before we see this under the success section on the project mainpage. It would be ideal if all 791 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month! But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. The progress monitor can be seen here. Once again, Portal:North West England has been subject to much exposure on behalf of it's editors. The current status of the portal is looking good and it has so far gained unanimous support at it's FPOC. Hopefully, it'll be promoted and we'll have yet another success on our hands. Also, most major articles that are relevant have been tagged with a shortcut to the Portal mainpage, by Jza. And finally, have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Created by Rudget | Single-Page View

I meant to write we should not she would. Oh well. Fixed now. :) — Rudget _{contributions} 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The December 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 January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Malleus, I note that there has been some discussion about your name, above. Are you sensitive about it? I don't see why you should be! But I am curious. I assume that the name is modelled on the famous Malleus Maleficarum, and it means literally Hammer of Fools, in the sense Scourge of Fools. So far so good. But the form of the second word is feminine, which is unexpected if the intention is to include both male and female fools. More usual would be Malleus Fatuorum. Can you explain your choice, please? (As for my own name, it is simply a Greek neuter plural: νοητικά.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sensitive about it. You're quite right, it was modelled on the Malleus Maleficarum. What little Latin I once knew has almost all left me now, hence my mistake with the gender. Absolutely nothing to do with the misogyny so evident in the Malleus, only my own ignorance of Latin grammar. So thanks for correcting me on that. I'll be requesting a change of name as per your suggestion, so that there can be no possible doubt that I'm gender neutral where fools are concerned. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, Malleus. That's right: folly knows no boundaries.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In view of certain recent events, I decided instead to change my signature to indicate my gender neutrality. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to do it formally, go to WP:CHU and follow the instructions there; your edit history will be automagically changed so all the edits show as coming from the new username. The new spelling isn't already taken so it won't cause any problems. — iridescent 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your further comments, Malleus Fatuarum. (I like the Latin name!) The problem then is how to include the findings of studies done by reputable writers such as CNN's Vatican analyst, John Allen, and an encyclopedist of religion, Massimo Introvigne. In the article on parapsychology, there is a whole section with three subsections containing the findings of objective studies on the topic. The research findings of Allen, Introvigne, Messori, Plunkett, et al are worthy of a serious encyclopedia, and perhaps even worthier than the scientific criticism of parapsychology. I believe this matter has to be addressed squarely. :) Marax (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought a lot about your suggestion of moving out the replies to another spot. I've attempted to do it mentally but was not satisfied with the results. I believe that (1) it is difficult to write about replies to criticism in some place where criticisms have not been fully expounded, (2) the writers for the replies have clearly greater expertise and notability than the critics, and so deserve number two slot to the discussion; this might be debatable, so am referring you to (3) Alec's defense of this structure here, on giving equal space to responses to Opus Dei. Scroll down a bit and you'll see his argument.

So, in response to your concern that the replies are an "apparent refutation of the previously stated criticism," and to these 3 reasons, what I have done is to change the subtitles to Critical Views and Supporting Views. I've also tweaked the previous section title to "Statements of Catholic leaders." What do you think? Marax (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've placed my comments at the Opus Dei GAR as well to ensure these discussions can help future attempts at improvements. Marax (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. Sorry, my mistake. On re-reading that thread I see you were responding to my comment to LaraLove (I think)! WP:POINT and making a point are to often mixed whent they shouldn't really be. No big issue on anyone's part of course. Thanks for replying at WT:RFA. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As you say, no big deal. :) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. It's so good to meet people round here that respect that they can disagree yet also respect each others rights to disagree. You're good, and I'm increasingly regretting my oppose at your RfA. Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is my masterplan; to hide my true hot-headed, untrustworthy nature just long enough to get my hands on the admin tools. And then wikipedia better watch out! (JOKE!)) But to be truthful, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than consider going through that process again. I understand that you and everyone else who opposed had their reasons, perfectly justifiable so far as they were concerned, but it felt like a kangaroo court to me. But c'est la vie. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. :) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to get one thing off my chest over that RfA. You, Pedro, accused me of reverting a POV edit and then replacing it with my own original research. When that charge was proven to be untrue, you then continued to oppose, apparently on the grounds that pointing out the truth is "uncivil". I will simply say that "uncivil" has an assonance with "go swivel", and I hope that we can leave it at that. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. Okay, sorry you feel so angry about that. But what changed between 22:11 and 04:52? One response was reasoned and pleasent, and then suddenly you're throwing "uncivil" at me? Pedro :  Chat  08:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel angry at all; I just didn't want there to be anything left unsaid between us. I wasn't, btw, throwing uncivil at you; I was simply recalling the catch 22 that you put me in. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I've removed myself from the discussion temporarily, as Freechild was getting upset with my robust counter-arguments, I wondered if it might be worthwhile stating that there has not been any call to improve the article prior to it being nominated for deletion. That was the "traditional" way of dealing with articles with similar kinds of unsatisfactory content which could, on editing, gain satisfactory content. It hasn't happened here or in any of the cases nominated.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be true, as suggested to me recently, that some editors misinterpret our northern "brusqueness", and habit of calling a spade a f*****g shovel as being in some way "uncivil". I just think that it's an outward sign of our open-minded approach to exploring the world. :)

Specifically about these Lists of Churches, my view is as I stated in the AfD. The criteria shouldn't be just about what information is presently in the article, but what information could conceivably be added to the article. If I can't imagine any, or nobody can say what that might be, then delete, otherwise keep, pending the development of the article. So I do very much take your point about calling for the article to be improved before taking it to AfD. If nothing else, that seems like the "civil" thing to do, instead of wasting other editors' time arguing the toss. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, he has once more accused me of incivility, along with harrassment, making demands, etc (on the AfD for lists of churches in Oxford), and his new argument (seeing as the others seem to have been dealt with) is about the lack of citations and the fact that the entire article is not notable since the individual churches are almost always not notable. This rubbish needs dealing with, and so I have replied, but I think he will not listen, as he has a poor track record of listening to refutations of his claims, as he persists in repeating them time and again, even after their refustaion, without any attempt to deal with the refutations.

On another matter. I'm glad you've done some editing on Cheshire. One part of what you altered (about the boundaries of Cheshire, which I had added myself after getting fed up with glaring erroneous claims, particularly in Historic counties of England) didn't seem to read well, and so I've made another alteration. I hope you don't mind. I'm also going to clarify an issue in Crewe under a heading of "Toponymy", as most accounts gloss over the fact that the pre-railway population of Crewe refers to what is now the civil parish of Crewe Green, and not the town of Crewe (though us locals in Crewe Green and Haslington always knew it as "Crewe Green" anyway unless we were being particularly stuffy and formal.) The civil parish was originally called Crewe, but changed its name in the 1960s to avoid the confusion. So the railway station was named after the civil parish it was in, and the railway station gave the name to the town. I've a verified source for this, too, along with the riddle (which I recall from my childhood) "That which is Crewe is not Crewe; and that which is not Crewe is Crewe." which refers to this.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind you changing it all. In fact, now I look back at it, I see that I didn't even type what I had meant to anyway, so it didn't really make sense. :) With just a little bit more work that Cheshire article could probably be put up for GA don't you think? I've got a soft spot for the Crewe as well, as I was born there.

Shame about this wrangling over these lists. I noticed earlier the objection had switched to questioning the lack of references. There's no doubt that these lists do need some work, but that's not a sufficient reason to propose them for deletion, and neither is a flawed argument that if the elements of a list aren't notable then the list itself can't be notable. As any Gestalt psychologist would know, the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Gestalt Psychology): I quite agree (speaking as an experimental/cognitive/mathematical psychologist of more than 30 years standing, though I was retired early some 5 years ago) The older I get, the more affinity I feel for Cheshire, though I last lived in the county in 1961. I still get a funny feeling in me whenever I travel into Church Lawton from Kidsgrove on the bus, and a stronger one when I get to Haslington. Funnily enough, Crewe (where my father was born and lived) doesn't have that kind of reaction: Haslington does. Yes, I think it could be up for GA soon, and I must start writing something on the History of Cheshire, having now amassed a large collection of authoritative books on the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Crewe certainly isn't the most attractive of the Cheshire towns I'd have to agree. But parts of it, like some areas around Monks Coppenhall, and the bottom end of West Street, where there used to be (maybe still is?) a gigantic camouflage painting on the walls of Crewe Works, still bring back reassuring memories on the odd occasions that I've been back. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are good areas of it - part of it almost into Wistaston are also not bad. The large mural I haven't seen, and it must have been after my time living nearby anyway. My memories of Queens park were that it was always very good, but I know that after we left, it went downhill with a vengeance, and is now only regaining some of its qualities (it still looks dreadful in places compared with what it was like.) By the way, a glance at a certain editor's talk page (one of the last entries, you'll know which one) makes for intriguing reading given the performance on the AfDs.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You may well not have noticed the "mural". It was on that large wall almost opposite the entrance to Rolls Royce. It was all in black, designed to make the wall look like a street from the air, but it was pretty faded when I left Crewe in 1969; you had to look quite carefully at it to see what it was intended to be. I only noticed it myself because I had a weekend job in the garage opposite, and spent quite a bit of time staring at it in my frequent idle moments. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Which articles did you find the reference to the "civil war"? I've had a look and couldn't find anything, of course that's not conclusive but the Irlam and Cadishead local history webpage on the Salford City Council website doesn't mention it which seems odd. Nev1 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I first came across the story on the Web a few months ago - can't remember where now - but recently I came across it again in Cooper's book, Salford: An Illustrated History, p. 169, but she doesn't give any source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a peer review for Didsbury, and it's got (so far) one automated and one user comment on it. Would you like to help me (try) to get the article to FA? I know this is a really big ask, and considering my history with you on Didsbury before, you'll probably turn this down, but seen as you're one of the best at doing this sort of thing, I thought I'd ask. Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's always been my philosophy that the fault for any falling out is almost never all on one side or the other; I am and I was sympathetic to where you were coming from. After having had to fail Didsbury's GA review I was driven to get it up to spec, and you quite naturally felt that I was taking the article over; but from my pov it was just a job that I wanted to get finished. Even so, I could no doubt have been more sensitive than I was. So no hard feelings on my part, and of course I'll help you with getting Didsbury ready for FA. :)

I noticed earlier that you'd asked for a peer review. You never know, you might get lucky and more humans may drop by, but I think that the GM team have probably got as good an idea as most of what it takes to get a settlement article through FA. If you haven't already, then I'd suggest dropping Jza84 a line, just to take a quick look through and give you his overall impression. He seems to have a good nose for these things. Have you been watching the Altrincham FA nomination? I think that'll also give a good yardstick to measure the Didsbury article (and Stretford) against. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, I didn't even know it was a FAC. Deary me. And thank you for Didsbury. It really is appreciated. — Rudget _speak.work 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I've been considering how the last AfDs went, and I think I want to give Freechild some advice. However, given his message to me on my talk page, I'm not sure if he will be prepared to read it, or whether what I want to say will be at all read in the spirit with which I would like it to be received. I want to encourage him to continue his work, but offer him some pracatical steps I think he could take to improve the chances that AfDs he proposes in the future are as effecfive as possible in putting the case for deletion. I feel his AfDs in this case were not sustainable, but in other cases, I think he has done good work, and I think he could do even better work in the future. My own experience in training students in critical thinking and practical argumentation skills suggested to me that he had made some basic errors in the form of arguments he advanced, and his reactions at time were a bit inflammatory themselves. However, I am strongly of the opinion that with a bit of insight, he can avoid these errors and improve the effectiveness of his work.

Now, do you think he would be at all amenable to any of this?

Part of the problem will be his perception that my actions consituted incivility, and I still consider I was robust and assertive in my arguments, but that I was not really uncivil. However, I wondered if you could perhaps give me your opinion on how I conducted myself in the discussions (as I am probably in need of some quiet reflection on my own actions too)?

I would be very grateful if you could let me know what you think about either or both of these matters. If you would rather not, then that is all right, but if you could, you can reply either on this or my talk page, or even by email if you want to be particularly frank or private. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost certainly not the best person to ask that question of, as I doubt that I'll be a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize any time soon. :)

FWIW, my view is that you conducted a robust defence of those List of churches in ... articles, and if you and a few others hadn't done that, then wikipedia would have been the poorer. I didn't think that you were uncivil, but even if you had been I'd probably have excused that in the spirit of WP:IAR. So far as offering Freechild any feedback is concerned, my view would be least said, soonest mended. Unless Freechild asks for it, then I wouldn't offer it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a breif comment about this for DDStretch at his talk page, though hadn't seen your well considered advise here.

On another theme, I've just changed the table format slightly for Manchester in the List of churches in Greater Manchester, just wondered what you thought about this and if you envisage any problems with it? -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me then. See how easily I can be persuaded? :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing help with Exmoor and other articles. I am currently struggling with Bath, Somerset which was a former FA but had fallen into a sorry state. I still have loads of self applied {{fact}} tags to deal with and some NPOV issues so it's really too early to ask for your copyediting skills - but if you fancied taking a look that would be great.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, it is much appreciated. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the copy edits you have carried out on the Thomas Brassey article. As it happens I have obtained a copy of Walker's biography (after waiting many months for the local library to produce it) and I am doing some more work on it. The amended version is in my sandbox (mainly so that it does not interfere with the article on the Cheshire Portal) and work is still in progress. I shall incorporate your revisions on what is in my sandbox, but to avoid complications perhaps you could leave the article as it is for the moment, and I will advise you when the amended article comes live. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It might be an idea though to stick the {{underconstruction}} tag on the article in the meantime, to warn any other potential editors that the article's actively being developed. I look forward to seeing the end result. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done that, although as the edits are in my sandbox the message does not make complete sense. Still it may help and advise any interested people to contact me. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The expanded version is now in the main space. If you have time and inclination I should appreciate more copyediting and maybe a peer review, if that can be done by the same person. I should like to offer it as a GAC when it is ready. Many thanks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The article looks nice, you've done a good job on it I think. It's amazing that people like Brassey have just been forgotten.

Peer review is a process in which any interested editor chips in. It's not really what I would consider to be a "peer" review, in the normal meaning of that word, but it can be useful nonetheless. I think that the article is ready to be nominated as a GA as it stands, but there can be no harm in requesting a peer review beforehand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the plunge and nominated the article as it is. Like you I am amazed that such a great figure should be virtually unknown today. My interest was awakened when I went to a talk by Douglas Haynes and I decided I would do my bit to making him better known, especially as he was a Cheshire man. Thanks for our encouragement. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please do not edit the tally section. The clerk will do that. Please make it clear that you are requesting recall in the discussion section. Warmly, Mercury 01:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, another one of the arcane mysteries of wikipolitics explained. Thanks. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, obviously I meant to say !explained. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, would you like me to go into detail about the Kmweber dispute? Perhaps there are somethings I could explain better? Mercury 01:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've not been around wikipedia all that long, so I'm certain that there are undercurrents that I'm blissfully unaware of, and to be honest would probably prefer to remain blissfully unaware of. I'm sure that Kmweber is no saint, just as sure as I am that you or I aren't either. My only concern, as I said, is your threat to block for his/her expression of what seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate opinion in RfAs. The other stuff is just regular human error as far as I'm concerned. We're all human beings, we all make the wrong call sometimes, even admins, no big deal. But I find it more difficult to forgive the attempted suppression of an unpopular pov. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Please read my comments on it in response in Friday's questions if you are inclined. I was not concerned with the POV as much a the amount of discussion surrounding, there was a good deal. Please do not hesitate to ask if you want need clarification. With regards, Mercury 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The effect was the same, the attempted censorship of an unpopular POV. "Amount of discussion surrounding" is not disruptive, and in any case can hardly be laid at the door of Kmweber. My support for your recall is not based on individual misjudgements on AfDs, but on your longer-term misjudgement on what I consider to be the fundamental issue of censorship. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You voted for Mercury's recall to continue; please note this RFC, which is where Mercury has chosen to continue the recall process. Ral315 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to do was to make the point that admins have no right to censor opinions that they do not agree with. There is now an RfC that will be judged by the admin that I believe to have been guilty of censorship. I really do have better things to do with my time than to get involved in farces like that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The main Somerset article, which you extensively reviewed & copy edited about 6 weeks ago, is now receiving comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset the latest set of comments say that it needs copy editing. If you were able to take another look it would be appreciated. I've also dealt with most of the referencing on Bath, Somerset, but that is much less urgent.— Rod ^talk 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we can do enough to satisfy the FA reviewers in the time available. It does "smell" like an FA to me now, but it's always a bit of a lottery. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for my words last night. I was extremely tired (exhausted), and I said some things I really shouldn't have. I think the mistaken taggings are now fixed. I'll work on some code to mass revert mistaken taggings, should anything like this happen again. Sorry for the trouble. Kind regards, Redrocketboy 15:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I understand that you were trying to be helpful, and you probably felt a little surprised and upset when the objections to the tagging started rolling in. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyediting on Shapinsay. It's the first FA I've extensively edited- its a lot harder to get an article promoted than I thought. Lurker (said · done) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly no picnic, so well done on achieving it. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

...It does actually display the page number. Go back and check the diff, then look at the page. Rt. 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Rt. 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that I will have to leave you to your featured list now. I think that it falls way short of what is required, but I can see that you don't agree. So good luck with it. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Thanks for your efforts so far. Best, Rt. 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just to let you know, I've been basing the article on this list... Rt. 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My final suggestion to you would be to exercise a more critical eye. I quote from that article's lead: "Several of the entries relate to more than one listed structure where these have been group together ...". Doesn't make grammatical sense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that you'll understand as well that I now feel it would be prudent for me to withdraw my offer of help with progressing the Didsbury article towards FA. No hard feelings, but life's too short. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Rt. 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh? As you so nearly say, MF, life's too short to go hunting for diffs, so you'll have to send me a postcard (I'll pick it up in the AM). Probably no. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many diffs to list, so don't be waiting for the post in the morning. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. As a whole, I think the quality of an article is a function of the number of editors who work on it, and very few publications simply take work and publish it without runing it past an editor. The articles I work on tend to suffer from too little rather than too much copyediting and advice. Keep at it. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish for you to read my statement at the Project talk-page, and I've clarified my position further on my userpage. It is clear to me we should not work in articles together after this point, but I wish you all the best with copyediting on all the others. I'm sure an editor like me should not prevent you (from what you say), from unleashing your knowledge and grammatical correction on en.wiki. Regards, Rt. 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read your statement. You need to understand that you do not own any articles, and that I shall continue to edit wherever I please, as and when I please. With or without your permission. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I do hope you intend to, and I do understand I don't "own" any articles, as laid out in the statement. Rt. 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realise you would close as delist, and think it is the right decision. My feeling is that this would be accepted if you decided to do so. Geometry guy 00:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to be bold and do exactly that. I really can't see anything productive coming from allowing the discussion to carry on. Positions have been drawn, and there's been very little movement. Nobody will die whatever decision is taken anyway, and the article can always be nominated again once the objections have been addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are a good archivist for this discussion because you have been open to this article meeting the criteria. Good luck summarizing your reasoning and decision carefully in the archive... Geometry guy 01:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still new to making these kind of decisions, which is why I've been tentative. If I haven't done it right, then please let me know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You've done fine. It is often good to add a comment to the section of the talk page linking to the GAR, even if it is just another link to the archived review. In a controversial case like this, it is helpful to give some reasoning (even just two sentences) in the explanation of the archive decision. You also need to remove delisted articles from WP:GA, but don't worry about GA numbers: a bot will fix them. Geometry guy 01:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to explain my reasoning on the article's talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, so much to do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing GARs is crap isn't it? I hate doing it (see my comments in this thread). Anyway, I archived Force as renominate, as you suggested. Thanks for sorting out Opus Dei. Geometry guy 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting summary of what appears at first sight to be a simple process, but is in fact pretty tedious. To say nothing of being fraught with vitriol if the "wrong" decision is made. No wonder so many GARs hang around after their sell-buy date. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I desperately want to simplify GA. I know how to automate some of it, but the will to simplify seems to be lacking among GA regulars who are familiar with the many complex processes and like them: my latest try fell largely on deaf ears, I'm afraid. Geometry guy 00:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to take a look at Brympton d'Evercy. The primary author has previously had a bad experience with putting this article up for GA, but I think it is there or there abouts & we have been discussing the merits (or otherwise) of GA nomination on the talk page.— Rod ^talk 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to that kind of bad experience, so I'll take a look as soon as I can, and I'll try and do what I can. May not be until after Xmas though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can be tempted to the opposite side of the country from your usual remit, could you have a look at my rewrite of Cromer railway station & offer your thoughts? This "current and former stations together" format is a departure from the traditional "lots of stubs" approach to railway station articles, and I'd be interested to hear your opinions on whether it works, as it's a formula that could be used to merge a lot of sorry stub articles into good-quality longer ones. (My nominating it for GAC 30 seconds after posting it isn't quite the rush-job it appears, as I've been fiddling with it in a sandbox for quite some time.) — iridescent 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

At first sight I like the look of that article very much, and the format does have the potential for merging a lot of articles about closed stations, as you say. I'm probably not going to be around much until after Xmas, so I may not get a chance to look at it carefully for a few days. I do have one initial comment though. I haven't checked the MOS for half an hour or so, so there may be some breaking news that I'm not aware of, but the last I read was that the wikilinking of standalone years was no longer recommended. Hopefully I'll have something more intelligent to offer in a few days. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I left them like that because they were in that format in the stubby articles which it grew from, and I couldn't see any particular reason to de-link them. (For all I know, someone might have a burning desire to look up 1923.) If no-one raises any objections to merging articles in this way, I can see lots of other areas the format could be applied to (multiple borderline-notability buildings in a street being the obvious one - though hopefully not to the level of my personal bugbear, Gray's Inn Road) with the separate sub-stubs changed to redirects to the appropriate sections. Reddish South railway station and its brothers are firmly in my sights as well after Christmas (although I'm sure it would cause howls of protest from the trainspotters). — iridescent 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're prepared to take on the trainspotters, then you're obviously a braver man than me. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've actually done a u-turn on Reddish as it would contradict my argument a couple of months ago for every open station being notable enough to warrant its own article. The sheer ludicrousness of the Reddish situation (two stations 200 yards apart, one of which is only open for one day a week) is, I suppose, notable in and of itself. — iridescent 12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to have you back. I've tried myself to have a good old wikibreak, but I'm too nervous to do it. Quite sad eh? Hope all is well though. Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester is coming along nicely. Also, it'd be nice to get an image into the infobox for Chat Moss. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

Images for Chat Moss are a bit problematic, as it's just a flat, featureless bog really. I've asked the Manchester Museum about the possibility of getting a picture of the facial reconstruction they did of Worsley Man though, so I'm hoping that if they come up with something, then that would maybe make a good pic for the infobox. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I echo the welcome back & intrude on your talk page to say if you search for "Chat Moss" at http://www.geograph.org.uk/ you get several CC licenced images - are any of those any good?— Rod ^talk 19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rod. I'm already using one of the geograph pictures in the article, but now you've reminded me I'll take another look through and see if there's anything else I can nick - with all the appropriate attributions, of course. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And don't be afraid of sifting through http://www.flickr.com/ (it has a CC only search option) either, for Chat Moss or any other place. I've contacted several users in the past asking them to release their copyright images to CC or PD, and I've had some great success. I have an account (for the purposes of asking others for their photos), so if you see anything, let me know and I'll ask. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about Flickr, and for your offer to help with permissions. I have now found a picture of peat workings that I think is suitable for the info box, with a cc licence, so I've added that now. Bogs are really difficult places to get interesting pictures of though, as they tend to be, well, pretty flat and boggy. :) I'm going to pop into Manchester Museum over the Xmas break and see what I can do about getting a picture of Worlsey Man, but after that I'm a bit stumped for pictures, so any more suggestions are very welcome. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Malleus, Your last edit on Ramsbottom seems to have got history mixed up with topynomy - could you have a look if your still around? Richerman (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops sorry, that's the way it's supposed to be - seems a bit odd to me though as the topynomy heading seems to cover the whole section. Do you think it would look better if the sub-heading was taken out?Richerman (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of having a subsection called Toponymy, but as you say that's the way that it's supposed to be. I do think though that in the case of a short History section like the Ramsbottom one it's better just to have it as one section. So if you haven't already, then I'll delete the subsection now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good man that man - I couldn't even get the spelling right anyway! Richerman (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's no deal-breaker, but in British English we really do use "compare with" when we measure the difference between things. The meaning isn't lost, and I understand your intent, but just FYI. American English is different (surprise!). Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that you are correct in what you say, and neither do I believe that it's anything to do with American vs British English. According to Fowler, which is just about as British English as you can get I suppose, we use compare to to suggest a similarity, as with your Shakespearian quote. Whereas "compare with", is used for a detailed comparison of both the similarities and the differences. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guardian styleguide at http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184841,00.html agrees:

"compare to/with

The former means liken to, the latter means make a comparison: so unless you are specifically likening someone or something to someone or something else (eg Nothing Compares 2 U), use compare with.

The lord chancellor compared himself to Cardinal Wolsey because he believed he was like Wolsey; I might compare him with Wolsey to assess their relative merits"

PamD (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This has raised a question in my mind though. I'm assuming the background to this topic is a change I made to an article earlier today, which originally said: "Altrincham has a high rate of self employment (22%) compared with the rest of Trafford (16%) and England (17%)." I changed that to "compared to", on the basis that there was no evaluation of both the differences and the similarities. I still think that I was right, in that "compare with" implies an evaluation of the merits of the comparison, not just a one-sided comparison of either the similarities or the differences, but as John Wayne said in Rio Bravo, "I wouldn't wan't to have to live on the difference." :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Altrincham, in comparison, has a..." - sidesteps the whole problem neatly. — iridescent 18:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, that's maybe the best approach in this case, as the comparison was to differences, not similarities. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edited to say) I still think I was right, but maybe sometimes it's better to avoid the problem rather have to trip over it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Geology or Geography at WP:FA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest Geography, as the area is named on maps. Does the question mean that it's going to pass, or is that hoping for too much? :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If I told 'ya I'd have to kill 'ya :-) Happy New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What a New Year's present! I'm chuffed to bits. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)