User talk:Malleus Fatuarum/Archives/2008/May

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Request for comment

Hi, could u do me a favour? I wld appreciate if u can u take a look at this & comment whether the remarks made are valid & the suggested course of action next. Thanks! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Last comment at WT:RFA

You're correct, I left an imprtant part of the sentence out. Good catch, as it was written, what I said made no sense :D -- Avi (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Any time! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Double Tenth Incident

Thanks for commenting there. Would you be willing to do a review? If not, I'm happy to...just that you stepped in first... Something I'm really not fond of doing is sending people back to the GAN queue when they were taken off it by a crappy review—it doesn't seem fair at all to me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll happily do the review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated, mate. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as per H2o's comments dtd May 3, shouldn't the earlier crappy review be considered invalid? As such, I'm curious why u still include them in the GA infobox then? -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it happened, and so it's a part of the article's history. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Just my luck! Hope I won't be seeing any more 'monkey business' again, but I'll keep my axe handy & sharp in case it's needed to chop down some trees in future. 8) -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Who cares

I laughed at that last edit to your userpage, especially the summary. I did same thing here, and with a message at the top of my userpage. Yay, here's a template. Feel free to delete this comment under the same edit summary you used a moment ago. Tan | 39 01:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You see others do things, and sometimes without thinking you do the same things. I've now thought. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If I was supposed to, I don't understand that response. Tan | 39 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant, you see others have an awards section, and without thinking you have one yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah YES. That's quite observant; that's exactly what I was doing. Sorry I didn't catch that last night, I had blown the froth off a few... several. Good thing I didn't casually stop by new page patrol for a few jaunty db tags. Tan | 39 16:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:GA; I apologize.

  • I think WP:GA is extremely important. I'm truly and sincerely sorry if the way I expressed myself led you to believe otherwise. I deeply regret seeing you put off of the idea of working at GA; it's a sad moment. I know i haven't expressed any of this well. I apologize.
  • I do not believe GA is crap. I think it has many fine reviewers. I think the GA system lets crap slip through. This is an extremely meaningful distinction. Best Regards, Ling.Nut (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't join wikipedia to work at GA or anywhere else; I joined because there was an article that I wanted to work on. It was a while before I even knew that processes like GA/FA existed. I thought that GA in particular showed some promise in helping to establish a minimum acceptable standard, and I tentatively joined the GA project on that basis. I had thought, naively, that I was in some small way helping to improve the encyclopedia, but what has become apparent is that I have simply been wasting my time. Green dot on the main page aside, I am not inclined to expend any more effort on articles whose subject I have no particular interest in when the end result is a listing that is widely regarded as being worthless crap. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak

I responded yesterday to your comments on the FAC. I was not able to reply sooner due to continuing aftershocks and resulting sleep depervation from an earthquake on Thursday and an expected severe weather outbreak that did not pan out on Friday. Please respond on the FAC page. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy that my comments have been adequately addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why on the FAC page then. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have already explained on the FAC page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have already responded to your comments there. Please respond there. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing more to add to what I've already said. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have adressed those comments, and I believe there was nothing wrong with the points you brought up. I individually adressed each comment. I had good reasoning behind each of those replies. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Then we will have to agree to disagree. I have not opposed the FA nomination, but I certainly won't be supporting it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What can I do to get you to support then? Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You could address the comments that I made. For instance, I am not in the slightest interested whether a softball is a standard measure of hailstone size in the USA. I don't live in the USA and I've got no idea how big a softball is. Or even what a softball is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have adressed that. However, I will keep local time throughout the rest of the article to show how people were impacted (At home in the evening, driving home from work, or asleep). Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that a few of the phrases that you brought up do not sound great, but I played around with them and could not think of any better way to phrase them. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I promise to take a look at the article again tomorrow, and I'll help where I can with the phrasing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you change from weak oppose to just oppose? Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Because you're not listening to the good advice that's being given to you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm adressing each comment, but also following what has been done by WP:SEVERE and its senior members, such as User:JForget. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine. But unless I see some serious effort to address the concerns that have been raised then I won't be changing my mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I just spent about an hour looking at each section and correcting any issues that I saw; I think that's serious effort. What other issues are there? The boldface has good reasoning behind it. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Look. When I first commented on the article you tried to persuade me that I was talking bollox, everything was kosher. I have given my opinion in the FAC. I have nothing else to add, so will you please stop harassing me? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Epikleros

I think I've addressed most of the issues, although I welcome changes to my changes. it's a very obscure subject, so it's not the easiest to explain. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you have too. Calling the subject "obscure" is underselling it a bit though; I'd probably have gone for "arcane". :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

[1]. I just wrote about three hundred words on this, but they can't convey what I mean so I removed them before saving. Bluntly then - Your edit summary and comments made me feel good and that I'm doing good. I appreciate it. Sincerely. Again, thank you. Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're becoming one of my heroes. Anyone can bitch, but you're proposing to do something about the problem. I really do wish you luck with the idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too. And not just because I'm in love with Malleus. Besides that, because I think it has infinite potential to be better than admin coaching. Seriously, let me know how I can help you in this endeavor. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a loose cannon at the best of times, and just about the last person I could imagine ever becoming an administrator. But even I can see the advantage of those who are more suited to the role being properly coached. Who knows, it might even mean that I have fewer RfCs to face in the future. :-)
All that to say, Malleus, I'm looking forward to RFA#2. Let me know when you want a nom. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There will be no RFA#2. I learned my lesson. There's nothing I want to do that I can't already do. Do you really believe that I could keep my mouth shut and not disagree with any other editor for three months? I don't think even my mother could believe that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting on the Rochdale article. I have got sick of him now so a report has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:MSJ1958 reported by User:Joshii (Result: ) so we may get some peace for a day! ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 04:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. I'll probably have rollback removed shortly, but does this face look bovvered? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you won't, it is clear that with 3 of us reverting him he is the one in the wrong and anybody can see his section is basically spam. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hitler also had a majority - was he right? I am not spamming, I am contributing material within Wiki guidelines. You and Malleus asked for revisions, I revised but still you refused to compromise. I suggest you sit back and consider if you have been reasonable - I think not. MSJ1958 (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaking me for someone else. I never asked for any revisions, I'm just trying to keep the article clear of spam. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Beetlejuice

My sincerest apologies, I thought the article was explained well. I guess I missed on some parts the article was trying to explain. Thank you for catching my mistakes, once more, I am a shame I promoted an article that did not meet the criteria. Zenlax T C S 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, nobody died. Hopefully the editors can tidy the article up over the next few days and it can keep its little green dot. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did leave a notice to the user who nominated the article. If the editor decides to clear up what's needed, then I guess the article can keep the Good article symbol. Again, I apologize. Zenlax T C S 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Beetlejuice Good article nomination

I've corrected all that stuff you required. Now what? —Wildroot (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just provided a few examples of what needed to be done. If you've only fixed those examples, instead of looking through the whole of the article, then it's possible that the article will lose its GA listing. Can you find someone to help you with a copyedit? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help at GAR

Thanks for helping out at GAR, which is one of the parts of the GA process which works well, but only if enough reviewers contribute. I'm glad you haven't completely lost faith in the GA process, and hope you are stirred rather than shaken! Cheers, Geometry guy 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I was rather shaken, but my faith in the GA process is slowly returning. Just so long as it doesn't turn into some kind of FA-lite. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, lets hope not! Geometry guy 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input would be welcomed

Hiya, sorry - this is a bit spammy. You recently commented at my talk page regarding my proposal for a mentoring process that takes us away from "admin coaching" and moves towards a process to provide a support system to help editors who wish it become effective, high quality administrators, and not an administrator for the sake of it. I've created a header at User:Pedro/Mentoring and if you have any time to provide some feedback, or just tinker with it, I'd be grateful. Pedro :  Chat  08:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

Welcome onboard. I think all the information you need can be found on WP:GAPQ/S OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't promise to be the most prolific sweeper, but I'll do whatever I can do help out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're stuck, let me know. (It has quite a bit of instructions for new sweepers to digest) OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Just tag all three sections (like other editors did). Don't forget to keep track by filling in Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I think I've done that now ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping into the sweeps, we need all the help we can get if we're going to finish this within our lifetimes! Let me know if you have any questions, and I hope you enjoy doing the reviews. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Got a shovel?

I have some digging to do.  :-). Thanks for your encouraging words to Porterjoh (someone I've never "met" before). Looks like he's back on track, with thanks more to you than anyone else. Nice work. Your reward is intrinsic. Sorry, no cash, and no bullshit. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's good. I try to do one nice thing every week, to make up for the 100s of bad things I do every day. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 Atlantic hurricane season

Hey, thanks for commenting on 2006 Atlantic hurricane season's FAC. I think I got everything, so when you get the chance, could you look over it again? Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got a good chance with this FAC nomination, but it's still not quite there yet I don't think. I'll help with the copyediting if you help with my abyssmal lack of knowledge on meteorology. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping copyedit it. User:Hurricanehink changed his vote from a weak oppose partly because of the copyedit, so it really helped. And sure, I'll be happy to help teach you a thing or two about meteorology. :) Also, I fixed your suggestion about the small sub-section. Thanks again, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That's good. I'll go through the article again shortly and hopefully I'll be able to support as well. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! I look foreward too it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For copyediting 2006 Atlantic hurricane season which helped me get it to FA status. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 10:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops

Sorry! Brain said "Scotland", fingers decided on "Western Australia". Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Byantine-Arab Wars (780 - 1180)

Before you go removing every word that adds flavor to the article, keep in mind that I did not plagarize the article. Now, I am not of tha style. Youc an check out my contributions in other Byzantine articles. Nikephoros was brutally murdered, have you read how he was murdered? If so, then why is there a problem? Although I acknowledge that the Arabs did in fact recapture Antioch in 1260's by the Mamelukes, that was a mistake on my part. Tourskin (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I suggest that you go back and write an article that is worthy of the GA dot, without any further undue pov drama. Just say how Nikephoros was killed, and let the reader make up his or her own mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)