There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site,
User:Ottava Rima/Guy Fawkes. By the way, the list if you want to work on any of the leads or the such. I'm going to add User:Ottava Rima/Ainsworth biography to the list. That page is about 25% finished before summaries and discussions of his works are added after. I don't know if it will be possible to expand George Cruikshank. If you would care to put any effort in during the next week on these pages, I would appreciate it. :) The plot sections would probably be the ones needing the most work. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a bad rejection. I would have passed it easily. Anyway, these books shouldn't be rejected, especially when the plot sections are so sparse. My plan is mostly to build the pages to around 10k before nominating them all together. Then, I will build up some of the more interesting works to GA status as I begin to work on Lancashire Witches. I want to put forth Lancashire Witches as a fully developed page of over 30k and GA worthy. Then, I want to devote an entire hook to it (something about killing witches, with some kind of sex or gore addition) in order to try and get over 5k views. With that, I hope that there will be enough people seeing both the Ainsworth and the Lancashire Witches page, and then they may trickle down to other works. Thus, hopefully hooking some people on Ainsworth. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it looked like this when I nominated it in ignorance of the fact that DYK was a mini GA review, or at least it is for novels. I haven't really had the motivation to get back to it as I'd hoped since then. I'm not certain which or how many of Ainsworth's novels I'll be able to get hold of, but I'll see what I can do. --MalleusFatuorum19:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What probably happened is the lack of a section discussing themes (and thus, people analyzing the book in a way beyond summary) probably made someone think it wasn't a good page. I would have merely asked you to find a source that discussed the themes somewhat or simply found one on googlebooks for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good page meaning that they thought it was just one big plot summary. The whole "in universe" theory and all. And I don't mean "Good", mind you. Plus, she gave a hesitant check and you could have just stayed quiet and it probably would have been listed. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could have "just stayed quiet"? I don't do just staying quiet". I understand and will try to be supportive of your mega Ainsworth DYK, but to be brutally honest I think that DYK is an embarrassing waste of space. --MalleusFatuorum01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, you didn't have to say anything about withdrawing the nomination. Once you mention the possibility, people stop trying to find a way to help ensure things pass. Human nature. And you may think DYK is a waste of space, but I like my own DYKs. :D By the way - User:Ottava Rima/The Tower of London - dear old Lady Jane Grey. You might recognize the name. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Ottava Rima/Cruikshank authorship dispute - Care to write some leads? I need someone to for tomorrow night. I should be able to push them off then. I have Windsor Castle to add plot and themes to, and then St James's. This should cover 7 of the novels I really care about (the only other one being Lancashire Witches). Then I could start on the other. I plan on putting Ainsworth's bio up at the time also. A 30-40k bio should be decent for now (and then about 15k about his various works and the later controversy). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There, all done. Would you have time to write leads? I doubt it would take more than 5 minutes each and would be rather formulaic. If you don't want to, drop a note so I can process them myself and put the hook out by tonight. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to to try and tackle some leads, but I wouldn't be able to get around to it tonight. It's already gone 10:00 pm here, and I'm feeling a bit knackered after a pretty exhausting weekend. --MalleusFatuorum21:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this - I'll put in some cheesy formulaic leads and put them on the DYK list. Since it will take 4-5 days before anyone bothers with them, you can use that time to improve the leads and other fixes to the pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the William Harrison Ainsworth biography. Right now, I put down a rough sketch of his early publications and I have to go back and fill in the biography that joins them. I'm going to leave some of the later stuff open and incomplete so that it can be filled in while working on The Lancashire Witches and, if you are willing, Auriol. Leads will need to be added soon (I didn't have a chance to do them) and when that is done the main bio will need a look over (I'm about 60% finished for now). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'l see what I can do about leads. I'll be glad when these Ainsworth articles get out "into the wild", so to speak. To be perfectly honest I'd never heard of the man before I started delving into the Lancashire witches—the real ones, not the novel. --MalleusFatuorum21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A shame, indeed. Perhaps we can remedy it. One of the professors during the 60s was a scholar on Victorian lit and he pursued Ainsworth to a degree. I don't know what works he had on the matter though. He was purposefully ignored based on a few controversies (Newgate novel, for instance) and on Thackeray and Dickens turning against him. I take it that when the time came to look at Victorian novels in a broader view, most people focused only on the females. Anyway, there is a lot that could be written on him, and I have a few ideas for off wiki publications. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished the biography -enough- for now (to The Lancashire Witches). I will be moving the pages to mainspace in about 2 hours (and adding in short temporary leads to those without them). I think that once the blue links are added to the biography page, it will really become blatant how important Ainsworth was (until 1860/1870 or so, that is). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is not supposed to be over 200 characters and is currently 195. If you have any ideas on how any of the above should be changed, then please feel free. If you think it should go over 200, I can simply ask about it on the DYK talk page. I put in temporary leads on a few of the pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it will be a great job when we finish. :D I can taste the excitement of The Lancashire Witches now. I have some works about -his- sources for the matter, which would be interesting when looking at the overall view on the actual witches. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a very small change to the hook. Obviously, feel free to revert if you don't like it. Guy Fawkes is particularly interesting too, as well as the witches, as according to Ainsworth the plot was hatched in Ordsall Hall, a medieval manor house about two miles from me. --MalleusFatuorum18:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to be adventuresome sometime, we could easily expand the sources section and include a picture taken by you of the location. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a hidden rule (C3) regarding hooks with multiple new articles: "if your hook introduces more than one article, you can do a basic calculation by subtracting the number of characters in the bolded character string for each additional new article beyond the first. If having done that the hook length is still 200 characters or less, it is probably an acceptable length". Nev1 (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing you cite the Poe quote made me remember - Carver describes Poe as "the ever bitchy" before quoting him. If only we could get away with such nonsense. XD Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult sometimes. There are swathes of articles on one particular topic that I can't even bear to look at, much less edit, because although apparently "well cited", the sources are talking bollocks. --MalleusFatuorum19:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Well, I just meant to add flare. Poe was ever bitchy, so, that is reliable. :) By the way someone suggested possibly allowing for 250 characters. This is a character counter if you want to tweak or come up with alternate descriptives (but please keep Henry the VIII as "a horny king", haha). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Distractions distractions...
Well, I'm thinking Barbara L is getting ready for her final polish before her moments in the sun. And I've dug a bit more on Urse d'Abetot, and I think we're ready to move forward on him after Babs. I'll be home for most of the next few months, so it's time for more FACs! (Be gone a few weekends, but nothing too long, not like the last few months have been.) Can I beg copyedits on these from you? You know I'll be in your debt even more... Ealdgyth - Talk16:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided that on 27 November, the second anniversary of my first failed RfA, I will submit myself again to that process. Not because I want to be an administrator, but because I want to be able to more effectively support other editors who are trying to create content in the face of overwhelming odds.
Feeling a bit too good about yourself? An RfA will take care of that in short order. Although I'd support. It's healthy to be challenged. All the reaction you will get will reflect the inner conflict other editors have when faced with assessing their own discomfort when faced with bluntly posed realities. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a curious thing Majorly. You and I have agreed about, well very little really, and I think your position on child administrators is absurd. I'm certain that you feel similarly about me. Nevertheless I know that your heart's in the right place. Maybe we could persuade Ottava to stand again as well? All for one, and one for all. --MalleusFatuorum22:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might find this very odd coming from me, but I'd likely oppose any child I knew running for adminship. I believe they should at least be 13 or older, preferably 16. I'd disagree with opposing teenagers on a blanket basis though, as there are many fine admins who are teenagers. Majorlytalk23:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest Majorly I had to read that three or four times to make sure I hadn't misunderstood what you'd written. Clearly we're not so far apart on this age issue, just on the details. --MalleusFatuorum04:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Quite. I'm under no illusions Moni, I know that I stand less chance than a snowball in Hell. Unfashionable though it may be, and even non-PC in the wikifantasyworld, I just want to make a point. As loudly as possible. I'm really not bothered about the result, as it's a foregone conclusion anyway. Which is exactly my point. --MalleusFatuorum21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly hoping that there's a good turnout, the more the merrier. One of RfA's many problems is that it's done pretty much in private. Not this one though. --MalleusFatuorum22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that any contribution you could make would even be worth the effort of reading Tfz, whatever the technology deployed to spread your stupid bigotry. --MalleusFatuorum01:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I called you a name? If I had done that I'm quite certain that you'd have called in the civility police and had me blocked by now. What I have said is that your position displays clear bigotry. --MalleusFatuorum01:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics now? A person who carries bigotry is a bigot. I really don't think you should be putting yourself forward for adminship until you cease calling other editors bigots and pov-pushers. Tfz01:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have no idea what the word "semantic" means. Why not go and find someone else more able to relate to your concerns? I'm certain that you can't be the only intellectual dwarf on here. --MalleusFatuorum01:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very generous offer Casliber, but you and I both know it would be a suicide mission. What has surprised me the most is that the bastard who helped to sink my first RfA has also offered to nominate. Truth be told though, I don't really want to be an administrator, and I'd make very little use of the extra buttons if I had them anyway. It's really just to make a point. --MalleusFatuorum02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We-ell, maybe not. I have tried announcing all over the place that the admin reviews at arbcom would hopefully result in more leniency when voting at RfA and hopefully more fluidity between sysophood and nonsysophood. There are alot of people who plainly should have the tools. There is alot of tinkering that one can do with the tools even when one is primarily a content editor (like me). Anyway, we'll see. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Cas. You've got my support whether you want it or not. Unless you can change the pagename successfully enough so I can't find it in time. ++Lar: t/c03:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you Lar, but we both know it's doomed to failure. Which is the point of it really as far as I'm concerned. I'm not even sure what I'd do if it was successful, probably resign straight away. --MalleusFatuorum04:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I expect to "fail", it's that I expect to make a point. I'm indifferent as to whether an RfA passes or not, and I'm not boring enough to become a bureaucrat anyway. --MalleusFatuorum10:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your candidacy will be heated to be sure, but my hunch is that the tide is in your direction. Without wanting to be overly or prophetically dramatic, it would be a huge victory. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, if you want to rain on the parade of my recent page creation bits, do so in private. I'm trying to play the big man here, let me have my moment. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← Well, I look forward to the chance to atone for this uncharacteristic lapse of judgment. Although I really think you should bolster your Template Talk: edits before November; I'm concerned that you are unfit for adminship because you have not spent enough time in that namespace (just a little warmup for the usual quality oppose rationales). But it will all be so worth it. You won't believe the rush of absolute power the first time you semi-protect fish because of school-day vandalism. It's probably exactly what the Great King Xerxes felt when he led the Immortals across the Hellespont at the height of the Persian Empire. Well, one of the Persian Empires. I understand from Wikipedia that there were dozens of them... :P MastCellTalk04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be doing much on this over the weekend? If not, I'll take my lappy with me and edit a saved version while bored. I don't know if my hotel has internet access, or even if I'll have time. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was trawling Youtube for that documentary I worked on yarns ago. Anyhow I found this. I should warn you, although it appears to be professionally made, it contains images of Edward Evans dead, and Lesley Anne Downey tied up (but not indecent). It also contains interviews with Topping, and Anne West, so it must be a legit documentary. Its in several parts, and may help with this article. The images aren't nice, and the interview with Anne West is moving. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to know how far to go with this. There's lots more stuff that could be said, but we're trying to write an accurate and informative encyclopedia article, with links to help those who want to know more, not the definitive account of the murders. --MalleusFatuorum23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you missed my entry on the article's talk page, but there is a bit of duplicated info now I've reached the point in the Ritchie book where the murders are occurring.
How do you suggest we get around that? Perhaps thin out the initial description of each murder, until the reader gets to 'as a couple' The whole 'indoctrinate David Smith' thing comes slap bang in the middle of their murdering spree. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any additional info about the murders ought to go in the section describing the murders. As a couple is a subsection of Personal background, where it was my intention to describe Brady and Hindley's relationship before their killing spree began, not the murders themselves or the circumstances surrounding them. We need to bear in mind as well that any information beyond the bare facts of each murder comes only from Hindley's confession made over 20 years later, which Topping strongly suggests he wasn't entirely convinced by.
I'd suggest that it's OK to expand the As a couple subsection with additional personal details such as the move to Wardle Brook Avenue, related to the chronology of the murders, but not with details of the murders, which ought to be covered elsewhere. --MalleusFatuorum13:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok mate, once I'm mostly through this book we can again look at it to see what should go where, and if any additional sections need creating. The Ritchie book suggests that Brady is a control freak, something I'm minded to agree with, given his (and her?) attempted indoctrination of David Smith, and also his refusal to pinpoint the location of Keith Bennett. My opinion though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE my talkpage message: no problem, and thanks for dealing with my subjective, finnicky little queries. Feel free to give me a poke next time you put something up at GAN and I'll try and review it - that's probably quicker than waiting in the queue with everyone else. Ironholds (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem whatsoever. 'sides, the more long articles I remove from the backlog, the more likely some other reviewer will take a look at my long GACs :P. Ironholds (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not - apologies if it sounded like that. It was in reference to this. Unless more than one illegitimate both tanked your first RFA and has offered to nominate at your third! Pedro : Chat 22:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I wasn't being entirely serious when I write that. In fact I had an entirely different bastard in mind anyway, who hasn't offered to nominate. :-) --MalleusFatuorum23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your talkpage has become so entirely entertaining in the last few weeks that I have a mind about possible returning here. Of course, expectations would be for silly old keeper to actually improve some articles, so perhaps not. Looking forward to November though. My watchlist has been updated. Keeper | 7606:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to be an illuminating experience. I had to delay it until the end of November though, to give poor old Pedro enough time to think of something nice to say about me. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I always know I'll get the straight dope from you, and for all you do for the good of the encyclopedia. Somehow a "normal" barnstar didn't seem very Malleus. Ealdgyth - Talk22:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite what Cirt's saying Ottava. As it happens I find the {{Harvnb}} template quick and easy to use, and I pretty much always use it myself, but I wouldn't push it down anyone's throat; it's perfectly easy to get the same result, minus the linking, manually, and I can understand that some may prefer not to have the blue links.
There are only two issues standing between this article and its GA listing, only one of which I think has merit. I'd agree that the lead ought to be expanded to include a little about critical reception, but I wouldn't agree that that section needs to be expanded, and certainly not to meet the GA "broadness" criteria. So rather than fight with the reviewer, why not do as I'd do? Agree to differ on the citation style, justify why the Critical reception section doesn't need to be expanded to meet the GA criteria, and bite your tongue and expand the lead as requested? --MalleusFatuorum19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a line to the reception, and I don't really know how there could be anything else based on weight and standard sizing per WP:LEAD. It is only 22k. The only notable review is mentioned by name. I could just copy and paste the first paragraph of the section at the bottom of the lead, but that would be ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does nevertheless look a little light, but having looked through the article now a little more carefully I'd have additional issues with it as well. For instance: "However, Eliot's health declined and he was staying in Shamley Green." Are these two ideas linked in some way? If so how, and if not, then why are they jammed together like that? --MalleusFatuorum21:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left out that Shamley Green was where he was recovering. A house turned into a little sanitarium (is that the term still?). There was a British thought from the Restoration to the fizzle of the Empire that (in various expressions) basically blamed illness on the city and sent people out into the country to get healthy. This was what Eliot was doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about this: "This changes by Little Gidding by adding in the time that Eliot was a watchmen at the Faber building during the London blitz. Eliot also lectured during the war." Ignoring the rather awkward "this changes by ... by" how are the ideas in those two sentences and the following one related?
Let me be perfectly honest Ottava. I agree with you that the review has been poor, and that the emphasis on a particular citation style used in articles about episodes of The Simpsons was both irrelevant and slightly insulting. Where we apparently disagree though is why the review was poor. It appears to me that the reviewer didn't read the article properly, and instead focused on a few mechanical checks. A cursory reading shows several areas where the text is unclear, and in some places awkwardly written. It could pretty easily be buffed up to GA but it's not quite there yet, at least not in my opinion. --MalleusFatuorum21:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some fixes. I'm going to throw in a few more critics even though they might not belong there just to appease. I put Abrams in simply because I use him for everything nowadays. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping it was a misunderstanding (on his part, about how Wikipedia works). I'm sure he'll change, and if not, he'll probably sink through self-imposed exile and isolation. Nev1's doing a good job of trying to steer him on to the right path. It's refreshing to see an ethusiastic newbie (I can only think of the rather fantastic User:J3Mrs in the last 12 months or so from our neck of the woods), so I'd rather have him mentored than loose him.
William Harrison Ainsworth looks interesting. Never heard of the bloke too. The lead's a little thin and there doesn't seem to be many wikilinks in the prose, but I see you're onto that above.... Bar those, it's nicely written, and can see your appeal. --Jza84 | Talk 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean Ainsworth's own article, which is pretty poor, but the DYK bombshell on a few of his major novels that Ottava's preparing in his sandbox. I hadn't heard of Ainsworth either, until I started investigating the history of the Pendle witches. In his time Ainsworth was considered the equal of Charles Dickens, so he deserves better. We're so quick to forget ... --MalleusFatuorum22:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dickens was forgotten too until GK Chesterton revived interest in him, Ainsworth just wasn't as lucky. I really like Ottava's tactic of a "DYK bomb". A good hook can get an article more views in a day that it would get in 6 months and is a great way of promoting a subject. Its shows real passion and dedication to be able to do it properly. Nev1 (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I was very sorry to read that you have left the L&C project - it needed you, your skills and advice. I've left a little note on the "creator's" talk page which I hope will guide him to take good advice rather than ride his premature high horse. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really much of a joiner anyway Peter, and I'm quite certain the project will do very with the likes of you, Nev1, and Jza84 around anyway. I'd just prefer to spend my time here where it's more likely to be appreciated. --MalleusFatuorum17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm not much of a joiner anyway. I'll continue to help individual editors whenever I can, no matter what projects they may or may not belong to, but I'm not really naturally drawn to geography-based projects; GM was the exception. --MalleusFatuorum22:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus, (I had posted this originally to User:Jza84 thinking he posted the original question, not realising it was infact yourself - for which I humbly apologise) Anyway, following your points, I want to point out that those opening 2 paragraphs are the pieces of original article, in fact it was only those that comprised of the original article, before I worked hard to extend it with much pride and devotion. Anyway, I paid a visit to the article to re-word those paragraphs, but when I came to save the changes, it said that someone else has also made an edit. I'm not sure now as to which of the adjustments will be best - the one you made, or the one I was about to make. Here is the adjustment I was going to make: Lostock Hall (formerly known as Cuerden Green between 1212 - 1332) is a small village in Lancashire to the south of Preston and to the north of Farington. It is now bordered to its immediate south-east by the large M6/M61/M65 motorway interchange.
Lostock Hall has an identity of its own but in common with other small areas in modern times it is being taken over by new housing estates and a reduction in 'community spirit'. The former separate community of Tardy Gate is now for all intents and purposes a part of Lostock Hall - it used to be the farming community linking one part of rural Lancashire to another. Lostock Hall's main road to the north, Leyland Road leads to the district of Penwortham in the north-west, and onto the City of Preston in the north, this boundary being on the junction between B5254 (Leyland Road) and Flag Lane. To the north-east is the new residential estate of Walton Park which leads onto the rural village of Walton-le-Dale, with this boundary between being the old railway bridge on Wateringpool Lane (just after the gas works). The main road to the east, Brownedge Road, links it to Bamber Bridge, the boundary between the two is the 'Old Railway Bridge' situated on the B5257 (Brownedge Lane). The roundabout junction of B5254 (Watkin Lane) and A582 (Lostock Lane - east bound), in the south-east, is the boundary which separates Lostock Hall and Cuerden. There is small area of farmland (situated on Old School Lane) which is still comes under the old name of Cuerden Green. To the south and south-west is the parish district of Farington, where the boundary line is also the roundabout junction of B5254 (Watkin Lane) and A582 (Lostock Lane, with the difference here being that it is the west-bound part of Lostock Lane. To the west is the rural hamlet of Whitestake, where the boundary line between them and Lostock Hall being the railway bridge on Coote Lane, which spans over the main western line. I'll let you compare the 2, and decide. Let me know if you want to use my version. Regards (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think I've ever edited Lostock Hall Gareth, so you couldn't have clashed with any changes I'd made. Anyway, the current lead looks pretty close to the version you've copied above, and the personal voice I was complaining about has gone. I'd make two comments about the lead as it stands now though. The first is that there's way too much information on present-day boundaries; surely that can be summarised? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, but there nothing in it about Lostock's Hall for instance, which forms about half of the present article, or anything about Lostock Hall's industries. You might well find it easier to write the lead last, once the rest of the article is a little more fleshed out. The second thing that strikes me about the lead is the opening of the second paragraph: "Lostock Hall has an identity of its own but in common with other small areas in modern times it is being taken over by new housing estates and a reduction in 'community spirit'." This seems once again like a personal opinion; everywhere "has an identity of its own", and I'm really unclear as to how anywhere could be "taken over by ... a reduction in 'community spirit'." It's difficult to write dispassionately on a subject you're passionate about, but it's essential to producing a well-balanced encyclopedia article. As a rule of thumb, don't include anything in the article that you can't provide a citation for to a published reliable source, such as books, newspapers, journals, and web sites. What we're striving for here is verifiability, not "truth".
I don't mean my comments to be negative, I'm only making them now because I think it's in the long-run easier to set out on the right path now, rather than have the article ultimately fail when/if you present it at GA. --MalleusFatuorum16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. More like the wikipedia version of "Oh for Christ's sake grow up; who gives a fuck?" If I had to compare myself with any Shakespearean characters I'd be hard pressed to choose between Petruchio and Prospero. --MalleusFatuorum23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TFA -and- the Ainsworth 10 part hook together. I don't know what happen over the past week, but there must have been many drunks around who felt that it would be a good thing to encourage us. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The queues were completely empty (meaning, no one had anything ready), and it was lumped in the end, so, they took 50 or so over and this was ready to go, so, it made it in fast. Luck of the draw. Plus, it was in a day old set, so, it was technically three days old at the time. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources
Hey Mal, hope you're doing well. I have a question. Regarding the HowStuffWorks site (link), do you think it qualifies as a WP:RS for the FA/FL high-end articles? I've read through their about page, and their jobs page, and I'm curious how the reviewers would consider this source. I'm also interested in the views of your TPS friends who work in this area: Ottava, Iri, Tony, etc. Thanks for any input. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use it to cite anything controversial. However, I would say the same thing to many things that are published. I've actually seen the one book used in physics classes for High School students, as it makes an introduction to practical physics. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to say no, although Ealdgyth is probably the best one to ask. We should generally be relying on good quality secondary sources, not tertiary sources like HowStuffWorks. But as Ottava says, if its something fairly unimportant then you might get away with it, but probably not at FAC. --MalleusFatuorum14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks folks - I think it's enough to encourage me to look for other/better sources. And congrats all the way around for the DYK and Front page FA stuff ... good work! Cheers. ;) — Ched : ? 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the best quality, but it will work for something where you need to explain something simple. Say ... that horse sinew is used for violins in the horse article, or something like that. It is put out by Discovery Channel...which means it's on par with the Beeb or something similar. Yeah, there are better sources, but where it's mainly used is in non-technical articles to explain something simple (like, the violin thing above), where someone is going to insist on a source citations, but its a simple fact that doesn't require an ironclad source. Ealdgyth - Talk21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? c/e of England for GA
I don't know if you've noticed but England is currently up for GA (again) & has been greatly improved since the reviewers first set of comments, but still needs copy edting. It's a big article & a bit patchy but if you had the time and inclination I'm sure any help would be appreciated.— Rodtalk17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a big job, but it's a big topic, so it would be churlish to say no. Let's hope that the GA reviewer is a patient sort. BTW, since when was Northern Ireland a country? "... in which other countries of the United Kingdom — Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ..." --MalleusFatuorum19:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its a big job & it takes a big person to take it on - thanks. The reviewer has been back & seen progress so summarised the outstanding issues on the talk page a day or two ago, so seems willing to wait as improvement are being made. The issue of whether England is a country, let alone NI, has been done to death on that talk page & others & I'm staying out of that one.— Rodtalk19:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GAR of Celtic Pagan Reconsructionism
Glad to see I was not the only one who saw the problems with that article. Hopefully the editors involved will take steps to improve the article rather than just arguing against criticism.Davémon (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ainsworth received 1.7k views from being on the main page for 6 hours (Comparison, Johnson received 36.9k while his early life received 24.5k). The dispute received 1.7k reviews.
Now, everyone, how do you get lots of page hits at DYK? Sex or bacon. A horny king came in at 2.4k. :D Wait until I sex it up with bacon when I put out a hook for Ainsworth's Flitch of Bacon (... that William Harrison Ainsworth started a tradition of awarded couples with bacon based on their sexual relationship?). The hits would have to be through the roof. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ode on Indolence FAC
I need a second opinion on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on Indolence/archive1. I wont reveal my opinion, but you can kinda see hints to it on my talk page at the bottom. Slim Virgin compared the different versions of the page (pre FAC and post FAC). As I pointed out, 7 people rewrote the page, only one bothered to support after doing it. I could assume one or two would be willing to support after a few clarity issues are met. What that leaves is a bunch of people who came in, rewrote things, and left. No real care for clarity, for the sources, etc, or even with the FAC. I would just appreciate your assessment of the FAC and the bottom comparison that Slim Virgin points out. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my opinion is this. I think the post-FAC version is more elegantly written, but is less accurate. So I'd opt for the pre-FAC version with a bit of a facelift. --MalleusFatuorum00:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was more of a question of - is it worth bothering to continue the FAC or not than anything else. I thought that was obvious. I was wrong. :P If they are going to change things and then leave, what should I think? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There comes a point with some articles at FAC, and we got pretty close to it with Sam, where the process begins to damage the article rather than improve it. You have to judge whether that point's been reached yet with Ode or not. From my very quick look through I'd say that it has, and if I was in your position I'd likely withdraw the article, keep whatever was of value during the review, but basically revert to the pre-FAC version and before resubmitting it buff up some of the awkward phrasing such as "the negative compatibility". --MalleusFatuorum00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should probably be "in quotes", because "negative compatibility" looks like a term used by someone who's unaware of the word "incompatibility". If it has a technical meaning, as you seem to be suggesting, then that needs to be explained to us non-literary bods. --MalleusFatuorum01:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.... wait, wtf. I just checked to make sure and someone added that in. WTF. Okay. I'm going to leave the Wiki for a bit. It is bad enough that people want to push a fringe view about Oscar Wilde being a pederast based on some intellectually dishonest scholars who haven't even ever written a Wilde biography and merely want to push some idea without proof. But that, inserting that word in there. Blah. That is too much. I just rewrote it. It was plain wrong. Sigh. There are too many errors on this Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed up a lot of OR and other sourcing problems on the article. The person at FAC seems to think that the page should talk about romanticism as a whole when very few critics link it to such. They also seem to think that the page should do more than what Keats or the sources is doing. They further confused classical with neo-classical. It definitely feels like people are purposefully toying with things. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attributing any reason for it. For what I know, it could be perfectly random. I just describe patterns. Only religious can explain why things are the way they are. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find only a lack of religion as an excuse to everything. Religion sets forth ramifications for actions and puts in a design that has both a beginning and an end. Otherwise, there is just an endless cycle without purpose. That would mean that nothing matters, as nothing ever changes. It just is. Such a system would remove all meaning, which is how many people act. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wheter or not there can be morality without belief in God is of course a long-running and unsettled debate. What is not in doubt though is that we very frequently see immorality and a belief in God. --MalleusFatuorum14:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've always seen a lack of religion as representing a healthy and open mind. For me, (most) religion is rooted in morality, not the other way around, and a lack of religion is never indicative of a lack of morality. Nor is the presence of religion indicative of the presence of morality. Apterygial14:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's probably true for religion at its best, but for most people it's just an elaborate system of rewards and punishments designed to control behaviour. --MalleusFatuorum14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is rather evident that immorality is what turns a lot of people into believing in a God. If everything was perfect, there would be no reason to turn to a savior figure that promises to judge people based on their actions. Anyway, "immorality" only exists as long as there is a system of morality, and both Aristotle and Plato provided strong proofs as to why morality is grounded in at least a "prime mover". As Milton says, "Free will is choosing the right path". "Open minds" and the rest to justify immorality is mostly decayed logic that seeks to remove standards as a whole simply to remove standards. "Be open minded, nothing is wrong with killing your neighbor and eating them" is utterly preposterous, for example. A mind should be neither open or closed, but a center of judgment and processing in which reason takes in what is beneficial and ignores what is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aristotle also "proved" that we see because of the light emitted from our eyes reflecting back off those objects in our field of vision. What 20th-century mathematics has demonsdtrated is that there are some things that we can never prove, never be certain of, never deduce from what we alraedy know to be true. And the existence or not of God is one of those. --MalleusFatuorum14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, mathematics has not disproven God, and it would be absurd to claim such. Furthermore, physics has made it very clear that the vastness of space, the complexity of science, and the rest shows that random probability cannot exist and that time and space operates in a linear direction expanding in an exponential manner. The "big bang" theory was one of the primary proofs that Aristotle's hypothesis of a prime mover was correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was that mathematics has demonstrated that there are some statements we will likely never be able to prove or disprove, and I'm suggesting that "There is a God" and "There is no God" fall into that category. Neither is it clear that space-time will continue to expand; it sems just as likely that at some future point the process will reverse, and the Universe will implode. The essence though is what we take to be axiomatic. If you take it to be an axiom that "the vastness of space" or the complexity of a living organism could not possibly have come into being without an intelligent designer then of course God follows quite naturally from that. If on the other hand you do not accept that as axiomatic then it does not, and some other explanation is required—bearing in mind of course that God explains nothing; it's simply a label for the massive gaps in our understanding of how the Universe works. --MalleusFatuorum17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Aristotle's views on physical cosmology were correct, Wikipedia has proven his assertion that the brain functions primarily to cool the blood. MastCellTalk18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean disproven? :) Anyway, even Darwin heavily relied on Aristotle, so, that shows a lot on how great the main was without the technology to really figure things out. Pure logic and reasoning surely got him far. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aristotle was a great thinker, no question about that, but I'd hazard a guess that he was wrong at least as often as he was right in his scientific pronouncements. --MalleusFatuorum19:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you could say for Francis Bacon, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc. Science is built on the backs of giants, and rarely do the previous people become completely ignored (at least, these, who will forever be known). We still rely on Euclid even though Lobachevsky debunked the certainty of the Euclidean universe. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You won't persuade me of the existence of God, just as I won't persuade you that our concept of God is simply a vestige of our Stone Age wonder at what we saw around us but had no explanation for. I apply Occam's razor. What is it that can only be explained by the existence of an all-powerful entity? That we don't understand how the Universe came into being, or how it will end, is proof of our ignorance, nothing else. --MalleusFatuorum20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stone Age wonder? - I am reminded of Walt Whitman.
"When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and
measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much
applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars."
- Walt Whitman
Art and beauty, truth and the sublime. They are not "Stone Age" wonders, but the essence of humanity itself and what makes it great. Ainsworth turned to the gothic and Catholic past because the Church understood these very things, and it was an aspect that Britain lost when continuing to burn any connection between itself and Rome. Our ignorance should be enough to prove that there is something great, something awe inspiring. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking the wrong way Ottava. It's not what we've been, it's what we might become. Perhaps some future generation may come to see that we misundertood the story of Jesus. It wasn't about God becoming Man, but about Man becoming God. --MalleusFatuorum21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your excellent work on England hasn't worn out your copyediting powers would you take a look at Buildings and architecture of Bath. It's a brand new article, which I hope to put up for GA (& maybe go all the way to FA). I believe it to be comprehensive & well referenced, but you know what my prose is like!— Rodtalk20:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and take a closer look through over the next few days, but it looks pretty good to me on a quick read through. Apart from this abortion that is: "... saying that the density volume of buildings ...". Did the report really say that? What is density about, if not about volume? --MalleusFatuorum02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer48 I would be far more concerned with things like this. Why don't you issue a warning for that? The behaviour from some editors on this article is fucking disgusting. It makes me angry to think about it tbh. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that all we can try and do is to drive a wedge into the Irish Republican nonsense with a fair, neutral, and balanced article. Which is what I intend the Manchester Martyrs to be, and what I think it's close to becoming. I really do wish the pov warriors would spend more of their time trying to improve the rubbish that passes for an article on Irish nationalism, for instance. --MalleusFatuorum20:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you put up with it. I rarely go running to teacher but on some of those instances I'd have been straight to the admins tbh. It isn't right that we spend time here trying to improve articles, only to be accused of ulterior motives. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why they pay admins the big bucks. I'm always happy to throw a large wall of warnings and education at POV warriors and follow-through with sanctions when necessary. Let me know if you need a hand. Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I never go running to teacher, and I despise those who do. Admins can't do anything, as wikipedia has no effective policies for dealing with pov pushing and content disputes. That's why it's necessary to provoke me to the point of using naughty words. There's a clear policy for that. --MalleusFatuorum21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Just noting; firstly the day Malleus goes "straight to the admins" will be the day I wake up with three breasts and a golden nipple. Secondly, as for the big bucks, I personally split mine out on a straight three way split between Malleus and Ottava and myself. Malleus got his paycheck for my admin role only yesterday in actual fact - a generous no pounds and fuck all pence if I recall....:)Pedro : Chat 21:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the mess is, I wasn't there and I didn't cause it. I'll tell you frankly why I get so pissed off with these Irish republican pov warriors; I was brought up in the southwest of Scotland, where bigotry is spelt in block caps. Been there, seen it, don't ever want to see it again. --MalleusFatuorum23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, you have to watch yourself around me. Your words struck me as eerily similar to this - "I can quite understand that, he said calmly. An Irishman must think like that, I daresay. We feel in England that we have treated you rather unfairly. It seems history is to blame." - Ulysses. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't agree that the Irish were treated unfairly. As were the English. Remember the Peterloo Massacre? The Irish issue differs only because of the emigres returning after having fought in the American Civil War, believing that similar military action was the only way to achieve their goal. --MalleusFatuorum23:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit. What is the point of this? Sandstein has only enforced policy, the unblock was with the reason reducing to "time served" and was done with the consent of Sandstein. The block wasn't wrong, the user was just given yet another chance. You should know by now that we don't punish people here, any action taken is to prevent further disruption to the project.
It seems as though you are intentionally trying to escalate drama when the incident is all but over, and this is not the first time either. In fact it has become a pattern. Do you really seek strife so much that you must pour fuel on the fire? Are your goals here in line with the projects goal of creating an encyclopedia or are you just getting your kicks? If you are here to create an encyclopedia then there is no need to demand punishment or prolong disputes, if you are here for a pint of blood or a head on a platter then please find some website that is a battleground. Chillum01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answering the question about why Malleus is here... his edit count seems to show that about 60% of the time he's off in the article space editing. You know, articles, those things we're here to build? Often, he's doing something very thankless, which is copyediting for folks like me. Care to compare edit statistics with him? (He beats me by about 5%, btw.) Ealdgyth - Talk01:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes me wonder what was the point of this edit. Intentionally trying to escalate drama or needlessly creating a battleground? Or would that be an assumption of bad faith on my part? Nev1 (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum - "No Personal Attacks" means that there should be no attacks on information that is personal - sex, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. "Fool" is referring to behavioral attributes. By definition, by letter, and by spirit of NPA, there is no way to make such a claim that the comment was a personal attack, and administrators making blatantly out of policy blocks why pretending that there is a policy to back them up does a disservice to the whole community. Furthermore, the policies even state that blocks only happen at the most egregious instances, and people should 1. ignore the comments and 2. have the person strike it themselves. None of this happened. As such, admin who operate like this way are a threat to the integrity of this community in an equal manner to those who are sock puppets, who create vandalism, and the rest. This is an encyclopedia, not a place where people can make up rules to bully others into submission. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this for others to interpret then[1]. (added later as it was apparently ambiguous 04:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)) By this I mean I am removing this and over thousand other users from my watchlist and letting others interpret what they are doing. Chillum02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you suggesting you had Malleus on your talk page watchlist? Why ever would you do that? :) I'm intrigued. I only have... 5 (?) talk pages on my watchlist, and two are my own. (SandyGeorgia being one of the others, then Ceoil, and of course Malleus). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is so not realistic that adults have to work everything out without telling each other to fuck off every once in awhile. How do these people survive the real world without a CIV policy in place? I'd unblock Giano if I could, but I already revered Sandstein's block of Child of Midnight, and I can only take one Arbitrary case at a time. Lawtype!snype?06:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giano got off with time served. (Personally, I think he might have been better off not being quite so outrageous, but i'm not Italian either...) Ealdgyth - Talk12:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, a small group of people are trying to claim that an individual who never had a publication on Oscar Wilde and briefly claims Wilde was a pederast without any sources (and the claim only covers 3 lines in the essay) is some how a reliable source on Wilde's sexuality. They also push the idea that the source is as legitimate as Wilde biographies written by experts and fully sourced. And these individuals think they aren't being disruptive by continuing to claim such. I really don't understand how people like that are still allowed to be around here. It is rather obvious that they have no respect to our policies nor can be trusted in any regard with an encyclopedia.
Can we switch? I'd rather deal with Irish nationalists that are upset that there isn't enough coverage of their perspective than with the above. Why do you get all of the seemingly normal issues? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting - synchronicity in action. I just found the rather short but good page on James Bulger at the ODNB via their current "featured theme" on children and childhood.[2] You are no doubt aware that the ODNB also has an article on Myra Hindley. I am rather disappointed that the AfD discussion ended with our article being deleted - I should have thought an article in the ODNB was pretty good prima facie evidence of notability.
Harold Shipman could do with some work too. I'm really hoping the the AfD on Hindley and Brady goes the "right" way, because a pound to a penny none of those voting to keep those articles will lift a finger to sort them out. --MalleusFatuorum15:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot of Doom - It doesn't matter where I will go. This is a group of friends who keeps pushing this nonsense. They started on Persian Empire and continued to meat across various pages. Folantin, Fullstop, Dbachmann, Antandarus, Akhilleus, Itsmejudith (the last one is the one that is currently causing the most disruption with reinforcements of course. This is where she didn't make admin because of the same kind of disruption before), etc. I'm surprised Moreschi or Dougweller haven't yet tried. They are purposefully ignoring all of our rules just to destroy this encyclopedia, and they are using meat puppets to reinforce them. At least Irish nationalists -care- about the encyclopedia. The above group is merely dead set on destroying it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know more about GAN than me
Do you think this GAN is iffy enough to warrant objecting to? I have no particular interest in this article (it only found my way onto my watchlist due to a dispute over the capitalisation of its name) but not a single one of these "major issues" looks like a valid objection to me (although I agree that the map is too big for the article). – iridescent 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Note - having looked at this more closely, I realise two of the illustrations were actually taken by me way-back-when – iridescent20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I see any "major issues", but the uncited sections were always going to be a problem, along with the gallery. I'd have put it on hold while those issues and the map were sorted out. I don't see a problem with the lead, nor with the images in the table of stations. Because it doesn't presently meet the GA criteria I don't think there'd be any point in objecting to the quick fail. --MalleusFatuorum21:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I'm not losing sleep. I'd have failed it myself (and by definition it's an unstable article anyway, as all the trains on the line are in the process of being replaced). – iridescent21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Malleus. A couple months ago, you gave me a few pointers for taking Nikita Zotov up to GA status. I just wanted to thank you for your comments; your advice helped me take it through GAN. I was wondering if you had the time to look at it again; I was thinking about taking the article to FAC and I wanted to get your opinion first. Thanks for all your help, NW(Talk)23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Malleus; I recently gave a superficial copyedit of the Nikita Zotov article, and have noticed your recent changes. I haven't been able to find a MOS entry that advises either way, but surely it should be 17th/20th century or seventeenth/twentieth century, rather than 17th/twentieth? Second query; again not sure if we have a convention on it, but in terms of using or spelling numbers, I've always gone by the rule of thumb that one-or-two digit numbers should be spelled (e.g. "the woman was fifty years old"), and any number with more digits should be represented by number characters (e.g. "the woman was 107 years old"). Any thoughts? Skomorokh 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to Skomorokh, but a sentence ought not to start off with "20th century historians ..." The other usual MoS convention is that numbers less than ten are spelt out and those greater than 10 and over are given as numbers. Unless they're in a "list" as I've just done. If you disagree with any of my edits then feel free to revert them. --MalleusFatuorum00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being opaque; the diffs in question are 17th, twentieth and 50. Am I to understand not starting a sentence with a number takes precedence over consistency in the case of the centuries? I've had a look around the MoS and it seems ambiguous on fifty vs. 50: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." I'm not challenging your edits, just trying to understand the rationale, and more specifically the stylistic norms of the editors of high-end content, so that I can be a help rather than a hindrance in copyediting in future. Thanks both, Skomorokh 00:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered that you consider me a "high-end editor". :-) Basically yes, sentences ought not to start with a number. The MoS is ambiguous though on 50 vs fifty, I agree; it's ambiguous in lots of places in fact, but the less than/more than 10 rule is one that most seem to go by. --MalleusFatuorum01:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typography of figures has got to be be one of the most complex things on Wikipedia ;) Here are a few tid-bits from WP:MOSNUM:
"Centuries are given in figures: the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting."
"As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." However...
"Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs."
"Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer: 9 mm, The option price fell to 5 within three hours after the announcement." Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments such as this "I think that as an administrator you have been an officious, bullying, waste of space."[[3]] This is very innapropriate. To quote the warning template please comment on content not the contributer.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I think it is time to stop posting on Chillum's talk page. It is one thing to respond to people coming after you. However, once they start walking away, it is good to let them go. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hell in a Bucket has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
{{subst:if|||
{{{message}}}
||subst=subst:}}
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
?? What happened to my nice speech I put into here? lol I'm glad to see though that things are resolving - no need for the war; keep that elsewhere in the world. P.S. Malleus, cheers for the cyber-boot up my ass early, it kinda helped me out a little. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a cookie too, to say thanks - as long as I get to have a nibble on it! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
