Misplaced Pages

User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:28, 17 January 2008 view sourceMalleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)145,401 edits →RfA Thanks: good luck← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:05, 16 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,690 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2024/September, User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2024/December) (botTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!--{{Notice|The Wikimedia Foundation is not a software development organisation, and ought not to be pretending to be one. Let's try and make that clear to them by a regular Monday boycott until they come to their senses.}}
<center>
{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Monday now, so I'll be gone until tomorrow.}} |}}-->
<!--<center>
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;"> <div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;">
''''''</div> ''''''</div>-->
<!--{{Time-UTC-Banner}}--> <!--{{Time-UTC-Banner}}-->


{{GM News}}
</center>


<!-- {{wikipedia ads|ad=98}} -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(28d)
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Malleus Fatuarum/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
|archive = User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}}
{{archive box|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
<center><small>''Automatically archived every 28 days''</small></center>
}} }}
{{sidebar with collapsible lists
{{Signpost-subscription}}
| outertitle =
| topimage = ]
| bodyclass = hlist
| style = box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px #CCC; border-radius: 8px; background: #F8EABA; font-size: smaller;
| expanded =


| contentstyle = text-align: left;
__TOC__


| heading1
{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
| list1name = 2007
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top;color:#000000;font-size: 85%"|
| list1title = 2007 archive
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
| list1 =
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#CEF2E0; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #084080; text-align:left; color:#082840; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;"> Hello <font color=#0000FF>{{PAGENAME}}</font>! ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --<b>]]</b> (]) 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)</div>
* ]
|}
* ]
{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
* ]
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|
* ]
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
* ]
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Started</div>
* ]
|-
* ]
|style="color:#000"|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting your info out there</div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting more Misplaced Pages rules</div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
* ]
|-
|}
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Help</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting along</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting technical</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
|}
|}
|}


| heading2
== Brympton d'Evercy ==
| list2name = 2008
| list2title = 2008 archive
| list2 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading3
Would you be kind enough to take a look at ]. 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 ].&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
| list3name = 2009
| list3title = 2009 archive
| list3 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading4
: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. --] (]) 06:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
| list4name = 20010
| list4title = 2010 archive
| list4 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading5
== Cromer railway station ==
| list5name = 2011
| list5title = 2011 archive
| list5 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading6
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 ] & 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 ] 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.)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
| list6name = 2012
| list6title = 2012 archive
| list6 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading7
: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. :) --] (]) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
| list7name = 2013
| list7title = 2013 archive
| list7 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading8
::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 ].) 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, ]) with the separate sub-stubs changed to redirects to the appropriate sections. ] 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).<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
| list8name = 2014
| list8title = 2014 archive
| list8 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading9
:::If you're prepared to take on the trainspotters, then you're obviously a braver man than me. :) --] (]) 06:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
| list9name = 2015
| list9title = 2015 archive
| list9 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading10
::::I've actually done a u-turn on Reddish as it would contradict ] 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.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
| list10name = 2016
| list10title = 2016 archive
| list10 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading11
== Good to have you back ==
| list11name = 2017
| list11title = 2017 archive
| list11 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading12
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. ] is coming along nicely. Also, it'd be nice to get an image into the infobox for ]. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
| list12name = 2018
| list12title = 2018 archive
| list12 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading13
:Thanks. :)
| list13name = 2019
| list13title = 2019 archive
| list13 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| content35 =
: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. --] (]) 19:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
{{#tag:inputbox|
::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?&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
bgcolor=transparent

type=fulltext
:::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. :) --] (]) 19:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
prefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}/

break=no
::::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. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
width=22

searchbuttonlabel=Search
:::::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. --] (]) 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
}}

| navbar = none
== Ramsbottom ==
}}

{{-}}
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? ] (]) 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?] (]) 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. --] (]) 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

== Shall I compare thee ... ==

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, ] (]) 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. --] (]) 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guardian styleguide at http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184841,00.html agrees: <blockquote>"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"</blockquote>
] (]) 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." :) --] (]) 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

::How about "Altrincham, in comparison, has a..." - sidesteps the whole problem neatly.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 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. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Geology or Geography at ]? ] (]) 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? :) --] (]) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
::If I told 'ya I'd have to kill 'ya :-) Happy New Year. ] (]) 18:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

== hyphen help ==

Hi, As you may have spotted on ] the latest reviewer is saying that several things "should be hyphenated as compound adjectives". Can you advise or point me to the bit of MOS I should use for this?&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 09:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:. Applying the rules can be a bit complicated though, so you might also find it helps to look at as well. I agree with one of the examples the reviewer gave - "purpose-built" - but not the other - "much reduced output" - as that isn't being used as a compound adjective. Nobody would write the equivalent "very-reduced output", for instance. --] (]) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for this & your other edits. I think "a bit complicated" for these hyphen rules is a bit of an understatement - I will never understand English grammar I went to a grammar school!&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

== Somerset - incendiaries dropped on the correct location were doused wherever possible" is surely stating the bleedin' obvious? ==

Perhaps it is, but there is a balance between not saying it, saying in a convoluted manner, and saying it in a precise manner. I was trying to balance precise against convoluted. The convoluted reason is two fold: to fool the bombers into dropping their load in the wrong location (thereby preventing further damage); and to put out the fire, thereby preventing further damage. I've changed ''douse'' to ''smothered''; the incendaries may have been burning magnesium so dousing (with water) was not a good idea.] (]) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:The point I was making was that incendiaries would have been doused/smothered wherever possible wherever they were dropped. Except, presumably, in these decoy towns. So it seems a little obvious to say that incendiaries dropped on Bristol were put out wherever possible. Indeed it would have been worthy of mention had they not been. Were special measures put in place to douse/smother incendiaries dropped on Bristol more quickly than in any other town/city for instance? --] (]) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

::You are correct to surmise that incendiaries dropped on the decoy towns were not smothered; but I can't answer the question posed, may be it is unverifiable. I have been provided, earlier tonight, with a book reference that refers in more detail to this subject; so I will obtain a copy. I have visited one of Glasgow's decoy towns; and I knew (as of last week) that Birmingham had decoys; and I believe Manchester had some (you can probably deduce where they might have been located). What I mean, is not always what is written; and others often see that first. My point was the edit summary, itself; perhaps wikistress was present.] (]) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:::The topic of decoy towns - and the other devices used to divert bombers during WW2 - is an interesting one, worth an article in its own right. I came across a reference to sulphur burning fog generators supposed to have been installed near to where I live in Manchester, but I haven't managed to find one of them yet.

:::It wasn't my intention to cause you any wikistress, and I'm sorry if you felt that my edit summary reflected my opinion of your efforts to improve the article. --] (]) 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I took your advice and pinged Tony on whether the article now meets his standards. Thanks for your review, and for your help with copyediting. I also really appreciate the kind words&mdash;I'm pretty proud of the progress the article has made :) ] (]) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

::You ''should'' feel proud of it, it's a nice piece of work. I really hope that it gets the support it deserves. --] (]) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Good point about Travis's rank. I looked that up (he was a major), and added it into the article. Thanks! ] (]) 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! ] (]) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/January 2008}}

== shooting one's own foot! ==

Did I shoot myself in the foot? I did not get an admin coach (see your comment under oppose). RFA was spur of the moment that I only thought of in the last 2 days or so. ] (]) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:I was making a general point about admin coaches, but you obviously hadn't realised that the open to recall issue has become a bag of worms. So no, I don't think that you've shot yourself in the foot at all, and I'm pretty sure that you'll sail through, so don't worry. :-) --] (]) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

== Recall ==

I appreciate what Lar is doing, but it looks awfully complicated. I'll have to review his process before doing any comments on it. I still haven't actually thought through a process in my own mind yet. Thanks for the info about what he's working on. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:Lar's point, I think, is that every admin ought to be clear about the precise conditions under which they will be agree to subject to recall, and what will happen once those conditions are met. One size probably won't fit all. --] (]) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

== Christianity ==

You are a true hater of any attempt to improve this project. When a clear and concerted effort was in progress, a real attempt to improve this article was being undertaken, you just killed the process with out consensus. I have spent months trying to improve many articles/portals/projects/etc. and you destroyed everything I belived the whole wiki-thing was about by "calling" this article finished when it clearly wasn't. If it is just that easy to crush so much work while it is in progress I will not use any more of my life on this. -- ] (]) 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:That's rather a misrepresentation of the facts. I simply closed the GA review as it was clear to me the consensus was that the article was not a GA and still required substantial work. When that has been done it is a very simple matter to put the article forwards for another GA nomination. The purpose of the GA review is to attempt to establish a consensus as to whether an article meets the GA criteria or not, not to pass any other kind of judgement. To suggest that I "am a hater of any attempt to improve this project" is quite simply hyperbolic rhetoric. --] (]) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

== Peterborough ==

Hello again,

Adminship going further and further out of reach now.... I just wondered how you felt about ] being an FA? A cursory glance through the article highlights alot of (admittedly fairly minor) breaches of MOS, grammatical redundancy and some mild peacock terms.

I've raised some concerns at the talk page where another user has asked if more users from ] would be able to make some commentary/judgement. I thought of you (and ]). Hope you get a chance to fly by. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:Looking through the FA review I'm a bit surprised that it was promoted in the first place. It certainly doesn't look like an FA to me. --] (]) 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for the input. Much appreciated as ever! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

== January Newsletter, Issue IV ==

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Newsletter/January 2008}}

== London congestion charge - FAC ==

As promised I thought I would let you know that following your assistance, I have nominated ] for ]. Comments are welcome at ]. ] (]) 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:Good luck with it, I hope it goes well. --] (]) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

== Burge ==

I did mean to quickfail it, sorry - you can remove it from the nominee list. ] (]) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

]Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on ]! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the ] and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to ] status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --]]] 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC) {{-}}

== Salford ==

The fact that one folk singer refers to Salford as 'Dirty old town' doesn't mean that it 'has been given the nickname', it means that one folk singer wrote one song. The citation doesn't go beyond these simple facts. As a long term resident of Salford, I have NEVER heard anyone use this as a nickname - EVER - resident or visitor. Most people in the area are aware of the song and its history and it is rightly mentioned later on in the article and I can see no problem with this. If you can come up with convincing evidence that this has ever been a nickname, (in the way that Londoners call London 'the smoke' or New Yorkers call their town 'The Big Apple' then please do, you will be hard pressed to find any reference which is not in a copy of the WP page or mentions the song. I have no personal axe to grid here excepting that this reference has already been made in the article, and to repeat it seems derogatory.] (]) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:The reference comes from a book about Salford, not from one singer. Did you check the citation before you decided that it was "irrelevant"? I do not consider the fact that ''you'' have never come across the term to be especially relevant in the face of evidence to the contrary. --] (]) 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== ]s ==

Happy New Year, Malleus Fatuarum! Since you've assessed quite a few good articles and contributed to them, I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for ], and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:
*'']''. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and ], I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other ] films) quality.
*]. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks ] ]. Although I've already requested ], as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other '']''-centric articles.
If you have the time, it'd be great if you could review those articles and assess their strengths and weaknesses. And if you wish to submit feedback, go to those articles's talk pages and follow the links. Thanks, and a Happy New Year to you! — ] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'm afraid that I'm not really the right person to ask about films or any other arts topics really. I'm much happier looking at a statistical result than I am about weighing up the opinions of ephemeral critics. I'm often reminded of a probably apocryphal story about the 1990s visit of a Chinese envoy to France; when asked what his opinion of the ] was all he had to say was: "Too soon to tell".

:I'd be happy to pop along and give you my opinion on how well those articles are written though, content aside. --] (]) 02:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Dashing about ==

Thanks for tidying up Trafford, I really need to look up guidelines on dash usage etc, you've done a lot of work because I didn't get it right first time. Any ideas where I find that? ] (]) 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:] is the place to look. But the thing that seems to trip lots of editors up is that the same same MOS rules apply to references as well, so it's a bit of a minefield. To say nothing of the hyphenation "rules", which could drive a saint to drink. --] (]) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

::I see what you mean. My favourite part is "en dashes are stylistic alternative to em dashes" as if it wasn't complicated enough already. ] (]) 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Bath GA review ==

No I always find your contributions constructive. I'd also like ] to get to FA (again) but need to get ] & ] over that hurdle first!&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing out a few things I missed in the review. I appreciate your help, and keep up the good work! Happy editing! --] (]) 10:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== adverbial construction ==

Hi, another favour. In the latest reviewers comments at ] a reviewer states: "Drainage started in Roman times, and was restarted various times: - odd as times is a now in the first and part of an adverbial construction in the second. maybe reword?" - I have no idea what an adverbial construction is - could you look at the sentence?&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'll take a look and see if I understand it any more than you do. :-) --] (]) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Re: Albin of Brechin ==

Thanks for reviewing the article. I was like "whoa, nice! I never saw that!". I'll keep working on it, and thanks for the support. ] (]) 00:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:I wish you luck with the article. :-) --] (]) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Use of rollback ==

You mentioned on RfR about only needing to use rollback occasionally. Well, it doesn't really matter how much you use it: it's how you use it. If you only perform one or two rollbacks a day (or even a week), as long as rollback is used to revert vandalism and not to edit war, then there's nothing to worry about. :) Good luck. ] 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks :-) --] (]) 19:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::You're welcome. :) ] 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Thomas Brassey GA ==

Malleus. Many thanks for your involvement in the ] article. I am of course pleased that you have accepted it as a GA, but more than that I am grateful for the way you have done it - no putting it on hold to deal with minutiae, etc. I was keen to get this article accepted as as a GA because Brassey is an important unrecognised Cestrian (and by the way it's good to have you as a participant in the ]). I have been persuaded by Doug Haynes (and others) that he deserves more credit than he has received to date. I shall deal with the points you raised in the next day or two and will place any comments on the talk page. Best wishes - and Happy New Year. Peter. ] (]) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:Brassey ''is'' an important Cestrian, as you say, and one who's been surprisingly forgotten. You wrote an excellent article, so it would have been churlish of me to deny the little green dot just for the sake of a very few minor points, which I had full confidence that you would address anyway.

:I hope to get more involved with the Cheshire project this year, but I'll be careful to stay away from articles that I might be asked, or want, to review. --] (]) 21:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Somerset FA & prose ==

Hi again, If you had a minute could you look at the comments of the last 2 reviewers on ] & see whether you think the changes suggested are reasonable?&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:By and large I don't think that they're reasonable, no, and you and the other editors have probably already done all that can reasonably be expected to be done to deal with them. Several of the comments seemed to display an ignorance of the subject and its context (the metric/imperial nonsense again) and others were verging on ''I don't like it'', like the demand to get the maps redrawn as SVGs. I have to say that I'm really not keen on that ugly Americanism, ''Transportation'' either. --] (]) 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== Email ==

Ping. ]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] again ==

So, I've done the last 2 pages of everything, rewent through your list, and I'm pretty sure I've made improvements to the article. It used to sound like this scholarly textbook-type thing that would definitely make me fall asleep. Anyway, I hope it is good enough to make GA now, and please let me know if there's anything else needed to get there. Thanks again for your dedication to the nomination. ] (]) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:That's a very substantial improvement.Nice job! A couple of the references (12 and 14) are broken though, so you might want to take a look at those. ] has indicated an intention to make some further changes, so as one of the GA criteria is that an article should be stable, I propose to wait for a few more days before deciding whether or not to list this article. I'm happy to extend the hold period in cases where the article is being worked on satisfactorily, like this one is. Looking pretty good so far though. --] (]) 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'm looking into how the broken references work. Anything I can do to help stability? ] (]) 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::It really depends on what changes ] plans on making now. If they're fairly minor, no sweat. But if they're more substantial, adding lots of new information, significantly restructuring the article, well ....

:::I'd suggest that you contact ], and come to some agreement between you on what version of this article you want the final GA assessment to be made against. But whatever the outcome, you should be pleased with the work that you've done in transforming this article from one that definitely would not have passed to one that's now got a fighting chance. I'm sure that if we all work together in good faith we can get that little green dot for Albin. Keep up the good work!. :-) --] (]) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Rudget! ==

<div style="background-color: white; border: #5B92E5 solid 2px; margin-bottom:.5em; padding: 5px; font-family: trebuchet ms, sans-serif;">]<font color="#084C9E">Dear Malleus Fatuarum, my sincere thanks for your participation in ], which ended with '''113''' supports, '''11''' opposes, and '''4''' neutral. I would especially like to thank ], ] and ] who in addition to ] all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to ], ] and ] who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that ] really does have something ] don't. Who would have though ] would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, ]] 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC) </font></div>

== Edgar Wood ==

Thanks for that. I hoped to get a run on St George's too (more info there), but had to settle for ], about which I have nearly nothing. Ah well, time for kip. Regards, ] (]) 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== Woah boy woah!!!! ==

Malleus, I created a stub with the name ], fixed the link and you red-linked it again ten minutes later! Slow down boy, slow down!!! ] (]) 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:I thought we'd agreed on the naming convention ''Church of St Mary tbe Virgin, Prestwich''? Rather than ''Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, Prestwich''? If I've got it wrong, then I apologise. --] (]) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:On second thoughts, I apologise regardless. I should have noticed that you'd turned the link blue and not touched it. My fault. :-) --] (]) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::No big deal, I thought we were doing church or parish church depending on which it was. Anyway I'm off to bed now as I'm knackered. No more red-linking while I'm gone!!:-) ] (]) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I'll try my best not to make things worse while you're gone. I'll be gone shortly myself anyway, so that limits my potential for causing any more collateral damage. :) --] (]) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Oops, I see what you mean now - I hadn't read the last bit of the conversation on naming. And I have to admit I was once a left-footer too!! Adeste fideles laete triumphantes etc, etc. I hope you weren't a Cardinal Langley boy too? ] (]) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::No, I wasn't, I went to Catholic schools in Scotland, but when my family moved down to England I went to a regular grammar school, which I much preferred. I've got half a mind to go back to confession one day, just to get a few things off my chest. "Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It is ... errr ... well ... an ''awful'' long time since my last confession. But that's not why I'm here. I'm here about the stance that the Roman Catholic Church has taken on ..." --] (]) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== RfA Thanks ==

Hi Malleus Fatuarum - thanks for your participation in ]. I will try to prove myself to be as sensible and reasonable as you found my answers to the questions and editing history. The RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to ]. ] (]) 09:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:Good luck with your new buttons. :-) --] (]) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] the third ==

Thanks for your second review. I know that this article's GA process is probably rougher than most, and I've seen many who just rate it and don't give it a second thought, and you have just put a lot of time into this, so, um, thanks :). Anyway, when's the new on hold date for resolving with Deacon and making the second set of changes? Would it be 7 days from you posting on my talk page? Thanks again. ] (]) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:I said this Friday midnight on the talk page, but if things are still progressing then, and it's looking promising, I'm quite open to extending the end date a little more. GA reviews ''are'' a little variable, I agree. I guess you just drew the short straw. :-)

:To be serious though, if GA is going to be worth anything, then it's got to be more than a quick look through and a yay or a nay. I don't think I'm being especially tough, but if you or anyone else does, then we can always ask for a second opinion and I'll abide by that. And if the result of the review isn't considered acceptable, then there's always ]. So it's not all just down to me. --] (]) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:: My strength as a[REDACTED] editor is my knowledge and the research I do; I'm delighted that someone will take their time to teach me more about making these articles more readable and professional. As for the GA process, it's rather random and the GA award isn't really anything to me other than a signal that it's close to being ready for FA, which doesn't matter if there's no intention of going down that route. However, I'm gonna use GA more from now on because, like FA, it's a pretty fine way of getting people to review articles without straining friendships. FA noms are the only guaranteed way for this, but GA noms give a chance for it too, as Malleus and Albin demonstrate. ] (<small>]</small>) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks for taking the time to say that. The research that you've done is really impressive; all I've tried to do is to make it accessible to more readers in the case of the Albin article. --] (]) 01:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

A belated thank you for your RFA support! ] (]) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:No sweat, you deserved it. :-) --] (]) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:05, 16 January 2025

2007 archive
2008 archive
2009 archive
2010 archive
2011 archive
2012 archive
2013 archive
2014 archive
2015 archive
2016 archive
2017 archive
2018 archive
2019 archive
User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions Add topic