Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:25, 6 May 2009

I am outraged that the AdminWatch initiative to level the playing field between the standards of behaviour expected of administrators and non-administrators was taken to MFD. It may work, it may not, but the defensive attitudes displayed by some administrators left a bad taste in the mouth. No wonder that so many editors simply walk away in the face of unchecked administrator abuse.

Archives

2007 April • May • June •July • August • September • October • November • December 2008 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2009 January • February • March

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements

• Manchester Mark 1 promoted to FA 28 September 2010
• Manchester computers promoted to GA 23 September 2010
• Trafford Park promoted to FA 9 September 2010
• Hyde F.C. failed at GAN 5 September 2010
• Belle Vue Zoological Gardens promoted to FA 7 August 2010
• Manchester United F.C. promoted to FA 27 July 2010
• 1910 London to Manchester air race promoted to FA 1 June 2010
• 1996 Manchester bombing promoted to GA 17 March 2010
• Chadderton promoted to FA 2 February 2010
• Rochdale Town Hall promoted to GA 26 January 2010

AFD Re-opened

As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations

Hi there. I am hoping to draw on your experience and views re GAs: if you have a moment, can you glance at a question I have raised at the above talk page, relating to a review I am commencing of California Proposition 8 (2008)? I will also ask a couple of other experienced editors whom I know to take a look at the same thing. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I win!

I think I'm now the winner of the "most boring article" contest. Can you beat something whose very claim to notability is that nothing of any interest ever happened there? (Iridescent)

Try Chinaman's Hat (Port Phillip). Ling.Nut 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it Martin Gardner who "proved" that there are no uninteresting numbers? I think that by claimimg victory you automatically lose. --Philcha (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always believed that "boring" is a property of the observer, not of the subject. To paraphrase comedian Frank Carson "It's the way you tell 'em!" --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, some things are just plain boring. Heathrow Junction railway station, anyone? – iridescent 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little hasty ... :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Euclidean algorithm

I'm a tad confused why you think that the above page should be supported as an FA. Just a list of some lines that are uncited:

1. A more subtle definition of the GCD is helpful in advanced mathematics, particularly ring theory.
2. In modern mathematical language, the ideal formed by a and b is a principal ideal generated by g.
3. For example, this style of mathematical argument is used to show that the Euclidean algorithm for integers must end in a finite number of steps.
4. The remainder is equivalent to the congruence class in modular arithmetic.
5. A generalization of this result is known as Sturm's theorem.
6. Bézout's identity, and therefore the previous algorithm, can both be generalized to the context of Euclidean domains.
7. For example, suppose that a cook has two measuring cups of volume a and b, respectively. By adding and subtracting multiples of these two volumes, the cook can measure out any volume ua + vb. These volumes are all multiples of g = GCD(a, b).
8. The matrix method is as efficient as the equivalent recursion, with two multiplications and two additions per step of the Euclidean algorithm.
9. The unique factorization of numbers into primes has many applications in mathematical proofs, as shown below.
10. this is impossible for a system of linear equations when the solutions can be any real number.
11. A finite field is a set of numbers with four generalized operations.
12. Euclid's algorithm is widely used in practice, especially for small numbers, due to its simplicity. For comparison, the efficiency of alternatives to Euclid's algorithm may be determined.
13. One inefficient approach to finding the GCD of two natural numbers a and b is to calculate all their common divisors; the GCD is then the largest common divisor.
14. However, it may be generalized to the real numbers, and to more exotic number systems such as polynomials, quadratic integers and Hurwitz quaternions. In the latter cases, the Euclidean algorithm is used to demonstrate the crucial property of unique factorization, i.e., that such numbers can be factored uniquely into irreducible elements, the counterparts of prime numbers. Unique factorization is essential to many proofs of number theory.
15. The real-number Euclidean algorithm differs from its integer counterpart in two respects. First, the remainders rk are real numbers, although the quotients qk are integers as before. Second, the algorithm is not guaranteed to end in a finite number N of steps. If it does, the fraction a/b is a rational number, i.e., the ratio of two integers

etc.

POV, peacock characterizations, etc, clearly need to be cited regardless of claims about an article's statements not being "controversial". Hell, many of the examples violate OR, including the one in number 7 or number 9. I'm surprised no one tagged number 12 as blatantly needing a citation. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Much of it seems to be self-evident, not requiring citations. Take your example of #7 for instance; hardly OR, just a practical application of the algorithm, wouldn't you agree? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Self evident? OR is very, very clear. You cannot take one thing and "apply" it. We are a tertiary source. We are only allowed to -summarize- other sources, not create our own information. It is right at the beginning of WP:OR that this is 100% not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to have. And phrases like "A more subtle", "efficient", "widely used", are clearly needing to be cited. Finally, even Wikitionary would require someone to cite a source when defining words. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right, in which case I don't agree with the present framing of WP:OR as it's being applied to mathematics articles. I don't consider it any more "original research" to invent an example like #7 than it is to invent a graphic showing the basic structure of a virus. In any case, I've seen the example of the cooks and their measuring jugs elsewhere, and it not infrequently appears in one form or another in IQ-type tests, so it's not an invented example anyway. But my fundamental position is that anyone who has followed the exposition of the algorithm to that point would have no difficulty in perceiving the truth of the statement, so a citation would only be there to reassure those who haven't understood what's been said. That's surely not the purpose of providing citations. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want, I can scan you copies of Euclid textbooks that go to great lengths showing sources and verification for what they say, which is not even close to happening on the current page. Every other scientific field has to prove that what is said is verifiable. Every other scientific page has to have citations. Every other FAC needs to be fully cited. Why the double standard? I'm not pointing out the formulas. I'm pointing out secondary material that is phrased as either definitional or subjective. Citations exist to prove that Misplaced Pages is a legitimate tertiary source. How can we have such a reputation if we have phrases like "The matrix method is as efficient as the equivalent recursion" without any verification? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right Ottava, and certainly I don't find your position untenable. It's just that I don't see the same need as you do for citing what appears to me to be self-evident. Luckily it's not my FAC, but if it was I'd now be forced to buckle down and provide the citations you're looking for. I don't see it as a "double standard" though; literary articles, for instance, obviously require copious citations, as they're almost entirely descriptive or expressions of critical opinion, but I see no particular reason to so densely cite material in a mathematical article, in which the propositions are developed logically one from another. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to put one citation at the end of a paragraph. But I'm not asking for the equations or formulas to be cited. I'm asking for the descriptive terms that are thrown in that talk about things of a subjective nature. Statements like "widely used in practice" are subjective. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not my FAC Ottava. I've supported it and for better or worse I won't be changing my mind. You must surely have noticed that once my mind is made up I rarely change it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I just figured that your support was showing that you were going soft, so I needed to chastise you a bit to make sure that you are on your game when I start making demands for our pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed another FAC today as well as this one you're concerned about, so I don't think I'm going soft. Time will tell though I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you have grown soft. If I was reviewing that page, I would have opposed because that page read and acted as if it was simply a header for a category instead of actually providing something more encyclopedic to justify why it would even matter. I just looked up German American and realized that this is a growing trend. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I did oppose it, but I didn't see any need to be confrontational about it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See! Soft! Oppose it with descriptions like "strong" in front of it and make sure to put many exclamation marks!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Response from WT:RFA

"I don't think that position quite makes sense. I imagine it's rooted in the assumption that an editor who lodges a support vote without rationale is implicitly agreeing with the nominator's statement. But equally an oppose vote without rationale could be taken as implicit disagreement with the nomionator's statement."

You are correct on the assumption that I'm working on. However, my attitude towards RfAs is that its purpose is twofold (if you care, you can read my ramblings about RfA); the secondary aspect of RfA is to serve as a sort of "enhanced editor review" for the candidate, with (hopefully worthwhile) feedback being provided, even on successful ones. Because of that attitude, I don't see the no-rationale RfA !votes as being helpful; there's nothing for the candidate to work with (disagreement with the nominator's statement? I can buy that, sure, but what exactly are they objecting to?).

Perhaps it's a bit idealistic of me to hope that others consider the process for its self-improvement aspects, but that's at least why I consider the burden of evidence to be on the shoulders of those that oppose. (and sorry for bringing this to your talk page, but the thread got archived before I could get back to it, and I felt you deserved a direct response) EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I can understand that if you think of RfA (at least in part) as some kind of editor review your view is not an unreasonable one to hold. My own opinion though is that it's an enhanced form of bear baiting, where the unpopular spectators get mauled along with the bear. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think your take on the process is entirely without merit. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that it's not without merit. I also know that I'm one of those the baying crowd wants to see mauled. But do I care? Not a bit. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean you don't enjoy being told how much you suck by dozens of people with bold adjectives? –Juliancolton |  04:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when it bothered me a little, but that was a long time ago now. There's no way I'm going to give the bastards the pleasure of a third mauling though. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I at least respect you, even if I don't always agree with you. Sorry I couldn't whip out any bold adjectives for it. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert Foliot

Hey! I think one of the longer bishops I've ever done is ready for the prose to be ruthelessly pruned and polished, if you have the time and inclination? As usual, I would be forever in your debt. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, that's a big one! --Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he's a big boy. Big player in the Becket problem. Probably one of the longest bishops I'll write for a while... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

2nd opinion, admin and non

Star and Malleus: Can you look over the section on my talkpage called User talk:Keeper76#User page deletions? Am I totally in left field on this one? I haven't "adminned" in a few months, was clearing CSD (a no brainer), and now this otterathome guy is insisting that I'm a complete idiot and about to crash Misplaced Pages. Your opinion, regardless of whatever it is, will not result in a block of your account :-) Keeper | 76 17:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously you made a mistake initially in deleting the userpage, but you quickly corrected that when it was pointed out to you. Otterathome's point, so far as I can understand it, appears to be that because you also deleted the user's subpages you in some way destroyed valuable evidence of something or other. But as the content of those userpages is still available to any of the many thousands of admins we have here on[REDACTED] I really can't see what there is to get excited about. As an administrator though your hands are tied in how you can respond without causing that "dramah" that so upsets the children. For myself, I'd just tell otterathome to fuck off and come back when he's grown up. You may of course prefer to tone that down for public consumption. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Input appreciated. The content was trivial bits and pieces of his userpage that he subst'ed around, plus some copies of existing articles. Nothing at all really. And not that you asked. Keeper | 76 20:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto what Malleus said: a lot of hoo-hah about nothing. You are not nuts. Except perhaps for coming back, but we won't hold that against you :) Maralia (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Chat Moss

I'll put this here rather than the article's talk page as its a bit naughty. I have a scan here of this book:

• Smith, Peter J. C., Luftwaffe Over Manchester: The Blitz Years 1940-1944, Neil Richardson, ISBN 1852161515

which may be of interest to you regarding Chat Moss. I'm building an article for Carrington Moss and a local resident emailed it to me. It'll be gone in a couple of days so make sure you save it if you want it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

PS, I've been pinching bits from the Chat Moss article (rewording slightly) and wondered if you had a saved copy of this source? It has a section on Carrington Moss which would be useful. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the scan. I've downloaded a copy and I'll certainly add something to the Chat Moss article. There's quite a bit of information on Carrington Estate in Robert Nicholl's book Manchester's Narrow Gauge Railways which I've got a copy of. It was one of my primary sources for the Chat Moss article. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re the paper you asked about, I guess I must have downloaded a copy, else I wouldn't have known what the paper's conclusion was—unless I made it all up, of course. :-) Just got to find where I put it though ... --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the article so far. I think I'll make it live soon. I only live a mile or so away so will go up when the sun is out to get some nice pictures. I must do the same with Chat Moss, that's only around the corner too. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GAR template removal

Surely you cannot think that it is all right that User:Jennavecia removed the {{GAR}} template from the article talk page, so that only the involved FAC editors and their followers can comment. Do you? Plus I cannot contact other editors, else I am accused of violating WP:CANVASSING, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Do you really think that is fair for an admin to use admin powers to protect certain editors? And one of the editors, it turns out, is being viewed by Arbitration for the very POV I complained about in the article. How can you possibly think that is right? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that you do not have it in you. Too bad. I will not comment again. And again, I ask you to refrain from posting on my page. It brings no good to me. Please stop. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

... and once again you demonstrate very well that you have an unfortunate tendency to personalise every disagreement. Another recent example: "I now realize that I have a 'dispute' with Awadewit. I will no longer consider myself on good terms with her or you, since that is the way you want to frame it." Such reactions are not rational. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was quoting User:Cirt's as that is what he said. I now see that Awadewit is just like the rest, no better and no worse. About on your level. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself, can you, or even recognise what you're doing. But please take it somewhere else, I've seen quite enough of it already. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really believe Mattisse that this kind of thing is helpful then I'm afraid that there really is no hope for you. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

I would like to restore Conversion therapy to GA status. Can you help? Questions:

• Were Born Gay's major changes the reason that GA status was lost?
• Now that months have passed since your review, what areas still need work?
• Is significant work still needed or is the article far from GA status?
• What, if any aspects of the GA version could be used to restore GA status to the current version of the article?

What major I would appreciate any feedback on the situation. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Any article can become a GA

So, I take it from your response to me above that you agree with User:Jennavecia, User:Awadewit and User:Cirt that any article can become a GA? (See Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1) In the past you encouraged me to open a GAR if I felt an article did not meet the requirements. Now, an AN/I thread is opened because I dared to do so. That is my only sin, plus disagreeing with User:Awadewit that Michael Moore is a modern day Thomas Paine, more so that others mentioned in that connection, and so should go into an article on a work by Thomas Paine. That is the total of my current sins. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Look Mattisse, it's no secret that I think you've been behaving like a complete prat, and are continuing to behave like one. Everything is always someone else's fault, never yours. Now get the hell off my talk page until you have leaned how to conduct yourself rationally. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please join the Arbitration against me at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. I believe your attitude shows that your comments would be welcomed. I want to be sure that nothing negative is omitted. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme

Thanks for your help getting this up to GA. When you get a moment, could you put those thoughts you mentioned you have on the article talk page, now that the GAN is over? Thanks, Majorly talk 19:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)