User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2009/June

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

Chiswick Bridge

If you get the chance (no rush) could you have a quick look at Chiswick Bridge? This, and its near twin Twickenham Bridge are the ones most likely to derail the Bridges FT, as there is really nothing remotely interesting to say about either. (Even the much-loathed Wandsworth Bridge has a surprisingly interesting history – there can't be many major city bridges where "stealth profile" was a design consideration. "Concrete bridge built as part of the Richmond bypass" would probably bore even DYK, and there's only so much blood that can be wrung from the Boat Race stone.) – iride scent 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at Chiswick Bridge as it happens. Good luck with the GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Me and all...

Just been checking some bits I missed, not being an avid reader of the drama boards other than the woeful ongoing muddle that is RFA. I missed your recent go, and I'm sorry I did. It wouldn't have made a difference but I'd like to have added my support - and if you want to know what I'd have put, I'd be happy to supply both versions... I've come across your stuff in enough places enough times to impress; as for that Opps lot, t'would be best left unsaid here. Now having seen such a downhearted message here, I wanted to say something. I'm not on IRC (never will) nor WR (I'm considering it now, given my feelings about the way things are/are going. What do you think re?). Anyway. All the best Plutonium27 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Plutonium. It's over 18 months since my last (and I do mean last) RfA though, but the experience still rankles. Especially when some poncey pre-pubescent herbert who's not fit to clean my boots comes round here shrilly whining about "incivility"; some days all I can see is the breathtaking hypocrisy and dishonesty that's become systematic here.

So far as WR is concerned, take a look for yourself; you don't have to register to read what's happening. Even though I don't agree with everything, or perhaps even much, that's said there, I think it acts as an entirely healthy counterpoint to this site. Criticism here is suppressed in the name of the false god of "minimising disruption". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'd misread the RFA list and as I didn't check them out individually, I thought you'd been up for go more recently. But that doesn't alter the point and I'm sorry it cut you up so (it bloody well would have done me the same and all). Your point about the "poncey pre-pubescent herbert" tendency is spot on. As for WR, it'd be interesting to see how others are taking (or not) the crap, soI'm up for a look soon as. Meanwhile, keep at it, ay? Plutonium27 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In regards

In regards to this comment. If you could point out when I have ever acted in a manner that was not civil I would gladly address this matter. Once you point out an example that is. Chillum 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Go away. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I really cannot give your argument much credence if you do not present an argument. Good day. Chillum 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I can give you a few instances where we ran into each other where you were definitely not civil. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mere facts Ottava. Chillum's not interested in the facts, he's on a mission. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point I would actually really appreciate a few facts. While accusations and insinuations are nice and all, sometimes I want something with a bit more substance. Some evidence would be a wonderful change of pace. To put a word on it, "Diffs". Chillum 17:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Look for them yourself, there's hardly a shortage. Or are you claiming that you're perfect? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually you brought the subject of my incivility up. Do you really think you can accuse someone and then demand evidence from them that your accusations are false? Be realistic, the burden of proof is on you. I did not claim to be perfect. I said "If you could point out when I have ever acted in a manner that was not civil I would gladly address this matter". This is rather the opposite of claiming to be perfect, is it telling you that if you can show me where I have erred that I will take responsibility for this. I will also point out that one does not have to be "perfect" to treat users on Wikipedia with a basic level of respect, an imperfect person can accomplish this with minimal effort. But instead of actually demonstrating any fault of mine you have asked me to prove I have made no fault. I am not perfect, so if you can show me where I have erred I can address this. I am giving much more consideration to your concerns about my behavior than you ever gave to my concerns about your behavior.

Once again, if you have an issue with my behavior then please provide diffs to demonstrate the specifics of your concerns. Chillum 18:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum - Diffs are normally required for ANI, RfC, or ArbCom. Would you really wish to progress to that point, or would you rather it have a blanket opinion known so as to avoid each other in the future instead of needing it to get to that point? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Chillum I didn't bring it up, you yourself did, in making personal comments about me. Now why not just run along and do whatever it it is that you admins do, but somewhere else please? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If neither of you are able to bring up specific examples then I am content to disregard these concerns. If you change your mind simply come to my talk page and I will gladly address any specific concern you have. Chillum 18:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, want to go back a ways and we can dig through my talk page? I can think of two times that you came charging onto my talk page in a very unseemly manner. You did offer, didn't you? I've been wanting to put you on the spot and make you answer for some of the things you said back then for a long time, and I really don't mind doing it. It actually might be kathardic. And I don't mind that I am currently working on over 40 pages (15, 11, and 8 page DYKs sets for Coleridge, 9, 12, and 10 for Ainsworth, 7 pages for GA for Keats, 5 for Eliot) if this would be the topic of discussion. However, looking at your contribs, it seems like you might not be able to keep up with content editing and such a discussion.... but it doesn't seem as if you really create much of any content so I doubt the time spent discussing it wont phase you at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this Ottava. I fell foul of Chillum (what a poor choice of username that is) after he took it upon himself to start removing oppose votes he didn't like at RfA. He's what he is though, and he doesn't see anything wrong with what he is. You and I may perhaps both feel that he's a sanctimonious knobhead, but that's not yet a crime. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, in the lack of specific examples I really cannot move forward on your complaints. I am sorry you don't like my username. It is probably not best to resort to name calling, even when we disagree with a person's actions. "Knobhead"? Come on, you should not be complaining about my civility(while not showing me what you are complaining about) while resorting to name-calling in the same breath. What does "knobhead" really add to the conversation other than abuse? Chillum 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the device used for the consumption of illegal substances Chillum; I have made no complaint. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, a complaint would require some sort of justification. Instead you just made a baseless comment in passing. I assumed you were making some sort of case because you "rested" your case. I am here to say that if you are resting your case, then it is not an effective case. You forgot the evidence, in fact you never really made it clear what your case was.

Next time you feel like making a comment about me either be prepared to justify it, or just keep it to yourself. Chillum 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your very sound advice, and naturally I shall treat it with all the respect that it deserves. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a complaint that doesn't need a diff - Chillum, thread your comments. It is highly difficult to discuss things with you when you keep outdenting without it even reaching the fifth indentation point. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am just using the same indent level I started on. I have been doing it that way for about 3 years now without complaint. Chillum 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, now you have one, so you can no longer say that. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. لenna vecia 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse forums

...too many forums! Everything is spread all over Wikipedia. Can we all agree to talk in one and only one place? Ling.Nut (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've said all that I intend to say. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but some valued Wikipedia contributor or other may make outlandish remarks that need to receive a realistic reply... and we needs all of those remarks by all of those valued Wikipedia contributors corralled into one place. Tired of playing Multi-forum Whack-a-mole! Ling.Nut (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Then someone else will have to deal with them. I've made my position clear, it won't be changing. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK! :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me be brutally honest; Mattisse has got herself into this shit, and what she needs to do now is to propose a plan that makes it look like she is at least beginning to think about taking responsibility for her own actions. No round-the-clock advisory service, no more bullshit. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there could be good outcomes, and there could be bad outcomes. Everything depends upon Mattisse – how she handles formulating her plan, how she handles following her plan, how she handles receiving input from a trusted pool of peers, how she handles interacting with the contradictory cacophony of folks who for some reason or another want to be involved in her planning, how she handles the oft-arising friction at FAC, FAR etc. All depends on her. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite. I hope something can be worked out, but right now I'm not seeing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Too many cooks. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Favour?

Malleus, would you be able to give me an opinion on this recent copyedit of Æthelberht of Kent? As the primary author I want to be careful I don't act like an owner of the article, but I don't like the copyedit very much and would appreciate another opinion from a good writer such as yourself. Some examples: "For the first time following the Anglo-Saxon invasion": I think this is a poor use of "following"; "as were his wife and daughter": unsourced; "wider-scale conversion to Christianity began in the kingdom": "in the kingdom" is unnecessary; "although essentially": this is less euphonious than the phrasing I had. Not to mention the introduction of US dates, which I definitely will revert if I revert nothing else. I'm not asking you to give it a copyedit, just to let me know if you think my concerns with the prose are justified. Thanks for any time you can spare -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're chancing your arm aren't you? Hasn't anyone told you I'm a loose cannon, unlikely to pour oil on troubled waters but instead to stir them into a boiling cauldron?</joke>

Of course I'll take a look and let you know what I think. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see what you mean. The article's clearly in need of some tidying up, but that wasn't it. In your position I'd revert the lot and start again. Copyediting's a difficult balancing act, trying to retain the voice and style of the author while making what corrections have to be made without compromising the article's accuracy. For me that effort fell way short. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's just what I was looking for. I will leave it a bit before I revert as I don't have time to do the copyedit pass right now, but I am glad to get another opinion for when I do. (I'm settling into a new house; just got the net connection back this morning and have to do things with shelf paper, appliances, cables, furniture and such before I can work on Wikipedia.) I appreciate the help. Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yetta nutha fava: Bart Sells His Soul

Hi, Malleus, could you be really kind and look over Talk:Bart_Sells_His_Soul/GA1 and the article - no copyediting, just a 2nd opinion. Am I asking for too much here? I don't consider myself a style expert, but so much of the prose grates on my ears, despite recent changes. The sad thing is that in other respects it mostly looks GA-worthy. --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a fine judgement I think, just how good does the prose need to be to meet the GA criteria. For me this article doesn't quite make it. Too many sentences like this: "Daniels then suggest the idea of selling someone's soul, which originated from his childhood, and the writers liked it." --Malleus Fatuorum 12:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a good example of chacun á son goût - apart from the minor grammar / typo "Daniels then suggest" I found that less grating than poor explanation and convoluted sentences in the Plot Summary. But then I simply asked you to skim through, so it's natural that different things would strike us. Enough rabbiting - thanks again! --Philcha (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Hello, Malleus Fatuorum. I don't want to bother you if you are busy, but if you could have a look at the conversion therapy article and say how you think things are going, it would be much appreciated. I am trying to focus on getting the formatting there right, but I am finding that rather difficult, and any help or comment you could offer would be welcome. Born Gay (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through. When I saw that it was a delisted GA I wondered who had delisted it, and why, and when I checked I found that it was me. :-)

Anyway, from my brief look through the article is certainly in better shape than before, but I still don't think it's quite there yet for GA. This statement in the lead, for instance "The organizations respect the client's right to self-determination", seems both out of place and somewhat subjective. I notice as well that in the subsection on Richard von Krafft-Ebing there are a number of quotations almost all of which are uncited; all direct quotations must be cited to their source. Is it really necessary to have 17 citations at the end of the lead's first paragraph? Is this information not cited in the body of the article?

My final comment is to do with the expanded World trends section. I really can't see this working. How many countries are there in the world where this therapy is, has been, or will be employed? Will the info be kept up-to-date on all of them? Where there's something significant to say about the therapy's use in a particular country then I'd expect to see that at the point in the article where its importance is described. Good work so far though. If you've got any specific formatting you're having problems with then I'll do what I can to help you restore the article's GA status. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, and for editing the article; you've corrected a number of things I had overlooked. I'll take a look through the article's sources, and remove the reference to self-determination if I can't find a source for it, or replace it with something more appropriate. I'll also look up Psychopathia Sexualis again and find the page references for the quotations from Krafft-Ebing. Can these all be added to the one reference for this book, or is there a different method that needs to be followed?

I don't think the World Trends section is as problematic as you think. Several countries (Germany, Austria, the United States, the United Kingdom, and, to a lesser extent, France) have played a more important role in the development of conversion therapy than others, and clearly they should receive the most attention. The main thing that might be prolematic in the World Trends section is excessive detail for the other countries. If that situation ever arises, the information might be shifted to more appropriate articles. Keeping it up to date is not a problem in principle, since the sources required should become available when and if there are significant developments.

I only recently found out what formatting was, and while I think I will be able to get the formatting more or less consistent with some effort, I'm not sure that I can do it to the high standard required for a GA. I've already got the formatting basically consistent where books are concerned, but I'm fumbling with the rest of it (eg, citing the web, journals, and news). I just don't have a clear enough idea of what I'm trying to do here. I'm not even sure exactly what is meant by 'accessdate', for example, or whether the format information needs to be included for web pages that don't contain PDFs. I'm worried that getting this sorted out might require collecting information I'm not sure how to get (month of publication for journals and web pages, etc). This has become especially significant, since I'd like to get this part sorted out before dealing with the article's other problems. Born Gay (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the formatting of citations, I understand now. The GA criteria are significantly more relaxed than the FA criteria with respect to citations, but I'd always recommend aiming high even at GA; saves time and effort when you decide to go to FAC. The "accessdate" is simply the date you looked at the web page; the idea is that if the link ever goes dead (and it will) it gives others a clue as to what you were referring to, and how to locate a copy.

My personal preference is to use the {{citation}} template instead of the various {{cite}} variations, that way you only have one template to learn. As well it fits nicely with the {{harvnb}} template for book/journal citations.

Specifically with this article for GA the Krafft-Ebing quotations don't strictly need to be cited to a specific page number, but they do need to be cited to something, a book or a paper for instance. Doesn't matter if they all come from the same source. If you're not sure how to do it then just give me a couple of the page numbers from whatever the source is and I'll put them in as an example you can follow for the rest. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(butting in) If you think you might EVER want to go for FA with this article (or any article) I strongly urge putting page numbers in. They are pretty much a requirement at FA, and should be at GA too. There is nothing worse than going BACK and finding page numbers. Much easier to put them in as you write. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Even for books I thought I was pretty familiar with, trying to go back and find page numbers is a nightmare. That's one of the main things I meant by "aiming high". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus, I looked up the page references for Psychopathia Sexualis. There are eight direct quotes from Krafft-Ebing in the section on him, and the page references, in order, are 299, 299, 300, 299, 308, 306, 306, and 307. I'll try and find as many page references as I can for the other books used as sources.Born Gay (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, although it may not be apparent, all the information in the Krafft-Ebing section is intended to be sourced, to Psychopathia Sexualis. It's source number 31, immediately following the words "the individual himself." Born Gay (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added all of those page numbers now to the Krafft-Ebing section; hopefully that's given you the idea of how to do the rest. My strong preference is to separate all of the books and journals into a separate Bibliography section, as I've done with Psychopathis Sexualis, even when the book or paper is referred to only once. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to do this with the books. I'm not sure if the result is exactly what you're after, though. Do things still seem to be going in the right direction there, or not, in your view? Born Gay (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So far so good, but you've now got the books listed twice, in the bibliography and in the notes. The notes should contain the Harvard citation to the book, which should appear only in the bibliography. I've fixed citation 44 (Marmor) to show you what I mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've followed the example you gave with the other book references. What would you say are the next things that need doing? I'm sorry if I'm coming across as dumb here, but no one is born knowing how to edit the Wiki. Born Gay (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be coming alomg nicely now, the citations look much better. From the perspective of a GA reviewer I see two potential stumbling blocks, the most serious of which is that there are still large parts of the article uncited. The Gunter Dorner section, for instance. What's the source for all that information? As a general rule of thumb, a reviewer will expect to see at least one citation per paragraph. The other, probably less important thing from a GA perspective, is that in some places the article consists of what appears to be a series of short, disconnected paragraphs, the last half of United States, for instance. Perhaps that section and maybe one or two others are a bit too long as well? Maybe some subheadings would improve their organisation? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources for the information on Dorner are primarily Simon LeVay's book Queer Science and secondarily Gunter Dorner's Hormones and Brain Differentiation. I'll alter this to make it clearer, and will do the same for other parts of the article. The United States section requires both expansion and some re-writing, to solve the problems you mention. I'll be dividing it, and the United Kingdom section, into subsections when there is enough information to warrant this. Do you think the journals need to go in the bibliography section, like the books? I'm not sure how to do this exactly. In other cases, I think I should be able to follow the examples you've given. Born Gay (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that journal articles should be handled in the same way as books. It's done pretty much just like with the books, but in case you're uncertain I've moved ref #38 (Stakelbeck & Udo) as an example. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there electric-shock therapy to cure heterosexuality? I believe it should be available on the National Health. :-) Tony (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it Tony. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 10:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just sayin'

Of course you do a great deal of hard work. I wouldn't suggest otherwise. Yet the size of this project means everyone has to prioritize. And every area has slightly different needs. Over at featured sounds we once had a fellow who wanted to completely rewrite the process criteria; a hard worker who had never actually nominated a featured sound himself. We just sorta rolled our eyes when he opposed a featured sound candidate over an en-dash. Been meaning to do a couple more FAs, myself, but so far I've only done two of 'em, so except with regard to images it probably wouldn't go over very well to lecture the FA folks how to run their gig. Especially my particular hatred of en-dashes. ;) Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Likely you're referring to a different case, since Tony did want to (use his ample ce skills to) rewrite the criteria, but he didn't oppose over an endash. As I recall, he had a valid criticism, but the sound was promoted on two votes anyway ... so surely you're speaking of a different case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No one wanted to call any individual out by name, but in case there's any unclarity here the nomination is Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/The Carnival of the Animals. The active editors walked away from the process for two months to avoid the disruptive individual, as an alternative to conduct RfC. Looking up the name of the featured sound director, am pretty sure that person has not commented to this thread. And for what it's worth, the nomination was promoted with five supports while the disruptive indivual was the sole opposer. Durova^Charge! 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Disruptive", here, is being used for political purposes. Opposing for the fizziness of the recording is not disruptive, unless it disrupts Durova's wish to have the nomination promoted. If that's the case: sure, I'll "disrupt" that until the nomination is good enough. That you would countenance an RFC because a reviewer opposes your nomination is tantamount to a personal attack. On the issue of allowing nominators (how ever many there are—one, two, three) to vote support in their own nominations, I'm surprised you don't have a better grasp of conflict of interest. Tony (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI

Delivered on 3 June 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

wt:rfa

Hey Mall, how you doin today? Hey, I was just going back through that discussion about DYK on the RFA talk page. You brought up a few good points I hadn't really thought about. Are you thinking that DYK should not be on the front page? Do you think it should be made clearer to the viewers that it's not our best work? .. It does have that one liner about "From our newest articles". Are you saying the whole DYK thing needs to be overhauled? Hopefully you don't think the whole DYK thing should be just scrapped - cause I'd have to strongly disagree on so many fronts there. I'll admit, there's been some stuff that's made it to the front page via DYK that could be considered a bit embarrassing ... I'm just not sure where you're headed with this though. — Ched : ? 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue of DYKs on the front page needs to be examined, but perhaps not on WT:DYK where everyone is pro DYK and defensive about change. I use DYK to get a bit more exposure for articles I think are important or interesting (Derwent Valley Mills, a World Heritage Site was recently featured, although I have on occasion submitted boring DYKs and it just felt wrong). Perhaps the role of DYK shouldn't be to exhibit our newest articles, but to display genuinely interesting facts to interest readers. They could be chosen from any article, regardless of age, but I think the best source for these interesting facts would be the nearly 7,000 Good Articles which would ensure that the articles on the mainpage are of a decent standard (6 hooks with 8 hours display times, each article could appear on the front page in 389 days; at the current rate of GA promotion, by then there would be nearly 3,000 extra Good Articles. And why shouldn't articles appear more than once if they've got more than one interesting fact). Having poorly referenced stubby (although technically DYKs are not allowed to be stubs) articles on the mainpage doesn't do wikipedia's image any favours. Nev1 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think those who so vigorously defend the status quo at DYK are completely misguided; it's called Did You Know, not Most Recent Articles. Take a look at today's main page, for instance. Can you honestly say you find any of those hooks interesting? Might as well be called Who Gives a Shit. I very much agree with what Nev1 says above, the focus ought to be on interesting facts from article that have been through some kind of independent review process. The present system is an embarrassment, but it's my impression that there's no will to change so I intend simply to ignore it. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no impetus for change within the DYK regulars (insular communities usually only change through outside influences), and the rest of wikipedia doesn't seem to care enough about DYK. Which is a shame as it occupies a significant amount of the front page. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen arguments that DYK is intended to motivate people to improve stubs and poor short articles that can be fixed w/o e.g. the amount of work required to raise one of these to GA. While I sympathise to a degree:

The DYK team need to make sure the "hook" fact is rock solid and that the rest of the article contains no dubious "facts", POVs or noticeably poor prose.
The 5x5 criterion (create or expand 5x in 5 days before nomination) encourages hasty work. It also creates a "dead" zone of articles that are too large to expand 5x but need work.

Who controls the front page? If anyone wants to change the DYK system, that's the way to go, bypassing the "DYK regulars". --Philcha (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said "bypass the regulars", but what I meant by "perhaps not on WT:DYK where everyone is pro DYK and defensive about change" was that opinions from other people need to be introduced. The opinions of the DYK regulars are of course important, but they are not the only ones that should be heard. Nev1 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit, the first time I looked over the DYK stuff - I right away thought about #NOTTRIVIA. I like the project, it encourages users, especially new users, to jump in and contribute. They even get that pretty brown banner on their talk page. I hadn't really thought about the issues there could be with the front page. And it's not so much the "Who gives a shit" that concerns me, but the fact that poorly written, or more to the point, poorly reviewed/audited material doesn't exactly showcase our best work. There's a lot of good folks over at DYK helping and encouraging folks along - I see that as a very positive thing. I wonder if a DYK pulled from GA or FA to use on the main page would be feasible? Mal, I'm gonna watchlist your talk page here - I like the direction this is going. I think you brought up some really good points, and maybe shined a light on a rather unlit situation. I don't really care about it from an RfA point of view - people are going to vote the way they are going to vote, and telling them that DYK, or edit counts, or anything else isn't a valid perspective isn't going to change their minds. — Ched : ? 16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently raised this topic with Geometry guy; you might be interested to read what his take on DYK is.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - interesting read. Let me know if any kind of centralized discussion gets going on this. — Ched : ? 18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've given up on it. Trying to get anything changed here is just too frustrating to be bothered with, and just makes you enemies. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the best way to change things is to raise the bar and create a top standard. Having society put forth a written expectation does nothing. Doing your best and putting out a lot of effort does a lot - people look to the good and strive to follow after it. Look at my recent DYK set - it will be about 16/17 pages and all be on a serious topic, dealing with multiple major critics, and covering far more per page than most DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't do everything. I'm just going to forget that DYK even exists. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You won't be the first: the easy, award-seeking format furthers plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Leading by example is good in principle, and noble, but I think is unrealistic. I doubt that anyone who saw list of castles in Cheshire (FLC while featured on DYK), Mellor hill fort (GAC when featured on DYK), or Derwent Valley Mills (C-class and preparing for GAC when featured on DYK) (and hopefully Maiden Castle, Dorset which is a current GAC and looking likely to feature on DYK) on DYK will try to imitate them. The articles of a high standard of definitely a minority at DYK and not given enough prominence. Perhaps a compromise would be achievable? The lead hook with image could be something genuinely interesting from a GA or FA and the rest could be the current standard. That way, the audited content is most prominent, but we're not deceiving the readers into believing that all wikipedia's articles are GAs/FAs. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My focus for some time now has been on GA/FA, because I think they're two of the most important projects on wikipedia, and I think I can do a little to help there. I don't even spend much time at peer review, much less DYK, because I'm really not interested in helping with an article unless it's either at or being prepared for GA/FA. My difficulty with DYK as it presently operates is that it's very often little more than a cheap shiny bauble awarded to a poor quality article that will never be developed further. There are of course honourable exceptions, I'm speaking generally. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Something else that bothers me about DYK is the "created in the last five days" criterion, which discourages collaborative editing, as it means that pretty much anything substantial has to be worked on in private. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put stuff up for DYK, but more often I'm reworking something stubbish, than actually something new (although I do new stuff through there too). I always find the process vaguely ... silly. There's too much entrenched thought that it has to be "NEW NEW NEW" not a substantial rework of old useless stuff. Some of what i've done would never make DYK, like Wilfrid say, because it just takes too long to get it up to a decent standard. But I have to admit feeling that the stuff I put through DYK is probably head and shoulders above most of it. Poor Awa's still trying to convince folks that IMDB isn't a valid reference there... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A good point, especially as sometimes it's best to ignore the article and start from scratch. Then, even though it's technically all new material it might not make the 5 fold increase mark. I think there should probably be a sliding scale so as not to discriminate against articles that start off longer. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit's doing sterling work over there, and I say that even though she turned down my last effort at DYK. She was probably quite right though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of collaborative editing - the largest hook (16 part) was worked on by 5 people. Other hooks of mine that are 5+ parts have been worked on with other people. My hooks on Ainsworth will be worked on with you, Malleus. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting thar there isn't some gold among the dross, just that there's too much dross. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

dross? .. had to look that one up. Felt silly cause my dad worked for J&L Steel for 30+ years. ;-/ — Ched : ? 16:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ever hear of Shakespeare? Have you heard about all of the lesser playwrights that produced works at the same time? You'd probably be surprised by the large amount of them and the large amount of their plays. True gold shines for all to see regardless of its surroundings. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare's one thing, but I defy you to get excited about this offering. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"This pattern continues for several miles, with PA 171 passing a large pond." Sounds good to me...Ning-ning (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house :-) --Philcha (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember having to struggle through Shakespeare back in high-school. Great mind, but much of the verbiage was lost on me at the time. Taming of the Shrew was one I recall, and ... the "Pound of flesh" one .. but I may be confused on authors here. Don't know if you researched, but actually I 70 isn't far from where I live. A real "wreck" of a road if you'll pardon the pun. I'll be honest, when it comes to roads and such ... WP isn't where I'm looking ... MS Streets & Maps or Mapquest for me. — Ched : ? 19:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember being taken on a school trip to see the Burton & Taylor version of The Taming of the Shrew, which I thought was excellent. The film wasn't bad either. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh - you know exactly what my metaphor meant - there will always be crap. 99.9% of all things will for the most part be crap, and that last .1% is still iffy. That is how the world works. However, there will always be truly great stuff and it will always outshine everything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I made it my mission to create an interesting DYK for you yesterday. [2] --Laser brain (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An interesting and worthy subject, but why did you make me read almost to the end before telling me that it was a kind of trumpet? That's just teasing. ;-) Actually I found this on today's main page to be quite interesting as well, I just wish that DYKs were ... better. And there aren't nearly enough on witch trials, black magic, or Fortean phenomena in general. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I can die happy if this ends up on The Eighth Most Visited Page On The Internet. (No doubt some Defender Of The Wiki will refuse it, but worth a shot.) – iride scent 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably get slated for that "due to" ... ah no, it's DYK, I forgot, anything goes. Interesting fact for once though. I'm amazed at how fragile so many bridges are. I remember quite recently watching a tv programme about one suspension bridge where microphones had been installed in the sheath supposedly protecting the supporting cables from corrosion, to listen for the twang when another of them snapped. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Haha, Iri. Have I mentioned ilu? I need help with my newest article. I want to get it on the main page for DYK, but I can't figure out how to make it longer. I'm running out of days, too. Can I get some help with Bavarian Pigeon Corps? لenna vecia 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you and Iridescent can't make 1,500 characters out of that gem then I'll be bloody amazed. Just a short background section with a brief history of aerial photography until then would be more than enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're the only editor; {{db-g7}} it, and resubmit it when it's big enough. Don't they teach the kids anything in Cynicism School these days? (Hint 2: all those 1909 postcards are {{PD-US}} if you upload them to en-wiki rather than Commons.) – iride scent 23:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong suggestion – ask one of these characters (Fut Perf maybe?) to have a look through German Google. By definition there will be more there. (Just which enemies were these pigeons used against, anyway? AFAIK Germany wasn't involved in any war between 1870 and 1914, and by 1914 they already had a perfectly good air force.) – iride scent 23:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just remember not to mention The War if you ask for help. Nev1 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the English language sources, that one looks unexpandable as although it's mentioned lots of places, it seems to be the same few facts repeated over & over. Can't see what can easily be done without access to German language sources. – iride scent 16:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It only needs to be expanded by a couple of hundred characters, easy! --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the help, Malleus. I've been dealing with BLP crap and helping out a friend most of the morning, so I haven't had time to work on it. Eep. لenna vecia 18:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's now 1,529 characters. Enjoy yourself at DYK. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

List Bavarian Pidgeon Corps soon. As long as the June 1st day is still above the line, then it is viable. I just checked the page so it should pass, and if no one checks it off, I will check it myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Listed. Thanks. لenna vecia 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bavarian army really ought to be moved to Bavarian Army. I'd do it myself, but well, you know, I'm not trusted to do stuff like that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In any "Wikipedia's worst articles" list, Bavarian army surely has a spot in the bag. – iride scent 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not one of the best I've ever seen, but at least it could have the correct title. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done – iride scent 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel happier now. What's so difficult about moving over a redirect that plebs like me aren't allowed to do it? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You have some of the noisier denizens of WP:LTA to thank for that – one can create one hell of a mess moving Article A over Article B and thus merging the histories. Imagine the fun of manually unscrambling (say) the history of George W. Bush and WT:RFA if some bright spark thought it would be funny to merge the histories? – iride scent 23:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so. Kind of hard to swallow that I am no more trusted to move a page than those reprobates though. Still, just the way it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much a cast of "trust", but "assume stupidity" – I can easily imagine, for instance, an overenthusiastic cleaner-upper moving City of Manchester over Manchester City. There's also the issue that, because the history of the "target" article is wiped (you'll look in vain for the previous edits to Bavarian Army), it would be a way to perform "back door" deletions. – iride scent 16:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I'm trusted but I'm stupid. I can take a hint. Didn't realise that admins had to take an IQ test as well as get baited for a week. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say here as well thatI was a member of MENSA for several years, which I think may explain why I so often feel like I'm pissing in the wind here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Eh, you were talking about bad/trivial articles. What about Never mind (Saturday Night Live) Ling.Nut (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

At least that has references. My personal lowlight at the moment is Southborough, Bromley, which makes Bacon, egg and cheese sandwich look ready for its FAC. – iride scent 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently someone thought your Southborough, Bromley gem was good enough to move to the Hindi Wikipedia. Ling.Nut (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't write the thing! I only write important articles, like Cats That Look Like Hitler. (Anyone want to AFD that crap, feel free; I expected there to be more to say than there is.) – iride scent 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentor/monitor/advisor

If you continue to be willing and able to act as an advisor/mentor (whatever the term), then I would greatly appreciate your contribution to my plan to put forth to ArbCom. Currently the proposals are being work on in the following places.

Thank you! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm still willing to do whatever I can to help you through this Mattisse, but I think you have to develop the plan, not me or anyone else. I've got no more idea what might be acceptable to ArbCom than you have, so just go with whatever you yourself feel comfortable with; if you're not fully engaged with the plan then it won't work anyway. As I think I've said, I'm more than willing to act as a sounding board and even as an advocate whenever you find yourself in a sticky situation, but I'm most definitely not a policeman providing round-the-clock cover. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If I haven't already done so, let me lay it out plainly. I believe you're a female, but I'll state my position in male terms nevertheless; I don't want to see you emasculated and submitting to the will of almighty ArbCom by agreeing to childish block lengths, monitoring, or whatever. That's for kids. What I want to see from you is a clear and straightforward statement about where you accept that you've gone wrong in the past and how you plan to address similar situations in the future, perhaps by making use of your panel of advisors, perhaps by simply disengaging. You're an adult, time to behave like one. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, I don't mean it to be, but neither do I want to see you being treated as if you're a naughty child. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I accept that I made flip remarks that I should not have made, that I became defensive and made personal attacks, that I made too many comments and was pointy, that I should have detached and disengaged, that I took the actions of others personally and became hostile and suspicious of others, that I sought to drive other editors off my talk page and was antagonistic. I regret that behavior and deeply apologize. However, I don't think I can be an effective editor at Wikipedia and exercise my critical judgment regarding articles if my statements are not accepted in good faith and treated with respect by others. I believe that the problem was in the way I communicated rather than the substance of my critical judgment in the cases regarding FAC, FAR, GA, GAR that have been brought forth as "examples" of my problems; my initial judgment was correct and the article was either fixed significantly or delisted etc. It would be good if you would help me learn to communicate more effectively on these issues. I am sorry I took your comments personally when I ineffectively attempted to reach out to you via email and you made me to disclose the contents. Your critical judgment is stellar and I value it highly. My hope is that we can get by this and work together effectively in the future on the encyclopedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just one voice Mattisse, generally considered to be an untrustworthy rogue here on wikipedia at best and a loose cannon at worst; I doubt my opinion will make any difference to anyone, least of all ArbCom.

Believe it or not though I do share your feelings of isolation and lack of respect, and everything I've said is related to how I would respond if/when placed in your currently difficult position. Without making any judgement at all as to whether your current predicament has been at least in part caused by provocation from others—which frankly doesn't matter a damn now—what's needed is a clear recognition that things have gone wrong (without trying to pass the buck) and an even clearer commitment from you to avoid similar problems in the future by doing ... what exactly? I'm no diplomat, I just say things as I see them Mattisse, and I'm not seeing that yet.

Remember that if I did not value your contributions then I would not be taking the trouble to say what I have. I too hope that we will be able to work together effectively in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't much commented on this and the parallel discussion at plan-talk, but Malleus has been making thoughtful and insightful comments. If they are interpreted in the spirit in which I believe he makes them, the famous copper-bottomed clause almost certainly applies :) Geometry guy 21:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the "thoughtful and insightful comments" G guy, I've got a reputation to worry about here. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a radical, ill-thought-out and entirely disruptive response to my comment, Malleus. You should know better by now. :-) Geometry guy 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I will never "know better". I am what I am, warts and all, and I ain't gonna change now. Mattisse and I both have what some may consider to be rough edges. Mine are perhaps a sometimes overly arrogant insistence on the obvious truth of my opinion, and a complete disregard and disdain for the civility police. Mattisses's though are in some ways the complete opposite; a lack of self-confidence, leading to a feeling of rejection, leading to ... for someone like me who pretty much thinks I'm always right it's kind of hard to understand. We're just complete opposites. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me as well that as a lapsed Catholic I'm quite accustomed to the ritual "Bless me Father, for I have sinned" cant so often demanded here, but as a lapsed Catholic I reject it completely. No sins on either side, just a straightforward acknowledgement of a problem and a straightforward strategy for avoiding similar problems in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic God forgives sins though. Arbcom is more an Old Testament God. – iride scent 23:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to make a similar observation myself. Perhaps Mattisse ought to be given 15 Hail Marys, a stern talking to, and sent on her way. I often was. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 Monaco Grand Prix

Hi Malleus. I just wanted to check whether you were still intending on taking a look. If you're too busy, that's fine. Happy wiki birthday for tomorrow, by the way. Aptery gial 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I completely forgot.

My first impression is that the article looks pretty good, a very plausible GA candidate. I'll take a more detailed look through tomorrow, but in your shoes I'd probably be nominating it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to skip GAN and go straight to FAC, and I don't really want to nominating until I'm satisfied with the quality of the copy. Aptery gial 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll be tougher on it then than I was intending to be. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I had no idea it needed that much work! :) Since I doubt the Background section isn't perfect either I'll assume you're not finished, but wow. Thanks. Aptery gial 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Only just started. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is just about ready for FAC now. I'll keep an eye on it and try to help if any prose issues come up. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'll go through the diffs and write my next article along those lines. Since you now have more edits to the article than I do (I do big edits), would you be interested in a co-nom...? :) Aptery gial 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A generous offer but no thanks; I just moved a few words around, you wrote the article. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

Hey, I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at the Oklahoma City bombing article. I plan to nominate it at FAC soon, and am currently requesting feedback from various editors to determine if there are any major issues (or minor ones) that need to be addressed. Hopefully I can avoid having too many issues to face at the nomination itself. I would appreciate any feedback, but if you're busy with other projects, no worries. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. That's a pretty significant topic and an important article. I remember thinking at the time that it may give Americans a taste of what it was like to be subjected to IRA bombings here in the UK, and perhaps make some of them think about the wisdom of their support for that organisation. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. I was seven years old at the time, and still remember some of the following events in Oklahoma. There were several sources that I saw that stated the same thing about the the UK's issues with the IRA. I still don't know too much about the IRA, so I know what my reading material for tonight will be. Thanks again for helping and let me know if you need assistance with anything. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a bigger job than I'd bargained for, but worth it because it's a significantly important topic. I could continue hacking away at it for ever, but I think it's now in a good enough state that the FAC lions and tigers can at least now be fought off. I'll watchlist the nomination and help where I can --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the extensive copyedit. I've always been known for my wordiness (the only way to meet my college paper length requirements!). I fixed a few errors on your part (the only way to feel better about you fixing all of mine!). Out of curiosity why do the inline citations need to come before the bibliography? I figure that since some of the sources include page numbers for the books, that the readers would want to see the full details on the book first (they may not scroll down and see the books). Is there some policy that recommends this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy, just the way it's always done, as you can see from any FA. Anyway, whaddya mean "my mistakes"? I don't make mistakes! ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason it's done this way – a long forgotten policy says that the first appendix should be a list of works by the subject of the article, and having a bibliography immediately following the list of works could potentially cause confusion. – iride scent 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me, it's not that big a deal. I'm likely going to nominate this week. I'm trying to get a source for the Libertarian quote (looks like it was added by a blocked sockpuppet so I can't get the details from him/her). I sent a message to one of the party's outreach people so hopefully I get a reply on that. If I hear nothing soon, I may remove it and then readd it once a more qualified source is found. I was glad today to hear back from one of my other requests: a free image of McVeigh being led out of the courthouse. I thought it was worth a shot to send a request, and was happy to see that the author was interested in letting us use it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll stand a good chance with this at FAC so long as that bastard Tony doesn't turn up.</joke> --Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, besides getting extensive copyedits and adding sources for every statement under the sun, I've made other preparations. I purchased an assortment of fine chocolates, as well as withdrew my life savings from the bank. I'm going to be taking the bribery route, I heard it works well... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Entire"

There was a logic behind this (although it doesn't make much difference either way); that is to say, it was closed completely, rather than closed to cars but kept open to pedestrians. Usually when bridges are closed, they try to keep at least one footpath open (which is why, when they do close them altogether, the temporary bridge, with which readers of these articles are probably becoming all too familiar, is generally hauled out). – iride scent 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Might have been better to say something like "entirely closed" then, rather than "entire bridge was closed". But as you suggest, no big deal. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're in a stylistic mood, can you think of a way to reword this without the multiple redundancy? Ideally it needs clearly to convey the timeline

Queen Victoria crosses bridge
Queen Victoria formally opens bridge
Queen Victoria names it "Victoria Bridge"
Queen Victoria formally opens park
Park opens to the public
Bridge opens to the public

in that order, with minimum repetition of the words "Victoria", "bridge" and "park". So far, two Victorias, three bridges and two parks is the lowest I can get it. – iride scent 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Howzat? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly better – as I said to Tony at the FAC, this is a topic it's impossible to avoid repetition of "bridge" on. (BTW, just testing.) I do have high hopes for that Chelsea one; once the rough edges are knocked off, I think it'll be the most interesting and best looking so far. (Bikers with shotguns, bare knuckle boxing, football, a gunfight between the Prime Minister and the Earl of Winchilsea, and a thousand foot strip of LEDs – what more could anyone ask? Like the 19th century equivalent of Nuts magazine.) – iride scent 21:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the point you made. It's relatively easy to knock out "professional, even brilliant" prose on some topics, but others are much harder, especially when you're trying not to sacrifice precision for style. All of which is made much more difficult than it would otherwise be by the increasingly onerous citation requirement, which is pretty much now down to one for every sentence containing a fact or an opinion. Understandable, but it kinda cramps the style. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially as few reviewers don't understand that the Chigaco MoS is only a recommendation and hence putting refs after punctuation is optional. Likewise other editors are quite likely to "improve" an artcile so it follows that CMoS rule. Rigid application of that guideline distorts sentence structure just so that one can introduce punctuation to "guard" a ref in the right place. --Philcha (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For more on my opinions of rigid enforcement of the CMoS, see here. Bring sandwiches; that's a long one. – iride scent 19:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Youk

FYI, I've nominated Kevin Youkilis for a GA, which I understand is the preferred way to seek a reassessment. Tx for your time.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It certainly improved during its reassessment, but I'm not sure it's quite there yet. Anyway, it's down to your GA reviewer now, not me. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback flag

FYI, I've removed your rollback flag per your request at Iridescent's talk page. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

You've made personal attacks at User_talk:WebHamster#Rollback_removed, which aren't allowed. Please don't make personal attacks. I know this could open me up to attacks from you, which I won't mind, but if you attack any other editor following this warning, I'll block you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No I have not. Please go away and find something useful to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have blocked you for personal attacks like this. Owing to earlier blocks for personal attacks and incivility, I have blocked you for one week. Moreover, having unblocked you in the past and in so doing, having asked you to be more civil, I find your behaviour worrisome and harmful to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, you said you would block Malleus if he attacked "any other editor following this warning", but the diff you link to was nearly three hours ago. Am I missing something? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Malleus make any personal attacks after the warning? Or is this block something unrelated? Majorly talk 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Might as well make it indef, just for the hell of it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's often difficult to see that criticism is a constructive contribution. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't really criticism. Majorly talk 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This was posted by Malleus after the warning, along with the ec above. Personal attacks aren't allowed on this website and are never helpful or constructive. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But neither is blocking for incivility. It just makes the target even angrier. Majorly talk 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not really uncivil. A bit rude, perhaps, but not enough to justify a block IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a sycophantic wannabee is a personal attack. I'd unblocked this editor in the past following a civility block and an undertaking to be more civil, only to find that the behaviour is harmful as ever. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would reconsider this block. This block is causing real damage to the project—Malleus does volumes of good work in the course of a week. On the other hand, one could argue that the only damage being prevented by this block is the nebulous damage to someone's ego caused by being called a wannabe (using the preferred Spice Girls spelling here). --Laser brain (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're dreaming Gwen. When did I ever make an undertaking to be more civil? Just make the block indef, you know you want to. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I misunderstood you and was mistaken in unblocking you. However, you're mistaken if you think I'd like to see you indef blocked. I'd like you to be civil and stop making personal attacks, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, the Admin corps is full of sycophants and abuse of all sorts. How do you think people get the tools in the first place? We have Arbcoms sock puppeting. So let's not pretend all is well. If you're going to block every time the abuse and incompetence is pointed out, we're in real trouble, and no honest or competent editors will be left. The incivility here is minor and could have been avoided early on by simple disengagement. Instead, a series of admins exercised exceptionally poor judgment and kept engaging in a pile on, despite repeated and quite reasonable requests to move along. This block is very disruptive and the admins involved should learn from the experience and use common sense in future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless and is unlikely to lead to anything productive. I do not share what I consider to be your rather precious of "incivility", and I never will. If it's a matter of playing by your rules or by mine then it's a no-brainer. Bye-bye wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How to screw up in one easy step. Block one of the most useful editors in this project for something that is borderline. We have fuckwits for admins screwing up all over the place, yet shit like this happens to editors who are actually useful and prolific. Good going Gwen. That's what we like to see, real common-sense in the hands of an admin. Not. --Web Hamster 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that many admins are indeed sycophantic wannabees and hence, Malleus' post was an observation with some support. I unblocked him awhile ago but someone put a plate of crepes in front of me and I dealt with what was more meaningful to me at the time, hence this post is a bit late. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you admit to being full of crep then? --Web Hamster 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Settle down, WebHamster. An admin who admits there is reasonable doubt and acts on it is rare. Thank you, Gwen. --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he was making a clever pun, perhaps meant in a de-escalatory fashion? –xeno^talk 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Now there's a total ">>>--------> whoosh!" if ever I saw one! --Web Hamster 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I shall assume that the "crep" reference is regional. Otherwise, "crepitation" means crackling which makes no sense. Maybe crêpes, but that's even worse. Quite baffling that someone would choose to make an obscure reference as a pun in a thread about someone getting blocked and tensions are running high when the wisest course of any action on the internet is to make oneself clearly understood. I, however, often make assumptions that others are actually trying to be taken seriously. I should stop that. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at Gwen's comment immediately above mine, see what she had on her plate which then if eaten she would have been "full of" - complete with artistic licence of course. --Web Hamster 12:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot to say. As a rule of thumb I resist the urge to be serious at every possible opportunity. Life is already far too serious without me adding to it. --Web Hamster 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, you have been here long enough to know that personal attacks are derogatory attacks of mental ability or other similar functions. They are not of actions or related to actions. Being a sycophant is a descriptive of a series of actions. You know that there was no possible way to misconstrue it as an actual personal attack. Then there is the fact that in the actual case, there is no object of the term, which undermines any pretense that there could even be a personal attack in it. I think you owe the community an apology, as there is consensus enough on the matter and an RfC wouldn't be too far away seeing as how you have been the source of other disruptive blocks in the past few months. I expect your apology in the next few hours. If I see nothing towards such I will file the RfC later tonight. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the personal attack policy should be changed. Either way, I blocked in good faith, I unblocked in good faith. My goal as an admin is to implement consensus and I have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is not based on good faith. It is based on accurate understanding. If you are now stating that it should be changed, you are admitting that you know that it does not match what you state. You cannot enforce blocks based on something the community consensus does not allow. You are not a vigilant. Your job is strictly to uphold community consensus when it comes to interactions between users. You have not implimented consensus until after the fact. That means that you are 100% accountable. Give Malleus a straight forward, simple apology for blocking over something that the policy does not state or I will pursue an RfC for the sole purpose of you being desysopped as you have proved that not only were you wrong, but that you are unwilling to make the appropriate remedies for the effects of your actions. Blocking under false pretenses has been deemed by ArbCom to be horribly damaging to this encyclopedia, and the least you can do is apologize. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bloody marvellous, an over eager admin drives away a useful contributor. Malleus, if you return (for I fear it's not a matter of when) could you take a look at Maiden Castle, Dorset? After getting 10k views when it was featured on DYK I think it would be worthwhile to take to FAC sometime. Nev1 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope I'm not expected to feel grateful for Gwen's unblock as I don't. My view is that it was completely inappropriate, at best disproportionate, and that it should result in sanctions against her. I know that it won't though, and that there will be many other editors who suffer similarly at the hands of over-zealous administrators, often without anyone raising a murmur. Not sure that's something I can stomach any more. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You can be second to certify the RfC about her horrible blocks since January if she refuses to do what is appropriate and apologize for her egregious overstepping of authority and completely misconstruing long standing consensus of what a personal attack is. We have consensus on policies and guidelines for a reason, and no one individual can contradict the authority of the community in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So in reaction to a pile on of drama in one direction, you're recommending we now do the same thing in the other direction? Wouldn't it be better to just move on? I think collaborating on the encyclopedia might be more fun and rewarding. Although I have seen bad block be long held against a good editor... so who knows. But if there were a way to end the cycle of drama I would still support that outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The system is loaded against the regular editor. Just look at the comment made by Gwen when determining what penalty to apply.[3] Blocks stay in the log forever, doesn't make any difference whether they were justified or not. Administrators on the other hand routinely get away with behaviour that would get a regular editor blocked, so the schism between the two classes of editor continues to grow, and may now have reached a critical point.

I have absolutely no faith in the integrity of wikipedia's system of governance, and so I would not support an RfC as it would lead to nothing of any consequence except a likely further widening of that schism. On the other hand I have nothing better to offer, so ... --Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely 100% agree with you. I also think that when actions are corrected it's a good thing. I well understand about the block log, and I don't have a good solution to offer on that issue or the others you've raised other than to reiterate that I agree there is a serious problem. At the same time, I think it would be wise to consider the substantial good work done by those on the other side of the schism. None of us are perfect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, don't feel grateful in the least, I unblocked following consensus and was happy to do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, you blocked an editor for a week and then rescinded the block within an hour. At least one of those decisions was ill-considered. I suggest you apologise to all concerned. --Philcha (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never been bothered about apologies; only God truly forgives, and I'm not God. What is certainly required though is an unequivocal admission from Gwen Gale that she abused her admin tools in at least this case, and a recognition that if she continues to do so in the future then she will be desysopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A diff to an apology placed in your block log goes a lot further to redeeming a horrible action than a simple unblock with an unwillingness to admit the obvious mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, there is a difference between abused and made a mistake. I would put this down in the later category, not the former.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I long ago gave up worrying about my block log; just battle scars, badges of honour in my book. The only thing that concerns me here is that unless Gwen Gale is halted in her tracks she may go on to treat other editors, less fortunate in their talk page stalkers, in the same way. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is that Cirt, the admin who started this shit-storm, wanders off into the sunset without seeing all the car wrecks behind him, meanwhile poor Gwen ends up in the cess pit right up to her neck. On the bright-side it does mean that in actuality one admin has succeeded in screwing over another. so it's not all bad. One just has to marvel at the wonders of rolling snowballs of yellow snow. --Web Hamster 20:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow. These counter-productive (and oft-ironic) civility blocks are getting out of hand. CIVIL really needs to be marked historical and a focus put on project-wide understanding of NPA. The above edit, which elicited Mal's block, was not a violation of NPA. It was arguably uncivil, but there was no personal attack in it. Until there's an option to remove erroneous entries from user block logs, admins need to start gaining consensus before blocking established editors, because it's becoming a nuisance at this point. لenna vecia 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you certify a conduct RfA against Gwen Gale based on no confidence with her ability to understand policy and guidelines and with her ability to use admin tools in relationship to said policies and guidelines? I have two admin who offered to certify, but I wouldn't bother pursuing this unless you are accepting, as it will deal in part with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't, no, because it would look like I was trying to get my own back. I don't disagree with your assessment of Gwen Gales's incompetence as an administrator but she's just one of many. That there's no effective procedure to address situations like this ought to be a matter of concern for wikipedia, but a conduct RfA with all of its associated wikipoliticking would be unlikely to do anything other cause even more upset. If Gwen feels that her actions can be justified then perhaps she herself will have the courage of her convictions and submit to a reconfirmation RfA should a significant number of editors demand it. Can't see it happening though. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as we cower and refuse to make a clear statement against such behavior, people like Gwen will constantly abuse grammar and logic to manipulate what clear community consensus says in order to disrupt our content editors from doing important work that they don't get paid to do. Gwen Gale has a long track record of problems and inability to handle guidelines and policies, with a previous ArbCom going so far as topic banning her. She restarted under a new name for a reason. It is sad that someone like her could become an admin, but, as many people stated, we had lower standards back then. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's governace, and its lack of accountability, ought to be a matter of concern for all of us. Gwen Gale is just one sign among many that something has gone wrong, but is there any will to fix it, or even to recognise that there's a problem? No, I don't think there is. I don't think that anyone could reasonably accuse me of "cowering" though. My position quite simply is that the problem will never be solved if we waste our efforts focusing on each and every poorly performing administrator; new ones will continue to be promoted faster than we could possibly keep up. There needs to be a much broader debate, an MfD on RfA for instance, but the turkeys will never vote for Christmas, so there's little point. Wikipedia is what it is; perhaps we should leave the children to guard it and do something else now. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cripes. The Civility Police are out of control. Majoreditor (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To Malleus..

While I certainly hope you don't leave, I can certainly understand you're upset and that you might. Do what's best for you. (Obviously, you were driven to incivility by my constant appeals to copyedit medieval bishops, they finally drove you over the edge!) Take care of yourself, you'll be missed while you're gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much bothered to be honest Ealdgyth; I've felt for a while now that I've been living on borrowed time here, so it's no suprise to see this. I've felt on the edge of the project for some considerable time, merely tolerated and now not even that. Probably all for the best, I've got other things I ought to be doing anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't believe this stuff hitting the fan, but I for one will miss your input should you finally decide to leave. You've been of great help in getting several articles up to scratch, and I suppose its a sign of the times that the jobsworths get to rule the roost. I could quote Norman Stanley Fletcher in this, but I'd probably be accused of a personal attack. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Personal attack" has been redefined to mean any opinion with which an administrator disagrees. Doesn't need to be a remark made to or about any particular individual any more, the rules have changed. Well, only if you're not an administrator of course, in which case there are no rules. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And only to be called upon when an admin dislikes someone or is losing an argument. Also recommended for the more sensitive editors who don't have the intellectual skill, voracity or strength of character to maintain their own opinion in a discussion. --Web Hamster 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

.. against poor defenceless souls like you and me. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! I think my ego and soul is permanently and irretrievably damaged and I may not be quite the same ever again. I'll never again be able to look out of my window and see the world in the same way. Hmmm, thinks, wonder where the Gregorian recruiting office is so that I can see the world and say nothing about it? --Web Hamster 20:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always enjoyed your color commentary from afar, and your copy-editing skills will be missed sorely. Take care. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, ya know, on a positive note, if it weren't for these laughably bad blocks, it wouldn't be nearly as funny when I drop block templates on this talk page! XD لenna vecia 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there does seem to be the outlook that blocks sting in some way, or that they mean a considerable salary drop or even worse your next employer is notified that you were once blocked for 24hrs and as such you lose your job as a street cleaner to the Pakistani lawyer who spent years at Uni to gain his degree only to find there was no work. yet he got the job, not as you would think by his LLB Hons, but by the mere fact that his longest Wikipedia block was just for one hour so that he could cool down after telling an Admin that he was wrong to spell Aluminium without an i on a BacoFoil article. --Web Hamster 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. From experience I can confidently say that blocks don't "sting" at all, they simply alienate. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will finally say that I will leave here when I'm good and ready, not at the whim of some kiddie-administrator. There are, believe it or not, many administrators whose opinions I listen to, and that I do seriously consider even if I don't always agree with them. Most of them have left school though. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Or returned there to teach :-). It was sad for me to see the colossal waste of editor effort that went into such a minor issue, but I was impressed (though not surprised) by the consistency in your response to Webhamster's and Gwen Gale's imperfections: in both cases, bowing down in apology is not required, but in both cases, best efforts to avoid a similar incident would be appreciated. Those who highlight one double standard should not support another. You have been consistent in your analysis and have not fallen into this trap. This, beyond your content work, is another reason I believe your contributions to Wikipedia are so highly valued. You aint no pariah in my book. Geometry guy 22:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't in any way condone what WebHamster did in that one contentious rollback, and he himself admitted that he did it out of laziness, but the end result was a good one. Except that it ended in this mess, of course. You are most certainly one of those administrators whose opinion I will always take seriously, but I simply can't stand back and watch what I consider to be the egregious abuse of administrative powers, whatever the consequences may be to me. I know I'm a fool to myself, but it's the fool that I am, and I'm not going to compromise on what I believe to right just so that I'm allowed to continue working here for nothing. I can work for nothing anywhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have an unpaid back rubbing position open... also house cleaning. If you are interested in either of those jobs, just let me know. ;) لenna vecia 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Back rubbing sounds good, but would you pay my travel expenses? No, scrub that ... I'll be on a plane tomorrow. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

k cool and kthx. لenna vecia 09:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free!

Feel free to have the yang to their ying :) --Web Hamster 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

Jennavecia performing mundane administrative duties

I like it. As you may have noticed I gave up my rollback rights yesterday in solidarity. One out, all out! It was pretty bloody useless anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And I proffer my thanks for that display. Thank you for the support, but may I ask that the next time you go up a size. I've put a little weight on and it's starting to chafe. --Web Hamster 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Hmmm... considering how often you've been blocked in the past 24 hours I wonder how long it will be before somebody decides we can't trust you with this??? Anyway, I need to find out what the latest hubub was all about... I didn't know you were blocked until I saw Gwen unblocking ya.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was a bad boy. I suggested that someone (unnamed) was a "sycophantic wannebee". I deserved to be punished. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

we really need to get a ruler image set up like the trout... for when you are out of line like this! whack! —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm Spartacus! (talk • contribs)

I wonder if the alleged attack was deemed to be the "sycophantic" or the "wannabee"? --Web Hamster 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What about a whip image? Or, perhaps, me with a pink whip? I think I could keep the gentlemen of this site in line... or would it keep them misbehaving? :/ Either way, should prove fun for me. :D لenna vecia 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a brilliant idea! Certainly works for me anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

O, nice image, whoever put it up. I've got a better face, tho. ;) Better hair, too, but she's definitely got the better rack. Haha. But yes, to do administrative tasks with a whip... I would do more admin work than I do now. XD لenna vecia 09:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now there's an incentive for the "bad boys" --Philcha (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

we prefer the term, "nice tracks of land." ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies

For the low blow on Gwen's talkpage. PAs aren't going to help anything. Soxwon (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got no idea what you're talking about. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling you a dick? It was a PA, and not really needed, though it appears to be forgotten so cheers! Soxwon (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, everytime I read PA, I get the wrong image. PA was "Public Affection" in my High School, and it could get you in trouble too... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm no shrinking violet, and I've got no objection to anyone calling me whatever they like; I mostly ignore it anyway, on the basis that if I don't know who you are then why should I care what you think? My fundamental objection is to the assymetry of the relationship; I call you an idiot, you call me a dick. but becasue "dick" is enshrined in some guideline or other it's quite accepable, whereas "idiot" isn't.

The solution to wikipedia's problem is therefore very clear; before I suggest that someone is an idiot I should create a guideline that I can link to, thus proving that I wasn't making a "personal attack". It's really difficult to believe that any rational adult would... would ... ah yes, adult ... --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget... Dicks are people too. A dick isn't just for Christmas, it's for life! And we all know that Malleus is a fine upstanding example of a dick. --Web Hamster 01:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a dick of "pornstar proportions", and proud of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there are some drawbacks to your fame, and in a similar vein, your rudeness is in fact a fallacy. --Web Hamster 01:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And as a dick, you're in good company :). Soxwon (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A Distraction

Found a reference to a railway disaster that appears to have been forgotten (if it did occur).

L.B. Billinton's lecture notes, from Railway Mission to Roumania and Russia 1917-1918 quoted in Marx (2007) Lawson Billinton:A Career Cut Short pages 81 and 82 "...I think it can be safely claimed that the record railway accident of the world happened just outside Jassy where 600 lives were lost. Not very far from Jassy at... Cuiria there is a very heavy bank about ten miles in length to a place called Burnovar, the grade in parts being 1 in 15...a heavy train was coming down the bank loaded with soldiers...[many] on the tops of the cars and between the buffers. After the train had started one ingenious soldier noticed a cock and proceeded to close it. This cock unfortunately proved to be the Westinghouse train pipe...there was a train standing in the straight at the foot of the bank at Cuiria. The runaway train... travelling at a high speed, had to be turned into the loop, with the result that the train left the metals and piled up in the station, catching fire." Billinton was a temporary Lieutenant Colonel in the Mission, at some time in 1917 working out of Jassy, being seconded from his post as CME of the LBSCR. Although he's reporting this second-hand he was involved in train working on the line a short while afterwards, in an effort to reduce the number of banking locos needed. Haven't found any reference to this accident on the web. Ning-ning (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was mistaken

Hi Malleus, I believe the block I made on your account yesterday was rash and mistaken. I apologize for having done that. I swiftly undid the block when I saw there was no consensus for it and have since taken that lack of consensus as a hint to look into and think about this much further.

Although the numbers in your comment on WH's talk page didn't quite add up for me, I took your comment as a personal attack against the only non-admin who commented in the thread (along with a much less worrisome taunt aimed squarely at the other admins who commented there). I understood your comment was also meant as a wider criticism of admins taken altogether, along with the RfA process, but I didn't think it was acceptable to aim it at a non-admin then and still don't. However, you later said this non-admin was imaginary and I think you can understand how I could have mistakenly thought an individual editor was clearly in the swath of what you had to say.

Last August you had been blocked by another admin who had similar worries (however worthy). I looked at the thread, along with your contributions and in good faith (albeit mistakenly thinking you'd undertaken to be more civil, my botch), I unblocked you. When I saw what I took as this latest "attack" I warned you, then saw what I perhaps carelessly took as a quick, unhelpful comeback, looked over your block log and made the block, as an admin who had unblocked you before.

We all know personal attacks aren't allowed here but the warning I gave you was enough (even if y'all were going to "taunt the admin" in its wake). The block wasn't needed, the project wasn't at immediate risk of harm and a block was not the way to deal with an editor with your long and helpful contribution history, who is known to make sweeping, critical comments about admins and adminship on Wikipedia which are, as such, not even seen as personal attacks by many editors.

en.Wikipedia is a sprawling, shifting website with many and sundry kinds of editors. I try to keep up with what's happening here and do learn something new about this website almost every day. I may not always agree with how you express yourself but we may indeed agree on many of the underlying worries you bring up. If you ever need help with something (not saying that you would or will need my help), please let me know. Thanks for your many helpful contributions and your understanding. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, apologies mean very little to me, but I thank you for offering one nevertheless. What's more important is that you reflect seriously on your actions, and in particular who it was you believed that I'd "personally attacked", and what damage to the project your actions were intended to prevent. You also need to clear your head of your fuzzy ideas about the absurd wikipolicy of "civility". I do not, for instance, consider it civil of you to make repeated false claims that I personally attacked another editor, and then to issue a punitive block on the basis of your own misunderstanding.

It's all water under the bridge now, but if I see similar behaviour from you in the future directed at any other editor then I will be supporting an RfC against you, with a view to having you desysopped or otherwise appropriately sanctioned. I sincerely hope though that that won't be necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope so too. Admins who make mistakes, admit to them, and learn from them are no bad thing for Wikipedia. We all make mistakes and almost all uses of admin tools can be easily undone. Far more serious are concerns about admins wielding tools as a status symbol, never admitting to mistakes, using their adminship to pursue agendas, and/or stirring up trouble. I'm not aware of any suggestion or evidence that Gwen Gale falls into any of these categories. Geometry guy 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that some administrators, Gwen Gale amongst them, ought to be much more careful about issuing blocks. Sure, a block can be reversed, but the damage and ill-will it causes can't. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am partly commenting here to encourage those, who criticize admins for taking advantage of a position of strength, not to make the same mistake themselves. On this page, there has been consensus support of Malleus, and I have been supportive myself. Using this position of strength to push an agenda is inappropriate: it would be similar to those abuses of adminship which have been roundly opposed here. Geometry guy 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For instance, you should remember that we're all editors of a project and shouldn't be thinking of "positions of strength," but improving the article...Soxwon (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree and urge everyone never to forget it. Every action should be about improving the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 00:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"I looked at the thread, along with your contributions and in good faith (albeit mistakenly thinking you'd undertaken to be more civil, my botch), I unblocked you." I'm finding a lot of incivility in Gwen's comments here and on her talk page. She doesn't seem ready to accept that her own actions and statements can be uncivil and unhelpful. This seems ironic. Am I miunderstanding/ misinterpreting something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are, that's just the way it is with the civility police; the rules don't apply to them, only to everyone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

currency conversion

More. Tony (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Hi Malleus. If you still have any interest in this subject, there's a dispute on the talk page that you might want to comment on. Born Gay (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Some subject areas seem to attract controversey, and I suppose this is inevitably going to be one of them. I've made a few general comments on the article's talk page which I think both sides would do well to reflect on. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

SECR N class

Hello, Malleus. Just to let you know that the above article has now emerged from its peer review, and is now up for FA, so if you would like to review the article from an FA point of view, your comments will be greatly appreciated, as usual. Thank-you in advance, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll be along shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at your initial observations, and hope they are to your satisfaction. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking good. I'll take a more detailed look later, probably not until this evening, as I've got some real (by which I mean paid) work to do now. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also had a go at looking at the tense of the lead paragraphs as a result of these changes, and I have re-jigged some of it to suit the new situation. I may end up reverting it back to your last edit if it doesn't read very well! Anyway, regards. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw the problem and have now dealt with it. Now someone has pointed it out, it seems simple! Anyway, hopefully it is more to your liking. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken on board what was said, and have scrapped the background section. Having read it in isolation from the rest of the article, I can see where you are coming from, and that a better location for it is as an introductory paragraph for the Design details and construction history section. This is pretty much because there is very little background history in it, which should set the scene as to why the class was designed at all, and the motive power situation prior to its introduction. On this matter, I'll need to write afresh, see how it looks and if the consensus is that it would be worthy as a Background section, then I will reinstate it. Hope this clarifies my statement of intent. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page, and I think it's best if I now withdraw from this article and leave you and the other editors to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're up to it...

Gregorian mission. I cannot think of another thing to stuff in the poor article. It's got a sources section for Deacon... don't have to worry about money conversions (so many saints in it that money wasn't required!) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Another little article you just knocked up in a few spare moments? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, this subject is kinda important in the grand scheme of history! Now, a little something I just knocked up that sorta grew is Urse. Here he was when he was born, something I figured I'd just knock out to eliminate a redlink in Ealdred. Somehow, he's grown to Urse d'Abetot and is big enough to go to FAC. Wow, my verbosity knows no bounds! (Thanks for the CE on Gregorian, btw, it's much appreciated) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

John Douglas (architect)

This article has been nominated as a FA here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You've done well with this Peter, and started off with a Support from Tony as well! --Malleus Fatuorum 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few little changes to address some of the comments, but I see that you already dealt with most of them anyway. If you don't like my changes, well you know what you can do. Revert them! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits - appreciated as always. Tony's support is Tentative, but I presume that's not too bad! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Tentative" is often about as good as it gets. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Gwen and consensus redux

Just thought you may like a little evening entertainment. Or at least a quick exercise of your neck muscles as your head moves from side to side. --Web Hamster 00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gwen has a view of the world which, to put it mildly, is quite different from mine. I'd best say no more. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My little misdemeanour...

I wish you luck too. There's no hard feelings on my side, but I was taken aback when you said that "Trying to play catchup with these ever-changing prose issues is rather a hopeless task, and one that may even lead me to oppose on the same grounds as Tony" when you've also done a good deal of valuable edits. I guess the truth hurts. You are right: I'm getting too emotionally attached, and it just clouds my judgment. Thank you for you work so far, though, and I'll be the first to admit that you have tried your hardest to get the article on track. I apologise for my rather 'huffy' outbursts, but I'm sure you understand the frustrations that sometimes comes with editing on here, when everyone seems to turn on you. Once again, thank you for your frank comments, and I wish you success in all you do. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly no hard feelings on my side. I fully understand how stressful and sometimes frustrating FAC can be, but it's clear to me that you've begun to take my comments and criticisms of certain aspects of the article personally, which was not the spirit in which they were offered. I'm going to make no further comment either on the article's talk page or at its FAC, as it's quite possible that my own judgement has now become clouded as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an interesting idea, but I expect there will be significant opposition to it; there's significant opposition to any proposal for change here on wikipedia. For myself I am resolved never to stand for election to anything here, as it always deteriorates into a popularity contest at best and a bunfight at worst. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Nice to know I don't rate even there. (laughs). Must not be vocal enough on boards or something. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that those of us with the longest block logs have been invited first, as we're the ones in most need of protection. So it's probably quite flattering that you're not in the first tranche. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like an interesting idea, but with the best of intentions it sounds like it's going to establish a new elite class of wikipedians. Take the case of administrators: they started as just janitors cleaning up wikipedia, but now being an administrator is very much a status symbol and is a position of power. I can imagine the association degenerating into a group of editors eager to exercise power because of their position as "Established Editors". They may not have any special tools, but a formal group of established editors will have prestige and influence and I hope it is not misused. Nev1 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Re Ealdgyth) I have 120,000 edits over more than three years and I don't rate a place at the High Table. And agree entirely with Nev1; all the arguments for and against this were made at MFD/Esperanza. – iride scent 14:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish people wouldn't use the word 'elite'. The point is there has to be some criterion for membership other than a popularity contest. And in any system involving collaboration, i.e. working together, there has to be a balance of power between different groups with different interests. Peter Damian (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly a widening power imbalance between administrators and the rest, but I'm not certain this is the right way to go about reversing that destructive trend. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well those of us who are realists and have studied history believe that no way is right. Peter Damian (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but some strategies are more likely to lead to a desired outcome than others. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well suggest one. Peter Damian (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Debundle the administrator tools and make getting and losing them far easier. There would then be no troublesome elite to cause trouble for established editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)From the elite article of a well known online encyclopedia: "a relatively small dominant group within a large society, which enjoys a privileged status envied by individuals of lower social status". By establishing this association you would be setting the established editors apart from newer editors, effectively giving them status. And I'm certain that people will want to be members of the association in the same way that people want to be admins just for the power. As an aside, if more people had admin tools and they were dished out on some fixed criteria rather than popularity they'd be much less prestigious and hopefully more effective as a result.

Amongst the aims of the association is "defend them where there is just cause", which sounds too much like "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" for my liking. I like the idea of representing "content contributors in the Wikipedia community" and "champion[ing] their interests", but I don't think this is best served by forming a clique. Nev1 (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If I removed the 'defend them where the is just cause', would you accept nomination? I value your contributions to the encyclopedia and it is people like you who should be in such an assocation. The point is, there has to be some criterion for being in there apart from being popular in an internet chat room. Otherwise it is impossible. Peter Damian (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

PS on the 'status' bit, I think a lot of the longer established editors would perhaps like some status, and perhaps this would be the way to get it. Peter Damian (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would feel more comfortable about the group if the defence statement was removed, but I don't think I will join. While IRC does have too much influence on wikipedia, setting up opposing camps would surely raise the stakes. I try to do my bit defending good contributors when I can, but I don't need a membership card to do that.

Status may be nice, but it's easy to abuse even accidentally. When I took part in this discussion, I came across a bit of an arrogant twat. I assumed I knew better, basically because I was more experienced than Skinmoke. After that, I make sure to remind myself that I do not know everything. You asked on my talk page what in my view would work? If only I had the answer :-) I'm in favour of making admins more accountable and establish an effective recall system. If admins feared losing their power and status, they'd be less likely to abuse it. Change on wikipedia is tough, and people are entrenched, so how to make one's voice heard? My best suggestion is stating as often and as loudly as possible the reasons change is necessary. There also appears to be an aversion to experimentation such as using RfA to open an admin reconfirmation. Nev1 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My view is that no system of human governance is perfect, and that the ones that work best are the ones where there are different groups with different interests that form a sort of balance. In this case, those who police Wikipedia, who have got far too powerful lately, and those who do the work. Peter Damian (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that no government produced yet is perfect. There does need to be a balance, but rather than elevating content editors, I'd rather lower the prestige and power of adminship by making them more accountable or having a greater turnover (maybe having the tools for a set period). Nev1 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am quite puzzled by my nomination into this. There are editors who are far more prolific than I am that are not on the list. Is this just because I've been really grumpy lately? I recently made a point to an editor who claimed he was an academic that though academia and Wikipedia have the same goals, a significant cultural difference between the two is that no one's name alone can win arguments here. Points have to be based on sources and facts. I hope this is not an attempt to negate that. Grumpiness and foul moods have their season, but they should not be used to justify someone's point. --Moni3 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I nominated you for unblocking Giano. Note you are only nominated. There would be an election from among the agreed nominees after that. On whether points should be based on sources and facts, very much agree - and not based on votes from an internet chatroomPeter Damian (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So is this "association" a union or is it a new cadre? Jimmy Hoffa must have a hard-on at the thought! How long will it be before subs become due? What is is Groucho Marx said, "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member"? I wonder why some people have this desperate need to club together for the most tenuous of reasons? --Web Hamster 16:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian mission

Hi. Do you want to put Gregorian mission article on FA voting? It's great aricle, maybe just we can put some more picture. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not my article, I'm just helping Ealdgyth by doing some copyediting on it in preparation for its FA nomination.[4] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Suffering fools

Malleus, in regards to the comment you made in the discussion on Moni3's talk page centering on me, I think that you're correct, that being an administrator on WP isn't in the cards for me. I would guess that becoming an admin would require suffering fools gladly, and that's just something I'm not capable of doing, even IRL. My sarcasm with Jackiestud was an attempt at being funny, and not everyone gets my humor. If I offended you, I sincerely apologise. If I was rude, I'm also sorry about that. However, I find Jackiestud's behavior offensive (playing editors off each other and breaking all kinds of WP policies in order to advance his/her agenda), and warranting confrontation. If that makes me ineligible for being an admin, so be it. --Christine (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't in the slightest offended Christine—you'd have to make a pretty determined and sustained effort if you wanted to do that. I was just pointing out though that there are many delicate flowers here on wikipedia who shrilly shout "uncivil" or "personal attack" at any remark they choose to disagree with. It may be that, like me, you are a little too outspoken to be able to get through RfA, which of course is not designed to determine whether or not you'd make a good administrator anyway, but rather how many friends and more importantly enemies you've made during your time here. Don't let me put you off if it's something you feel you might like to look at again in the future though, but if you do let me just offer one final piece of advice; make sure that for the preceeding three months or so you bite your tongue and are cringingly polite to everyone you come into contact with, no matter what the provocation. Also, don't leave it too late, because the longer you've been here the number of enemies you'll make who will oppose just because they can will inevitably reach a critical mass. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't imagine having any "enemies". Thanks for the advice, though. If I've been "rude" or "outspoken", it's been to "fools" like the aforementioned Jackiestud. And not overly so, at least compared to some of the behavior I've seen here. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm not all that famous; I have a few buddies who have helped me with my few articles. I just spend time on my own little area of the project, have fun, and contribute where I can. I'm content to continue doing that, even indefinitely. --Christine (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, one sure way to discover that you've got far more enemies than you ever thought possible is to put yourself forward at RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a true story. I'm a huge bitch and I got admin. And I didn't fake a personality to get it. Same then as I am now. Who gets adminship is really more about the mood at RFA and much less about the candidate. لenna vecia 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Blonde bitches would always get my vote, but then I'm a MCP and proud of it :) --Web Hamster 16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA is about momentum. If the support side gains momentum, more people will support the RFA; if the oppose side gains momentum, more people will oppose the RFA. To pass an RFA, one shouldn't create any enemy. If you have 20 enemies, it will be very difficult to pass an RFA. Even if you have 80/90 supporters, 20 people will oppose you, and 10 people will "oppose per this" and "oppose per that". AdjustShift (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Added to which enemies tend to watchlist a potential RfA, afraid of missing an opportunity to get even, whereas supporters don't. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I have editors non-existent RFAs on my watchlist because I think they'll be good. And, in fact, the first support in my RFA, later withdrawn (boo) was made before transclusion because he'd added my not-yet existent RFA to his watchlist months before. :) لenna vecia 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have editors' non-existent RFAs on your watchlist because you think they'll be good - because you're not such a "huge bitch" as you just claimed to be. Others are less charitable than you are. --Philcha (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey now!! I take offense to that! That's a personal attack!! I am not such a "huge bitch" as I claim to be?! The nerve!! Take it back! I am, too! لenna vecia 14:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

GA/GANs by a spam editor

FYI, you reviewed two GANs by Zithan (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet of the crat/OS Nichalp used to write spam articles for clients in return for pay. Although he has now blanked the identifying stuff I still have screenshots of it [5]. Talk:Click4Carbon/GA1 and Talk:Process Window Index/GA1. You might want to be careful as in one paid article Zithan wrote, all the frauds/violations of corporate law committed by the client was omitted YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that I declined to list either of those articles as GAs. To be honest I'm not bothered why anyone chooses to write an article, or whether they're paid or not, just about the quality of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I agree, it's the quality of the article that counts. Any chance you could cast your keen reviewer's eyes over Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dalberg Global Development Advisors/1? Geometry guy 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I should spend more time at GAR, perhaps once GA sweeps is over ... I'll take a look at the Dalberg article. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus. I'm looking forward to 2012 and beyond, when there will be more trusty hands at GAR :-) Geometry guy 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No businessman will ever pay me any money if I write a critical article about him or his company. When a paid editor writes an article about a businessman or his company, the editor will omit all the criticism. AdjustShift (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Certainly not an outright critical article. very likely, but I'm sure that I could write an article describing a company or businessman fairly and accurately, warts and all, that the subject would be quite happy to pay for and that would also satisfy all of wikipedia's policies. And not by simply omitting all criticism. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It's still probably a conflict of interest - the pressure would be on the writer to provide a more positive view than perhaps the subject deserves. There's probably a lot of companies out there who'd rather have no article than one that could tarnish their public image. Aptery gial 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

While that's certainly a possibility I don't think it's an inevitability. The relevant part of the coi policy says: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." COI is a frequently misunderstood balancing act, just as is NPOV. It's not that the editor is required to have no interest in advancing the subject, but (s)he has to have more interest in advancing the aims of wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Help!

File:English kingdoms 600.gif. Awa wants it in SVG... help! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The map itself would be fairly easy to vectorise with a bit of trial and error, but it would then need to be recoloured and all the text vectorised as well. Could be done, but it wouldn't be a quick job, at least not doing it the only way I know how to do it. Might even be easier to make up an entirely new graphic ... --Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a new map then (laughs). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ask at WP:GL. Someone there's bound to know. – iride scent 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's easy enough. Just go on Google Images, find a large resolution image of the British Isles, place it into Inkscape or Illustrator. Trace the outline, then the boundaries and text is a doddle. --Web Hamster 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what I was thinking; forget conversion, just make a new image. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't have Illustrator (I do photos, not illustrations!) so it's either find a new map or take the map out (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't need Illustrator, Inkscape will do the job almost as well, and it's freeware. It's not too difficult to learn either. --Web Hamster 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There are limits to what this old lady is willing to bother with. If there hadn't been another map available, we'd have seen whether I bothered. Photoshop was hard enough to figure out. (And I must be one of the few folks in the world who can use FrameMaker also.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a long time since I used that app, I've gone through Pagemaker, Quark and InDesign since then :) --Web Hamster 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that even the members of the graphics lab won't have a quick solution for this, short of making up a new graphic. If Awadewit won't accept a promise or an IOU then I guess the graphic has got to go, at least pro tem. It's a graphic that's obviously needed in lots of other places as well anyway, so better to take the time to get it right. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the map (grins) Simple, easy, no fuss. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit "brutalist", could do with some colour, but at least the text is legible. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Much better now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Converting raster graphics to vector for anything but cartoon-like images doesn't work too well. In fact with text it doesn't work at all, and as the unreadability of the text on the present gif seems to be the main objection I wouldn't be too optimistic of an easy solution. But if one of the members of the graphics lab is prepared to have a go it'll save me a job, so good luck to 'em. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If I have time tomorrow I'll see what I can come up with, if I can get a decent image to get an outline trace from that is. --Web Hamster 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one that could be a starter for 10. --Web Hamster 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The most reliable Daily Mail article ever?

I was laughing while I wrote this. In short, The Daily Mail copied large chunks of an article I wrote and still managed to get stuff wrong. Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Did they mention that those Romans only came over to steal our benefits, impose a single currency and eat our swans? – iride scent 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well have the Romans ever done for us? Apart from aqueducts, sanitation, roads, and medicine... Nev1 (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm envious; The Daily Mail has never copied on of my articles. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 12:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what you think. Aptery gial 12:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be quite flattered if they had, sincerest form of flattery and all that. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. There are a few examples of F1 articles which have had their text put in articles, particularly on older subjects. In one book, they copied a results table - links and all, one to the legend - from one of our articles. Aptery gial 12:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's great! There's another aspect to this though, which is there's one article I've contributed quite a bit too—I won't say which one—that I fully intend to recycle bits of when/if I ever ever seriously down to writing the book I've been mulling over in my mind for the last couple of years. So what may sometimes look like copying may simply be the author repeating his/her own words elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already pointed this one out before, but this BBC biography bears a rather striking resemblance to Lara's article on the topic. (At least they credit Wikipedia in this case.) – iride scent 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The truth about you

You can say you're not as much as you like but you're a racist whether you admit it or not, and you're probably just racist against everyone younger then you because you're jealous. Everyone except you knows it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.27.39 (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think I'm bothered what someone who isn't even brave enough to sign their own rants thinks about anything? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) For what it's worth I've warned the IP regarding WP:NPA policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that I know who the IP really is though, and he ought to be ashamed of himself if it's who I believe it to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Racist...younger...jealous...what? This is an episode of Law and Order in one simple post. Gung! Gung! A new dimension of your motivations is now apparent to me, Malleus. And I am intrigued. --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware racism was about age. Silly me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This quote may give you an idea of who I believe to be behind this, and why: "A few days beofore June 25, a 12 years old user eneterd a RFA. Sadly, he failed, because of his age, he was told: "how can i trust a user who has a bedtime to be an admin". This was an outrage, and was reacted as such. A discussion was then opened up and more disgusting comments were made. Then, three editors rose together and realised this outrage. The cabal fights back against that disgusting rascicm, and will one day rise above the darkness." --Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That is hilarious. Reminds me of this - [6] Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An interesting use of the word "racist" to imply someone who makes judgements based on age as opposed to colour or creed. Certainly added weight to the IP's argument. Pedro : Chat 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really do any favours for those who against all common sense argue so vehemently for the maturity of children. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rise against the darkness? And the darkness is editors who object to 12-year-old admins? Perhaps evidence of darkness should be given at RfA: Q. 10: What do you consider the darkness of human behavior? If it's cranky editors who are skeptical that youths not able to vote or get drafted have good judgment, that may be a telling sign. --Moni3 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had NPA warnings for less than "cranky" Moni. ;-) Not saying you're wrong of course, just saying. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably true that your cranky and my cranky are different. It's time for me to take a dandelion break when the only response I can think of is dripping with sarcasm. Course, I think an outright statement of "You irritate the hell out of me" is truthful and direct. I have not yet posted it, but I've come close...not here, but...around. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant for using the word cranky, not for being cranky. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, you damn racist! How dare you! Anyway, what kind of lame racist would you be to only hate people for a few years and then suddenly be okay with them! I'm so confused. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right Ottava. What kind of self-respecting racist would I be if I suddenly forgot to hate once my victims reached 18? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on my talk, but I strongly suspect this is just a generic WR/ED troll and not anyone you expect it to be – all the people you're thinking of are AFAIK in the US, and this comes from, er, Bolton. The only person I can think of near Bolton with a grudge against you or me is Majorly, but anonymous attacks aren't his style – however much you may disagree with him he's always consistent about telling people to their face what he thinks of them. – iride scent 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't hold a grudge against anybody. Majorly talk 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That's an interesting tool, but I just tried it out with two IPs I know the locations of and while one was in the right area the other was over 150 miles out. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Curiousy I just ran a whois on that IP address, and it's even closer to home than Bolton, in Irlam.[7] --Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, that quote you posted above. I remember reading it, but I don't remember who posted it. Who was it? لenna vecia 17:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Shappy, one of your BRC members. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. The cabal he's talking about isn't the BRC, but one which he set up, now deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bah! That's terrible. Holy hell. Well, he didn't post this to your talk page. He lives in the New England area, thus his frequent trips to NYC meetups. لenna vecia 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pah. Just tried your IP address look up and its says I'm in Milton Keynes. Never been there in my life...although I hear it has some cool cows!--79.64.167.226 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The existence of protocols like NATP have for a long time now made IP tracing a bit hit and miss, to say the least. Almost all of us now have several IP addresses simultaneously, at the very least an internal and an external one, plus the IP addresses of any proxies our ISP uses. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm simultaneously in Motherwell and Manchester. Maybe that explains why it's been raining all day.92.12.205.147 (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been a beautiful day here in Manchester. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. I was in Salford Quays last Wednesday. Left the real world at 5:30 am. Lovely day. 10 miles up the M6 toll it started pissing down. It's grim up North .... :)

On a useful note most BT addresses resolve to Milton Keynes as, if I recall, do a number of Tiscali ones. The shared backbone infrastructure for the BT-21CN project has, as Malleus notes, made IP geolocation in the UK very hit and miss. Pedro : Chat 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe everything in the Carphone Warehouse empire (which, having gobbled up Opal Telecom, Talk Talk and AOL is a significant chunk of the world's net traffic) always shows as Irlam, Manchester on a whois search. Precise geolocation on BT IP addresses will quite often show the location as the middle of the River Thames near Lambeth Bridge, for what is no doubt a perfectly logical reason. – iride scent 20:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Next time you're up here Pedro you'll have to give me a call, and we can perhaps take in some whippet racing followed a bit of ferret-legging before we finish up with my customary 15 pints of mild. You'll have no problems recognising me; I'll be the one twisting my flat cap nervously in my hands in eager anticipation of at last meeting one of yon soothern bastards. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Casliber copy-edit

I'm sorry about the delay in the copy-edit for Luton Town F.C., I'm waiting on Casliber. I've done a little work myself, but I feel I'd rather leave it to him.

Cheers, Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 15:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I've got it watchlisted, so when Casliber's done his work I'll take a second look and hopefully be able to support. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A request

Hi. If you get a chance, could you please briefly review Hurricane Bonnie (1998) and leave some comments at the talk page? I'm hoping to get that article featured within the next few months, and I'd appreciate some suggestions, but I'm not quite confident it's ready yet. Thanks in advance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You've done more hurricane articles than I've had hot dinners Julian, I'm sure I can't teach you anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But my prose is still lousy. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It really ain't that bad, but to save you from the wrath of Tony if he sees stuff like "the South Carolina National Guard put about 1,512 men on active duty, 1,474 being of the Army National Guard" I'll take a look through. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That edit summary got my attn! (Is that sentence real?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just copy-and-pasted it; it's real. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like something I'd write :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some days I think I'm being too hard in demanding, not perfect, but at least acceptable, prose. Tony has much higher expectations than I do, and I think that's all to the good; we need something to aim for, and Tony has set a standard that I struggle to reach, but it's worth the struggle. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin

I've made some significant changes (improvements) to this article, except to the lead. I fancy nominating it at GAN, and wondered what you thought? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. With a decent lead that should do OK at GAN I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I expanded the lead, I'm going to nominate it now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 Monaco Grand Prix

Thanks for all your comments, it's really useful. Feel free to add yourself as a co-nom at any time. :) Aptery gial 01:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I just moved a few words around. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to name this section "The real truth about you" and say that you are too modest. You racist. ;) Aptery gial 01:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with formatting, please

You helped me with the formatting of List of listed buildings in Runcorn which became a FL. I am now working on a sister project of the listed buildings around Runcorn. I've tried to copy precisely the formatting of the existing list but it has gone wrong, see here. I've spent ages trying to find the error but have failed. It may be (probably is) something very simple and trivial. Can you find it? Help please (again)! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. There was an additional hyphen at the end of the table so the table code was expecting the start of another row and not the end curly bracket. --Web Hamster 17:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bother - beaten to the punch with an ec on both counts :) Maralia (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be tediously pedantic, the problem was that there was no code to end the table; the final line ended "} instead of "|}". Your delete of the hyphen "accidentally" fixed the problem. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:P --Web Hamster 18:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How's that for service?! Saved me hours. Thanks, team. When it's a FL, it's yours. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, Malleus, you are "established". :) By the time I finish my work so I can leave, I hopefully wont ever be "established". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you could finish my work too, that'd be peachy keen. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have over 400 pages to write just for this summer. I'm backlogged. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't consider myself to be "established". "Grudgingly tolerated (mostly)" would probably be nearer the mark I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Srsly. >_> لenna vecia 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:League of Unextraordinary Gentlemen Who Are Barely Tolerated needed? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. LUGWABT is fun to say, with or without a silent B. WP:LUGWABT. Support. Keeper | 76 00:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as long as you are happy. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A request nothing at all like Julian Colton's in the thread above this one

Hi, is there any chance you could take a look at Maiden Castle, Dorset at some point and tell me what you think of it? I intend to take it to FAC soon (once I've scoured The Wessex Hillforts Project for any relevant information) and a fresh pair of eyes to see whether it's too technical or the prose needs work would be very welcome. I've got the bit between my teeth after being surprised by the 10k visitors the article got while it was featured on DYK. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd already noticed that and looked through it, but if you're thinking of taking it to FAC then I'll take a much closer look. BTW, for the benefit of any others who may read this I'm no FAC guru; all I can do is move a few commas around. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I must be confused then, it must be medieval bishops you're an expert on! Nev1 (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, those articles have commas in them too. I'm good, with, commas. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a first run through and made some changes, but there is one thing that I find very striking about the prose, and that's the sheer number of "Maiden Castle"s so close together: "The first hill fort at Maiden Castle, constructed on a territorial boundary ... The hill which Maiden Castle sits on is part of a ridge on the north side of the South Winterborne valley ... Maiden Castle ...". I think it needs a little bit of variation from time to time. Other than that it doesn't look too bad. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. I think it's the result of two things: I wrote the article almost back to front, and then added in huge chunks, so while sentences may read fine in isolation, they might not be perfect together; also, the site obviously has a complex history and with the amount of background information I added for context I felt that it was sometimes important to emphasise Maiden Castle. I'll take another look. Nev1 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One question I have after reading the article again is where does the name "Maiden" come from? There's a rather teasing reference to John Ireland's Mai-Dun. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Put simply, I don't know. There were a few theories on the talk page and the article before I started editing it, but when I looked at the sources, "maiden" was not explained, even as an aside. According to wikipedias's disambig page, "Maiden Castle" refers to a fortified site that was never captured in battle, but who knows if this applies to the one in Dorset (after all, the Romans may have been involved). I'm damned if I know why Ireland chose to call it Mai-Dun. Nev1 (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe its the same castle as that used in the Monty Python film. If it is, I must visit it... Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about that... I shall have to investigate first hand. Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, after removing a few occurences of "Maiden Castle" too close together, and actually finding a source for "Maiden" (it's just that the site looks impregnable) I've decided to bite the bullet and nominate the article for FAC. Let's see how it goes and fingers crossed. Thanks for your help, as always it's much appreciated :-) Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should do OK, but good luck anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing anything

This looks "Good"...doesn't it(?) What you reckon, I felt a second pair of eyes was prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks better than "Good" to me. Jza84 asked me to take a look at it a little while ago, and my only real criticism was the article's tendency to (at least to my mind) overuse quotations, as in "The new and expanding British Empire provided 'unprecedented opportunities for upward mobility and the accumulations of wealth', and so the 'Scottish, Welsh and Irish populations were prepared to suppress nationalist issues on pragmatic grounds'". I raised this issue on the article's talk page here, and I was persuaded that the approach could probably be justified in this specific case, certainly at the GA level anyway, although I'd have serious doubts about getting through FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you said that. I agree I don't really like the quotations, but can see his view on it too, so am happy to let it slide. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It clearly fails NPOV. No decent English lad would ever want to be identified as "British", and this is not clear from the page. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is definitely pro Scottish POV bollocks - "Indeed, it was the "Scots [who] played key roles in shaping the contours of British identity";[80] "their scepticism about the Union allowed the Scots the space and time in which to dominate the construction of Britishness in its early crucial years",[81] drawing upon the notion of a shared "spirit of liberty common to both Saxon and Celt ... against the usurpation of the Church of Rome".[82] James Thomson was a poet and playwright born to a Church of Scotland minister in the Scottish Lowlands in 1700 who was interested in forging a common British culture and national identity in this way.[82]". This is only acceptable if it includes the fact that the Scots are dumb, smelly, and way too close to their sheep. And for every drunkard Scotsman pretending to be an academic, there was a Johnson who could easily refute him. Mr. Adam Smith, you can suck it you wanker. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Jza84 has still got a lot of work ahead of him if he's going to be brave enough to tackle, the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish articles as well as this one. I'm not certain that one lifetime will be enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've deserved a break, and instead hope to get something unrelated through GA!.... and the Irish people article? -- no chance! I enjoy having a head on my neck too much! Welsh people is confused from the first sentence. English people ignores fundamental aspects of its topic. Scottish people suffers from being too damn <Groundskeeper Willie accent>proud of bonnie Scotland</Groundskeeper Willie accent>. All four (bar perhaps the English) ignore Britishness as an element of their history/identity/assertiveness/wealth/interaction with oneanother, and all have massive NPOV and SYNTH issues. --Jza84 | Talk 17:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Malleus. I was editing in the wrong tab. I appreciate the heads up - thanks. ;) — Ched : ? 02:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about criteria

Is there something you can refer me to that sets forth the criteria for a GA biography. I am uncomfortable with the article, but there is nothing I can point to except other examples of GA biographies. I feel that it is too focused on the subjects political achievements and relegates the "Personal" to an afterthought. The editor has improved the article by adding more personal detail and reducing the choppiness. I would like to offer some concrete suggestions for further improvement. Any ideas? The article in question is Arthur Eve. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any GA-specific biography requirements beyond the general GA requirement for broad rather than comprehensive coverage. I know there have been several discussions about whether an biographical article should be listed if it contains little or nothing outside of, say, an athlete's professional career, but I don't think any firm consensus has been reached. I'l take a quick look at Arthur Eve and see whether I'd be happy to list it or not ... back shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated, as I know this issue is a question of judgement, but that some editors have firm beliefs. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK, I've had a quick look through now, and in summary I think this article falls short on a number of levels. I'm aware that I can perhaps be a little—well perhaps more than a little—tough on prose, but this, for instance, makes no sense at all to me: "In 1968, Eve delayed construction on the State University of New York – at Buffalo's Amherst Campus in order to extract an agreement that New York State and the unions agreed to promote minority access into the construction industry." What's even worse is that that's the very first sentence of the article body, which doesn't even mention his election as Assemblyman. I agree with you as well that the obviously tagged on Personal section just doesn't work at all, largely I think because the chronological presentation in this article is all to cock. In its present state I wouldn't list it, not until there's a coherent storyline running through the article.--Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a primary requirement regardless. If you feel that a biography is lacking biography, just emphasize the weight concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also a WP:LEAD violation by having birth dates at the top and yet nothing in the body of the text about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

... which of course leaves at least one important piece of biographical information uncited. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have transferred title as you suggested, by leaving a note on the GA2 page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, you go and chill out now Mattisse. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Are you waiting for me in order to close out the review? I was hoping that you would go ahead and complete it. I was going to replace my name with yours on GAN, but decided not to bother. But I do consider the review as having been officially handed over to you. Is that OK with you? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be quite happy to close it once the nominator addresses my two remaining concerns to my satisfaction, which hasn't happened yet. You don't need to do anything. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Eve

I saw you created a one sentence paragraph. Isn't this frowned upon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No. What's frowned on is a series of one-sentence paragraphs. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As you've chosen to post this comment here rather than on the article's review page, let me be brutally frank with you. Either you fix the two outstanding issues I've asked you to address or I will fail this article. It's your choice. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

John Douglas (architect)

Delighted to learn that this article is now a FA; thanks for the part you played in getting it there. I am pleased about it (other than a certain feeling of pride!) for two reasons. First, I regard it as the first "true" FA in the Cheshire WikiProject - the other two are really "passing through" Cheshire; the M62 motorway literally, and Joseph Priestley spent only some 3 years in Nantwich (Warrington was in Lancashire at that time of course). Secondly, I have taken great pleasure in the works of John Douglas (who designed one of our local churches) and I consider that he is much under-recognised. Maybe the article will help to redress this. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Badbea clearance village

Hi Malleus, I've just created the above article and wondered if you might look at it and make any improvements you think it needs. We stumbled across the place earlier this year while we were visiting the area and thought it was a fascinating place - with one hell of a story! Unfortunately the only info I've found so far is from three websites and the signs around the site, but maybe someone will add some more as time goes on. I'll be putting it up for DYK in the next couple of days - I'm sure you can guess the hook :) Incidentally, I've been doing some copyediting on the Stonehenge, Avebury and Rollright Stones articles as they were awful (especially the latter) and I found some of your old footprints on the Avebury talk page. Any chance of you having a look at them and seeing if you can work your magic - or "move a few commas" as you would put it in your self-effacing way? - now there's a description of you I bet you don't hear too often :) Richerman (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting story. Your DYK wouldn't have anything to do with tethering children to posts and rocks to prevent them from blown away by any chance? :-)

I did once have a fairly half-hearted effort at clearing out at the least the worst of the New Age stuff from Avebury, but it seemed like a potentially never-ending job. Glad to see you've done some work on these important articles, and I'll be interested to see what they look like now. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're thinking of taking Avebury further, Avebury by Mark Gillings (2004) appears to give a summary of the site and I think Landscape of the megaliths : excavation and fieldwork on the Avebury Monuments, 1997-2003 also by Gillings (2008) covers the most recent excavations (I'm not sure if the 2004 volume covers the 1997-2003 dig). Nev1 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you help on those Malleus - I can always rely on you to keep me on the straight and narrow! Thanks too Nev - I think I'm getting spoiled being in the GM project. Those are some of the most important historic sites in the UK, overseen by a number of wikiprojects and they looked like they'd been written by 12 year-olds in the remedial class! I'm sure the GM project must be the best of the geographic projects in the UK. Every time I get involved with something under another project I end up disappointed with the low standards they seem to have. Richerman (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's terrible that any article on a World Heritage Site can be stub class such as this one or the Derwent Valley Mills before I tackled that article. I can guarantee that if Greater Manchester had a WHS it would be at least a GA ;-) Apart from the Derwent Valley Mills, the closest one to GM is the Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City which is in a decent state but could be expanded considerably. Nev1 (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

... and not even a decent stub at that. If we (by which I mean you of course Nev1 ;-) ) couldn't have roused ourselves to do credit to a WHS on our doorstep then I'd have had to buy a hat so that I could eat it. Heck, look what we managed to do with a ditch. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree entirely with the above. Seems that we're all getting frustrated that important articles outside of GM's remit are so poor and not keeping up with us! -- My last target having been the British people page (it was outrageous nobody wanted to write up an account of their people, nation and culture for the world). Perhaps WP:GM should be changed to WikiProject:All Wikipedia? :P --Jza84 | Talk 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure we all do, I usually follow the more important links from an article I'm asked to take a look at, and I'm almost always disappointed at what I find. Wikipedia's best articles are pretty good, and stand up well in comparison to anything else available online, but the vast majority are embarrassing dross. What's even worse is the effort needed to defend articles from (let's be generous) well-meaning attempts to "improve" them by adding important information about the subject having been tangentially mentioned in a film, or the lyrics of a 1984 Smiths' song. The amount of crap I have to keep shovelling out of Guy Fawkes, for instance, another article that really needs some work to get it up to spec, is ridiculous. I'm sick to death of repeatedly being told that the main character in V for Vendetta (film) wore a Guy Fawkes mask. So %*$&**)^ what? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wetman had an almost genius strategy for this sort of problem. Create your own Guy Fawkes in pop culture section heading with a few tidbits. Watch it grow exponentially in size to the point where a whole separate article called Guy Fawkes in pop culture becomes viable as a child of your main article - shove it all over there, out of the way, with a little link from your main article and sit back and enjoy. A place for everything and everything in its place....... --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's sooooo tempting. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A lightning rod, nice idea. That was pretty much my thinking by suggesting that notable people sections be removed from settlement articles and be placed in new lists for districts such as list of people from Bolton. Nev1 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As readers of Wikipedia Review may be aware, my personal favourite lightning-rod examples are the twin Michael Jackson's health and appearance and 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, which do a sterling job in keeping the crud and editwarriors off our 142nd-most-viewed page. – iride scent 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

An earl of Carrick

Hey Malleus. If your proofreading skills and time are being left idle at any stage in the near future, I've got the article Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick needing lots of such attention. FAC is planned. It needs a few more things done, as I was saying to Ealdgyth, but the vast majority of it is written and because it's rather large it needs your kind of attention. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice...

Okay, looking at 1950 Maryland Terrapins football team, which I just signed up to review for GAN. I'm not seeing a coherent article here. I see some lists, and some information in the lead, but nothing that ties all the dispartite information together. I'm leaning towards a quick fail, quite honestly, but would love a second opinion (or a third or fourth if any TPS wanna weigh in). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks more like a list than an article. There is no history, background on players, etc. There isn't really an establishment of notability, as most is primary source or not really anything to provide notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ottava; this reads like an extended scorecard. You might also want to ask people like Yellowmonkey or The Rambling Man, who write on different sports so hopefully will be familiar with sport article guidelines but not overly familiar with this particular topic, to have a look. – iride scent 15:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Looks to me more like a list than an article as well, and I'd fail it on that basis alone. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

lol

we have a love child. –xeno^talk 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Aw, sweet. :-)

I only just realised that there's also a Malleus. I wonder if we're related? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a fair few admirers by the looks of it. – iride scent 13:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that I'm flagged as an autoreviewer in that list. What the hell does that mean? Is it something like rollback, granted or taken away on the whim of an administrator? If it is, then I don't want it, whatever it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's for content contributors... So that new page patrollers don't have to mark new pages you create as patrolled... I don't think it's something that'll ever be held over your head unless you started create a bunch of pages like Xeno is a bumbling fool (unless, of course, that became notable). –xeno^talk 13:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[ec] WP:Autoreviewers. I think it puts you in a privileged class of editors. So if you create a new page, it isn't instantly tagged for deletion because you haven't got round to writing the References section yet. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw your request, so removed it, thus demonstrating its whimsical administrative nature. If you want it back, just shout Fritzpoll (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you're just a prole again Mal. –xeno^talk 13:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be anything that's of benefit to me, so I'm really not bothered. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(shrugs) I am but a functionary - have it, don't have it: as far as I'm concerned the choice is yours. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy without it, and without any other "privileges" that can be so capriciously removed. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite understand your position - I am mostly confused as to why anyone gave you such a userright without asking you first, which would seem a normal and polite thing to do. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See here. At least in Malleus's case there's a good reason (so the people who patrol Special:Newpages don't need to spend their time checking his articles for copyright violations and spam). – iride scent 14:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

@Fritz, further to what irid said, most admins are granting this out without comment to users who they see create valid new content on a regular basis. Seeing that Malleus is more of an improver, than a creator, it's probably unnecessary and either way it wouldn't assist him to have it in the least (except perhaps per Jooper's tongue-in-cheek descriptive above), merely others. (cf. Page creations by namespace: article / file / category / template / project / user / help / mediawiki / portal) –xeno^talk 14:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I still think users should be offered a userright, rather than have it foisted on them. I know this is meant to be to help NPP and so forth, but it is still fiddling the settings on someone's account and in every other case we require a request or agreement (except for the rather pointless autoconfirmed flag). Still, this is not the place for that argument, and apologies to Malleus for cluttering up his talkpage with my rambling! Fritzpoll (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

Jean Michel Jarre has proven to be a nightmare, but I think I'm on the home leg, hopefully another week or so and I can enter it at WP:GAN. I've had problems finding reliable sources (only one biog is available in English, and it stops at 1986), so I've had to improvise. One source I've used is Youtube. The interview is obviously amateur, probably for some community station or similar, but my understanding is that even so, Jarre's comments are still valid and useful as a source. The section of the article concerned is Chronologie, I have used Jarre's responses in the interview to construct the first paragraph, and the quote.

What do you think about editors using footage in this way? I'd like to be able to tell people what the context of the interview was, but frankly I don't have the first clue. I'm concerned because one day, it may disappear. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, you flat-out can't include the link unless you can prove that the copyright holder has consented to it going on YouTube, or Sandy will eat you. – iride scent 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, can't link to possible copyright violations. Also, without knowing WHO conducted the interview, how do we know it's been edited reliably? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Both good points. The interview is uncut (its just rushes) so I know the words are valid. I'll email the person who uploaded it onto YouTube and ask where its from. I've been reduced to doing this due to the paucity of information on the man's releases. I strongly suspect there is an elitist element that views Jarre's music as 'not real music'... Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually

God damn. This is pointless. Autoreviewer is for those who produce high quantities of valid articles; my suggested minimum is 70-75, although I really prefer that it be >100. Malleus Fatuorum has created seventeen articles. He should not have been given "autoreviewed" status in the first place, because his work does not flood the queue.

So... everyone, chill out. Okay? DS (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about autoreviewer one way or the other really, as only a fool would think it was even of the slightest benefit to me. What I'm concerned about is if flagged revisions involves a similar new "right" that can be granted or revoked at the unaccountable whim of an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I've been so critical of Flagged Revisions, in fact. DS (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(without holding an opinion on FRs themself) I think that yes, the rights for flagged revisions (reviewing, sighting, etc) would be granted... by administrators? by bureaucrats? not sure, but I don't think it will be automagically handed out by the software. –xeno^talk 12:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That'll be the end of the road for me then. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to be antagonistic, but how else should the rights (or "abilities") be assigned? What if the limits for granting weren't arbitrary? –xeno^talk 13:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not the granting I'm particularly concerned about, although it does smack of handing out brightly coloured baubles to appease the natives. I'm concerned about the possibility for malicious revocation, or the threat of such being used as a stick to beat editors with, much like rollback is today. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. And I'm sure there will inevitably be a cockup somewhere where someone sights a content dispute or something and gets the right revoked. Hopefully the "improved governance" discussions gain some traction, but I'm not holding my breath. –xeno^talk 13:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bavarian Pigeon Corps

I have found a report of a scientific experiment that casts doubt on whether pigeons could carry 70 grams. Please see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Bavarian_Pigeon_Corps#Was_this_even_feasible.3F Albatross2147 (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And a heads up...

I'm going to be out of town this afternoon through Sunday afternoon (US Chicago time). I'll have internet access but it'll be intermittant, as I'm going to be at a convention, enjoying myself and drinking strange (well, strange for the Midwest at least) beers and port and being a pain in the ass for some paying customers.. I'm looking forward to it! Hold down the fort! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Carom billiards

Thanks for the copyedit. I spent huge amounts of time on that article, given that I had to write all the subarticles it draws from first and it's rarely visited. Can I bother you to have a look at Kelly pool? I want to take that to FA relatively soon and a copyedit (and any feedback, including whether it has any chance) would be welcome. Note that I am well aware that all paragraphs with citations bunched up at the end will have to be redone.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you know what you're asking for? I'm notoriously picky. :-) BTW, Is it really true that carom billiards has been proposed for inclusion in the 2010 Winter Olympics? Seems a bit unlikely ... --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being picky and there's little point to asking for criticism if you can't take it. Just so you know, the origins section of kelly pool was constructed after looking at hundreds of digitized newspaper articles and what I've put together there is apparently unknown in modern scholarship on the game. I corresponded with the writer of the billiard encyclopedia we use for sourcing many billiards-related articles and he stated that it was "an important discovery", confirming in my mind that I had (re)discovered material that was lost and probably never collated in one place. I didn't add that detail on the olympics (and I'm not very keen on articles describing what may happen—especially when unsourced) but yeah, the possibility of it being included in the Winter Olympics sounds just a bit dubious. I just looked for sources on its inclusion in upcoming olympics, winter or summer, and found bupkis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've done a fine job, I'll be happy to help. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Malleus. I just thought I'd let you know that I have added much material, rewritten and fully expanded the lead to summarize the whole article, sourced every sentence, and I think it's now in the approximate form that I plan to take to FAC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel quite strongly about this

I recently asked to have the useless rollbacker right removed from my account, and earlier today the even more useless autoreviewer "right". I deeply resent being offered these useless baubles, that can be just as easily taken away as given, when administrators are busily behind the scenes granting themselves rights that didn't exist when they were elected and that they have little understanding of how to use. I'm thinking of the abuse filter as one example.

If the introduction of flagged revisions involves a similar "granting of rights" then I will be gone. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your anger is misplaced when it comes to the autoreviewer status (although I see the point re the arbitrary dishing out of rollback, abuse filter, and my personal bete noire, mass account creator status). Part of the problem is labelling it as a "right", when in fact it's nothing of the kind. It gives no additional powers – all it means is that, if you create a page then the "mark this page as patrolled" box is automatically checked, meaning that it doesn't show up in yellow highlight as a potential problem on NewPages. It's to reduce the workload on those who go through the new pages looking for spam and copyright violations.

I know you don't like admins, but new pages patrol (and its close cousin checking the first contributions of new accounts) are necessary but generally unnoticed, thankless and mind-numbing tasks that typically lead to floods of irate "how dare you delete my article on my band/school/cat" ranting, which then have to be followed up with patient explanations over and over again; it's something that makes you no friends, but hordes of enemies. It's a lot harder than it sounds, as it requires an in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies, a gut instinct for what material is likely to be a copyright violation, and the ability to judge what material just needs rewriting and what is unsalvageable, and the ability to explain, to people who are keen to get involved but don't understand writing, just what is wrong/right about their writing without coming across as either patronising or offensive. (Try it yourself – it's nowhere near as easy as people think.)

Most of those with the necessary experience in both article writing and policy-wonkery to do NPP properly, quite naturally don't want to get involved in something so mind-numbing and thankless, and we're generally unable to handle the load as it is; anything that reduces the strain is a benefit. It's no more a "special right" than inclusion on the list Gurch maintains of trusted editors whose edits aren't treated as potential vandalism by Huggle; the difference is, Gurch's list is just a text list, whereas this is embedded in the software, so it shows as part of your status. – iride scent 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, I have absolutely no interest at all in patrolling new pages. But I am fundamentally opposed to the arbitrary granting and equally arbitrary revoking of "rights" by individual administrators, too often in an apparent attempt to punish or reward, so even if I was the most prolific creator of new pages on wikipedia I would still object and ask to be removed from the autoreviewer category. If the handing out of whatever "rights" flagged revisions involves is equally subject to the unregulated whims of individual administrators, then that will be the end of the road for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, after a few days of being at Wikipedia your account changed status as everyone's does. So, that means that you went through another arbitrary granting of rights. See autoconfirmed. You might want to ask that one to be disabled too now that you are on a roll. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You may choose to misunderstand, misrepresent, or simply ignore my position as you choose; I will simply point out that autoconfirmed "is granted automatically by the software", and is not arbitrarily granted or withdrawn on the whim of an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So, if the original item was granted by the software (as it merely is based on how many edits you have made in a similar way as autoconfirmed) you would have no problem with it? The fact that someone manually had to add your name is the problem? And admin can take away your autoconfirmed status. It has happened a few times to you. By the way, if you continue talking about leaving over something as ridiculous as the above, you have to expect me to browbeat you. You know that I am willing to attack, criticize, and go after anyone who is trying to separate you from Wikipedia, and that includes you. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've stated my position as clearly as I'm able. It may be ridiculous to you, and I don't doubt that many others will likely also see it as ridiculous, but it's my position nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

When was this autoreviewer flag activated/created? It must have flew under my radar because this is the first time I've read about it. What a useless waste of bandwidth. I don't mean to be come off as overly critical, but it sounds like just another "I'm an established editor" banner to wave about. Is it really that time consuming to mark your own page as patrolled or have somebody else glance at it? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

See here. The NPP backlog is usually enormous; it goes far being simply glancing at a new page here or there. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see - Another facet of Wikipedia that I wasn't familiar with - I wasn't aware that it was so unwieldy. Still, I'm dubious about many users who seek the flag out. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the flag has been basically granted willy-nilly, and we're still developing a more organized system. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How does one mark a page as patrolled anyway? Apparently I've done it 393 times but I've got no idea how :S Nev1 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're an admin, so any pages you create are automatically patrolled. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you weren't and were doing some NPPing, there would be a little link at the lower right hand part of the page that says "Mark this page as patrolled". Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The thing is, if we have to spend time patrolling valid editors' edits, we could barely keep up with the massive flow. DragonflySixtyseven was literally spending hours and hours every single day trying to do it all by himself for a while; only recently have a massive push by a variety of editors been able to push the buffer up some more. Also, this whole thing with autoreviewer has essentially been on Wikipedia for several years, with User:JVbot, which used a whitelist to patrol certain whitelisted editors. This new usergroup simply replaces a private computer that is subject to breaks, downtime, and and coding update necessities with code running on the Mediawiki servers. NW (Talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are assigned Autoreviewer status, it is not for your benefit. It is for my benefit. Me. The one who reads the damn articles and clicks "patrolled" over and over and over, or very occasionally "delete" instead. It means "we can trust Malleus Fatuorum to produce articles that are not shit and do not need to be checked to see if they are shit or not". DS (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It also means that you can threaten me by arbitrarily revoking that "right". Not interested. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't worry MF, that would only happen if you had a lull in activity - like when my accountcreator status was revoked for not creating enough usernames. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't threaten you, as it doesn't change anything for you, Malleus. It changes if you show up on a list of articles to check that are new pages which you already show up as a default. Having it or not having it does nothing to -you-. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had an administrator threatening to ban me from GA reviewing, so I don't think you understand how childish and petulant too many of them can be. If I have nothing, then I can't be threatened with it being taken away. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So? They don't have the authority. Now, I will threaten you that if you leave the Wiki, I will hunt you down and there will be hell to pay. My threat actually has teeth behind it. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But because it's given to users who have been judged by others to be trusted (as opposed to something like being autoconfirmed where the bar is set very low and qualification is automatic) it could be seen as a badge and revoking it something of an insult. I wouldn't think of it that way, but some could. Nev1 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, you aren't thinking as clearly as usual. If your NPP whilelist entry was removed, you wouldn't notice - but DS and other NPPers would have extra work to do. You might find removal of Autoreviewer a minor irritant, but the real discomfort would fall on those who review artciles managed by flagged revisions.

I understand your dissatisfaction with the behaviour of some admins, but this will not improve the situation. --Philcha (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right, and others may be persuaded by your argument, but not me. Until wikipedia's "police force" becomes an accountable "police service" then I want nothing to do with it or its pretty baubles. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidragons' club

Some people have set up a meeting place for wikidragons. Hmmm. I've just shown them what a real dragon loks like. Would you like to awe them into total submission? --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've got quite a bit on your plate there Philcha. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 10:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Boldness! --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So you know, I have 42 books by Ainsworth, 40 more poems by Coleridge, 18 by Keats, 14 by Byron, 11 by Eliot, a handful by Wordsworth, about 20 pages for Leigh Hunt, about 25 for William Hazlitt, about 20 for Charles Lamb, and some others on my to do list to be completed in this year. Your list is puny. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucky you...

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2009 ... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that one's going to be a real vandal magnet. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figure I'll be helping out there. We should probably watch out for Nancy's 10 commandments article on the 26th, although I'm going to be out of town most of that day. Nancy's out of town, I believe. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably best if Nancy doesn't see what happens to her article that day. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I do look forward to seeing what the most inventive eleventh commandment the vandals can come up with is. Maybe we should offer prizes. – iride scent 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I conflicted from reverting vandalism or does that deal only with content? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I put the Ten Commandments article on watch temporarily. Two days later, another vandalism magnet will appear, Stonewall riots. If we're lucky, the defenders of the Ten Commandments article will be vandalizing the Stonewall one, and Stonewall's defenders will be vandalizing the Ten Commandments one. --Moni3 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right about Stonewall being another vandalism magnet; I'll put that one on my watchlist temporarily as well, so you can take a break during your day in the limelight. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This would have been a greate April Fools FA---and a short/fun read.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom's got another one up his sleeve. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

List of listed buildings around Runcorn

This is the companion article to List of listed buildings in Runcorn which is a FL and I should like to submit this one as a FLC. The formatting of both articles is identical (thanks to some help!) and that should not be a problem. But a little help with commas and suchlike would be appreciated, if you have the time and inclination. I'm not sure how keen they are on the quality of the English in the Description column (most FLs do not have such a column, or it's just notes), and it's difficult to avoid the repetitious "this is", but I should like some copyediting at least of the lead. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The list people do seem to be concerned about prose. I worked through at least a couple of manga episode articles where the main objection was about prose quality. Can't remember their names now, but one was to do with a goddess who was wished to Earth by a college geek and the other had something to do with daffodils. All Greek to me, so I'm sure Runcorn will be a piece of you know what in comparison. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was one of them. I just checked, and I was wrong about the daffs, it was dandelions. I still haven't got the vaguest idea what that one was really about though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine to me Peter, I can't see you having too many problems at FLC with it. I moved a few commas around, but as you say, it's difficult to avoid repetition when you're writing a series of short descriptions on a bunch of buildings. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll probably submit it as a FLC next week. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

CoM

You really should do something about this comment. Calling another editor a "drunk" is unacceptable and a personal attack, even if it may be true (I have no knowledge whether or not the user is or isn't a drunk but that's neither here nor there). Anyway, I just thought I'd ask you to refactor or redact your comment before bringing it up elsewhere. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You really should think before coming here and making a fool of yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What's more, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the playground attitudes that you and too many others of your ilk share, so when you've decided where to "bring this up" be sure to let me know, and I'll be sure to let you and anyone else who's interested know exactly what I really think. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Being so defensive and rude at a simple request to remove your personal attack on another editor, only speaks volumes to your attitude. When I do bring it up elsewhere, I'll be sure to inform you. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And here is your notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal attack. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep calm, Malleus. I've drawn attention to the facts that Allstarecho's ANI did not disclose, and pointed out that your comment was concise and accurate. This ANI may bite back.

I'll be offline Fri to Tues as I'm moving house. I suggest you advise a few level-headed friends about this ANI asap in case you do get blocked as a result of this, so they can take up the cudgels on your behalf. I'll check up on this when I get back online. --Philcha (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for setting the record straight at that daft ANI. This "personal attack" nonsense is really getting out of hand. Someone says they're not sober, but anyone who then describes them as being drunk—not a drunk as Allstarecho keeps maliciously suggesting—is making a personal attack? Jeez, some people must have shit for brains. The only one I see making "personal attacks" around here is Allstarecho. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your comment specifially says "a drunk": Bad luck for tripping over a drunk. Sure looks like "a drunk" to me. The diff for your edit shows the same thing. So yes, you called him a drunk. Personal attack, no matter what you call it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try saying this very slowly, so that you can maybe keep up; if someone says that they are not sober then it is no great deductive leap to conclude that they are drunk. Follow that? Good, now clear off. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Allstarecho just had a tantrum. I'll let you know when I see or deliver a real attack. --Philcha (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't anyone point out that WMC let himself open for comments that he is a drunk? He did make a joke (?) that he was drinking while editing. Therefore, there is no attack. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, just so there's no misunderstanding, I haven't seen anyone call WMC "a drunk", and I certainly didn't, no matter how many times Allstarecho claims that I did. I called him "drunk", as by his own admission he was not sober. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As a drunk, I think I have the right to call other people that drink drunks. So, WMC has joined the drunk Wikipedians club. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The history doesn't lie. You specifically said a drunk. Also, "sober" doesn't just apply to alcohol. It also applies to drugs or lack of sleep. He could have been on medication. He could have been suffering from lack of sleep. But you keep on believing in your fantasy of the event, I won't say anymore. *unwatched your page* - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Given your continued insistence, I'm wondering if there's a subtle British/American English thing at work here. If I call someone "a drunk", my precise meaning changes depending on whether or not the person I'm talking about is drunk at that moment in time or is sober but a person I believe to habitually get drunk, or regularly drink too much. In other words, anyone who's drunk is a drunk, and some of those who're sober are drunks, even though they're not drunk ... perhaps a Venn diagram might help, as I'm beginning to feel like I'm explaining the rules of cricket: "You have two sides. One side is out in the field and one is in. Each man that's in the side that goes in goes out and when he's out he come in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out. When both sides have been in and out including not outs, that's the end of the game." --Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit, imagine what would have been said if you'd called him a pisshead instead! Personally I think there's far too many dramah queens round here acting like ****heads just for a bit of attention. --Web Hamster 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

They all want to grow up to be administrators one day. Well, apart from the ones who're already administrators that is. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dark doesn't apply to just black, but someone can use the word black in response. Regardless, you are trolling right now Allstarecho. Attacks need to be reported by the person attacked. They are not grounds to harass a user on their talk page. So, even if you were correct your actions are still wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Genuine question here (although it probably won't get answered) - how is "Anyway, I just thought I'd ask you to refactor or redact your comment before bringing it up elsewhere" that, civil? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The word "civil" isn't used here on wikipedia in any sense that a native speaker of English would understand. It's just a synonym for anything the monkeys that run this place take exception to. I saw LaraLove make what seems to me an excellent suggestion elsewhere earlier; dump the ridiculous and childish WP:CIVIL, clarify WP:NPA, send all of the admins on a refresher course so they understand what "personal attack" actually means (I added that last bit she didn't really say that), and let's settle down to a proper adult environment without all the whining kids. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also ironic that the ones who drone on endlessly about "civility" are often amongst the most uncivil themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Did someone shout? I thought I heard my name mentioned.....;-) Whilst I'm here the CoM block by WMC was utterly out of line. But alas, with my prior history of utter disrespect for Connoley's misguided and abusive actions, and my previous calls for him to resign the tools, not a lot I can do without drama central. Sigh. Maybe I'll get braver in my old age. Pedro : Chat 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL seems to me a rather extraordinary way of saying "use some common sense". Perhaps we should have WP:YOUREINAPUBANDHEMIGHTBEABLETOBEATYOUUP, I find that arguments rarely descend into insults in real life. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let ye without sin cast buy the first stone round

Hmmmm, I wonder how many wikipedians have never had a drink (or two or more) before or while editing WP?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Still don't know why everyone thinks WMC was sauced up. Is it 'cause he's British? Don't they have anything green over there? –xeno^talk 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably because he said so, and no amount of inventing new meanings for the word "sober" will alter that. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How many of them went on to issue a drunken block of another editor? Pass the stones. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably more than we care to know ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I've never done that. now where did I leave thise damn stones? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The important thing we have all missed is what kind of drinking was going on. Now lager has it's place, a well chilled cider during summer even more so - but these do not forgive admin abuse. A good red however might make me more lenient to his actions ^{[citation needed]}. Oh, maybe not.

Thinking of our American friends, it's a good job he didn't say he was pissed. I gather our cousins across the water seem to think it means "angry" when those of us who are more enlightened realise it just means..... bolloxed.... Pedro : Chat 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the colonists use the phrase "pissed off", and if they do, does it mean the same to them as it does to us? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am an alcoholic, but I tend to be much more productive and far less grumpy when I'm trashed. So, my editing ability and my ability to deal with people is substantially increased. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just between you and me, I had a can of cold lager before I took a look at Peter Vardy's excellent List of listed buildings around Runcorn article. You'll probably be able to tell if you look closely, as I think I may have spilt a bit. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Liberation

Just a note to say I recently chucked more than 600 pages from my watchlist. They were mostly policy, project, and other talk pages. The first two I dumped were AN and ANI. It was quite liberating. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One I dumped some time ago now was WT:RFA—what a complete waste of space that is! I still glance at the names at RfA from time to time to see if there any I recognise, but I've come to accept that nothing's ever going to change there until the revolution. I'm done with wasting my time pointing out the obvious to those without the wit to see it. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When is "the revolution"? Is it when I think it will be? Tony (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sooner the better. I've got my eye on a good long piece of wall and I've already stockpiled enough blindfolds, but they can be recycled anyway. I may have to be patient for a little longer though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

According to John Locke, people will accept authority until they no longer do. When those who refuse to accept it are in the minority, they're cranks and half-crazy. When they're in the majority, or one is soon to follow, they are revolutionaries, visionaries, and heroes. Coin tosses and dart boards will label you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If history teaches one thing, it's that majority/minority has little to do with it. When those in authority have their fingers on the triggers and those who oppose it don't, that's when the opposition are cranks. The "cranks" become "visionaries" when they have enough people and weapons to form an organized-enough lynch mob to start bullying people themselves. Remember all that "well regulated militia" business? – iride scent 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

People with their fingers on triggers are the majority, even if they are fewer in number. --Moni3 (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I only have the pages I worked on and Malleus's talk page on my watchlist. Obviously, the one that is updated most is Malleus's talk page. I find that if I ever feel the need to fight the system, to go after admin with problems, etc, Malleus's talk page offers everything I need. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

here's a helpful script if you still want to watch WP:RFA (to see the RFAs transcluded as they go live) but not WT:RFA (to not see the endless mbs of drivel that accumulate there)... –xeno^talk 15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WatchlistConfig = { ignorePages: [
	'Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship',
], };
importScript('User:Gary King/hide pages in watchlist.js');

That looks useful, I'll probably try that, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

only so you know

I rolled back that edit after making it, nobody should have cited it. What I would have said, had I thought it worth going on about, is that while to German speakers it indeed means holy hail or hail victory as ritually said by national socialists back in the day, to most English speakers brought up in Anglo-Saxon culture since then, when used as a comeback in casual conversation, it more or less means fuck you. However, I rolled back my comment because I didn't think it was helpful as I meant it to be and didn't see how lengthening it would help anything either. Anyway, I think CoM should have been warned first. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning only one side in the dispute would hardly have been likely to calm the situation, so I guess that CoM would still have ended up blocked. It's at times like these that I'm glsd I'll never be an administrator, because I would find it impossible to just sit back and watch the blatant injustice without doing something about it. I'd have reversed that block immediately and blocked the blocking admin for 24 hours, until he'd sobered up. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As you know (and hinted), that would be a flaming wheel war straight off and help nobody in the end. Meanwhile I'd say we agree there's lots of background to both sides in this. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Even if by some tear in the fabric of spacetime I ever managed to get my hands on the admin tools I likely wouldn't have them for long anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My take on that is, it would only happen that way because you care more about deeper systemic stuff here which you don't like. There are things here which I don't like either. Some of us do what we can with what we have, others... likewise ;) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Even I think it would be a nightmare world if everyone was like me, or thought the same as me. The world's big enough for all shades of opinon, but there have to be checks and balances in place to prevent me, you, or anyone else, forcing our beliefs or standards of behaviour on the rest. That's the fundamental problem I have with wikipedia, the lack of accountabilty for those in positions of authority, and I couldn't in all honesty condone that corruption by becoming a part of it, even if it were possible for me to do so. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. We may agree on some of this stuff more than you think. Meanwhile you do much helpful work on articles. Thanks for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I tried defusing the CoM situation early on by asking CoM to stop editing articles others were actively editing and asking Mathsci to take a chill pill. They both ignored me and the scenario unfolded almost with a will of its own. It's almost like the involved characters wanted it to devolve into a dramafest and they wouldn't have it any other way. If CoM had responded to my initial request I would have had an easy excuse to unblock him because I had already engaged him. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Laser your effort may have been well intentioned, but it was premised on falsehoods. Next time you want to weigh in I suggest you investigate the situation more thoroughly. I wasn't "actively" editing while someone was working on an article. I came across the article on new page patrol (one of dozens I worked on at that time) and I made a single copy-edit. The personal attacks and harassment I received after that were wholly uncalled for. Please please when you want to "help" do a little due diligence first. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt.

Hi mate. Enjoyed rereading the above. Great stuff, as ever. A question - under Locations, we have The name was also used in other large medieval towns across England, including Bristol, York, Shrewsbury, Newcastle, Worcester, Hereford, and Oxford.. Now, I appreciate overlinking is an issue but few of those places seem to be linked earlier in the article. Would it be valueless to link them in? I'm tempted but what holds me back is that the link would seem to only add good value if there was a specific article or sub-section detailing the existence of such a named street within those cities and towns. What do you think? Pedro : Chat 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any harm in linking them, as any decent city/town article would have a History section that might expand on the little local history that's given here. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done - I expanded Newcastle to Newcastle upon Tyne as that seems to be the correct Newcastle? Now never let me darken your doors by copyediting stuff in that "article space" thing ever again.. :)Pedro : Chat 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's scary in article space; the number of enemies I've made out there surprises even me! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

heh, you're not the only one with stalkers, although I suspect you have a fair few more than I... ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I like having stalkers. I'll miss that orange bar when it stops lighting up. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stalkers are God's way of letting you know that someone out there truly wants you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

CoM Post

Please tell me you didn't just suggest that an admin should be shot. I got blocked for just about the same thing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I made it pretty clear above what my intentions are come the revolution. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, are you familiar with the term "figure of speech"? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That is what I meant by my post and I still got blocked for 48. Watch yourself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your warning, but I live in the perhaps vain hope that at least the majority of those armed with the block button are reasonably familiar with idiomatic English. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, Neutralhomer, it sounds like you were unlucky enough to run into a trigger happy admin. Anyone who seriously thinks that Malleus' comment would warrant a block needs their head examining. Nev1 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

NH had simply expressed a wish that a fellow editor be well "endowed". MF advices taking pictures. Words can be ambiguous, and some admins are just so touchy, ya know? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Tar and Feathering, dragging someone out on a rail, draw and quartering, or good ol fashion Guillotine. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the choice between decapitation and immolation, one should take the latter. Extra credit for whoever can explain why. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The body remains whole, and therefore unlike the ghostly rider in Sleepy Hollow, the victim is not condemned to eternally search for his/her missing head. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good answer! I was thinking of the Curly Howard answer: Burning at the stake is better, because "a hot stake is better than a cold chop!" [feel free to add some n'yuks here] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

Thanks for the work you do cleaning up DYKs - I've noted it in almost all the articles I've submitted recently, and can only apologise that the prose/grammar is so poor as to require it. Not that you need any kind of kudos from me, but keep up the good work. Ironholds (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't poor at all in your case, in fact I thought that was a very interesting read, but anything can be improved. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm doing a lot of work on that sort of area at the moment - if I see anything that might interest you I'll be sure to give you a heads up. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Feature topic

Since you are listed under two of the FAs, you can be involved in this. Apparently, people don't understand that a work of literature can stand on its own without being subservient to an author. The field of New Criticism apparently doesn't exist! Forget close readings! Balloonman and the others have some nerve, and I am thoroughly disgusted by their lack of reason, sense, or even following the requirements that are really blatant and clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I hadn't seen that. I'll need to think carefully about this, because on the face of it I tend to agree with the opposers. Let me ponder. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the two pages above and you will see that a work can be understood without the author. Also, Johnson is limited to the "Background" section. That definitely shows that it is not about Johnson, but about the work. Furthermore, the claims about Johnson's works is absurd, as the rules would stipulate that a list of Johnson's works would be the main category, so Johnson wouldn't have any topic. The Feature Topic list does not specify what can be a topic or not. It only says that you pick a topic, include other pages that are needed to understand that topic, and that so many of them have to be FAs and GAs. The rest is just nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that a work can be understood without the author, and perhaps even the author doesn't always fully understand it, but I need to think about what case there is to make for the featured topic. You've obviously had time to sort out your ideas on this already. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the topic should optimally be "plays of Samuel Johnson", but he wrote only one play. Another FT with Sam will be Samuel Johnson's health, which will have the biography and early life as subsets along with TS. Obviously, the emphasis would be on the health and not his biography, but I am sure that people will make the same argument. Feature Topics should be interesting, not just "here is a guy and here is every stupid page beneath them". They should have a theme and a focus that would involve people. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Another great topic would be Samuel Johnson's edition of Shakespeare's plays, with him, Shakespeare, and his critical views as subpages. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that if you were to have a topic, "Samuel Johnson's poems" then I could support having the articles about Johnson under an topic umbrella about the poems... In that case, the articles on Johnson would be complimentary to the various articles on the poems. Samuel Johnson would still be the parent, but you would have broken it off into a discerable sub-category of his overall work. When you only have one play, you can't do that. Irene does not stand on its own as a FT, and trying to push his life into the topic to get it to the minimum of 3 articles is just an attempt to get an FT where one doesn't exist. Not all subjects can be FT's. Everybody else is looking at this topic going, "How does Johnson fit UNDER the topic of Irene? When you have to start going into a metaphilosophical debate about New Criticism then you are clearly not adhering to 1b which reads, clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope. It may be clear to you, but it isn't clear to anybody else (including MF.) This looks like cherry picking to the rest of us.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As stated multiple times, the page Irene IS "Samuel Johnson's plays". He only wrote one. Therefore, you can do that. Anyway, none of this is part of the rules as there is nothing specifying -what- can be a topic. It only says that those articles under it must cover all parts of the topic. Johnson and his early life are confined to "Background". That makes them subsets of Irene. The well defined topic scope is obvious - a play called Irene. There is no way around it and your statements are utterly absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And as I said above, IRENE does not stand as a topic on its own. You are trying to push a topic through that simply doesn't have enough meat for others to bite. Not all things can be a topic. The topic MIGHT have fared better if you had labled it "Samuel Johnson's plays" and used SJ's main article as the parent, and IRENE under it. But with Irene as the parent, the general expectation is that the children (sub topics) are going to be subtopics under Irene. When we see the only articles under IRENE being the articles everyone expects to see as the parent, it raises questions. Here's another idea... Why not create the topic on SJ's Early works?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is only one play, so your claim about "plays" is completely irrelevant and illogical. The fact that you would even say "it would be better" only verifies that you have no actual stance. The expectation is that the sub articles are simply connected to the article. The fact that you mentioned the possibility of actors only verifies that your whole argument is one big contradiction. But as all of your arguments, logic is not becoming you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say it Ottava, but I'm agreeing with Balloonman. Irene seems like a very forced topic at best. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how it is forced to have an article and all major connections to the article listed as per the explanation of what a Featured Topic is. You can agree with Balloonman, but as pointed above, his argument has 7 major contradictions and is nothing but a sham. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see it, sorry. The topic is Irene, not Johnson. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is Irene. As per Feature Topics, you take a topic (any topic). Then you place that as the topic. You then take all pages connected and important to that topic and you include them under neath. These are not content forks, splits, or anything like that. If they meet the requirement of having more than one third FA and everything GA and FA, then it is featured. That is how it is supposed to be. However, those like Balloonman are operating in a mass hope that they can win favor by agreeing for their own featured topic. They want to turn it into a backscratching project like Featured Lists or Featured Pictures, in which quality and meeting standards no longer matters but it is if you are part of a click. The fact that Balloonman constantly contradicted himself, claims that an author's name comes first and therefore makes him primary, and other absolutely absurd statements without any use of logic or reason only verifies that he has definitely gone the wrong path in content editing. This is probably why dedicated admin and dedicated content editors don't mix. You tend to get a somewhat decent admin completely lose their mind when they start playing such favoritism games. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's right I have such a history of playing politics on the board and doing what it takes to get in with the cliques... give me a break. These allegations are so unfounded as not even to be funny.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)And yet you are the ONLY person to have the wisdom to realize this, everybody else, including the person whose input you sought, disagrees with you. When EVERYBODY else disagrees with you, do you even consider the possibility that you might be in err?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As Sandy once said at FAC - a lot of people don't agree with me, but I tend to point out what others don't see and these tend to be important things. If you didn't have such a glaring conflict of interest by trying to get your own pet project through and the sheepish mindset that follows, then, well, you would have a better stance. Regardless, a better stance couldn't overcome the mind numbing attempt at logic that you put forth before and some of the worse gems of "wisdom" that I've ever seen. Then, to top it off, your claims about being attacked without there being one personal attack or anything but saying that your comments are not based on logic and are absurd. Crying such things only verify that you have no real argument. You are biased, unwilling to use logic, and acting like a standard corrupt individual does when they are pointed out to be wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF? You have obviously lost it. What could I possibly gain by opposing your Feature Topic? What could possibly be my motivation for opposing? To garner an enemy? To invoke the wrath of Ottava Rima? I'm sorry, but your logic has completely gone off the deep end. I have zero stake in your FT. I have zero reason to support or oppose, except for based upon the merits of the case. YOU are the only person who seems to think that Johnson should be a subcategory of Irene. You go out and make biased appeal for support thinking that the person you contact will support you and even that person says that he disagrees with you? Come on get a life? You make insults criticizing people's ability to use logic, but you have yet to convince even one person that your wisdom has any merit. You have yet to explain a rationale that makes sense to ANYBODY other than yourself, and since you can't convince anybody that you are right, you've decided to be ridicule those who disagree with you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of this page. I will give you thirty minutes to apologize before I draw up a behavior RfC on you. These claims are baseless and completely inappropriate. Your actions from the very beginning lack any sort of propriety and you are just behaving in a completely disrespectful manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please bring this on, this is without a doubt the most assinine allegation I've ever heard or seen.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The diff is below which clearly states that you are saying I canvassed Malleus. You really should know better than to make such accusations which are blatantly false. Everyone knows that Malleus was part of these pages. It is even at the very top of this page. The mere fact that you would claim that discussing with someone who is intrinsically linked to a page as canvassing is so awful that I really wonder how you made admin. However, seeing your RfB failing in such a light now makes more sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm astonished to see myself writing this, but will everyone please calm down? I see Ottava's point in a general sense, in that a featured topic "is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality", which his nomination clearly is. The difficulty in my mind comes with criterion 1b: "The articles have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope". Clearly in this case they don't, as one is about a play and the rest are about a person. I don't know how much plainer it can be said. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained about 6 times so far - Irene is about the play. The play has a background section. This is in Johnson's early life. The play has a reception section which deals with Johnson as a writer in general. This is in his main biography. Two of the sections directly deal with two other articles on Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I understand the case you're making, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I also believe that it's inconsistent with my limited understanding of the FT criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The FT requirement is limited and on purpose - you take a topic (any topic). Then you have any pages that are connected to that topic and fill in gaps that deal with that topic. It was supposed to be simple and without politics. Not baseless accusations like Balloonman makes. Oh, you should check out the number such people did on Gilbert and Sullivan when they declared that the topic wasn't complete with Gilbert and Sullivan (as a duo) and a page on Gilbert and a page on Sullivan. The absurdity going on there is just outrageous. But I was warned by people not to even bother as FT is screwed. No wonder people like Scorpion are able to pass through junk in these processes. (and not to be overly harsh on Scorpion. His article's violation of WP:LEAD that almost went through into a good topic was completely ignored by many people who frequent and vote there without a care about MoS or standards). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I look at it this way Ottava. Who gives a shit? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Once an admin starts making claims about NPA violations and Canvassing violations, I give a shit. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You've made some pretty whacky claims yourself tonight, let it go. Anyway, I'm off to bed now, and I want to see that this molehill has been properly flattened by the time I get out of my coffin tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Goodnight Malleus, Sorry for congesting your talk page. I was hoping that OR would be able to discuss this like an adult, especially when you expressed you disagreed with him. Sleep well my friend.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus actually bothered to do some research and look into it, unlike you. Every time you posted an idea, it was proven wrong. Then you resorted to making claims about violations. I would suggest you read what Malleus stated at 01:18, 27 June 2009 also. Like everyone else, you seem unwilling to look at the situation for what it is. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was: No one on this page cares, so take it to a more appropriate venue, kthx. لenna vecia 04:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Disgusting

You can see how far Balloonman has fallen here, when he claims a discussion with a co-nom is some how canvassing. Yeah, seeing an opinion by someone else directly involved in the articles is canvassing! I guess it was canvassing too when I brought you in at the FACs!!! Disgusting. Not only has he made some of the most absurd statements, made major violates of civil by throwing out accusations of attacks, he pulls this stuff. People get blocked for less. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't a co-nom Ottava, but I doubt that anyone who's visited this talk page would believe that I'd be swayed even if I had been. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I can link you to the FACs if you want. It stated right at the top that you were a co-nom. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk), User:Malleus Fatuorum (talk) and User:SandyGeorgia (talk)" and "The sections moved were written by myself with the original guidance and copyediting of Malleus Fatuorum‎. I would list him as a co-nom, but he knows that regardless of his actual participation in this directly, that he will get credit for the many months of work that he put into the page as a whole and these sections." Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant a co-nom of the featured topic nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Major participants in a project or page are supposed to be informed when you put things through the featured process. I didn't bother because I assumed you and Sandy had other things to worry about. However, that doesn't mean that I lose my right to vent about problems in dealing with the pages to other important writers of the pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry you were only notifying the major participants... I missed the post where you notified SandyGeorgia, the other nominator! Should I?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandy had, in her email sent quite a while ago, a laid out plan of all of these steps and processes. She is busy to directly involve herself with any of them. But yes, she would share in any credit regardless of her direct participation. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Let's see, if your intention was to invite MF to the discussion, that would have been perfectly fine. I would have supported that move as he was the conom of the FAC. However, let's look at the criteria for WP:CANVASS:

Scale: Limited posting: Yes, notifying Malleus is limited.
Message: Neutral: NO.
Audience: Non-partisan: I'll give this to you as he was FAC the co-nom.
Transparency: Open: No, but again, I'll give you this as he was the FAC co-nom.

The failure to put a neutral message, The field of New Criticism apparently doesn't exist! Forget close readings! Balloonman and the others have some nerve, and I am thoroughly disgusted by their lack of reason, sense, or even following the requirements that are really blatant and clear. This clearly indicates that you expected MF to agree with you and is in no way neutral.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If Malleus wasn't involved with any of the pages or part of the instrinc aspect of Feature Topics (i.e. he helped promote two of the articles to featured status) then, and only then, would you have a point. This is blatantly obvious. I can complain to fellow editors in a page about the reception of a page in a status giving process that deals with the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Make that argument at your RfC and we'll see exactly how many people agree with you, but inviting him to the discussion while complaining is clearly a textbook case of CANVASS.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may speak on my own behalf here, I don't believe that WP:CANVASS applies to curmudgeons like me. Who can possibly predict how I'll be likely to react to requests like Ottava's? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were part of real processes instead of just pretending to be part of them to make up for your major failure at RfB, then you would realize that all people are supposed to be notified about processes when it deals with pages that they work on. Furthermore, I can say whatever I want to a fellow editor of a page who is already involved in the page about the judgment of the pages. Canvassing is strictly about people not involved in a discussion whereas by definition Malleus and Sandy are already part of it (just as Lexo is part of it for his connection to Irene). They have just as equal say as I do in the nomination. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The wonderful part about this all is that canvassing deals with voting. As Malleus is part of the nomination, there is no "vote" on his behalf just as in FAC and the rest. Sure, he can disagree with the nomination just as someone working on an article can disagree with a page being nominated at FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, may I please ask you to continue your disagreement with Balloonman either at his talk page or at yours? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You can see from his talk page that he refuses to talk there. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No I refused to waste my time earlier with you, as I refuse to do so now. Please start your RfC and see if ANYBODY supports you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Luton Town F.C.

Would you like to run your eyes over this again? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Be happy to. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ta. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can still see quite a bit of plural/singular confusion and inconsistencies here ... would you mind if I make a few changes to what I'm absolutely certain is correct, as I've already done in the lead?

A couple of examples: "Luton Town Football Club was formed on Sunday, 11 April 1885 – the product of a merger of the two leading local teams, Luton Town Wanderers and Excelsior.[5][6] Initially based at Excelsior's Dallow Lane ground,[6] they moved ...". "The club has made several attempts to relocate, and first stated their intent to do so in 1955." --Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. :) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're helping. I have RL stuff going on that's making it hard to devote enough of the copyediting part of my brain to, erm, copyediting. I'm off for the weekend, comme toujours, imminently. Per my userpage tag I'm not sure how much I'll be around for the next while, so feel free to keep this moving at FAC. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, feller. :) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've added a key for the players' nationalities. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, call me John. And cheers. Your pint is getting warm. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

– Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cliftonian, you know he would have jumped in sooner were it a club closer to home like Wigan Athletic F.C. (Man C is already featured and somehow Mf doesn't strike me as an MU fan...) ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're both right and wrong Casliber. I've had my eye on Crewe Alexandra F.C. for a while, an article that needs quite a bit of work yet, but I've been an MU fan for as long as I can remember. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting - I would have not expected you (as somewhat iconoclastic and contrary) to be a supporter of such an 'establishment' team :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cas, I think you might be showing your age (or lack thereof) there – although they're now firmly ensconced in the Big Four, for most of the 70s and 80s MUFC were more analogous to Newcastle United, as "the team that used to be good and nobody's quite sure what went wrong". The 1974-75 league table makes interesting reading for those who think the Chelsea/ManU/Arsenal/Liverpool/Villa hegemony has always been the case. – iride scent 21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

For most of the 1970s MU were absolute crap, you're right. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've often seen it said that nobody in Manchester or surrounding areas supports MU (Manchester (the city) is quite small), but MU play in Trafford, which is where I've lived for most of my life, so they're my local team. Admittedly I only get to see a game when my mother lends me her season ticket though. She's got a good seat, pretty much behind the goal at the old Stretford End. Getting back to the Alex though, I remember as a kid being taken to see the return leg at Gresty Road after Crewe had managed a draw (in the FA Cup?) at Whitehart Lane. I think it was a 9-0 thrashing; I was gutted anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Many folks in Oz support an English soccer club as well as their league or aerial ping-pong team. Yes, I do recall the Man U low period, I guess life under Sir Alex has well and truly erased those memories of yore. I just never liked the red teams, my mother is a Leeds United fan as she thought Eddie Gray was cute in the 70s, while the first game I remember seeing on the telly was Spurs vs Leeds in the 1976-77 season and I couldn't figure out why a team was named after a lemonade brand (Leed(s) lemonade was an antecedent of Sprite here)..anyway I chose Spurs (as people who like Spurs like life XD) as they came from behind to win the game 2-1. But sadly the olny game I have ever seen IRL ever was being dragged by some partisan Glasgow Rangers suporters to see them play Sparta Prague in some European cup match or other in 1991 in Prague..Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: this book I have at home is a great read if you've never seen it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

One of my best and oldest friends is a Spurs supporter. The money I've made from his silly bets about who'd finish highest in the league, who'd score thie first goal when the teams played ... is almost obscene. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) For all their skill and resources, the club are remarkably useless at playing the three successful red teams...must be some psychological colour thingCasliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Red=success? I'm not entirely convinced. – iride scent 22:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

They did OK against the Alex in (I just checked) 1955, who also play in red, when they won 13-2. No wonder I couldn't see over the barrier and my Dad had to hold me up. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Add five years to your age – iride scent 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that I'm five years younger than I thought I was. I stupidly relied on the accuracy of a wikipedia article.[8]. Ah well, that'll teach me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I could find a lot more dark blue dud teams - Man C vs Man U, Bristol Rovers vs city (well, that one is relative), Birmingham City vs Villa, also WBA (2nd fave team) for that matter, Everton vs Liverpool...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

AR

Hey, hope all is well. Why did I get this message btw? Some kind of political thing? I can't find any indications on your contrib history. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Look up. – iride scent 21:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm unworthy Deacon, I don't create enough new articles for anyone to be bothered about. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. But you realise, though various users can accuse you of being occasionally incivil, and when you use rollback by accident the wrong way they can remove it, they can't and likely never will be able to accuse you of creating low-quality blp-vio fest articles. Thus any admin [you've pissed off] that removed this would just look like a petty grudge-filled tit of a person, and would gain more discredit through doing so than yourself. Just thought I'd point this out; I don't think you needed to have the same concern with this as with, say, rollback. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I realise that, but at the back of my mind is the flagged revisions thingy. I've been threatened with all sorts by various administrators, but if ever my revisions didn't appear immediately then you wouldn't see me for dust, and probably everyone knows that. Hence I'd be vulnerable. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 Monaco Grand Prix

It passed. Thanks for your help. Aptery gial 00:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done. It's a nice article, it deserved to pass. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions appreciated

You are on the list of honored mentors for my plan. See Mentors list. All of the other mentors seem comfortable with the role and I hope you are also. I do not envision any problems and none have arisen since the arbitration opened, even though I have returned to "normal" editing. As you have said, I am not a child. I believe I understand the rules now regarding what is considered unacceptable behavior. I welcome your opinion/feedback in any situation you feel that my behavior is borderline or wrong. Ling.Nut suggested that I come up with a list of Stressful situations and, although I resisted, it turns out that this list has been helpful to me. I trust your judgment. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn' recommend myself as a mentor to anyone, but I'll always try to do what I can to help. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do confirm that you are willing! Currently the ArbCom is in the process of rendering decision and have requested that my mentors/advisers confirm that they are aware of the plan and agree with their role in it. See Moving towards closure of the case. I humbly ask you to indicate your willingness by posting on the Proposed decision talk page. Thank you so much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully this can now be wrapped up soon, and we can all put this behind us and move on to a new chapter. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm bored...

... and there's nothing fun going on around here. I did archive an dead conversation, though. I think they both know me well enough to get the humor in it. Funny for me either way, though. XD Haha. Alright, I'll take my naughty tail off your talk page now. >_> لenna vecia 04:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Behave yourself Jenna. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		You won't know me from Adam, but one of the things I like about skulking about WP's talk pages and discussions is finding engaging personalities and intellects with principled, cut-the-crap, good humoured (well, mostly) contributions. For making this place fun without detracting from its serious and lofty goals, I'm popping one of these thingys on your page (and Ottava's too). Thanks for being around. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What a surprise! Thank you very much Hamiltonstone. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cock Lane ghost

(suppresses giggle) I've started doing this article up a bit, I have a couple more contemporary sources but I wondered what you thought. Its a bit messy, and there is a fair bit of hidden text concerned mainly with a very unreliable and biased contemporary account, that I'm unsure what to do with. Its all your fault by the way, you and your sweary article suggestions. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it was your idea, not mine. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Who could resist The curious tale of Scratching Fanny and the Cock Lane ghost? Anyway, I haven't stopped laughing since I found Mary Tofts! Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What an extraordinary story. I suppose it's definitely true? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Which one? Both are, they're well-known. I was surprised to see references to both in Hogarth's engravings, he even created an engraving just for Mrs Rabbit - [9] Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant the Mary Tofts one, just seems so incredible. How do you find these little gems? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Often on Google Books, when looking around for stuff. You'll find 'the proceedingf of the moft extraordinary compendium of the enlightened reverend...' and all kindf of interefting ftuff on there, and juft reading through you come acroff thingf like thif. Actually I found Mary Toft because she's in the Hogarth engraving in the Cock Lane article, (Hogarth is ripe for improvement, his prints are fabulous, you can study them for ages) giving birth to fluffy bunnies. That seemed a bit bizarre, so when I read about it in another book I was surprised to find an article here. There is loads of material about the story, so that is going to be my next little project. Cunts, Cocks, and Rabbits up vaginas, that's what we like in Flixton! Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Living in Stretford, I've always thought of you Flixton types as a bit posh. "Oh no, I don't live in Urmston, I live in Flixton!" :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose you know of any kind of quotation template that would fit the style of a letter, do you? Dear x, yours sincerely, etc? I could use one in here Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of such a template, no. I use the {{quote}} template like you've done, with a final line something like "Letter from X to Y published in Z on whenever". If such a template exists I'm sure that Iridescent will know of it; she knows everything. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise you'd nominated the Cock Lane ghost at GAN; you've done another great job with that, can't see it having too many problems. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not canvassing

Packaging is everything, so I decided to call this bit of canvassing "not canvassing". Malleus, you and a couple of others are the ones most likely to disagree with my 5 points at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa#Comment by Damian ... so this is an invitation to come do your worst. Or shock me by supporting, either way :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've presented my opposition to your suggestions, particularly the second of them, at WT:RFA in the full and certain knowledge that all discussion there is little more than "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I don't even bother to read that talk page any more. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is and always will be important, whether you keep up or not. You're special. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Only to me and my Mum, and on good days my wife as well. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I used to be....

Hi Malleus. I used to be a sweet calm person who never made any provocative comments. But I think I am about to turn into a MF (God forbid!). See this. Sorry but I think it is ***. How about you? Perhaps I should not take WP seriously after all - a pity. Power to you. (Perhaps I should not have had that glass of wine.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You'd need more than just the one glass to turn into an MF Peter. ;-) Like you, I take WP seriously, but I've stopped taking the stuff around the edges seriously, like FT/DYK and do on. The rules there are at best arbitrarily applied. My last DYK nomination was rejected because it failed to meet one of the "hidden rules" that I didn't even know existed, and I suspect that few others know of the existence of either.

Back to your list though; obviously I completely agree with your position. I'm an infrequent visitor to both Runcorn and Widnes, but they're clearly quite different places with quite different feels, and so far as Hale is concerned, I've always thought of that almost as a part of Liverpool. I'll pop along to the review and give my opinion—I had it watchlisted anyway after I copyedited it, so there can be no suggestion of canvassing on your part. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all of your help. If you hadn't did wonders with the prose, it'd likely still be sitting at FAC or maybe have to face a second attempt. I like how the article has continued to improve since I first started working on it. It's amazing what others see that I was oblivious to. Anyway, thanks again for the assistance. I may have you look at all my future FACs (if you're not too busy!). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's really very hard for any of us to see our own work objectively as others see it. We see through the veil of knowing what it was that we meant to say, whereas all others can see is what we actually say, and often the two are at odds. I'm really pleased this one got through though; it's an important topic that deserved a proper treatment, which you've provided. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)