User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2008/August

Hi

Hi, how are you? I plan on nominating SummerSlam (2003) for FAC, but before that I would like to get a copyedit, and Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) recommended you. If it's no bother may you copyedit the article? Thank You.--S_RX 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but professional wrestling and its banter are a complete mystery to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well this professional wrestling article is written completely out of universe for all readers to comprehend, but if you can't I understand. Thanks anyways.--S_RX 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm always up for a challenge. I'll have a look later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I tried to make the improvements proposed by you and other FA reviewers, can you reply on the Peer Review page? Thanks. :)--S_RX 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your concern on the peer review page.S_RX 00:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

I hereby formally request you cease and desist any comment, opinion or action regarding an issue which is none of you business and does not concern you. Calling me a "dickhead"- such jealousy is a curse and a sin, Mr Hammer. Some British may smugly look down their nose at we former 'savage' colonials- but do so in the manner of willfully ignorant, delusionary smugness of the moral onanist petty bourgeoisie. They conveniently forget the blood upon their hands, the fact we had to violently evict colonial parasites and collaborators from our nation who enslaved, stole and exploit what they had no right nor claim to. Furthermore, the British and the Dutch both actively attempted to destroy our traditional societies by confiscating nobles' wealth, power and lands and handing them over to a pliant, submissive, non-assimilating and exploitative alien: the Hokkien Chinese (who incidentally grew approx one third of opium for their elites to flog to the Chinese mainland for tea). This is not racism- this is historical fact. Penang-Singapore-Medan is their triangular territory of sins. Furthermore, Britain and the US has a long and documented history of illegal self-serving interference in the politics of my nation. British should collectively shoulder the responsibility of 300,000+ murdered by installation of CIA/Mi6Foreign Office/BBC/preferred puppet Suharto- and the various covert and intel actions launched from your puppet sheriff outpost of Singapore (Raf Tengah, RAF Butterworth, a detachment of Gurkhas, etc- Singapore currently offering the US a nuclear sub base). Nigeria is not the only land were Royal Dutch Shell and BP keenly used violence for their oil. Indonesians such as myself, from a history of glorious nationalist struggle against our numerous oppressors have no shame in nationalism- it is beyond an ideology- it is our hereditary duty to forever be vigilant against the foes of the indigenous Indonesian people. Our 'hatred' is jusitified as is our perpetual outrage.

I sincerely offer you to be my guest in my wondrous Indonesia. What you will see, will most surely open your eyes to incriminating truths those, some ethnics attempt to hide and censor.

Let us pls leave each other in peace, respect each others' privacy and wish each other best wishes and part as disagreeing yet civil gents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starstylers (talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Starstylers (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatred is never justified. Please take the chip on your shoulder elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Friend of yours Malleus? he he! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. Still, it'll be handy having that "puppet sheriff outpost" in Singapore if I should ever decide to send my fleet of gunboats to Indonesia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That was the funniest quip I've ever heard from u to date! Save the hassle of sending your gunboats or even the upcoming QE-class HMS Prince of Wales (CVF) to this former Crown Colony for historic or nostalgic reasons mate. Fyi, there are already numerous well-documented cases of individuals or groups - 'activists', bloggers, writers, foreign media, suspects etc, who were detained while on visit or while on transit via S'pore, and some even got extradited to S'pore under the mutual co-operation & security agreements with Interpol, ASEAN or UN, to face charges of criminal acts, defamation (The SG govt has filed numerous libel suits & have yet to lose a case locally or abroad so far), or under the fearsome Sedition Act or Internal Security Act, for fanning racial or religious sentiments, promoting ultra-nationalism, communism, terrorism etc previously. Despite their respective government intervention pleading for leniency & public vigils, most were later sentenced to spend time at our (in)famous holiday chalet at Changi afterwards, with some receiving lasting painful reminders too, and the worst of all nightmares - death penalty - courtesy of our British-inherited laws & security apparatus that are heavily enforced 'in spirit and to the letter', even in cyberspace today. For some fortunate souls, they were denied entry & was issued a stern warning before being repatriated back immediately, but no doubt will shudder in cold sweat when recalling the 'welcoming reception' they got & regreting their foolish ways years later. Lastly, have u notice that no one has yet to leave any provocative or even bona fide academic comments, even anonymously on this talkpage to date? Still clueless? Read an example here which is self explanatory. Sadhu! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Burundi

Hi. Yes, I'm the lead reviewer on the article. I've gotten a bit of push back from the nominator about me being overly critical (it wouldn't be the first time, ha!), but reading through the article it just doesn't seem to have that GA quality. If you wouldn't mind providing a GA review, it would certainly be helpful. Best, epicAdam (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and give my second opinion shortly. I really wasn't sure who was saying what to who in the review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that. If anything isn't clear, please let me know. Thank you again for your help. Best, epicAdam (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

materiel

Oops, sorry, I thought materiel was a misspelling but you wikilinked it further down so I stand corrected. If you want to put it back in and link it I promise not to change it again - honest! (damned Frenchies!)Richerman (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your copyediting, much appreciated. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind, some people (my wife included) call it "interfering", but I just can't help myself :-) Richerman (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Reed.

Hi there; User:Collectonian recommended you. I'm trying to get this article ready to be nominated for GA-class, and she said you would be a good choice for a copyeditor. Could you please look the article over for me? Thanks! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in a few days. Right now I'm tired and fed up with wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, understood. Thanks a lot, though!!! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the article now and I'll leave a few comments on its talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just spotted your note about being tired and fed up of Wikipedia... Please, don't let the buggers grind you down. There are some complete idiots on Wikipedia, and some nice people too. You have done such great work at GA, FAC etc with projects of your own - as well as helping dozens of other people (me included). I've felt the same way several times here...and eventually it passes. I really hope you feel a bit better soon.-- Seahamlass 13:26, 04 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I'm going through a phase where contributing has begun to look like I'm staring into a bottomless and thankless pit. There are a few things that I've committed myself to do, and if I'm still feeling the same way when they're done, probably a break will be in order. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

citations

Continuing the discussion, so would I use 'all' {{citation}} throughout (so no cite book, cite web, cite journal etc) - would that still mean I use the harvnb template for the book citations? It all gets confusing from hereon.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Just change them all to {{citation}}. {{Harvnb}} is only relevant where you want to refer to a page or pages in a book or journal, that you've already listed (using {{citation}} in the Bibliography. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Sports

Much better - thanks --Snowded TALK 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

Hello there! Just wondered if I could twist your arm for a copyedit to Shaw and Crompton? I've just revisited the article and done a major rewrite of some sections. My vocab and writing isn't as good as I'd like. If you feel willing and able, there is no rush. Hope you can help, --Jza84 |  Talk  21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Always happy to help a member of the "Mancunian Claque". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I might even make a userbox for that label! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We'd also need one for the "Malleus talk page claque" ;-) Nev1 (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me started; I've only just come down from the ceiling over that one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your credibility...

is very much in question here. Keeper ǀ 76 22:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

regret

If I have offended you in a recent discussion with the use of the word cronies then I am sorry. I noticed your reply much later. I regret I cannot work on Wikipedia anymore due to the difficulties with JZA84 and when I am faced with the difficulties he accuses me of being offensive. However he is both judge and jury having blocked me and issued threats and questioning my integrity. I personally believe this type of editor is a bully, and if calling him a bully means he will block me again so be it. I have gone beyond the bit were I care. All I looked to do was enhance Liverpool pages and add some others unfortunately every now and then JZA played games and scrubbed my edits. This is the problem I am supposed to work in conjunction with him but he does not. I regret any offence to yourself however I have been bad mouthed a few times in recent weeks by this so called administrator so I have been a bit wary of whom he deals with. I am withdrawing my edits because this fella from Manchester judges he knows more about Liverpool than I do. Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended, so no worries on that score. Wikipedia's collaborative nature can be difficult to come to terms with, and I certainly found it so. I've come to accept that more often than not articles are improved by the input of others, even where I may not agree with particular changes or additions. I'm truly sorry that you and Jza84 have got off on the wrong foot, as I'm sure you both share the same desire to help build this encyclopedia. In particular I can empathise with your obvious desire to improve Liverpool articles, which, God knows, need all the help they can get.

If I may, I'd like to offer just one word of advice to the wise. Whatever your view of Jza84 may be, it's very easy to win him round in a discussion on content simply by providing reliable sources for the material being challenged. It's really as easy as that. Jza84 is a hard-working editor I have a lot of respect for. To be perfectly honest though, if I had been in his position I would not have blocked you; I'd have been concerned that I might be too close to make a fair assessment. If you feel that you need to, and we all feel that we do from time to time, why not take a short break to ponder on where and why things went wrong between you and Jza84, and then come back refreshed to help build this encyclopedia? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you get 5 minutes to yourself Malleus, I'd urge you to read through the whole of User talk:Dmcm2008. I think that will outline why I had no reservations blocking this gentleman, and, if there is a repeat of his cycle, why I won't hesitate to enforce a much longer block. This is a user who has not shown any willingness to change, and continued to abuse me for over 8 months. There are several explicit warnings.

That said, I recognise there is a balance to be struck. Dmcm2008 clearly enjoys contributing, clearly wants to contribute and his enthusiam for his locality is admirable. The abuse and silliness about Liverpool's magic boundary just needs to stop. As I've said before, this gentleman needs to go through the WP:ADOPT system, IMHO. If he repeats his cycle without learning, I'm afraid he'll just end up disappointed again, taking out his frustrations via abuse. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that you had done anything untoward, simply that I wouldn't have done what you did because, as you say, there's a long-standing history between the two of you. One of the privileges of not being an administrator though, is that I don't have to involve myself in any forensic searches, I can just take things as I find them. Obviously I agree with your position on the Liverpool silliness, and have said so. Hopefully Dmcm2008 will now consider recent events and come back having taken all that's been said to heart. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just a little concerned that Dmcm2008's perspective didn't really encompass the dynamics of this... situation. I don't want anyone thinking that this was a snap retaliation (this guy usually posts mass slander about me); I warned this guy in March, and in April and again in June with warnings about civility and citing sources. Anyway, I'd best leave it at that. As I say, I think if Dmcm2008 doesn't reform, and continues to be abusive, he will only find himself cursing me after I've blocked him for 6 months for harrassment. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey i've no problem with people checking my history. It is the response thatJza84 has issued which reiterates the bully tactics. But what do I care LET this person have his way.Dmcm2008 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you retired? Either reform and stay, or go away. Creating and spreading drama disrupts and harms Wikipedia – and it may get you blocked. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GA discussion solution

What do you think of my new solution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I'm quite happy with the present system, and I just don't see the problem. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on Nev1's RfA

I have clarified my oppose here.  Asenine  10:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Radium capsules

"A doctor treated the latter by inserting a pellet of radium on a probe into each of Zappa's nostrils—little was known at the time about the potential dangers of being subjected to radiation"

This does sound highly improbably but my family lived near Baltimore at the same time (my father also taught at the Naval Postgraduate School as Zappa's father did, the school moving to California in 1952) and my brother had the same procedures done for his sinuses. When he was an adult, my mother told him about it as there had been a fair amount of publicity that those procedures possibly caused cancer in later years. My brother so far has never gotten cancer, and he was angry at my mother for telling him about those Johns Hopkins procedures. (He would rather not have known.) Therefore, I know the statement in the article is true, though it could most likely be left out if you object. I objected to the sentence originally because it implied that it caused harm at the time, which was not true as far as I know. The editor then modified the sentence and blamed mustard gas for Zappa's problems in Baltimore. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspected as much. I think it's interesting material, and I'd keep it, particularly as Zappa contracted prostate cancer in his 40s. I'm really just objecting to the statement that the potential dangers of radiation were little known at that time, when in fact they had been known for decades. Perhaps tone it down just a little? Something like "the potential dangers of radium were not fully appreciated at that time"?

Certainly the dangers for the purpose used - treatment of sinus problems - was not known and was not even considered until years later. My parents weren't trying to harm my brother! On another note, "under-rehearsed"? I have not seen that before. Is that British? Or do I have a gap in my education? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed from "under rehearsed", which I don't believe to be correct in either British or American Englsh. Always happy to be corrected though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm quite happy not to touch the article again if you don't want me to, or think my British English is inappropriate for such an article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your talkpage always has more interesting conversations than mine. – iridescent 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's only because I tend to stick my nose into places a more cautious editor might be inclined to avoid. Plus I'm not an administrator ( as you may know ;-) ), so I don't get those "Can you you block/protect/look at this please" messages. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not an admin? Have you ever considered an RFA? – iridescent 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rearrange these two words into a well known phrase or saying: "off fu... ", no I won't. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I currently have the most inintentionally-humourous bot-generated thread title I've ever seen ("Notability of Cats That Look Like Hitler"). – iridescent 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That article has the makings of one of your finest contributions to date. Knocks Broadwater Farm Estate into a cocked hat. Shed doesn't even get close. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully someone will expand it – I have no intention of wading through 20,000 google hits looking for sources. I gave it enough to insulate it against the inevitable AfD, but I can't imagine it gracing FAC any time soon. – iridescent 21:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Zappa

Despite disagreement over under rehearsed, I wish you would touch the article again. The main editor has done everything he could do during FAC. I don't know much about Zappa and am at a loss as to "legacy". If you would help the main editor, that would be wonderful. He is very obliging and receptive to new ideas (albeit a little discouraged now). I just don't have the skills to help him much at this point. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Zappa's very near the drop zone now (should that be drop-zone, or even dropzone?), but in many ways I like the article. Is there the time left to write even a short Legacy section? I'm not sure. Without it I don't believe the article will succeed ar FAC; with it, I'd be prepared to help with the prose stuff. I do understand how discouraging the process can be, having been through it a few times myself. The only encouragement I can offer is that the article is almost always better coming out of the proces than it was going in, whatever the result. The Zappa article still has legs yet though I think, so I'll wait on a resolution to the legacy issue. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Although any collaboration between the pair of you might well be graced by a flock of flying pigs, you could do worse than ask The artist formerly known as Lara to give it a once-over. You may not see eye-to-eye but she's got a superb record for doing wholesale-improvement jobs on musician articles, from Elvis Presley to Maroon 5. – iridescent 21:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My memory is not always the best, but I don't recall ever having come across The artist formerly known as Lara? In any event, I'm not offering to develop the article, just to tidy it up a bit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I ought to have followed the link before I replied. But what the hell, she only thinks that I'm a dick; who knows, she may well be right. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I copy edited the article because I liked it. I have been defending the article from being forced into a typical rock musician/band format apparently mandatory for musicians/bands 30 or 40 years younger than Zappa and of much narrower interests. I knew little specific about Zappa before reading the article but it drew me in. I am hoping the main editor could put together a simple legacy section (consulting my music books, although they contain Zappa, there is nothing specific about "Legacy") and put the article over the hump with your help on the prose issues.

Both of us have worked hard on the article for weeks, and a major overhaul may kill us both. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm on your side believe it or not, I don't want to see this article pushed down that road either. With even a short legacy section I'm sure we can get this over the line, but I don't know enough about Zappa to write one. It's not a major overhaul I'm asking for, just a small addition. Musicians who claim to have been influenced by him? The work of his trust? That kind of thing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the best news ever. I'm sure User:HJensen could pull something simple together. He knows a whopping lot about Zappa. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:HJensen is buoyed by your words of comfort and will work on the legacy section tomorrow. Thank you so much. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that. I've said many times that FAC is a tough gig, and it ought to be tough. But it ought not to be discouraging, so let's see what we can do together to get Zappa over the line in whatever time SandyG's prepared to allow. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can suggest he drop the date autoformatting. :-) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be worth an extra brownie point or two, but it won't make the difference. Legacy might. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A rather late warning...

I didn't realise the articles in question were under renewed scrutiny, and had I known earlier, I would have sorted them out earlier. As such, a couple of them will have to delist, as I have no time to sort them out ahead of tomorrow's deadline. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no deadline. If you're going to be working on them then I'm happy to leave them until you've finished. I really don't want to have to delist any of them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. I must dash, so good night. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Q class, N class and Q1 class articles are fine now. If you have noticed, I am slowly working my way through these articles again anyway, getting them up to FA status (an example: LSWR N15 class), or improving them as far as my resources can take them. Anyway, now for the class V (might take that one all the way to FA!) and the LN. I know there are other articles that need sorting out, though time is an issue so please bear with me. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Schools" class is now complete. Just a few continuity tweaks and its done. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Lord Nelson class" complete from your review queries. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Whaddya mean, you can't convert degrees to metric? :lol: Anyway, all done now, and thanks for your prompt response. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand Central Station (Chicago)

I am not sure who you have notified about the GAR at Talk:Grand Central Station (Chicago)/GA1. Please notify all relevant projects and editors and then denote those parties at the top of the review like several of the other reviews at WP:CHIR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to do that yourself. I do not consider it part of my job to maintain your Chicago Project pages. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manchester Mummy

The article Manchester Mummy you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Manchester Mummy for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Million_Moments (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum/Note label

Hi, User:Malleus Fatuorum/Note label and User:Malleus Fatuorum/Ref label are causing entries at Category:Inline templates. Maybe they shouldn't or are temporary. -Colfer2 (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I probably copied them ages ago to look at doing some work on them, and then forgot about them. They can be deleted now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged both pages now for G7 speedy delete. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#U1 good sir. G7 is for articles. Others would have declined to speedy for such a transgression of procedure. (Seriously! :) - Anyhow both deleted. Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh buggerations, I can't get anything right on here. Thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On the date issue

Know what I think about dates? I think the WP:FAC page is approaching 50, and I can't close anything because we're lacking reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, I really am. I thought the Zappa article just needed a quick Legacy section, bit of a polish, job done. But it hasn't happened. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's only a summer issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy and on the road, otherwise I'd try to do a few reviews... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know ... and you already do too much, so stop that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope so, time will tell. I wonder though whether it isn't a sign that increasing numbers of editors see FA/GA as a service station, where you can get an article fixed for free. Why would anyone in full possession of their faculties want to spend their time reviewing anyone else's work? What's the best that can result? A thanks. What's the worst that can result? A hate campaign. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for reviewers not to fall into that trap, I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's no trap. I'm still reeling from the stream of abusive emails I got after I failed the Albigensian Crusade's GA nomination, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

... which brings up another matter. How come the community allows personal attacks to stand on FAC pages? If I tangle with the nasties, I can be accused of bias, so I have to read right over it, but I wonder why other editors don't issue warnings, etc. I get really bugged when I see a reviewer attacked, and no one doing anything about it, but I shouldn't opine lest I appear to take sides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. But to get the answer you have to explain why you're not an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

HA !! Someday, I may do that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA would be a classic, a story handed down through the wikipedia generations. If someone like you can't get through RfA then there really is no hope for it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-orientation. Why would I want to get through RfA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong person. I've failed at it twice, and I didn't find either a particularly agreeable experience. But you're not me; there are things you could do like moving over redirects for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't be able to figure out a move over redirect even if I had the tools :-) G'night, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I forgot. If you apologize to Marskell for being snarky to him on G guy's talk page, and make your peace with Raul, I'll nominate you and vouch for you. We need some adult admins who have a clue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite content as I am. I ain't about to apologise to anyone for telling the truth, whatever the prize. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not at all sure why you brought up Marskell here. This is the last contact I recall having with him, although obviously I'm not privvy to anything he may say in private. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I was remembering something more recent; anyway, let's continue this topic another day (with my usual disclaimer, pls remind me if I forget :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester

If you've got time, could you copy edit the Sale article please? I thought I'd smoothed a lot of it out, but there are still some kinks holding it up at FAC. Nev1 (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might have done enough this time, ah well. We can't let Sale fail for the lack of a final polish. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a first run through, and I'll go through it again tomorrow. Is there any particular section you'd like me to focus on? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure really, after all I thought it was ok to begin with. If anything crops up that doesn't make sense when you read it and you can't knock it into something that sounds right let me know and I'll read over the sources I have as I've probably missed something out. And thanks for the effort. Nev1 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. If Sale's going to fail this FAC then it will have to do so over my dead body. And yours as well, obviously. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

absolutely ;-) Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this isn't super urgent, because I think I'm coming down with a lethal attack of the deadly man-flu, so I probably won't be around as much over the next few days. I'll still try and do what I can though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy be damned, a thank you...

for the help copyediting Robert F. Kennedy assassination, which just snuck through as an FA. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really pleased to hear that, congratulations! It's a good feeling, isn't it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good enough that I returned from my break around 4 days early! Fritzpoll (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GAC

Malleus. I have submitted St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley as a GAC. The reviewer's comments, together with my initial thoughts, are here. As usual with my stuff, the assessor wants some copyediting - can you help here please? I should also be interested to have your comments on my replies to the criticisms (sometimes I think reviewers are dafter than editors (eg, what ARE blue links for if not to explain the meaning of terms which may be unfamiliar to the reader?)). Cheers. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of your GA reviewer's copyediting comments, but if I haven't, then just give me another shout. I shall leave my comments on the other issues you raise for another time. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for such prompt attention; do you ever sleep? I think I'll resubmit it later today after a bit of reflection. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This week both St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley and Norton Priory have passed the GA test. Many thanks for the part you have played in this success. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's great news, well done! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you any good with copyright?

Just a little note to enquire whether you would like to comment on the copyright of the image used in the SR N15X class article? It is currently halfway through the GA process, but the reviewer seems a little pensive over the copyright of the image. The situation is that it was published in 1936 in the UK (which sorts out the 70-year rule regarding copyright), as well as the fact that the author was anonymous. I have also put a fair use rationale (based upon the one used for the LNER A1 and A3 article). Really I just want someone to check over it, so if you know someone with experience in such matters, could you pass this little conundrum on? That would be of great help in getting this article to GA (don't worry, the bibliography has been properly formatted!). Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but a little strange that you are claiming non-free use on a image in the public domain. I'd suggest transferring the image to Commons and slapping a {{PD-UK-unknown}} licence on it. There's no reason to have to justify non-free use on a image in the publc domain; all you need to do is to justify the public domain claim. Images with non-free use rationales are getting harder and harder to get accepted, and I don't think you should be relying on that, or need to rely on it anyway. I've copied the image to Wikimedia Commons[1], and all you need to add to the description is what steps you've taken to identify the author, job done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, although I thought it may still be classified as non-free by virtue of the fact that the journal in question is still in existence, albeit in a totally different era! I wish to thank you for your help in this matter.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is to say that you've tried to contact the mag or its publishers in an attempt to establish the author, and add that to the image description on commons. It doesn't matter whether the magazine's still in existence or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As the WP image may get deleted, how does one use the Commons version? As you can tell, I'm not a user of the Commons section of Wikimedia, so am at a loss as to how to play around with it. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The commons version will get used by default when the wikipedia image goes, nothing to worry about. In fact, if were you, I'd tag the wikipedia image for deletion right now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I suggest you cool your jets and have patience. Theres no need to be melodramatic with your 'edit war' quotes, is there? There are a number of people on here that shouln't be there and they are being removed. Those without references are having them added. Why don't sit on your hands for a while and wait before becoming all dramatic and let the piece be edited as is need (Archangel1 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).

I suggest that you take on board the difference between Manchester and Greater Manchester while you work on your list elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you've thrown your teddy out of the pram and resorted to name calling on the WikiManchester page by calling me an idiot for not discussing the issue. I am up for a discussion but I've told you to be patient for for the edits. Don't resort to childish behaviour on here. Get a grip of yourself (Archangel1 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).

You've seen nothing yet Archangel1. In the meantime, why not try and get your act together? Why not deal with the issues raised on the article's talk page? And just so that there's no doubt, I didn't call you an idiot. What I said was that I did not know how to deal with ignorant idiots. If the cap fits, then wear it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would advise both of you to stop this and discuss it some other time, when you are not annoyed at each other. Please excuse my intrusion, if you must. --Meldshal42? 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensible advice Meldshal42; in point of fact I am not in the slightest annoyed with Archangel1. I have said all that can be said here on wikipedia, but my opinion won't be changing tomorrow, or even the next day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC farce

I'm not wasting my time on copy editing FAC any more. This is the second time I have given it up. The first time I was just doing too much really hard writing so the "main" editor could collect his FAC stars. I grew resentful when he copy/pasted my edits out of existence. (I don't like to collect things so I don't understand this passion for article awards, especially since they are not awarded in a fair fashion.) I believe the whole process is fundamentally screwed up. Mature, well-written articles are forfeited for formulaic ones. And those supported by the clique pass as well as those who (pardon me) suck up to those in power. I am not one of the in-group and do not want to be. (I don't like that kind of thing.)

I think I will become one of those editors that adds 100 complaints just as the FAC is about to end, then not lift a finger to help. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Zappa has failed. That really was beginning to look inevitable though, without that Legacy section. With it, I still think it could have passed. It's nothing to do with any cliques, or sucking up to those in power. If it was, I'd never be able to get an article through FAC (look at Sandyg's comment above).

I don't think anyone would seriously doubt that some kinds of articles are easier than others to get through FAC, but that doesn't make the process unfair. As you know, reviewers are under no obligation to do more than point out what they see as problems, whether that's at the start or the end of the FAC. I hope you'll reconsider your attitude to copyediting though. For sure there's no glory in it—who remembers or even cares who the copyeditors were—but so often it really does make the difference between success and failure. None of us write anything because we want the credit for it, or we shouldn't; we do it because we want to improve this encyclopedia. You're disappointed now, but just think how elated you'll feel when Zappa comes back in a week or two and gets that little star. --

I only care about the star for User:HJensen. The article is superb. The last reviewer's complaint was "I meant there's no mention in the lead of his lyrical themes." As Lame Name said, "...there seems to be a drift towards people with seemingly little knowledge of the subject suggesting that their own limited point of view be included within the article." We had the legacy almost ready to go. I like copy editing when it is for a real purpose, just as I like writing. It is my belief, though, that the quality of the FA articles are, in general, very low; it is much more important to get the ndashes and citations right than to have a worthy topic and to say anything meaningful about it. This problem of disliking bureaucracy is why I couldn't work for the government and had to start my own business.

I do admire, though, how you are able to say "real stuff" but not trip over a rule in SG's rule book and get bashed, a definite talent, since you are not (I don't think) one of her adopted 16 year olds. Well, you have the gift. (I just took a look a your user page, but no clues there.) However, I think FAC deserves to die and be reborn. It is out-of-control horrible currently and would crash and burn if so many people weren't hooked those little stars. Thanks for letting me rant. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember being 16, but that was a long time ago now I'm pleased to say. There are certainly aspects of FAC that are tedious, but by and large I think it works tolerably well. As in fact I also think the GA process does, something that SandyG and I would probably not agree on. Most articles emerge from the process in better shape than they went in, including, I think, the Zappa article. User:HJensen made a very good case for the current structure and I don't think that objections on that score would have carried any weight. I really do believe that it would have passed with the Legacy section and a final polish. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it sail through its next nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps GA is more worthwhile. The only time I tried it out was to help an editor with an article on India. But an opposing ethic group of about 10 editors from India trashed the article completely from the beginning. It was given no chance to improve So I gave up on that. I think it is the mediocrity of FAC that is so dull. A camel is a horse made by a committee -- pertains beautifully to FAC. The Zappa case, I think, was a question of teeny boppers taking over. User:HJensen wanted to get on the legacy part, but he expended enormous time for days on diddley squat instead, as requested by those dictators and cronies that run FAC. He had a sandbox legacy article written.

You don't notice how the same editors support each other in a quid pro quo? How the articles of certain editors pass with nary a glance? For a long time I would only edit articles that were forlorn and abandoned, obviously FAC pariahs. It's like high school. The in-group and the out-group. Certain people are going to have enormous energy put into their articles by FAC and their articles improved, but only if the main editor belongs to the sorority or fraternity. Now I am not willing to help even the forlorn, as any help I give results in credibility for FAC. There is no attempt to help those that really need it. I get quite sad watching poor well-meaning articles get ignored. There is no attempt at fairness. I'll just watch the cabal take over. You are in group, so enjoy it! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never been in an "in group" in my life, and I don't intend to start now. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in, Malleus. Mattisse, I am really concerned with the amount of vitriol here. I solemnly promise, as an FAC reviewer who also writes articles, that I judge each article on its merits and there is no "quid pro quo" except in time given. Yes, it is a fact that some articles don't get a lot of attention, but that often has more to do with the subject matter (we don't have as many reviewers interested in pop culture topics). We can't force reviewers to review articles that don't interest them, and we are suffering from a shortage of reviewers. If you have suggestions on how to improve or revamp the process, please make them - I think all of us would be amenable to something workable that could improve FAC. Karanacs (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I certainly haven't noticed any quid pro quo reviewing, except in the sense of giving time, as you say. In fact, my perception would be that by and large reviewers studiously try to avoid giving even the impression of a conflict of interest. I understand how disappointed Matisse must feel right now though, after all the work he put into the Zappa article. I'd feel quietly confident that it's got a very good chance of getting through its next FAC though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Formal quid pro quos like the Awards Center that was shut down exist. The informal ones were talked about in the spring, how certain editors would have a dozen supports 90 minutes after listing the article. Others, like my friend User:Zleitzen who left Wikipedia over FAC abuse, wrote a great article (and he even had past FAs) but because it was a sophisticated article on the culture of ethnic music, there was not one comment. Not one, and he was giving to the articles of others, but if you are not in, then you are not in. That is why he left. There should be some attempt at fairness of subject matter.

"Not one"? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buena Vista Social Club/archive1, and why Zleitzen left: [2] (Jimbo intervened at Che Guevara, placing an NPOV tag, even Yomangani tried to help, and Zleitzen rejected the compromise, left in disgust, hopefully that's the last time Jimbo intervenes in an article). Malleus, I see the RfA thing is troubling you, which is why I made the offer above. Unclear where the GA issue is coming from, but I hope your talk page environment returns so we can talk about it in the clear sometime. In the meantime, I'm going to unwatch here. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your offer above was actually one of the final straws that opened my eyes. As for the GA issue, it comes from your condescending attitude towards those poor idiot GA reviewers who are so stupid that they ought not to try updating your beloved Article History template, because it's so incredibly complicated that only you and your favourite bot can understand it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs says "we don't have as many reviewers interested in pop culture topics"! Is that editor living under a rock? Most articles that are pop topics - video games, new rock groups, young, pop singers, sports figures, entertainment figures, popular songs, and the inevitable academic treatise from someone's college class. Granted Zappa takes some sophistication to understand -- not present in the undergraduate mentality here. I just want to know if there is anyone over 25. FAC, by its obvious bias in subject matter, is helping to drive Wikipedia on the rocks. I think it is called segregation. You don't notice how the range of subject matter on FAC is becoming more narrow by the week? The only articles are the ones that conform to the rigid rules: highway articles, city articles, bird articles, weather articles etc. Once you get the formula down pat, you can whiz them through. For a while there was an India contingent that rammed a bunch through, but they have quieted for the summer; probably their supporters are on break. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's easier to get an article through once the formula for articles of its type has been developed, but that's to be expected. There's still variety there though. I managed to get a wich trial through recently, and I helped with a local newspaper FAC recently as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's also easier when you come to FAC prepared. I try hard to get many folks to read my articles before I bring them to FAC. I have them go through GA, and then to FAC, several peer reviews, folks read them, try to incorporate everything suggested, and it often takes me a good couple of months of hard work to bring an article to FAC. Right now, I have friends who are very helpfully reading and critiquing three articles getting them ready for FAC. Doesn't look like one is ready, so I only have two that will seriously be close to FAC for when I get home. Preparation and not expecting FAC to work like PR is the key. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The problem with Zappa was they had a formula and they insisted it had to apply and would not deviate. I can't access the FA review anymore (there doesn't seem to be a way to from the talk page) but several young guitarists and rock bands were presented as a model for Zappa. He is not young, he is not primarily an electric guitarist, he is not part of a band, he is not only a rock musician/composer/ arranger but also a film maker etc. None of this made any difference for the formula. He just does not fit those models and there is nothing to be done about it. I am going to urge the editor not to resubmit it and go through that again. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You can access the review from the Article History. The FAC process isn't one-way, as you seem to be suggesting. Reviewers can say whatever thay like, and the nominator is at liberty either to deal with any issues raised or to refute them. User:HJensen had already convincingly made the case for the present structure, that battle had been won. The killer was the missing Legacy section, not the apparent mismatch with some pop articles. I really hope that you don't urge the editor not to renominate, as it would be like giving up on a marathon in the last hundred yards. I am quite convinced that a renomination would be successful. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you access the FAC nomination from the Article History? Usually there is a box on the talk page: "this article was formally a FAC candidate" or some such thing to click on to see the FAC review, but there is none. I looked in the talk page history but it is just talk page entries. I looked in the article history but it is just article edits. Am I misunderstanding? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Click on "show" against Article milestones, then you'll see the link to Featured article candidate right at the bottom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. Finally found it. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but your recommendation wouldn't be nearly as satisfying, from a defeatist standpoint. Keeper ǀ 76 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No comprendo. What's a "defeat"? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Defeat" is simply a fancy word for sitting down. In a sentence: I was standing, but then I decided to defeat. Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Very good! All this excitement means that I've had to drop the archiving period now. Poor MiszaBot. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake - future Ga

Could you do a quick review of the article before I send it to GAN? i know that your review will make it the best it can be. Thanks, --Meldshal42? 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of quick points: there are too many very short sections, and you can't use wikipedia as a reference, as in note #26. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Malleus. And as for Archangel, this section isn't for that, so I've moved your comment down, along with Malleus's reply. Cheers, --Meldshal42? 20:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about posting this before, but I think it is only right:

		The Reviewers Award
		I award this esteemed Reviewers Award to Malleus Fatuorum, for high quality reviewing at GAN and FAC. Congrats, and keep up the good reviews (and work, of course)! --Meldshal42? 18:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very kind thought Meldshal42, thank you. I left the GA project back in May though, in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate. I've done very few GA reviews since then, except as part of GA Sweeps, and when I've finished my currently allocated categories I probably won't be doing any more of them either. I've never really done that much as an FA reviewer, and I'll very likely be doing even less in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre and dates

Hi - I was looking at the FA Peterloo Massacre and wondering why the dates in the opening paragraph aren't wikilinked per Wikipedia:DATE#Date_autoformatting ? I understand having an article deluged with linked dates isn't great, but perhaps there's some scope for at least linking dates in the opening paragraph? I believe you've been closely involved with getting the article to FA status, so thought you might be able to give some guidance on this. Thanks, --Oscarthecat (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatting of dates is now deprecated, see MOS:SYL#Date_autoformatting: "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text." Many current FACs have opted not to use date autoformatting because of the inconsistencies it introduces. The MoS simply demands consistency throughout the article in either using it or not, as it says here: "In the main text of an article, autoformatting should be used on either all or none of the month-day and month-day-year dates. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note

I know you are not part of the in-crowd. But you have power somehow. I have watched you do and say things that I have been severely punished by the big boss for doing, and with no repercussions to you! You even recently turned down what I would have considered a mandatory suggestion to apologize to someone, and you got away with it! (In the past, when I was trying to be good, I would never have dared to do that.)

Now I don't care. I don't want FA's so the in-crowd can do and say what they want about me. I find plenty to do elsewhere on Wikipedia where the atmosphere is much more friendly and appreciative and the barbs not so frequent. I have been watching FAC for over two years now and I have seen it change for the worse, although the so-called standards may be higher. The referenced and well-sourced creativity is gone, except for the occasional Frank Zappa. It is all formula now. I think you cannot have a dictator and have a pleasant atmosphere. I believe FAC is near collapse and the dictator can no longer afford to alienate someone like you who helps out. That is the difference now. Just my 2 cents. (Should I expect another mean post on my talk page, albeit couched in oh-so-well-meaning wording?) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no power at all. I think some people have just come to accept that I have the encyclopedia's best interest at heart, but that I'm also my own man and I won't back down when I believe I'm right, no matter what the consequences or who I might upset. I'd suggest the same approach to you. Live your convictions and bugger the consequences. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you think that there have been no repercussions for me, just take a look at these train-wrecks [3] [4] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I had seen those before and was quite impressed. Definitely a sign of character. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: According to the ancient texts of Wikipedia: "Between the realms of the Godking of the West and the Monkey God of the East, there're still some 'crouching tigers, hidden dragons' that has yet to be discovered. Their exploits are legendary and even devastating at times, although they do not possess nor desire any admin powers. Such fearsome individuals (even to the admins) are known as the WikiDragons, one of the last of a dying breed, that can traces its proud ancient origins and tradition since the early Age of Nupedia." 8-p -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably a fair assessment. There are a couple of things I still want to do though, before I become extinct. When they're done I'll take a break and consider whether I want to continue contributing to this project. The admin thing in and of itself is something and nothing, but having been confronted with the stark realisation that so many find me untrustworthy means that the answer will almost certainly be no. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to explain your malaise, that there is a probability that you become extinct? The only hope for me is the editors like you exist. Email me if you can be clear that way. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I also feel that I have outlived my usefulness here. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that our reasoning might well be rather similar. In a nutshell, I wasted a lot of time effort in a project that it became clear was widely viewed as crap, the GA project. My two failed RfAs have also been hanging on me, and I am no longer certain that I'm prepared to work in an environment in which it has been made abundantly clear to me that I am not considered trustworthy. Those feelings have been bubbling around for a while, but several more recent events have brought them to the surface, not least seeing the saintly editor who through sheer vindictiveness sabotaged my first RfA lie in his own RfA with no repercussions. I'm also sick to death with having to argue the toss with those who interpret assume good faith as "you're not allowed to disagree with anyone". I really am beginning to believe that it's time to leave wikipedia to the kiddies, to do with it as they will. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny. Today before reading your post, it struck me full force that the whole thing is pointless. For the very first time I realized Wikipedia is not going to last in any recognizable form. I read your RFA's all the way through (which I hadn't done before) and was surprised at the venom. Now I notice that your talk page is being dewatched... for not having the correct attitude? Agree that assume good faith is totally destructive and that the kiddies are taking over. I hope you don't go away too soon, as I need to talk to you. Please let me. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am, of course, gutted that SandyG has decided to theatrically tell me that she's unwatched my talk page. Not. As I said, there are still a couple of things I want to do before I come back as a WikiHermit, if indeed I decide I want to come back at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I got bashed in the head by SG for objecting to the RFC of the editor who seems to have trashed your first RFC. Got badly punished for that. I think you are handing all this very well, but I can see that we are in a similar zone. What exactly does coming back as a WikiHermit entail? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For me, it entails ignoring those corners of wikipedia inhabited by the WikiFossils whose primary purpose appears to be to maintain the status quo at all costs, 'cos this is the best wikipedia of all possible wikipedias. It also entails avoiding the processes that seem to have been designed to generate conflict, ill-feeling and bad Karma, Like the Featured Article of the day process for instance, and to a certain extent even FAC itself; to say nothing of the stupidities of the RfA talk page, where the last sensible comment was made some time around July 2003. The phrase "shit for brains" could have been invented for many of the contributors there. I've been reassessing my view on the GA process over the last few days, and I'm coming back round to the view that on balance, when done well, it has the potential to be encouraging rather than demoralising, whatever the WikiFossils think, so I may try to re-engage with GAN. On the other hand, I may not. I have absolutely no interest in wikipedia's darker and more secretive corners, and I have absolutely no interest in the opinion of any WikiFossil on any subject. So I shall emerge from my hermit's cave only when I want to, to do those things that I want to do, in whatever way I choose to do them. Aldwinteo makes some interesting and relevant points below, which have informed my thoughts. For yourself, I really would suggest that you put behind you whatever went on between SandyG and you in the past. It's only upsetting you, not her. In my own case I have come to the view that editor you refer to is an untrustworthy, vindictive pile of ordure that I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire, so he's best avoided. My mother restates Aldwin's Law of Karma as "What comes around, goes around." No need for me to do anything, and dwelling on it only makes me feel bad, not him. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I used to do a lot of copy editing. Then I switched to writing my own articles, really for myself. Recently, I became entangled in FAC and various policy talk pages. This has resulted in me feeling bad. Perhaps I should engage in GAN. I don't really know the ropes of that, but if you would give me some tips, I would appreciate it. I like copy editing in a constructive sense and improving articles, interspersed with writing articles that interest me. With GAN I would not know where to start, but I am interested. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

When done well, GAN can be fun, much more productive and much less stressful for everyone concerned than FAC, and certainly a lot more fun than the policy talk bogs. Starting is very easy, and I'll be happy to help you through your first review or two until you feel comfortable with the process. Pop along to WP:GAN and pick an article that attracts your attention, and follow the instructions on that page to tag it as being under review. Let me know which one you pick and I'll take a look at it as well, and make sure that it's been tagged properly and the review page created. For the review itself you check the article against each of the WP:WIAGA criteria, noting those areas where it needs work. You should also feel free to fix any minor MoS copyediting issues you come across yourself. Most times an article will then be put on hold for any issues to be fixed. If you like, I'll take a look at your review before you post it, or after you've posted it if you prefer. Here's hoping that GAN can reinvigorate your wikipedia involvement. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I looked at the list. Kind of Blue is a possibility (probably the easiest); United States v. LaRouche is a possibility, as I write a lot of legal articles, but the title is all wrong and would have to be changed; Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe is a possibility (but seems like it needs reorganization); Lake Toba; any of the hurricane articles. I want the result to be something calm and pleasant. What do you think? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Some good choices there, let's switch this discussion to your talk page, as I'm running out of colons. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to pull one's hair out, be afraid of stepping on someone's toes, or even going into a self-imposed exile folks. It's a common trend that exists not just in Wikipedia, but also elsewhere online - look at the cyber bullying or pressure groups found in Facebook, online forums, social networking portals too. It get worse, when there're easy rules (by anyone, anytime, anywhere hiding behind a nick or anonymous IPs), poor policing & enforcement due to unclear code of practice, poor leadership (or the lack of), or simply no gentleman's honour whatsoever. No prizes for guessing why I've not participated or keen to be nominated in any of the above to date, although I've garnered enough experience here - DYKs, GAs, RfCs (I avoid unless when requested), fighting hardcore vandals & trolls, sizable supporters (both online & offline), & my 'staffy-like' reputation that has left quite a few hardcore blokes 'badly mauled & limping' after a deserving pit fight. To be a much happier & saner person in the long run, I've learnt not to be too attached to things, as life is short & transient, and to treat them with equanmity instead. If one's intention is good, one shouldn't be afraid to say or do the right thing when the time is given to u (See William Wilberforce), as ultimately, truth & justice will prevail one day as in the Law of Karma. Similarly speaking, for those who committed any unwholesome acts, they too, will received their just desserts one day. With good conscience or passion, one can help as much as we could with reasonable efforts here, but once u think that your task is completed, it's best to take a well-deserved break, or move on to other areas of the project that requires or appreciate your skills & integrity, or simply, return to your mundane life to devote more attention to your family, loved ones, or other worthy community projects elsewhere next. Perhaps, in our later years, we can share with our folks or reminiscence fondly with your favourite cuppa in hand, of our 'pioneering' stories with a smile & satisfaction, that we have once help to contribute, improve or preserve a free vast body of knowledge for humanity, that would most probably be still around (or in other representation, hopefully better) after we are long gone. 8-) -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wise words Aldwinteo. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned on my userpage earlier, I used my life-long passion for writing to create some historical or heritage-based articles that were previously lacking here (which u have read or reviewed previously to your delight), promote them thru' DYK, and improved or expanded them further for GAN next, for the long-term benefit of the respective WikiProject groups. When my primary task is completed last Nov, I went into semi-retirement but do return to help out in other areas as & when I like, or upon requests made by the community or supporters. As such, my experience here has been a rather fruitful & enjoyable one for me. On hindsight, if u had listen to your heart closely to focus more of your time & energy at GAN & its related stuff earlier, instead of FAC, RfA, or in any 'baiting' discussions, I believe u will be a much happier & 'truer' person - a quality which no one here can deny or take it away from u, just like what they did repeatedly to your previous RfA exercise, and as a result, having to endure such negative memories & its associated 'legacy' to this day mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I lost my way. Hopefully I've found it again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Before this old staffy retires to his den again, u may want to read a real life account of a remarkable individual here, who always remain true to his calling despite the various challenges he faced in life & see for yourself who is laughing & smiling in the end. Fyi, I was blessed & honoured to be "suntzunised" by him 10 years ago, when he was a guest speaker for Strategic Management at the renown Singapore Institute of Management (I'm still a professional member of this institute today). Hope my comments & sharing brought some clarity & direction esp in this 'troubled waters' here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't go too far away old staffy, or stay away for too long. It's strange to realize that someone almost half-way round the planet could see so clearly what was troubling me. I'm humbled. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is no special ability - anyone can possess a crystal clarity of mind if they have studied, fully understood & seriously followed the Buddha's Dharma, along with regular Vipassana (Insight) & Samatha (Calm-abiding) meditation, not only for relaxation purposes, but also to tame one's mind in order to gain a deeper insight of oneself & our samsaric existence too. If u are interested to know what I meant, and for Western English speakers like u, u can check out the books or listen to the past Dharma talks of this English gentleman, a Cambridge-trained scientist-turned-Buddhist monk, Ajahn Brahm, who is now residing in Perth as an abbot of the Bodhinyana Monastery:

• Opening the Door of Your Heart - And Other Buddhist Tales of Happiness, Wisdom Books (2004). ISBN 0734406525.
• Ajahn Brahm's Dharma talks at YouTube
• Ajahn Brahm's Dharma talks in audio format

As for the audio file downloads, it's best to listen to them with a good pair of earpiece. With Metta. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! I was hoping that my earlier advice could help to steer u from this mess that I was afraid u may be heading towards unknowingly, in view of your active participation in many potential 'time bomb' discussions so far. But alas, your unresolved emotions got the better of u. Hasn't your definitive WikiSpeak helps to serve as an outlet to let off 'steam' earlier? Even if u knew u are right deep down in your heart, u can choose to use a more appropriate analogy, OR just hold your tongue & wait patiently for Karma to resolve the issue for all to see later. Moving forward, I hope u take the time to cool off & reflect, & most importantly, to resolve the 'inner knot' in your heart which u have been carrying all these while, as it's unhealthy to u & others in the long run mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you have any idea about this site, I mean who founded it and who is the owner? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica is in the public domain. Why would anyone be interested in a site based on an almost 100-year old encyclopedia? I'm certainly not, and I couldn't care less who founded that site, or who owns it. Why do you care? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

You might like to reconsider the language you used before I report you for being abusive and uncivil. JRawle (Talk) 09:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You might like to consider that I don't give a shit what you do or think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, you might wish to consider that there is no need or justification for the use of abusive language, such as what you used here, here, here and here. Opinions are one thing, inappropriate behaviour is something completely different. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not wish to reconsider. Idiots need to be confronted in the language that they understand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of courtesy (which for some strange reason I still feel I owe people even when they've been so rude) I should tell you that I've posted a request on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. JRawle (Talk) 10:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I really couldn't care less. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I hope that you do decide to care; if you persist, you'll be risking a block for incivility. Is it really worth it? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Have I persisted? Have you nothing better to do than to hound me because one of your idiot friends is upset at hearing the truth for once? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

←Malleus, an apology is in order. Please dispose of this matter now, and defuse this emotional spiral. I've used similar tone and language in the past—I can empathise with you on that count—but it went nowhere but bad places. JRawle is quite justified in being offended. Tony (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite upset at now having been blocked. No apology from me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I sympathise with you emotionally and as a wikifriend, but I'm surprised (and a little annoyed) that you can't see that your language can have a powerful and undesirable effect on other people. JRawle has apologised for issuing the standard template on my page, and is really a nice person whom I want to engage about the DA issue, inter alia. Apologising to him will earn respect from him and others. Ckatz can in no way be blamed for his actions, IMO. Sorry to talk tough, but it's necessary. I recommend the apology after things have cooled for a day. Speaking selfishly, I want the whole DA issue to proceed without emotional discourse, and in the best posible wiki-environment. Hmmmm? Tony (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blaming Ckatz for anything; in fact I think (s)he has probably done me a favour. Probably ought to extend the block, 'cos I won't be apologising for anything tomorrow either. I really do wish you well with that DA issue though. Amazing that the problems went unrecognised for so long. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, apologising actually makes one feel better; it has this effect of grounding one in a community. You should try it. Nothing worse than feeling shitty about things, and pride is really the most damaging emotion in this context. Should never have been invented, except where it's to do with pride in the quality of one's articles. How about it? Tony (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility. Examples of this include here, here, here, here, here, here and here. 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. Ckatz^chat_spy 10:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I had believed until fairly recently that I may in some small way be able to contribute to this encyclopedia. I see now that I was mistaken, and that I was simply wasting my time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah... dude. No! You've not been wasting your time! Srs, I'm srsly.... your contributions are too valuable for you to leave. Formerly LaraLove, Jennavecia ^(Talk) 11:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade is necessary sometimes - at least you can always rely on Malleus to tell the truth. You know where you stand with him, which you don't with some other Wikipedians who have their own agendas. "I don't think that the Idiots guide to date autoformatting has been written yet, although you've quite clearly demonstrated a need for it." Pure class!!--79.64.246.147 (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hammer of Fools ... your contributions to the project are indeed fine overall. Some unlinking is questionable as it's contrary to Wikipolicy, but it's overall minor. The only issue that I (as an outsider) see is civility ... Wikieditors must always Assume Good Faith and act Civil towards others...the good old "Golden Rule" applies here - we are all equals in editing Wikipedia, and all have a part to play. I look forward to your additional edits. BMW(drive) 12:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange how, if we're all equals, then I find myself blocked. You Wikieditors may assume whatever nonsense you like, it's no longer any concern of mine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And the day after tomorrow, you'll be able to laugh it off. I want to second Jennavecia's comment. Tony (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Shit, Malleus. What did you do? Cool down block, eh? Huh. I didn't think we did those. Maybe it's working though. Have you cooled down? Has this block prevented you from overheating? Are you more relaxed now and ready to go back to editing? Or have you simply been punished for stomping too hard on someone's toes? Keeper ǀ 76 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worked in a sense, as it's helped me to make my mind up about a couple of things. Will I be going back to editing? Doubt it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, pal, are you reviewing this, or just making comments ahead of time? Synergy 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we continue to talk here? The whole experience that you provided yesterday was invaluable to me, not only morale-wise but in opening up GAN. I feel once again I could actually be useful. But not with you gone. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm still allowed to post here, for the time being at least. Glad you enjoyed the GAN experience, you did a good job. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Since when do we do cool down blocks, which is all this is? Ckatz, this is a terrible block. – iridescent 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The block seemed to me to be within the policy for incivility, but I still think it was unwise, especially since the matter could probably have been resolved without the escalation, and I have said so to CKatz on the wikiquette alerts page (link given above by others). This block may have itself been inflammatory and has probably jeopardised the future contributions from Malleus to Wikipedia: one cannot doubt that he is a productive editor. I understood that one should be very wary of taking action that would drive a productive editor away from wikipedia, and this seems to be a viewpoint I have seen that seemed to have the weight of authority behind it, and it certainly seems to be operating in the case of other editors, such as GianoII, and so I am very worried at the lack of consistency from the administrative body here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Malleus... you're gorgeous! Dont change a thing! Mwah! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 15:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Malleus, you pulled Mattisse away from the cliff-edge over the last few days, singlehandedly got him/her to refocus on what the hell we're here for. You are a net positive, edited angrily, and got a cool down block (even in your "WQA" report, it was essentially called that). I don't demand or expect an apology from your keyboard as others seem to be demanding and expecting, but I do expect you not to resign over this like a 12 year old. I'm looking at the block right now, but knowing how this place works, and "who's in charge", it is entirely likely, and you know this, that the block will expire before this community will agree to do anything about it. Keeper ǀ 76 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support a review and unblocking myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't unblock someone just because they threaten to leave. This block is partly the fault of all those who have defended Malleus' incivility, and are continuing to do so now. Epbr123 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you, Epbr? You just don't get it. I strongly advise you to unwatchlist this page, your posts here do nothing to further dispel anyone's perception that you are in fact daft and consider yourself to be above reproach. Ask yourself how posting here would accomplish anything beyond gasoline on a fire, you the one that refuses to address similar concerns about your behavior as an admin, choosing instead to ignore it and hope it goes away. You win. It went away. Congratulations. You just don't get it. Keeper ǀ 76 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this being called a CDB. This is clearly a civility issue. It appears to be preventative with respect to this, and he clearly states he won't apologize anyway. Synergy 15:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is or was a Cool Down Block or not, it seems that there are clear civility issues in the behaviour of other editors who are not subject to blocks for incivility, and, indeed, in the case of one editor, seem to have some degree of protection from being blocked. It is this matter of apparent inconsistency that needs to be resolved. But I doubt we have the power to do this, which shows me, at any rate, that we should be cautious in applying a block to a productive editor for this.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but that does not render this block ineffective. No matter how much of a positive contributor you may be, you are still subject to the most basic of blocks. You'd think a longstanding (and I'm assuming respected) would know this already (no pun or ill will intended by saying that Mal) and just not do it. Synergy 15:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder why you and Epbr123 have come here to bait me into further (what you Wikieditors call) incivility. I'll be quite happy to oblige if you persist. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already been subjected to it before, so thats up to you man. I feel the same way about this as Lara below. You shouldn't leave over this. But your net positives do not give you carte blanche. We're all subject to this policy. I did not intend to to come off sounding as you are taking this. Absolutely not in the slightest. Synergy 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please, don't anyone bother about reviewing or unblocking. I expect that Ckatz thought (s)he was doing the right thing, although I'm quite certain it wouldn't be difficult to guess what I think. There will no apology from me, whatever the inducement; I stand by every word I said, and in the same situation I would say exactly the same again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, it's no secret I think you're a dick. That is obvious, and you were clearly exhibiting it in this situation that got you blocked. I'm not judging... I'm a bitch. But it wasn't a cool down block. Just because someone is pissed off when they get blocked doesn't mean it gets classified as a cool down block. We have a civility policy. When it's breached, you run the risk of getting blocked. That simple. No matter how right you may be, or how much some of us may chortle at some of your words, or the fact that the discussion was mostly on your talk page and if people didn't like where it was going, they could have just gone away. When it comes down to it, it's still against policy. That said, when you're not being an ass, you're an asset to the project... :p Srsly, you really are. I know you're pissed off about the block, but you know flinging insults is not productive. Taking your ball and going home isn't the way to go. Refusing to apologize? Your choice. But add to that choice the decision to stay, and hopefully avoid similar situations in the future. Just because I think you're a dick doesn't mean I don't respect and appreciate your work here. Plus, you make me laugh... :D Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, can't wait until this block has expired. What bothers me is that certain editors/admins (as the one mentioned in an above post) can do no wrong and are treated as superior. This contributes to the atmosphere of unfairness. I also think that the post immediately above this one by Jennavecia is uncivil, inflammatory, and contributes to the general unsavory atmosphere pervading this place. It is not geared to creating a congenial atmosphere in which editors can feel comfortable in making contributions to the encyclopedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia was right on. Malleus, for however much I like him and think he does great shit here, was being a total dick and broke policy. He knew it, he chose to do it anyway, for right or wrong. You think Malleus was helping foster a "congenial atmosphere", Mattisse? Bullshit. Snooze, dramahz, it'll all be over in 19 hours anyways. Tan ǀ 39 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He does for me. I was bowled over by the actual honesty I found on his page, a place where I could vent a little and clear my head and not be punished or lectured about AGF. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus and I have a history of sniping. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he'll grasp the intentional irony and lighthearted spirit in which it was written. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. But I wonder how many "lectures" he needs. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many lectures I get, I don't listen to any of them. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See, Mattisse, he knows what's up. Malleus, if you need to vent, from now on just come bitch at me on my talk page. I'll bitch back and we'll either both get blocked for incivility or neither of us. It's win/win... or something. >_> Whatever. Fowl words and insults are okay on my talk page. XD Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is mostly too Malleus, a little bit to Tanthalas, and partly to myself. I think what is perhaps the most aggravating thing here is the double standard. Just last week I actually typed to another editor "fuck you, go away, you are worthless to this encyclopedia". I wasn't blocked. Tan, I recall a post on your own talkpage regarding Ecoleetage that was less than civil. How many editors have you, and I, blocked for smaller offences than those we've committed ourselves? Malleus called someone a dick. Jennavecia (god, I can't spell that yet Lara, hope I got it) just called Malleus a dick. Right here, on his talkpage! Should I apply the same standard and block Jennavecia? I should, at least one editor (Mattisse) found it to be "uncivil and inflammatory". Epbr's comment, IMO, was perhaps the vilest of all, because he posted it simply to gain a reaction, and he knows it - the cruelest form of incivility is performed behind a smile and random policy handwaving - Epbr has mastered it and will never be blocked for "incivility". But I found it incivil. Should I go block Epbr? That should go over about as well as a brick with fly's wings taped to it. The double standard is absolutely aggravating. Malleus, you can't leave over this stupid politicking shit. Leave on your terms, when you are done doing what you are here to enjoy doing. If that's now, then so be it, Wikipedia will plod along, and we will be another missing NPOV editor dumber because we can't handle it when the NPOV editor decides to call someone an idiot, that likely, was acting like an idiot. Idiots: 1, Wikipedia: 0. Keeper ǀ 76 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree there's a DS, Keep, what you're missing is that Malleus is like this a lot. I'm sure he'll even agree with that. Also, I apologized to Eco effusively, and am making a concious effort to not flip out anymore. I see you do the same - you'll apologize to whoever, mend the fence, whathaveyou. Malleus explicitely doesn't apologize, and makes no effort to change. I'm playing devil's advocate here; again, I like Malleus, probably because I secretly want to act like him all the time. Tan ǀ 39 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He is like this "a lot" because it is who he is, and shouldn't have to apologize for it. He is like this "a lot" because he gets trolled by the likes of Epbr and others who look down there noses. It is so aggravating to me to see it. He is like this "a lot" because he writes, improves, and reviews, "a lot" of articles. I don't have a GA yet, do you Tan? I would like to think I wouldn't tell someone that they are an idiot, but hell I've said much worse without trying to actually improve this place while surrounded by pre-teens. I will forgive and forget 70 times 7 for Malleus, and any other honest article writer. Keeper ǀ 76 16:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I disagree a little, but whatever. Unblock him, then ;-) Tan ǀ 39 16:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the aggravating part. If I do the right thing and unblock him, it will make things worse for Malleus. "I'm too involved" or some other stupid shit. All it will do is get me flamed on my talkpage, a few ANI threads, and a stronger magnifying glass focusing the sunlight onto the tiny burning ant, formerly known as Malleus. Basically, because I'll get trout slapped, I won't get blocked or face any other repercussions. It would be called "out of character, he should apologize to Ckatz the blocking admin for not communicating with him/her first". But Malleus would get blocked again, and probably for a longer duration. Keeper ǀ 76 16:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c reply to Keeper) I agree there is a double standard operating here, and that is the essence of what my previous messages about this matter were meant to convey. Even if the imposition or not of a block is consistent, there is another lack of consistency that appears to have happened here: that of the length of the block. I see by looking at various Arbcom cases, (the IRC case against GianoII for example), that a productive editor who has had editing sanctions and restrictions imposed against him for disruption and incivility has violated the sanctions for incivility. However, he was given a block of only a few hours when he first violated the editing sanction and restrictions (certainly less than 24 hours), and so even if the imposition of a block or not is consistent, the length of the block seems inconsistently large when compared with those in this case, given the seriousness of it (prior problems that had jed to an Arbcom case, and then violation, by being uncivil, of Arbcom imposed editing restrictions and sanctions.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep him banned. He's always shooting from the lip (or in this case, fingers). I know I find it hard to be civil at times but this guy is a nightmare. If he wants to go, then go (Archangel1 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).

Thanks. How useful. Keeper ǀ 76 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I've never found Malleus to be anything but civil to me. Your milage may vary. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your just lucky then.(Archangel1 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).

Or maybe your just wrong. How exactly is calling some other human being "a nightmare" at all helpful, useful, insightful, or civil? Or is the irony of your post totally lost on you? Keeper ǀ 76 16:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it means I've been on the sharp end of his writing before. As I've already writen "Maybe your just lucky". It highlights the fact that he is a habitual offender and this not a single case but he's your pal so I wouldn't expect you to take NPOV (Archangel1 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).

• Just for the sake of clarity, I first came across Archangel1 a few days ago, during his vandalism of this article. Quite extraordinary the lengths some people are prepared to go to in an attempt to exact their revenge. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It wasn't vandalism. You and him were edit warring. Epbr123 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't recall asking for your opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Neither do I. Epbr123 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec) Archangel, you are hardly neutral yourself so there's no point in throwing about accusations of NPOV. Epbr, Archangel was editing contrary to concensus and the incident has been resolved so let it be. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Fine. Just pointing out that it wasn't vandalism. Epbr123 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
        • The correct way to do that is to say that Archangel was editing in good faith, which I believe he was. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I fail to see what Malleus has done that is so, so awful. Call an editor a few names that other editors throw around routinely anyway. Fail to apologize? Would you rather have the hypocrisies than an editor whom you know where he stands? False apologies? Do they really work? What has this editor done that is actually harmful? Just read a little of ArbCom to learn what the big wigs call each other with impunity. Sticks and stones. It is apparent to me that this editor is a good guy but is someone who had trouble handing the routine hypocracy required around here. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning."[5]--KojiDude ^(C) 17:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So? I don't see what you're trying to get at. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Me either. Every so often I personally attack myself - sometimes without warning :P BMW(drive) 17:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

KojiDude, if your quote was meant to apply to Malleus' actions, I think it fails at this part of it: 'accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning'. I think you may struggle to justify that his account's main or only use is one or more of the listed forbidden activities. If your quote was meant to refer to something else, my apologies, but then it was unclear and may not have helped matters much.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It says and right before that part you cited. That wasn't the half of the sentence I was trying to point out. What I'm trying to get at is this: that sentence (straight from a policy page) states that users "who have been made aware of a policy" (i.e. been blocked before) do not require a warning. This isn't a cool-down block just because there wasn't a warning beforehand. That seems like wiki-lawyering to me (god knows I can't spell lawyering, but you get the point). Really, MF was un-civil after being blocked for incivility before, so he got blocked again. To insinuate malicious intent or foolishness in regards to the blocking admin is just ridiculous.--KojiDude ^(C) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

KojiDude, with respect, I am sick and tired of hearing about wikipedia's poorly defined and inconsistently applied civility policy. I have seen many uncivil comments made today without anyone raising an eyebrow. So can we not just drop this witch hunt now? The user formerly known as LaraLove has it about right I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

KojiDude: If you thought I was the one insinuating malicious intent or foolishness, then I am happy to tell you that you are mistaken. If your comment was directed at someone else, then please write more clearly, or else, better still, not write it at all, as Malleus suggests.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just speaking to everyone in general (starting from the 4th sentence onward). Ironically, for somebody who spends so much time on the internet, writing is not one of my strong suits (at least not when I'm communicating with people).--KojiDude ^(C) 01:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please go and practise your writing somewhere else. This isn't a remedial class. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This block is ridiculous. Malleus has helped me get two articles through FAC this year - including one which broke totally new ground and would therefore have been impossible to complete without his copy-editing and Wikipedia skills. He was extremely helpful and friendly throughout both processes and I learned an incredible amount from him. Chin up Malleus - you don't deserve all this criticism. Wikipedia needs MORE people like you!!!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 18:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC) (formerly Seahamlass).

I've asked the blocking admin if I can unblock but he seems to have gone offline soon after he did this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Another sorry case of double standards here, just like a bad re-run of his 2 earlier RfA episodes. Also serves as an interesting eye-opener on reality check here - one who has the balls to speak his mind honestly on certain touchy issues or the state of affairs here (which many are afraid to say so or even admit), and those who are unable to face or accept the truth. One should look at the moon, instead of looking at the finger pointing towards the moon. For those coming here with less than good intention, pse be aware of the Law of Karma before shooting your mouth off, as you never know who might dig up some incriminating details for all to see next. In just a few hours more, the 'fun' will be over soon, so let's get back to our tasks now, instead of generating even more negative karma here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On another subject

I passed Hurricane Dean and followed the direction for transcluding (?) the talk page, I thought. However, there is a little red "review" link that I am sure should link to the GA review. I fiddled around but don't understand how to do it. Something in the trancluding formula I failed to do right. (But I sure feel good about having completed the review.) —Mattisse (Talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It all looks good to me, I don't see any red link. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Juliancolton fixed it. I looked at the diff but couldn't tell what made the difference. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I fixed it a few minutes ago. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm confused over how far to go in offering suggestions to GAN. For example, Kind of Blue has a reference section that needs fixing. Should wikilinking at first mention and such be an issue? What about embedded lists? Where would I go to find out what the "format" is for such an article? I find I automatically think in terms of FAC standards when that is not appropriate, but I am not sure what is. I am tempted to take on Casa de Estudillo because it has been there so long. But I question the organization, so much under the Ramona heading when that has little relevance today. I could suggest a reorganization, I guess. Is that proper? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly proper to make suggestions about the artcle's organization. Look through WP:GA for GAs on similar articles, and there's a list of project specific guidelines here, including guidelines for music articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to do Kind of Blue. If you are in the mood, feel free to help me with suggestions. For some reason I am feeling very wobbly. This blocking thing has been a strain and I am so glad it is over. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This blocking thing has made me absolutely furious at the disgusting hypocrisy and cant that I've seen here and elsewhere today, so it may not be over yet. I'll be glad to take a look at Kind of Blue, to take my mind of what I'd like to say to a few people. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way and hope I can get over it myself. It is very hard to have good feelings about anything right now. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it behind us and make some editor happy by helping them get that little green dot. Aldwinteo (above) is quite right. (I'm beginning to think he's probably a Buddhist monk.) In the end, those who deserve it will get what they deserve. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is what we make it. We create our own frame of mind. No use giving others that power. I think both you and I are emotional and rather reactive. I too am allergic to hypocracy and that allergy many times has not served me well. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the key, I think. Why give others the power to upset? I can't control what others say or do, but I can control how I feel about it. I'm beginning to think that Aldwinteo is a Buddhist virus. :lol: On to to happier things though, I'm just about to pop over to Kind of Blue, to see who I can upset there. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not allowed by my masters to discuss about matters pertaining to personal spiritual attainment outside the Sangha, just consider me a well-informed Buddhist staffy who was also trained & exposed to criminology, penal law & real life justice, courtesy of my National Service. The case is best summed up by a well-known legal eagle (unable to disclose for obvious reasons) who is working for a reputable law firm here, is keen about my online contributions, as well as the rules & justice being meted out here, shared an observation after reviewing some recent cases: "Who's more dumber? - The defendant? The judge? The system? Or all of the above?" (I had a laughing fits after hearing this) -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo, sup?

Dude, good to see ya on my page. I know we've clashed in the past, but I think it's more a matter of us both being uncivil people, hahaha. Most of your stuff makes me laugh, but so does most of what Giano says. Doesn't mean it's acceptable. Personally, as many people know due to me saying it semi-regularly, I think WP:CIV is over-the-top hippy shit. I rarely call people out for civility, and I choose to ignore the policy myself on occasion, knowing there's a risk of a block. Then, later, I realize I should have walked away and had some tea or something. I've learned to let little get to me at this point, but I think most people choose to be sensitive to such incivility. So ya... if you're getting annoyed at a sitch, drop on my talk page, remove details that would reveal who you're are talking about, and bitch away. All expletives are acceptable on my talk page. If you get blocked for comments on my talk page, directed at no specific person(s), I'll unblock you myself. You can even pop off on me... but just expect to get it back... so we either get blocked together or not at all... preferably the latter, because I think we both do good work. Okay, so I'm done now. As for this wall-o-text, yer welcome. Merry Humpday, Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance . . .

I took on Let's Get It On as a GAN. I am trying to replace the quote boxes as you did in Kind of Blue. Would you mind checking and see if I am doing it correctly. (I'm not sure if it looks right.) Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the {{rquote}} to {{box quote}} was good, but for the {{cquote}} all you need to do is to change it to {{quote}} and lose the <blockquote>>. I've redone the first one as an example. You're really getting stuck into these GA reviews, good to see. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But now there is a citation error in the references and I am unclear how to fix it. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

... going to take a look now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that I don't understand the end part -- how to get the references and the name just so. I keep looking at the examples of others, but . . . I even have a link to Template:Quote box! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There was an extra "|" before the <ref> tag, so the template wasn't putting the citation into the text. Just looking at some of the other citations, a few seem rather strangely formatted. Why all of these "{}" in this one, for instance? <ref name=allmusic>[http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:18qog4sttvjz allmusic {{{ Let's Get It On > Overview }}}]. It's missing publisher info as well, of course. There are some {{cite web}}s in there too aren't there? Obviously the references have to be similarly formatted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I think I got it now. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think I finished Let's Get It On, if you want to take a look before I put it on hold. I didn't know what to tell him about numbers as I have asked questions at WP:MOSNUM without getting satisfactory answers. Also, does GA worry about nbsp and such? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

GA's only concerned about the major elements of MoS (a bit subjective, I know). I tend to fix simple things like dashes myself, and put nbsps in where there's a problem, or I just happen to be fixing something else in the same area, but I don't make a fuss over whether they're there or not. About the number thing, do you mean things like "#1"? I think I'd be inclined just to look for consistency. I'll take a quick look now ... be back shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's another nice review. What I especially like about it is its encouraging tone. I don't think there's anything else I can teach you about gGA reviewing; please accept this light sabre with my congratulations. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW Mattisse, if you carry on doing one review a day, there's a danger that you could find yourself the GA Reviewer of the Month. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

Seven part DYK on Johnson on the main page. :) Also, after the next copy edit sweep goes through, I will be nominating the article. I will have you as the co-nom, as you were the MoS, language, and format expert that brought this up to fulfilling at least half the requirements, and you will be vital in discussion if anything comes up. I will also mention Sandy as a co-nom based on many of the vital MoS and content areas. I will state myself as content provider and images. This nom couldn't have happened without your work and your putting enough pressure on me to actually do a decent job. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, but I really don't think I've done enough to deserve a conomination, It's your article. I'll be helping as much as I can at its FAC in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you forget our fight in which you stated one of the citation systems used would not pass GA, let alone FA, and I stubbornly disputed that, and then it turned out that you were right and it needed to be changed? Yeah, thats probably 1% of the valuable contributions that you made in the "this can only pass FA if ___ is done" area. How about the British spelling? :) Or the over 150 edits that, without each one, this couldn't be an FA and pass MoS standards? I made a B article. You turned it into an FA article. You can say whatever you want, but its the simple fact that you were true metaphorical pack animal that carried the load, and you deserve more than a carrot for the effort.

Lets walk down memory lane. :) This was the article before you started working. Before your first major run through. Before another run through. Before yet another important run through. And yet another. And finally this was before the end. Compare each one to each other and to the end, and you will see that the page would still be stuck around two or three at this time if it weren't for you. That is a huge effort. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Looking back, I did loads and loads. ;-) It's a seriously generous offer all the same, and I'd be proud to be considered one of those who made significant contributions to what has really become an outstanding article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just some naive fool who stumbled in and said "hmm, this article needs citations". You were the one that said "hey, this article could actually be something". Thanks for the work! Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's make SandyG proud and help to shepherd Sam Johnson to that little star. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A note - Its proper to remove it (because it would take too long to explain), but this line is rooted in a joke about Johnson. Johnson was known to spending very little time accomplishing things, so a "significant" portion of his time for that piece was to reread his own poem twice more. Otherwise, he would have just wrote it and moved on. :) Many of his works are notable for the amount of time he didn't spend on them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Makes sense now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

But still impossible to boil it down so that someone can get it on the first read (except for Johnson, of course!). :)

Best removed then. I've about done with the comments that Colin raised, how about you? Ready for FAC now? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fun, fun

Hi Malleus, I see you are about to have some main page fun. Congratulations! I'll be very interested to see what kind of reaction this article gets, since it is the first of its kind. Karanacs (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, I can't believe it! You get no main page featured articles for ages, then two come along at once! I'm slightly apprehensive at the sort of looneys a witchcraft article might attract though. As you say, it'll be interesting to see what happens on the day; looking forward to it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You probably should be worried. I'm just happy that none of mine have hit the front page yet... (knocks on wood) And congrats Malleus! --Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. If any disputes come up, you can always contact me. I'll draw their fire. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth. Ottava, I was just thinking that I'd have to make an extra special effort not to get myself blocked again before 3 September as I'd hate to miss the fun, so I may have to take you up on your offer. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A previously blocked many times!!! user/vandal on the main page? I won't have it! How dare you go about making the encyclopedia a better place! I'm blocking you and deleting your articles! You're too "fragile" to be on the main page! How ever will you handle the exposure??? In all seriousness, let me know if you need my admin buttons. Congratulations to you Malleus, for knowing exactly what you are here for. You are invaluable. Keeper ǀ 76 20:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keeper. Actually it's even worse than that. Just look at the topic above this one. Two of wikipedia's most notorious villains working together on an FA. Whatever is the world coming to. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha! OR is great. Love you, rima! I'm pretty sure we've pissed each other off recently, but I don't remember where (something with Abd maybe?) What's the "johnson" page, btw? I'll watchlist it to make sure you two bad guys don't add yer vandalizims...Keeper ǀ 76 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's here. You'd better watch the two of us; no telling what mischief we might get up to together. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist. I'm so tempted to add a comma somewhere, just so I can put it on my arbitrary list. Heh, that should piss of the FAC crowd :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember you ever pissing me off Keeper, but I can't testify to the reverse. :) But wait until I start getting my act together and getting some main page topics up there in areas that are never talked about (Drapier's Letters is a Numismatics topic, they are never on the main page, plus a billion for it! *cackles*). My block log will make people cringe. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

An article builder/improver with a horrible blocklog? I hardly ever support those, as they are clearly not here for the betterment of myspace, I mean facebook, I mean Wikipedia. Just ask Malleus.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit. I just looked at your block log OR. You really do care about this place, don't you? That was your first mistake....your second mistake was being belligerent about it, as if it were an important place....Keeper ǀ 76 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

unblocked

I have unblocked you. Although you were uncivil and a block was wholly understandable, there seems to be a consensus here that, all told, the block may have been too long, or that a warning might have been more fitting. Please mind, we're all meant to be civil here, so one shouldn't be startled if one gets blocked for making offhand, cutting remarks about other editors or groups of editors. If you can't be friendly with an editor, that's ok, but then you must be steadfastly neutral and either stick only to content and sources, or not say anything at all. You were uncivil and this is almost always unhelpful when talking through text online (never mind it's indeed slightly easier to get away with this kind of thing whilst talking face to face or on the phone).

Please be civil here! Whether you agree or not, being uncivil is not worthwhile on Wikipedia, you do have editing skills and takes on sources to give so why bother? If this happens again you could very well be blocked for a longer time and there will be even fewer admins who are willing to unblock you. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very happy that the block has been lifted: but for an incident a while back when I got hauled over the coals for taking actoon when I was "involved" I would have done it myself, but waited and hoped another would. I am glad the block was lifted.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lifting the block had the potential to be controversial, so I wouldn't have wanted you do it anyway. You've got enough on your plate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. You had an unblock go through. I've never managed to have such happen, so I'm envious. I guess I'm too controversial. :) By the way, when you get a chance, check out the talk page at Samuel Johnson about a GA/FA candidate possibility. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask to be unblocked, and I never would, kind of demeaning. I was sorry to see your own troubles though, but glad to see you now back in harness with Sam Johnson. I'll be on the talk page shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They never seem to work, regardless. My troubles aren't that big of a deal. I've handled worse. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I missed all of this, I feel so out of the loop now. Glad to see you haven't changed :-) —Giggy 09:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a hopeless case. Of course it can never be acceptable to call someome an idiot, and I deserved to be punished. Must dash now, I'm off to watch a pig flying display. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh! You like Pink Floyd then? ;) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I do, like Pink Floyd, yes. In fact I saw their flying pig live at the old Wembley Stadium some years ago. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I heard them a lot whilst growing up, as my mum thought they were wonderful. When I at long last got to see Antonioni's Zabriskie Point a few months ago, I was startled to hear towards the end (the remix of) one of my beloved PF songs, Careful with that Ax, Eugene. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I leave this behind me, I would like finally to draw attention to the fact that while I was blocked for using the term "idiot friend", others were allowed to call me "a nightmare" amongst other abuses, and even today I have seen what I consider to be worse abuse go unpunished.[6] I have drawn my conclusions, and I hope that others will begin to open their eyes to the abuses of power that have come to characterise wikipedia as well, why they are tolerated, and why they are even systematically encouraged. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a bit more than just "idiot friend", as you well know. However, it is in the past now. With regards to your point above, if there are issues you feel violate the guidelines for common courtesy, please feel free to raise them with any admin. The rules certainly should be applied equally to everyone. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment to you was "idiot friend", which resulted in what I believe to have been your disproportionate block. However, I do not intend wasting my time in further drawing attention to what I perceive to be the hypocrisy of these events. It is quite clear to me that the rules are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily, and equally clear to me that you choose not to see that. I hope not to see you on this talk page again; I'm sure you'll understand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That is your choice. However, for the record, you were blocked because of your actions with regard to the other editor, not because of some meaningless remark you made to me. It was also apparent that such behaviour wasn't an isolated incident. You can call the block hypocritical, inconsistent, or whatever else you like, but it doesn't mean it wasn't warranted. End of story. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that we are unlikely to agree in the time left before the heat death of the Universe, no matter what spin you choose to put on "the record". That's the end of the story. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pendle With Trials

You sneaky devil! After all the angst over getting Peterloo on the front page and Pendle Witch Trials gets on quietly with no fuss. How did you manage that, was it one of Raul's choices? Did you have to bribe him? Well, congratulations all the same :) Richerman (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just as surprised as you! It was one of Raul's choices, nothing to do with me. So far as I know it's the only witchcraft trial FA—at least until Jza84 gets his act together with the Paisley witch trials—so I guess that played a big part in Raul's choice. As I said above though, I'm slightly apprehensive about the unwelcome attention a subject like that is bound to get come the day, but pleased nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought he must have done - I suppose quality will out. And just in case you dont see it on the talk page, the missing link to the Port of Manchester pictures is here Richerman (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

References

I just noticed that someone changed the referencing method I had used in an article I wrote from cite xxx to plain <ref>blah, blah</ref>. Is the second method O.K.? I thought, besides harvard, only citation or cite xxx were accepted. Along the same lines, I am having trouble explaining to the author of Kind of Blue, Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music and Let's Get It On why he must use a consistent method and which one. I referred him to citation template pages, but I know how overwhelming it can seem. What method do you think he should use? Perhaps I could convert a few in his article to demonstrate. (Do you ever sleep?) —Mattisse (Talk) 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly OK not to use any templates and just do the citations raw, so to speak. The only requirement (at both GA and FA) is that the result must look consistent, which is why it's not allowed to mix {{cite xxx}} and {{citation}} templates in the same article; they produce slightly different formats. My clear preference these days is to use {{Harvnb}} and {{citation}}, but I try not to shove their obvious advantages down anyone's throat. :-) If I were in your situation, I'd do exactly as you're suggesting, convert a few to use {{citation}} to demonstrate what you're asking for.

PS, cant sleep, clown might eat me! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I was experimenting with the Reference section of Kind of Blue. It starts out with the first reference in the citation template. So I tried converting the second reference to the same template, but because it has a "forward by" I could not figure out how:

• Palmer, Robert (1997), "Liner Notes to 1997 Reissue", Kind of Blue (CD), New York, NY: Sony Music Entertainment, Inc./Columbia Records
• Kahn, Ashley; Cobb, Jimmy (forward) (2001), Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece, USA: Da Capo Press, ISBN 0-306-81067-0 - my version
• Ashley Kahn (2001). Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece. foreword by Jimmy Cobb. Da Capo Press, USA. ISBN 0-306-81067-0.

How would that work? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Is it true that a GA should not have citations in the lead? I know that is generally the case for FA. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not true; it's not even true for FAs. Quotations always need to be cited, for instance, wherever they appear. You don't often see citations in the lead though, because what's in the lead will generally be cited later in the article anyway, so it would just be redundant repetition. I usually try to avoid citations in the lead, just because I think they clutter it up, but that's a personal thing, nothing to do with the GA/FA criteria.

I'm looking at the {{citation}} question you asked me now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented a suggestion for the foreword issue you raised, looks fine to me now. I notice that ref #24 still has those funny {{{}}} around it. What's that about? There's also an external link right at the end of Release history. Obviously that's got to be either converted to a citation or moved to an External links section ... but I'm starting to try and teach my granny how to suck eggs, sorry. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! There are many issues in his citations that I do not know how to deal with. In the body of the article, he uses <ref>blah</ref> so I would be changing his whole method of referencing. I can go through and fix the {{{}}} and the page number format but I am not confident I could correct reformat all his citations to citation format. I never figured out if page ranges in referencing are supposed to have ndash or not. Do they? I'm feeling overwhelmed. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, per WP:LAYOUT, isn't supposed to be See also, Notes, References, Bibiography (if necessary) and External links? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, page ranges in references ought to use ndashes, but once again that's something I'd either fix or ignore for GA. There's some scope for individuality in the way that references are presented; I like the level2 References followed by level 3 Notes and then Bibliography, but it's just one of a number of acceptable styles. External links though should be last, and See also should be immediately before the Notes/References, as you say. I'd be cautious about changing the whole referencing style without the agreement of the primary author though. Tidying up the Bibliography is one thing, but all I'd be looking for with the citations in the article body is a consistent format with all the required information present. It doesn't matter how that's done, and you shouldn't feel obliged to do it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I used to separate out Bibliography from Further reading, as I think you were suggesting, on the basis that sources in the Bibliography were used in the construction of the article and those in Further reading weren't, until I got criticised for doing that at one FAC. So I put all the published (printed) sources together now in a Bibliography. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I need to chill out over this! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No article's ever perfect, as you know, but you develop a nose for whether an article's right for GA or FA. Don't feel that you have to fix everything yourself, you'll burn out that way. Are you OK with this review, or would you like me to post a second opinion? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gone through Kind of Blue to clean up the references, but a second opinion is always welcome. I went through Let's Get It On and found the references were basically fine. Yes, thinking about it, I would like a second opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and get over there later. Got a DYK to write yet. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No hurry. I am also reviewing Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music. (I'm sitting out a hurricane.) —Mattisse (Talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell. If there was a hurricane coming my way I'd probably be boarded up in a cellar somewhere, checking my insurance policies. Either that or wandering around like a typically clueless Brit, wondering why the wind's getting up a bit and all the bars are shut. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Following your conversations, having nothing else to do since I still have electricity, why do you care so much about becoming an admin? Are you bored with editing? Why do you succumb to the wiki culture that it is meaningful to be an admin? Sign me clueless, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about becoming an administrator. What I care about, or have in the past cared about at least, are the objections from those who claim that I would be unfit to be an administrator, many of them encouraged by a vindictive piece of shit that I would be embarrassed to find on the sole of my shoe. I'm getting over that now, but I don't see why anyone else should be put through the same kind of humiliation. If you ever see me succumbing to the wiki culture to which you refer, feel free to give me a slap, because I think it stinks. Bored with editing? When I get bored with editing then I'll be gone; building content is all that matters, the only reason we're here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Netley Abbey again

Hi Malleus! Just thought I'd let you know that I have now submitted the article on Netley Abbey for good article review. We'll see how it does, but I could never have got even close without the help you and Dr Vardy have given. Cheers. Soph (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't think you'll have much trouble, it's a really nice article, but good luck anyway. If anything crops up during the review that you can't handle then just give me a shout. Netley Abbey deserves to be a GA, at least.

Like, srsly

[7] I understand your frustration, I really do (what with spending most of my content edits on copyediting, I really do). Given recent history, and the fact that many hold "friend of candidate" remarks against the candidate, is this the best time and place to be sharp-witted? Risker (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, perhaps it isn't appropriate to point out certain truths sometimes. If Moni feels that I've damaged her chances of success then I will apologise abjectly. If you've come here to threaten me, then I will ask you to ... go elsewhere and threaten someone else. Not interested. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, no threats at all, MF; quite the opposite. I don't want some trigger-happy civility cop to pop in and say you've made somebody sad and now have to sit in on the Naughty Step again. I know that your words come from your heart, and that you're a superb writer. I'm hoping that you might find some ways to make your point so there is a better opportunity of drawing people to your position. You can probably win most wars of words, but winning hearts and minds is a different kettle of fish. Sometimes the hearts and minds you're trying to win don't belong to the person you're debating. My page is open to you, too, just like Jennavecia's is, to vent about whatever comes to mind. Best, Risker (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind of you Risker. The truth is though that I've come to terms with the fact that I'm incompatible with wikipedia's happy-clappy civility bullshit. I'm grateful to admins like you, Jennavecia, and especially Keeper, because I certainly wouldn't be here now without you. I'll just try to do what I can until my inevitable indef block. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Geology of Somerset

Hi, how are you? Looks as if the Manchester team are doign amazing things. I came to ask if you might have a few minutes to look at Geology of Somerset, it's currently up for GA & has just recieved the first set of comments from the reviewer. I've dealt with many of them but am going to be away for a long BH weekend & then out of the country for work so I'm not sure I'm going to be able to address all the comments in time - anyway one of the comments was: "There are a lot of short sentences, which tend to make the prose choppy. Take a run through the article and try to combine some of these to make the article flow more." Any help you could offer would be great.— Rod ^talk 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a great team, and I'm proud to be a small part of it. I'll be happy to help deal with the reviewer's ce comments, and do what I can to shepherd the article through GA if it's not all done and dusted by the time you have to leave. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - successfully promoted.— Rod ^talk 14:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very good news. I thought we might have to do a bit more with the prose before it got through. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me (if I am right)

User talk:T-rex has gone and removed my ndashes for page ranges in Kind of Blue and Let's Get It On which I painstakingly put in. I reverted his changes and he reverted me, saying on his talk page that he is right. Who is right? Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Here's the relevant section of the MoS, pretty unambiguous. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Should I revert again or what? I don't want to get into a revert war, but I just finished working on those two articles for GA. I also saw he uses his script on some FAs. I have given him the relevant citations but he chooses not to accept it. He thinks he is right. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So there is nothing I can do. Well, I sure won't waste time putting ndashes in anymore! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I just left a message on your talk page. You haven't been reverted. If you're still not sure what's happening, let me know, but everything is OK, it's just a matter of personal taste. The ndashes are still there, it's just that there are two different ways of representing them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He explained on his talk page that he put a longer dashe in because it was preferred. No, I don't understand what is going on. Why did he have to go through articles with a script? He is doing it to FA articles. Is that correct for them also? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with longer dashes. It's simply that he prefers to have the ndash symbol directly in the text instead of the ndash html entity. The result is identical in either case. For instance, look at these two examples in edit mode: pp. 128–130 and pp.128–130. All he's done is to run a script that converts one form to the other. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I spent all that time educating the article's editor about endashes, and now when he looks at the code they have been replaced. I have over 52,000 edits. At this point I am within my rights to choose not to go through that experience again and just not worry about putting ndashes in any more. What happened ruined the experience of working on those articles with that editor for me, so I think I am allowed to avoid that experience again. No use educating when it all goes to waste. Thanks for your help though. You have clarified another point and shown me another way to avoid Wiki awfulness. Just don't put in endashes! —Mattisse (Talk) 10:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Restore formatting

I notice that several articles where that script has been used, the editor reverted with the comment "restored formatting". Why can I not do the same, if it is a preference as you say? Since I am working on the article, why should my preference not count? —Mattisse (Talk) 10:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for flipping out on your page. Please forgive. My volitional reactions get me in trouble! I am calm now and can go on with life as is. Don't have to have my way. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to flip out here whenever you feel you need to. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought

Malleus, you are of course entitled to your opinion, and your oppose is certainly justified, and you are of course entitled to change your opinion as well. However, in Scetoaux's RFA#2, you were neutral based on the same unfortunate incident (as was I). Did something change in Scetoaux's behavior (for the worse) that I'm missing? I haven't commented on the RFA yet, I may not at all. Just wondering what's changed, he seems to continue to be contrite and regret that whole thing. Keeper ǀ 76 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What's changed is that I am now less trusting. It's perfectly clear that some candidates will say anything to get through an RfA, but revert to type once they feel safely cocooned in the admin safety blanket. What was it that Tan said about not having to act like a fairy any more? I don't know whether Scetoaux is that category or not, but I don't see any reason to take a chance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you implying I bluffed my way through RfA? ;-) Tan ǀ 39 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I had another administrator in mind, but since you ask ... No, I just found your comment to be refreshingly honest, so it stuck in my mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't name that Administrator that Is Not to Be Named. I know who you mean. I actually surmised that that was the case by the way. You have no reason to trust RfA, or an RfA candidate. Exactly why I posted here, instead of standing you up at the RFA. I think I'll probably abstain from it. If I do post there, it will be at worst neutral, as I don't see anything in his later contribs that compares to his prior mistake, one that he is contrite over. I have my own issues with RFA, but that's not Scetoaux's fault, for me anyway. I completely understand your position though, I really do. Oh, and Tan, you're still a fairy. Haven't seen a WQA report about you yet, or an ANI thread.....Keeper ǀ 76 17:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow

That was cool beans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What was cool beans? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Your post to Tony et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was inappropriately and unhelpfully trying to be too smart ass, even I can see that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You thought Tony was coming under fire; defending a friend is a good quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying to apologise here, don't giving me excuses. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm documenting this for when you are accused of never apologizing. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm calling guiness... no in all seriousness... this thread intrigued me enough that I had to figure out what the "wow" was all about ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Did somebody say Guinness? Risker (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the Guinness you're looking for. Tan ǀ 39 21:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

<- I'm trying to have a serious conversation below here, do you mind? Could murder a cold Guinness though ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this still my section?  :-)) Do you have any of the Johnson sources? Colin has put up a very workable list; if I had the sources, my focus would be on satisfying Colin (who by the way, has been an integral part of writing the TS articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the sources, and it would probably take me three or four days to get them. I think that most of the criticisms, including Colin's, Deacon's and even Awadewit's, could be fairly easily dealt with, but Ottava has a vision in mind for the article, and who am I to say that his vision isn't the right one? My view at the moment is that we just have to wait for what seems to me to be the inevitable archiving of this nomination, and move on from there, because Ottava's somewhat (in my view) belligerent responses aren't go to persuade anyone to alter their opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Well, this would be one of those times when I sit on my fingers for 24 hours lest I type something I'll regret. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to upset you, but I just don't feel I can do very much to address the outstanding concerns right now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't upset me at all. I'm just disappointed that although I predicted this would happen and tried to put safeguards in place, it still happened. A lot of the pile-on was unnecessary, but I suspected Ottava would be poked at, and I was concerned about how he would react. No one listened when I said *this* article needed to go to GAN and again to PR before coming to FAC; that would have given Ottava more opportunities to deal with dealing with criticism on a smaller and less stressful scale. The bottom line here is that Ottava has written an article far superior to many articles that are passed at FAC on fan and friendly support, but because he has important detractors (some of whom didn't show up this time, but may another time) and doesn't deal well with being poked, he may never get the FA he deserves. When Colin opposes, it's time to close. I regret that the FA process sometimes is more about personalities than articles; this article should make it. Of course, it also troubles me a lot when blatant personal attacks are lodged at FAC and no one addresses them. We're not supposed to call people delusional trolls on Wiki, no matter how much they frustrate us, but my hands are really tied at FAC in terms of issuing warnings. As FAC delegate, I really shouldn't go there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I long ago gave up expecting any consistency in wikipedia's absurd civility policy. Calling someone an idiot results in a 24-hour block, but "delusional troll" is apparently quite OK. On the larger subject though, I still wouldn't be in favour of taking the article to GAN, but peer review probably would be a good next step if the FAC doesn't succeed, I agree, after some of the concerns raised at the FAC have been addressed. I also agree that this article as it stands is better than many that get almost nodded through, and I do believe that certain subject areas are far easier to get through the process than others. I also wonder whether some reviewers don't confuse the meanings of the words "comprehensive" and "perfect", but I've seen enough of FAC to know that arguing with reviewers rarely leads to a good outcome. I haven't detected that any of the criticisms have been rooted in personality conflicts, and to be perfectly honest I think that many of them have some merit, and ought to be addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the issues should be addressed, but the pile-on at FAC will make it unlikely they can be addressed under the scrutiny of FAC. Ya know, we didn't get to finish a conversation (above) semi-related to the civility topic, but I can now see that you may have misunderstood almost all of my cryptic statements in that thread. When I said "Someday, I may do that", I didn't mean that someday I may stand at RfA. I meant that someday I may explain all the reasons I wouldn't join that club. As someone who has been told to "fuck off", been called a jackass, been consistently attacked on at least two different admin talk pages, and been blatantly harassed by a powerful clique of admins with none of these parties sanctioned or cautioned, why would I want to be a member of that club? I find it intolerable that someone can be called a delusional troll at FAC, and yet, there's not a thing I can do about it, and no one else will. Does it not trouble these people that all of these comments are going to be stored in the articlehistory tab at that article's talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

When I went to Wikimania this summer I attended a talk on the quality of Wikipedia's scientific articles by a biochemist. His analysis spent some time on scientific FAs and discussed their high quality. He had professors read and critique the articles: they were impressed with the quality of the FAs. As I am sure you are aware, it has been demonstrated more than once that Wikipedia's science articles are of a high quality, particularly the FAs. I have encouraged him to perform the same experiment with humanities articles, because I think it is important that we know how we are doing in that area as well. Unfortunately, I know that many of our literature FAs would not get such glowing reports from literature professors and I urge you to help me make these FAs into something that would. If we want Wikipedia to have truly excellent articles in the humanities, we have to set a high bar. For this reason, I am asking that you consider withdrawing Samuel Johnson so that sections on his works and his legacy can be added. Any professor of literature will tell you that you cannot write a biography of an author without discussing his works and the impact of those works in some depth. We would not write an article about a scientist that did not include a discussion of their discoveries and we would not write a biography of an artist that did not discuss their paintings, sculptures, etc. A biography of an author that does not discuss the texts of that author is incomplete. Thanks for considering this. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've thought quite hard about this since I saw your opposition at the FAC a little while ago. Let me say first of all that I won't withdraw the nomination. To start with, I didn't make the nomination, but I wouldn't advise Ottava Rima to withdraw it either; I'm feeling that this FAC is perhaps being held to a higher standard than others, which wouldn't be entirely fair. Having said that, I am somewhat in agreement with your general thrust about needing a bit more material on Johnson's legacy in particular, and perhaps a little more on some of his major works apart from the Dictionary. I think it's a little unfair to characterise the article as not discussing the texts, but I can see that some expansion in a few areas would be beneficial. I'm reminded though of another recent FAC, for Frank Zappa, which received some opposition because it didn't fit into the usual pop group format. I'm not certain that comparing Mary Shelley with Sam Johnson isn't similar. Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying that I agree with your general point, and the Legacy section at least does need some work. But so far as withdrawal is concerned, that's just not on the cards. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I hold all FACs to the same standard, which I will freely admit is a high one. I make no apologies for that. :) I hope you don't think I'm asking for a cookie-cutter format, however, because I would never do that. I have actually opposed forcing novel articles, for example, to cover preset topics because I realize that different kinds of novels need different article formats. For example, autobiographical novels would need different sections from social protest novels. I look at each article individually. If you would like any help tracking down research on Johnson, I can be of help once I return home from vacation, later in the week. Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank God you're not interested in early 17th-century witchcraft trials is all I have to say. :lol: To be serious though, no, I don't think you're trying to impose a cookie-cutter format, and I think you made some good points, especially with regard to the legacy section. The decision as to whether or not to withdraw is down to Ottava though, he made the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Port of Manchester, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Haraldskær Woman

Thanks. I'm glad to help with the article -- it's an interesting piece. I like these ones that cover tidbits on a wide range of subjects (a little bit of science, history, mystery, etc.). Good stuff. Anyway... you're correct in your assessment that the rest of the article needs some sprucing up too -- especially the cited references. I plan on rewriting the "bog chemistry" section as soon as I locate a couple of sources. Cheers. CactusWriter 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Those kinds of articles are my favourites too. If you hadn't jumped in, I'd probably have gone looking for the references myself rather than delist the article. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. But I wouldn't have done such a good job. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I finally got around to finishing a rewrite of the Haraldskær Woman article -- with new refs and such. I was wondering if you could give it a quick look-through and see if anything horribly wrong glares out at you. Thanks. CactusWriter 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You've made a really nice job of that CactusWriter. About the only thing I could criticise would be the second paragraph of Bog chemistry. If ref #23 covers the whole thing, including details of the experiments and Egtved Girl, then it would be better placed at the end of the paragraph. If it doesn't, then there's a citation missing. But that's being really picky – you've done Haraldskaer Woman proud! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Its that damn canal again

Just wondered if you wouldn't mind having a shufty once again at the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal - its been peer reviewed by two people now, and copyedited. I don't fancy any more trips to the library for more research as I think there is enough info in there now, what do you think of it as it stands? Also, Paul Hindle (of the society, and a bloke referenced a few times in the article) has strongly recommended renaming the article - what do you think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't fault the content, but if you're asking me if I think it's ready for FAC I'd have to say no. FAs have to be compliant with all of the MoS, and I also think the article would get a 1a) slapped on it pretty quickly. FA is a big jump from GA in terms of attention to detail. Now that the content is stable is the time to start the FAC polishing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mount Cayley

Hi Malleus Fatuorum. I'm having a difficult time getting Mount Cayley to GA status. Would mind helping out? Thanks. Black Tusk (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given my second opinion on the review page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

GA delists

[8] Shouldn't you change the project rating when you delist articles? Gimmetrow 22:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The projects are at liberty to rate any way they wish, nothing to do with GA, or me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request...

And wanting to beg a favor from you. I've got three articles I'm hoping to bring to FAC after I get back (be about August 17 or so until I'm home and able to handle an FAC). They are Stigand, Go Man Go, and William de St-Calais. They've all been PR'd, and basically need good copyedits before I bring them before the slavering hordes at FAC. Can you look them over for jargon, etc, as well as fix my prose? It's not a "must do asap" but it'd help a bunch if they were looked at in the next couple of weeks or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can also look at any of these three if you want me to MF. Let me know here or on my talk which (if any) you'd like me to look at. I'm horrible with refs, but I can find comma mistakes, spellings, wording, etc, pretty easily. Keeper ǀ 76 22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do, I'm sure Ealdgyth will appreciate all the help she can get. I had a hack at the Go Man Go article earlier, but there are some places where I'm not sure if it's a copyediting issue or just a difference between us Brits and you Yanks. So, if you've got the time to take a look at that ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A joke for you..."A bishop, a horse, and a monk walked into a bar...". Just kidding. But seriously, what a random collection of articles! I'll work on the horse one, seeing as it's a Texan, and my bastardized "English" may be of use...starting tomorrow (I'm about to go offline here) Keeper ǀ 76 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Ealdgyth's articles are always very well referenced, so no worries on that score. The only thing is, and I know she won't mind me saying this, is that she does have a tendency to write like a medieval history professor. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I do! Which is why I need copyeditors... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay! I'm home. Are you as satisfied as you could be with those? I'm ready to do a little work for "me" and not for everyone else at FAC for a change... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know why I didn't see this before. I think I've done as much as I can with Go Man Go, I see that William de St-Calais has achieved FA despite my best efforts, and I'll take a look at Stigand tomorrow, and hopefully be able to suppport its FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Request reality check on dramaz

Okay, so we have similar personalities, but we're not tight, so I seek from you an objective opinion. Obviously, as most people know, I'm vocal about my displeasure with Majorly's behavior on this project and others. He's initiated an RFC on himself and I would like to know if I'm being overly harsh. I ask you because I've not seen you previously involved in these matters and I know you have no beef with telling me exactly how it is, as others may not want to be completely honest with me in their opinions. This is the post I'm most concerned about. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

By coincidence, I've just finished reading through that RfC. I agree with what you posted, and I was considering adding my name to yours, calling for him to be desysopped. The blatant lies over those copyright violations still stick in my throat, to say nothing of more recent behaviour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Upon posting here I saw that I had received five endorsements. So, I guess my line of thinking is good. Thank you for the speedy reply. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have called for his head on a stake, but once it is called for, I have no problem encouraging it to go forward. This is not a final step. This is just a stop on the way.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly's refusal to face up to most of the issues raised in that RfC does not bode well though. Mostly it's everyone else's fault it seems. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... but MF, you should realize by now that it is your fault ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Once an admin, always an admin", nothing will change no matter how much evidence, ArbCom will do nothing eventually after y'all waste a lot of time, so why should any right-minded, reasonable thinking person trudge through all the diffs and spend one second presenting a well reasoned response to another problematic admin situation. Figure out where to sign my name on that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're right, nothing will change. I continue to find it ludicrous that behaviour that would almost certainly result in a failure at RfA is quietly ignored in an administrator. Contrary to what one might expect, editors are clearly held to a far higher standard of behaviour than administrators. Bizarre. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice requested

For GA I am reviewing Slipknot Demo and Welcome to Our Neighborhood. They are very short. The editor claims this is all the information available on the subject. Do you think it would harm GA to pass such short, minimalist articles, even though they technically meet the criteria for GA? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

They are pretty short ... I had a quick look at one of them earlier. Give me a few minutes to look more closely. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced by both of them, especially Slipknot Demo. What's strikingly missing is anything about critical reception, beyond a vague statement about being well-received by fans. If these are notable pieces of work then surely someone has written reviews, somewhere. I don't buy the argument that this is all the available information, and I wouldn't myself pass either of these articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing that has confused me: is notability part of the criteria for GA? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically, because it's the criteria for any wikipedia article, even a stub. For me, Slipknot Demo looks more like a candidate for AfD than it does for GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with an AFD, if that's what it feels like is needed. Gary King (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Welcome to Our Neighborhood, with a bit more work on its critical reception, could be OK. So far as Slipknot Demo's concerned though, I'm left wondering why that isn't merged into the main article on the group. So maybe AfD is the way to go with that one if you have some objection to the merger. There's no way it can be a GA though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks; it's always good to get an opinion from someone else. I will discuss this with the others that I'm working with on these articles. On a side note, if we do merge these articles, you think they should go in Slipknot? That's probably the best option but it still doesn't really suit it that well; maybe Slipknot discography? I think that these articles are on the very edge of either staying a stub forever or not (WP:MUSIC has guidelines saying that a song, but I think an album by extension, should only have an article if they won't stay a stub forever.) Gary King (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that whatever is of interest in Slipknot Demo ought to be in the Slipknot (band) article, as part of the band's history. There's just not enough to say about the demo (IMO) to justify a separate article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[undent]I've wondered about the Demo article for awhile, but I feel that it does technically meet the GA criteria; and it includes all reliable info that I have seen about the topic. I have discussed the idea with Rezter, as we have worked together on many of the band's articles, he felt it does warrant its own article and I would like to hear what he has to say. That being said, I wouldn't be offended or what have you if it was deleted, provided that the info contained is adaquately covered in Slipknot (band). As for Welcome To Our Neighborhood, I think it's fine. The article meets notability (top position on the Billboards), and provides all info that I know of. Malleus has stated that its critical reception could "use some work", if that means grammar it's not a problem, however, if that means expansion then I'm at a loss because I have nothing further. It was released on VHS at a time before the internet had widespread reviews, even Allmusic which has reviews on nearly every album out there only gave it a starred review without prose. The only thing I could think of would be to look in magazines, but to track down issues of Metal magazines from 1999 would be a hell of a search and there's no guarentee that they say anything concerning the video. Blackngold29 04:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

An update

There has been an update to a summary you have endorsed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly#View by Jennavecia. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured topic proposal

Hi, Malleus Fatuorum! I have seen from this link that you are one of the major contributors to the article Edward VIII abdication crisis. Since the latter currently has GA status, it is perfectly possible to combine it with the articles Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and Wallis, Duchess of Windsor (both of which are featured articles) in order to create a featured topic (FT). All of the featured topic criteria are currently met: the topic is well-defined with no obvious gap or missing article, and I have just created a template and a category in order to fully comply with criteria 1c. I would like to hear your opinion before starting a featured topic nomination. Regards. BomBom (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis is presently at FAC, as you probably know. My only involvement with the article has been in copyediting it to address some of the issues raised during that review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of this FAC, I hadn't noticed it. However, the featured topic criteria state that featured topic candidates "should only have Featured article candidates if the result does not affect whether the topic meets the featured topic criteria". Since the Edward VIII abdication crisis article already has GA status, the outcome of its FAC doesn't really matter, because even if it fails, the topic would still be compliant will all the criteria. Anyway, I have started a discussion about this featured topic proposal here. Your input is welcome. BomBom (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The template was edited by G2bambino, who added all those flags as well as the Commonwealth PMs. Although the latter were consulted on the issue of the abdication, I think it's a bit overstretched to consider them all as major actors in the crisis. Therefore, I reverted the template to the original version I had created, which only includes British PM Baldwin. I also removed all the flags since the overuse of flags is discouraged on Wikipedia, and makes the template look really awful. If any further issues arise regarding this template, please let me know. Regards. BomBom (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a major improvement, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rule of thumb on quotations?

Is there any rule of thumb on how many quotations an article can have? I have been persuading the editor of Voodoo (album) to reduce the amount, which he has. However, it still seems there are many quotes. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any rule, it's a matter of judgement I think. Certainly the longer the quote the more risk of tripping a violation of copyright claim, and I wouldn't be happy to see an article that had as much quotations as text. I tend to be a bit more relaxed about the number of quotations than some others, but I do think that Voodoo (album) is borderline. Some of the quotes don't seem to be adding very much, and would probably be better paraphrased in the body of the article, or are just repeating stuff already said. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have tried to convey that to him. Except for issues like that, I believe his articles are GA. The trouble is that he adds more after his article reaches GA status. I guess he will have to learn from someone other than me. You said that GA was much looser than FAC so I am trying to pass basically good if flawed articles (with stubborn editors like this one). I will not review any more of his articles. This is the same editor that wrote Kind of Blue and then I reviewed his Let's Get It On and since I passed it he has added a great deal. Overall, I like his articles. I enjoy reading them. But perhaps I am not helping him by passing his articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that if you think changes made since its GA review have significantly degraded an article you can take it to Good Article Review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it significantly deteriorated I would. But this editor is working hard on several articles. Part of the problem is a question of judgment (the quotes) and part of it is that he is naive as an editor here. (He reverted both Tony and me when we removed the autoformatting, even though I have explained that to him.) I don't want to discourage him from submitting article to GA. One reviewer gave him a long, discouraging list of things to change and he did nothing and let the article fail. At least he listens to me some of the time! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If he reverted Tony, then he's braver than I am. :lol: I guess the bottom line though is what will lead to the better result? You working with the editor, or allowing him/her to become discouraged? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)