User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2008/October

Isn't Wiki fun ?

Better than a day at the carnival! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Some days are more fun than others. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't gotten past the top 1/4 of my watchlist; it's a moving target. Better than plodding through citation cleanup at FAR, though :-) 19:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I've got a short article lurking in the wings as well, but I'm waiting to see how the land lies before launching it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to consult first with IRC :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of a nomination until I'd got my supporters organised. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Allright, since everyone seems to be watching this page :-) Testing out an idea on y'all. Tony wants a whole 'nother process, which gives me a headache just thinking about it. What about this. If your reliable sources, images and MoS (all three) don't get rough clearance within five days, the FAC is closed, and you can't come back for 28 days. That would mean, theoretically, when you do come back, we're only analyzing content and prose, which is what we should be doing anyway. Won't that encourage people to stop appearing without the basics in place? Or will this just earn us a reputation for checklist reviewing? I don't want to float the idea on WT:FAC unless it has some traction. The truth is, FAC has become such a solid way to get your article fixed for free, with 35 nominations in eight days, well ... we need to do something about the volume going through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting idea in terms of RS and images. I wouldn't include MOS in the "quick-fail" category, though. Sourcing issues and images can take a long time to fix. These are also areas that a lot of reviewers could participae in. MOS is a lot more complicated and really pretty easy to fix. Few reviewers know everything about the MOS and so wouldn't be able to properly screen for this. FAC already has a reputation for valuing the MOS over everything else, and I'd hate to encourage that further. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, no MoS; can be fixed in a second anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like Tony's suggested new process either, but I do think that he made a valid point about reviewers being too reluctant to use the Oppose button. I've been as guilty as anyone of spending wadges of time fixing (other people's) articles at FAC, instead of simply saying "No, not good enough for these reasons". But I've done that because I want to see the article listed, and I suspected that if was archived the chances were that the work needed just wouldn't get done. So I'm in two minds. I'm certainly against the checklist approach, but I'm wondering if there should be a more rigid timeframe to FAC? Maybe say that FACs will not be held open for longer than 14 days, and make a yay or nay decision when the time's up? I'm not sure ... be interested to see what others think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you have five FACs sitting at the bottom of the page with three solid supports and two iffy opposes when the deadline hits. Whatya gonna do? Because that is always the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why you get paid for SandyG, to make those calls. :lol: What would I do? Probably something like RfA in terms of allowing a discretionary range where the director makes the decision, but outside that range automatic promotion or archive, assuming no exceptional circumstances. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I get paid in "I kill you" barnstars :-) I know how I prioritize (WP:V first, Eadlgyth rocks, but I won't close on only one prose review, I need more than one, because I'm not good at judging prose myself). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem why we dont' use oppose more often is that if we don't have an overwhelming list of stuff to back up the "prose isn't up to snuff", people will just fix the examples, and not feel the oppose is "actionable" unless we tell them everything we found wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

True. I've seen Tony, many times, stress that he's just giving examples, not an exhaustive list. But if the essence of the problem is that FAC has become a fixing shop, to the detriment of its reviewing role, then isn't the only solution to discourage fixing by reviewers during the FAC, and to stress that reviewers should only review, not fix? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which is the best angle of attack, but process abuse is really getting to me lately, making me reluctant not to oppose, but to even make the effort to review. Maralia (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul used to (more or less) archive once or twice a week, so often, reviewers were afraid to get sucked in to a lengthy oppose cycle. I archive daily. If reviewers will give the noms something to work on, I can close 'em. But what happens these days is I get only one Oppose, and can't close, in fact, I don't want to close, as it's not right to send the nominator away with nothing to work on. So I wait. As do the nominators. Makes me want to go back to reviewing, where I used to go through on Sunday morning (because Raul often archived on Sunday night) and lodge fifteen opposes. Y'all are so nice. But then, to maintain good will, I was always available to help pull those articles through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• To SangyGeorgia

Sandy, since you have forbidden me to post on your page, I thought I would complain here as the only forum available to me. You accused me on Raul's page of disrupting the the FAC talk page discussion (under the section on Raul's page where other editors requested the closing of Samuel Johnson because "it's been there for an embarrassingly long time and is sending a bad signal to nominators about duration on the list").[1]

Raul, the issue there is that Mattisse (talk · contribs) is using the Johnson FAC to say I'm getting preferential treatment with an extra long running FAC, and has sidetracked other discussions at WT:FAC with this issue."

I have made a total of four short posts on the WT:FAC page, while you have made more than 70. I am hardly having a massive, disruptive effect on the discussion. It feels like you are attempting to intimidate me and encourage others to disrespect me. I would appreciate it if you would cease singling me out for blaming remarks and allow me to post my opinions without having you characterize me negatively. I am entitled to my opinions, just as you are, and don't warrant being singled out and badmouthed to Raul (or anyone else) for expressing them. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Malleus, this page just completed a thorough peer review and major trim. Ealdgyth suggested I contact you to request a copyedit and ask you to look it over to make sure it is concise. So.....please...when you have some time can you come have a look? Thanks for your help. :) 14:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it vastly improved, and my major concern now is flabby prose, which we all know I am NOT good at removing. Would like to see a bit more drop in size, but a thorough read through shows it's much improved in terms of coverage. I still would prefer different sourcing, but it not longer is out of touch with historical scholarship. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and do what I can. I'm not sure how much time I'll be able to devote to this over the next few days or so though. I've got some RL writing that needs to be done, tax returns to get ready, and what seems like a million other things screaming at me right now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I hear you on that... I've done nothing but run this week, it feels like. I just wanted you to know why I recommended a CE, because I feel that the article is ready for that last final polish. Also so you wouldn't feel like doing a CE would be pointless as I'd oppose. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I couldn't resist and I did take a quick look already; I've made a few changes. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, thank you for your time and attention, I see you have given us a thorough copyedit and I am very grateful. NancyHeise ^talk 03:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've hardly even started yet Nancy, much more to be done yet. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Castle

(Cross-posted to a couple of other talkpages, if you think it looks familiar. Any TPSs, feel free to join in.)
I've totally rewritten Bruce Castle from a stub to a Long Rambling Piece (and in a burst of vanity, timed it so this edit would be edit 100,000).

This is the third, and final part of my Lordship Lane triptych (along with The Mall Wood Green and Broadwater Farm), and has been the trickiest one to write. Because Bruce Castle is a distinctly dull building (architecturally, it's only really notable for being old), I've taken a Giano-horrifying approach and virtually ignored the architecture; instead, I've tried to write it as a chronological piece, focusing on the occupants of the house in the context of the social changes in the area. This has left it with some gaping holes; most notably that the architectural sections are weak (albeit mainly because there are no records of construction and the building isn't particularly distinguished).

Any comments, criticism, copyediting or rewriting gratefully received… – iridescent 00:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the date of the Pegram article? The isbn given doesn't seem to be valid; should it be an issn? I'll have a whole list of suggestions for you soon, starting with the lead, which is way too short. :-) Nice to see you working on an article as well, btw, and that all the admin crap hasn't (yet) sucked the life out of you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That was causing me problems (and was why I used {{cite book}}, which works without it) – it's undated on the copyright page. The ISBN number on the back is certainly labelled ISBN, not ISSN – and it's a standalone publication (albeit a short one) so ISBN is presumably correct. I even tried Googling it and although I can find it on sale in a couple of places, none of them give a date either. It was number 28 in a series (Haringey History Bulletin), and 29 was published in 1988, so I assume either 1987-88. (Cynical, but if a date's required I'd just pick 1988 – it's not going to be wildly inaccurate). – iridescent 01:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at their past publications, they seem to be published annually – Number 26 was published in 1985 – so the date of this one will be 1987. – iridescent 01:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The date's not required for the template, but it will be required when you put this article forward at FAC. ;-) We'll go with 1987. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

With the utmost respect to some of those involved, I think the fact I've never once submitted anything to FAC shows my opinion of a process which seems to have been designed for those who find RFA too sedate and polite. Besides, I think by the time they finished with this one there'd be about one line left of it. I note that my second-least favourite piece of Wikispeak has already appeared in the edit history. – iridescent 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I found RfA a great conditioner for FAC. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Hello there! Hope all is well! Your name flashed up on my watchlist just now, and haven't seen you around for the last couple of weeks (mind you, I've been a little tied up in real life).

Just wondered if you'd be willing to do a GA review of the UK article? I know its got GA status, but in honesty it shouldn't, and we both know that. An impartial review might help show others what I mean by "we need to start citing our sources"! No probs if this isn't your thing (although it would be nice!) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again. This very much is my thing, as part of the GA Sweeps Project. The UK is one of the geography articles on my list, and I've been concerned about it since I took a closer look at it a couple of days ago. I'm just about to open a GA reassessment, the result of which will be that the article will be delisted, because there's no way the work needed can be done within the hold period. It's far from being GA quality as it stands, as you say, and perhaps it'll be a bit of reality check to see it lose its GA status. I'll also be able to help out a little bit then in getting the article up to scratch. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff! I'm just on Amazon.co.uk seeing if I can find some cheap Introduction/Short guide to Britain type books which will help. Good to bump into you again! :D --Jza84 |  Talk  20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention it in the review, but I was struck by how few published sources are being used. Web sites are fine, but they tend to go dead after a while, and 10 dead links just isn't acceptable for a GA so sparsely cited anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Malleus, I'm confused about your last edit on my talk page. I think I may have offended you - I in no way intended my remark to offend, I was trying to be funny which I am afraid has produced the opposite effect. Please know that I value your opinions and I appreciate your help whenever it has been offered. Please do not ever think that I don't want to know your opinions because I always do. Peace. NancyHeise ^talk 02:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I always want to know your opinions so don't hold back

		The Special Barnstar
		To Malleus, for always giving me good advice and important help on a difficult project. NancyHeise talk 03:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

What was the link to your Devil's Dictionary page? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been moved to the mainspace, at WP:WikiSpeak. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Great! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I need you

A chocolate sweet.

Malleus, I can not imagine going through another FAC if you are not going to be there to distribute your wisdom throughout the process. If I could send you real chocolates I would but this will have to do. Please come back. NancyHeise ^talk 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie. No worries, I'm not upset. I am glad to see that the templates have survived in the RCC article though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to your wisdom and Gimmetrows - see why I need you now? I'm a lost puppy without the advice of some key people and you are one of those. Thanks for your help. NancyHeise ^talk 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Last day

It's my last day of editing Malleus, of any substantial quantity (I never had the quality, so I'll have to rest my laurels on the quantity). I've had fun here, and in large part because of you and your excising wit and intelligence. I mean that. You are one of the best editors on this site, and you suffer fools poorly, also a grand quality. Leave on your own terms Mall, don't let some fool of an admin dictate your exit. Be well. If I'm ever on your side of the pond, I'm buying you a beer or seven....Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wha ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to see you leaving Keeper, particularly as I probably wouldn;t be around now without your support and gentle guidance. I hope you manage to lurk occasionally, and even perhaps contribute a little bit from time to time. I'll miss you. I know you don't believe in luck, but I'll say it again nevertheless. Be lucky!. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to be lucky. In fact, I'll buy a lottery ticket tonight. Drawing is tomorrow. If I win millions, I'll know it was because of your incessant "luck wishes". If you randomly and anonymously get a check in the mail for several hundreds of thousands of dollars/pounds, you'll know that I hit it big :-) (and with my millions, I'm sure I'll be able to hunt you down. Shit, was that a threat??. Retract, retract!!!!) Keeper ǀ 76 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've felt for some time now that I'm living on borrowed time. So if we ever meet, on whichever side of the pond, I doubt either of us will still be wikipedians. I'll still stand you a beer or two though, any day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't go! I need you from time to time as an opinion (now that's selfish of me). Even if you reduce your controversial (?) stuff, stay around as an adviser for me (and I guess many more). Cheers. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that I intend to leave, rather that I'll be surprised if I'm allowed to stay. I'm bound to call someone an idiot or worse, get arsey with some kiddie admin who tries to give me a civility warning, and that'll be it anyway. Much as I might try, Keeper is quite right, I have very little patience with fools, and see no reason to pretend otherwise. My two failed RfAs still weigh on my shoulders, and they've undoubtedly jaundiced my view of the whole enterprise. So Keeper's advice is good. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've discovered (some time ago) that you don't tolerate fools gladly (why should you? - I don't). But you can always keep your feelings to yourself - you have discovered that responding to them on their level does not produce joy. Why sink to their level? Why not take a deep breath, count to 20++, and get on with the good things in life? Someone once invited me to become an admin, but my skin is too thin; I did not even enjoy the aggro when I tried to get an article to FA (and that was relatively mild), so why should I fight? It's so important to get good, reliable info out there for those millions of people who consult Wikipedia (and to replace the mass of rubbish on it) that I've taken a stand-back approach. Let's write good articles (not necessarily GAs) so that we can give an invaluable source of information to those who seriously seek it. Let the idiots who use Wikipedia as a sort of ego-boosting thing be sidelined while we reasonable people get on with the business. Google searches usually bring a Wikipedia article at or near the top of the first page. We have almost a duty to ensure that the articles are good/reliable/well-referenced, etc. Let's do that rather than descend to the level of the idiots who get in the way of the process. To h*ll with ego-trips! Cheers and best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good reminder of why I signed up in the first place, probably for the same reason as you. I was shocked at the quality of some articles, in particular on my local area, and I naively thought that improving them, and so making the area's history more easily available, might lead to people having a little more respect for where they live. I've pretty much done all that I set out to do with those articles now though. Not sure what, if anything, I want to do next. I'm probably just having the wikipedia equivalent of a mid-life crisis. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Kennet and Avon Canal

Hi, When you get a minute could you take another look at Kennet and Avon Canal as I believe your GAR comments have been addressed - if theres anything else just let us know.— Rod ^talk 13:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Didsbury

What do you make of this? Caulde 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You first, what do you make of it? :lol: To be serious though, it seems fine to me. As it happens, I've just borrowed a copy of Million's A History of Didsbury, with a view to tightening the article up. The same phrase about the most important event in Didsbury's history appears there. Makes me a little suspicious. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oui, Inspector "the famous Malleus" Poirot. Caulde 20:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's that time again...

I think I've got one close to whipped into shape, so if you could take a gander at Robert of Jumièges and tell me what I've overlooked/messed up/etc I'd greatly appreciate it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ealdgyth, I know nothing of literature or history, and have been told several times that no one with a degree in science has any right to be looking at historical subjects. No, I'm not thinking of what you probably think I'm thinking of (!!!), but about the Albigensian Crusade, a review that resulted in a series of rather nasty emails. I'm just joshing, of course I'll be happy to take a look, and b****r the consequences. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, never ever touch Cathar stuff. There are a bunch of ... err... loonies isn't the best word to use but I'll use it anyway, that seem to think it's all tied into that DaVinci Code stuff, etc. Cathar stuff is... not fun. There's a reason I stick to the nice safe English medieval church before the Lollards. There aren't really any heresies until then, and if you avoid them... you only have to deal with the usual academic politics and nasty attacks from your fellow scholars! I'll go peek at what buzz saw got you... you should know I truly treasure your input on my articles, it's always good to have someone NOT in the field check them over, otherwise I leave lots and lots of context out. Robert's not that bad, he's just obscure and he got caught up in Norman propoganda after the Conquest. There's a whole small sub-discipline related to Billy the Bastard's claim to the throne, and Robert's tied into that, but it's not something likely to bring out loonies after you! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. OR indeed, if they are trying to use mainly the primary sources! Ugh! You did good though. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the DaVinci Code. I've always found the Cathar heresy to be rather interesting, but as you say, I've stayed away since then. What clinched it for me was the comment that unless I had access to the original sources, then I should butt out. Loonies doesn't even get close IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, you can't even BEGIN to touch a medievalist on the subject of DVC. One time, when I was in an undergrad class, a student suggested that Holy Blood, Holy Grail was a good source for a paper. It almost turned into a bloodbath, at least in terms of words, from my professor. And I'll admit I have read HBHG, mainly for entertainment.. (Probably like a scientist reading ID stuff... with that befuddled look of "how in the world can they DO this and expect serious people to believe them?" ... but that's another subject!) I, btw, do have most of the "original sources" for what I'm writing about on WP, but I wouldn't dream of using them in my articles, except for "color quotes". That goes for the horse articles too (It really sucks when you can't use your own works as sources, let me tell you!) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I've tried to stay away from articles on subjects I have professional or academic knowledge of, with only a very few exceptions. I've been dying to get really stuck into this article for instance, but I know that I'd only get carried away, and probably make the whole thing incomprehensibly geeky. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't be any worse than my bishops... I know the GA versions of them can be a bit .. obtuse. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image opinion

Malleus, would you have time to give me an opinion on an image? If so, it's the chart of issues at the end of Amazing Stories. A recent GA review pointed out that it's almost unreadable; it's actually readable if you click all the way through to the expanded image inside the image page, but it's certainly unreadable as a thumbnail and very nearly so on the image page.

I could address this in several ways, but I'm not sure what the right approach is. I am leaning to splitting it into two or even three images, each covering perhaps twenty or twenty five years, but otherwise essentially the same information. I could also eliminate the volume numbers and increase the font size of the headings, while reducing the size of the cells, thus increasing readability. I hate to do that, though, as the volume information is real info about the magazine that would be horribly tedious to present in any non-tabular way. What do you think? And if you've no time to look, no problem. Mike Christie (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not the answer you wanted to hear, but I agree that the image is almost unreadable. You could maybe increase the size of the thumbnail, so long as it's at least the maximum size that can be set in user preferences (300px?). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the 300px version in preview, and it's still unreadable; I guess I was relying on the idea that the thumbnail itself isn't necessarily expected to be readable (is it?). I'll keep thinking about it. Thanks for taking a look -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, the thumbnail has to be readable. But I could be quite wrong, that's only my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

I will consider supporting if a thorough copy-edit is done; please either do it yourself, or, if you are too familiar with the wording to see it (as does happen), get someone else to do it. Lest I be too negative, I am also asking for other opinions on my five samples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You must make your decision to either support or oppose based on what the article looks like now. I have absolutely no intention of carrying out yet another copyedit, or of asking anyone else to waste their time by doing one either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot support it as it stands; but I have asked a third opinion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm just sick to death of the whole FAC now, and your offensive charge of plagiarism just about takes the biscuit. Do whatever you like, I'm past caring. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I unwatched. I never wanted my name on it anyway because I knew what would happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've unwatched it too. The current round of nonsense is just making me angry, better off out of it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for many hours across many months that you wont get back and without it this could never have happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Science vs Literature

In response to comments that seem to suggest that field of Literature is something or the other, my response to you is thus:

$Kad@nfd;la#fhdo,ieur*^&e;14p%1430$%$#fk439^534-51k5/el*fmd%^fdkj$lfd*jf!!!!!!!!!

That is all. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, all I have to say to you is %*)()&($)*)&£!***_*_*)£!)_. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Are these addressed? Ottava's response doesn't indicate if the text was fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They are now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus. I apologize for not being able to keep up, but I again woke up to Johnson, and still have to get through my watchlist before I can get to FAC and FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This has got to be stopped. If Raul won't make a decision, then shall we just withdraw the nomination? It's distressing to see a perfectly good article getting pulled this way and that, and in the end likely satisifying nobody. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to answer; I gave my views a month ago. But my name never should have gone on the nomination. If I had removed my name as co-nom after it went up, it would have appeared that I don't support the article. Now if we remove the FAC, it will appear that I have no faith in the FAC process. I am in a terrible position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. So we just have to wait for Raul then? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; it's time to sit on my fingers. I imagine it's not a very comfortable position for Raul, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sure it's not; he doesn't want to be seen to favouring you in any way. I'm going to ask Ottava to withdraw this FAC nomination, and start another. You're one of three nominators; if two of them request withdrawal then you're outvoted, and your faith in the FAC process remains untarnished. As for the faith that Ottava and I might have in the process, well, that's a different story. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm sorry to see that it got derailed by politics. If ya'll take it back to FAC another time, I strongly suggest not putting Sandy's name on it, although I totally understand why you wanted it on there. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame, but you and Sandy are obviously right. I've asked Ottava if he's prepared to withdraw the nomination, and I hope he agrees; then we can move forwards. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that dejected edit summary; misery loves company :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little dejected about Sam, but I'm not miserable. I just wish the FAC would end. It's almost impossible to make an article read nicely when it's in such flux. I have begun to wonder though whether there are some topics that can never become FAs, because everyone thinks the bikeshed ought to be purple/red/blue/green ... Sorry, I ought to have take the time to look for the relevant link, but I really can't be bothered. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't take away my credit! Remember, this Samuel Johnson thing is all my fault according to SandyGeorgia. [2] —Mattisse (Talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's an entirely accurate representation of the facts. But what has become clear is that SandyG can't appear as a nominator or supporter of any FAC, because she is perceived to be the sole arbiter of the process. I have grave doubts whether Sam Johnson can now ever be an FA. Pity. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

PS, I wont be satisfied with the UK page unless it mentions that it includes the sacred kingdoms of Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumberland, in addition to Albany, Wales, Eire, Mann, and Cornwall. None of this "Scotland" crap, either. That is that. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I was going to make a similar point on the talk page myself, but thought better of it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I can tell its time for a cookie break!

- in real life, I am a very good cook, including cookies. Sorry I can't send real ones. I answered your message on my talk page. :) NancyHeise ^talk 03:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks once again. I'm probably one the world's worst cooks, but my egg mayonnaise is to die for. Sadly though it's about the only thing I can do. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I have never had homemade mayo - I am prone to apply a bit too much to sandwiches though. NancyHeise ^talk 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Strawberry Panic!

Hi! I'm doing a GAR on Strawberry Panic! and all of the issues have been fixed by the primary editor except it really needs a copy edit. The phrasing seems very awkward and overly long to me and doesn't seem to flow well at all. Might you have time to give it a going over so I can finish up the GAR? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see what you mean. I've had a bit of a hack at that article now; hopefully I haven't changed the sense of what was being said. It still wouldn't pass muster at FAC, but I think it's good enough for GA now. Normally I'd avoid that kind of article, but once I got into it I started to quite enjoy it. Even learned something about fan service (which I'd never heard of before) from it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! (and LOL on the fan service). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For Sam

		Trial by Fire Award
		To Malleus Fatuorum, For your support throughout our little piece of Wikipurgatory and for your excellence in copyediting to bring Samuel Johnson to featured status, I pass along to you this most deserved barnstar. It's my favorite: you did come through this trial by fire "still shining", like the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. There were a few times it was touch and go, particularly towards the end, but with your help, contributions and encouragement, wikipedia's two bad boys managed to stay (more or less) good boys. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

LMAO, speak for yourself. I remember almost being banned during the editing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have far behind you if you had been banned, believe me. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that "bad boys" and "good boys" sound a whole lot different than "bad girls" and "good girls". I do hope there are lessons learned here; putting my name on a nom, combined with the previous attempts to get Ottava banned from FAC and my defense of him, put FAC in a bad spot. Who would want to be in Raul's shoes on that one? And Ottava, you know I only contributed to two or three paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, would you really have wanted to have my version of the Tourette sections, including rewrite, lead entry, and biographical points be the version in the article? And would you have wanted to see how I would have dealt with people's questioning of it? If you wouldn't have been there it would have been like giving a child access to a nuclear weapons stockpile and told him to "have fun". By the way, "bad boy" and "good boy" are two sound words that are compressed as one sound each, whereas "girl" is a three sound word that is hard to compress, hence the strange sound. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bad boys" has a bit of a buccaneering sound to it, whereas "bad girls" does sound a bit sleazy, I agree. But to be serious for a moment, I think you're right. It's a sadness that it now seems to have become impossible for you to be involved in an FAC. You've given up a lot in your efforts to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, a shame that you had to give up so much. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some fascinating literature to bring History of Tourette syndrome to featured status. Colin and I intended to do it a year ago; Eubulides and Tim Vickers could help, and considering some of the really interesting stuff in Kushner's book, it could be fun. But having my name on it would be fatal. And on a personal level, I was stunned at the ignorance that still exists about TS, and how much impact that had on the FAC. I told you all my buttons would be pushed if I had to deal with ignorance about TS: I didn't expect it on the level we encountered. On the plus side, there wasn't a single editor on Wiki who spoke TS when I first came to Wiki; at least know there are about half a dozen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think maybe the answer is to have more than one delegate authorised to close FACs? It's quite a responsibility for one person anyway. Then you could let your hair down from time to time, and rip into a few articles without worrying about who could close the nominations. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do have more than one closer (and DrK's post to WT:FAC about Raul closing Parallel computing is incorrect); this FAC was just particularly troublesome for a variety reasons best left undiscussed. No, I have other ideas. All in due time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(←) Congratulations! I was too late to join in the FAC, but it looks like an excellent article, and I think Sandy also deserves the trial-by-fire award for dedication beyond the call of duty to ensure the article is so beautifully referenced :-) Geometry guy 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

bwaaaahaaahaaa  :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I still hate them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I even noticed who closed the Parallel computing FAC, even though I didn't then and still don't believe that it ought to have been promoted – not saying that's my opinion of the article as it currently stands. Even though I know that I'm always right, I have come to a grudging acceptance that not everyone always agrees with me. To Geometry guy: SandyG most certainly does deserve to be given her own barnstar back again, not least for biting her tongue over the{{Harvnb}} template. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I still hate Harvard. ;/ But yeah, Sandy is her own barnstar. I would have listed her on the health DYK and the rest if I wasn't so sure that she would feel the same way as an admin nom. I think her award should be us forcing her onto ArbCom. Mwah ha ha ha. I think I can get at least 200 people to vote for her. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ascertainment bias: clearly some of my fans need to be introduced to some of my enemies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of High Culture and Endurance.
		For bringing Samuel Johnson to FA: a Huge Achievement Malleus, its articles like this that make me proud to be part of the project. Well done. Ceoil sláinte 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that Endurance, or just a shipwreck ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Its indended as a little bit of both. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks vey much Ceoil, I never for one moment thought I'd be getting a culture-related barnstar, much less one for high culture. My mother would be proud. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

England would be proud too (screw what Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland thinks). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would hope Malleus' mother is wiser than you Rima, given the above post. Ceoil ^sláinte

I got into an argument with someone a few months ago over calling a historic figure "English" or "British", and I basically said "he would spit if someone dared call him British". :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you ever call me 'british' I'll do more than spit ;). Ceoil ^sláinte 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Hi there Eric Corbett/Archives/2008!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Kind of you to invite me, and good luck, but it's not for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Malleus Fatuorum, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland GAR

Today I saw your notification that the article had been demoted. It is rather surprising that no notification that this GAR was even taking place. I would have expected to see such a notification placed at one of these pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board or even at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment. Had such a notification been made, perhaps someone would have addressed the issues mentioned. You placed a GAR notice on the article talk page for 15 minutes which gives no one time to do anything significant to the article. That seem like a very short time to allow editors, who watch the page, to even question your possible reasoning for the GAR, much less discuss or make, any improvements. Surely a time of at least 7-days would be appropriate instead of 15 minutes. ww2censor (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The GAR notice was simply on the article temporarily to generate to review page; that it was there for 15 minutes is irrelevant. Some of the requests for citation had been there for six months. Why had they not been dealt with? I do not believe that the article meets the good article criteria and that the issues needing attention – as listed in the review – are substantial, particularly the lack of referencing. If you do not agree with my assessment then you are free to question my decision at WP:GAR. I would suggest the more productive approach though would be to address the issues raised and resubmit the article at WP:GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dilemma

I am having a real problem with a GAN, Ain't We Got Fun? and want to get some perspective before I take my stance. I am surprised by the bias of the article and the distortion of a commonly accepted reality about the song. You can tell me that I am seeing the article's defects all out of proportion! My main objections to accepting this article as a GA are as follows:

• Article has too many quotations. All the real information is in quotes. The editors have put almost no information in their own words.

• I know the sources, and the editors have taken every scrap of info on this song in books (which I have) and online. There is not a whole lot written about it as it really is not much of a song. The whole article is trying to make something over a song about which they have found not a whole lot to say. They could explain its context in vaudeville, the orchestration, information about its circulation and popularity, cover versions—information that articles about songs usually have. It seems like they had a bunch of online sources and one relatively recent book on music and politics.

• From the lead: "and it appears in some of the major literature of the decade, including The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald and in Dorothy Parker's award-winning short story of 1929, "Big Blonde"." - The Great Gatsby is a far more important and enduring work than Dorothy Parker's award-winning short story of 1929, "Big Blonde". - this is an inaccurate and distorting emphasis on Parker for no reason, for anyone who is not aware of their relative stature in literature. Just an example of the distortions plaguing this article. Never mind the bad grammar.

• Considering that almost nothing is written about the song, according to the content of their references, there an absurd number of reference citations. If you look at the online ones, the same paltry information (almost nothing) is repeated over and over in the various citations. For example, these three short sentences (containing two quotes) have a total of five references.

"Ain't We Got Fun" follows the structure of a foxtrot. The melody uses mainly quarter notes, and has an unsyncopated refrain made up largely of variations on a repeated four-note phrase. The Tin Pan Alley Song Encyclopedia describes it as a "Roaring Twenties favourite" and praises its vibrancy, "zesty music", and comic lyrics.

• The article takes quotes out of context.

Critical appraisals vary regarding what view of poverty the song's lyrics take. Nicholas E. Tawa summarizes the refrain Ain't we got fun as a satirical and jaunty rejoinder toward hard times. Diane Holloway and Bob Cheney, authors of American History in Song: Lyrics from 1900 to 1945, concur, and describe the black humor in the couple's relief that their poverty shields them from worrying about damage to their nonexistent Pierce Arrow luxury automobile.

The actual quote says "One chorus shows the tongue in cheek black humor with which many confronted hard times".

• In spite of this, there are two relatively long quotes referring to George Orwell, rather an outlier when it comes to musical commentary. If you read the first quote, which is on line, it emphasizes his words out of proportion to his mention of the song, which he does not say carries the weight of his political beliefs.

Yet George Orwell highlights the lyrics of "Ain't We Got Fun" as an example of working class unrest:

All through the war and for a little time afterwards there had been high wages and abundant employment; things were now returning to something worse than normal, and naturally the working class resisted. The men who had fought had been lured into the army by gaudy promises, and they were coming home to a world where there were no jobs and not even any houses. Moreover, they had been at war and were coming home with a soldier's attitude to life, which is fundamentally, in spite of discipline, a lawless attitude. There was a turbulent feeling in the air.

— George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

• Then there is another relatively long, hypothetical statement about Orwell's beliefs about the song from a more recent book that seems to be pushing a particular political view, despite the fact that the quote is more about politics and not about music as music. And the reference to "endless cups of tea" sounds like it refers more to Tea For Two.

After quoting a few of the song's lines Orwell refers to the era as a time when people had not yet settled down to a lifetime of unemployment mitigated by endless cups of tea, a turn of phrase which the later writer Larry Portis contests.

He [Orwell] could just as easily have concluded that the song revealed a certain fatalism, a resignation and even capitulation to forces beyond the control of working people. Indeed, it might be only a small step from saying, "Ain't we got fun" in the midst of hardship to the idea that the poor are happier than the rich--because, as the Beatles intoned, "Money can't buy me love." It is possible that "Aint We Got Fun", a product of the music industry (as opposed to 'working-class culture') was part of a complex resolution of crisis in capitalist society. Far from revealing the indomitable spirit of working people, it figured into the means with which they were controlled. It is a problem of interpretation laying at the heart of popular music, one which emerged with particular clarity at the time of the English Industrial Revolution.

— Larry Portis, Soul Trains

• The English Industrial Revolution!! (I was under the impression that occurred well before the 1920s.) Of course, without the quotes of and by Orwell, the article would be half its size. What surprises me is that this article is by two well known editors who regularly present articles for GA review. You can tell me to go jump in the lake. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes

• Replied here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate Hills

Well, I was too optimistic. After reading the article I think it clearly fails several GA criteria and especially 1(a). Fixing all problems will require a lot of efforts and seems unlikely to happen any time soon. Ruslik (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree; it needs work that doesn't look like it's going to be forthcoming. I would have delisted it myself, but following Lenticel's outburst I thought it better to ask someone else to take an unbiased look, so thanks again for giving your opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think it would've helped a lot of you added in your reassessment message in the article's talk page that you fixed as many problems as you can instead of just listing the problems that you weren't able to fix. It would've clearly shown that you are not simply doing it out of whim. User:Lenticel is quite active in various XfD discussions and I think the behavior there of some people has made him too sensitive to whimsical nominations for deletions. I know you are not obliged to do what I said, but it's all a part of demonstrating good faith, which is part of assuming good faith. --seav (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you're saying that Malleus should have explicitly stated that he fixed a bunch? (I THINK you meant to say "..it would've helped a lot IF you added...") Personally, I would have assumed that the pile of edits showing up on a watchlisted page would have shown that, and I'm pretty sure that's what Malleus assumed also. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out to Lenticel when he first made his charge of harassment that I had made so many changes to the article before I posted the review that I had become the second highest contributor to it. He chose to ignore that, and moved on to charging me with laziness for not spending another hour to fix those things I was unable to fix (and which he himself has not yet fixed), and then most recently today accusing me of goading him. Whatever his problems are I want no further part of them, or of him. I find his behaviour disgraceful for an administrator, but sadly not surprising. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Your suggestion may have had merit if my review had complained about punctuation in image captions, use of dashes, minor spelling or grammar mistakes and so on, things that can easily be changed. It did not, however, instead focusing on incomprehensible text, image layout and missing citations. In other words things not easily fixed by someone unfamiliar with the article's subject or development, but which will result in its GA status being removed if they are not fixed. To equate a GA delisting with an XfD discussion is disingenuous. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Itanium

Hi, Malleus. Pleae re-check for linkrot on Itanium. I tried to fix them all, but I amy have missed one or two. Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, linkrot fixed. Thanks very much for dealing with that so quickly. I'll close the review now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good wishes

Malleus, I was sorry to see the recent changes to your user page. You're immensely valuable to this project, as I hope you realize; the irritations of the occasional bad interaction can certainly get frustrating, but I hope that after some time you'll be able to return to enjoying volunteering here. In any event, best wishes. Mike Christie (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the Lenticel incident was the last straw in terms of my volunteering for anything beyond what I actually want to do myself. Whether I'll come to feel differently in the future about the negative impact caused by the large numbers of abusive child administrators who are allowed to run amok on this site remains an open question for now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck

I wish you the best of luck in whatever you do, and hope that you ocassionally visit WP:GM. I respect you too much to believe you'll be swayed by my words alone, but had you given any other reason other than real life commitments, I would have tried to convince you to stay. I rate your opinions above those of anyone else around here. I've relished the times we've worked together and think that you are one of the premier contributors to this project. I hope that time allows you to return and that when you do, you will drop by WP:GM. We'll keep a seat open for you ;-) Bon chance Nev1 (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Nev1 (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not disappearing completely, just scaling back and refocusing. I'll still be popping in and out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

History of artificial intelligence

Thanks for catching the NPOV issue and the "was was" thing that I missed. Wronkiew (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What?

What's up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My enthusiasm has ebbed away in the face of one too many abusive administrators. Just a straw really. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see now; Mike Christie gave me some links. I wish I had some encouraging words for you, but I have the same concerns. I don't like to implore people to come back when doing so invalidates real and rational concerns. But I do hope you'll find a way back. Sometimes just walking away for a week or two will do it; knowing that there are good editors doing good work has brought me back several times. You will come back if the joy returns, I hope. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right, hopefully you are, but in the short term at least disengaging, as Pedro quite nicely puts it, seems the sensible option. Until the joy returns. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

*Snuggles* <-- From an abusive admin!? :p But ya, uhm... :( You're supposed to come to my talk page and talk smack... wtf?! لennavecia 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I insist on my right to be a more abusive admin than others! Seriously, no suprise, sadly. I'm glad to see you're not throwing you hand in totally, and one hopes that your "dipping in" will be at least moderately regular. Wikipedia is the poorer for your disengagement. Pedro :  Chat  20:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't be chased away; when I leave it will be on my own terms and in my own way, as Keeper76 quite presciently said on his own recent indefinite retirement. For the moment though wikipedia's too often poisonous atmosphere has become unacceptably offensive. I was rather shocked as well at Ceoil's recent block and its repercussions. I know exactly what it feels like to have some daft administrator blot your copybook with a daft block. Ceoil is a massive loss to the project. But the administrators who precipitate these events go Scott free, stripping the project of its ablest editors. Perhaps one day administrators will actually begin to accept that they are janitors, not an armed security force, and will begin to behave with appropriate decorum. Otherwise one day there will be no more editors for them to police. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil's situation was utterly appalling (and that's why I missed your news, by the way, I was busy with that), but the loss of Yannismarou (talk · contribs) for similar reasons is as bad. This is three significant content contributors affected in one week. Are there no adults in the house? Oh, some of the people who caused the ANI feeding frenzy are adults, so we really can't blame this only on the kiddie admin phenom. At this rate, the janitors are going to be left cleaning up crappy articles after vandals, as the FA writers will all be chased out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I know! Holy cow, that admin blocked him for three minutes before apologizing profusely. I mean, the other guy (JayHenry) even stated multiple times that it was truly a situation that could be easily misinterpreted, but jeez, what a dipshit admin, right? I mean, that guy must go around looking to stir up trouble and run good editors off wiki by making honest mistakes. I think we should desysop him immediately. Should you start the RfC, or should I? Tan | 39 22:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary. You do understand now that you shouldn't have put "prick" in his block log, I hope. End of story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ya know, the best thing about being an admin isn't the "power" (ha, power) or even the use of the tools. It's not being some part of higher tier - that's a fallacy for sure. It's not having to act like a goddamn fairy anymore ;-) Tan | 39 22:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)"[3] What clearer evidence could there be for the corruption that RfA has become? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yannismarou as well as Ceoil? That's little short of tragic. I didn't see the Yannismarou thing unfold, but Tan39's comment above I think reflects a worrying disjunction between the world of the career administrator and content contributors. Ceoil was quite rightly concerned about the effect of the block on his reputation. The fact that the blocking administrator was not sensitive to that speaks volumes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we be real? Tan appears to have been joking in his comment, and Ceoil does not appear to be worried about his sterling reputation considering the way he often talks to others, myself included. I couldn't give two shits if he's calling his buddy a prick or a twat or telling him to fuck off, but don't claim a tarnished rep from a block over it. Particularly one that was speedily overturned. Be real. The problem is the inability to easily remove bad blocks from a log. That's something the devs need to be pestered about, but again, an overturned block does not a tarnished rep make. لennavecia 12:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I will never fail to be amazed at how understanding administrators are of each other's behaviour while at the same time being so quick to condemn the behaviour of mere mortals. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying Tan didn't eff up, I'm just saying that the whole "I'm retiring because my rep is tarnished" is overused and ridiculous. Particularly when the one claiming the sterling rep has a tendency to give the impression he's not worried about it with the way he communicates with others. I'm not a defender of the admin corps. Most of them piss me off, I'm just saying... retiring in protest is worn out. And claiming your rep is damaged over something like this is ridiculous. Retiring in protest does more to tarnish one's rep than having a bad block on your log. لennavecia 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't only Tan that effed up.[4] Too many administrators seem too ready to shoot first, ask questions later, and then walk away Scott free leaving tarnished block logs behind them. Still, that's just the way it is around here, no point in complaining. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(<--) You're right, Mal. And I agree with you. But the logs could be improved if Devs would give us the ability to delete our own entries on someone's block log. And of course, we need a way to bring admins down from their pedestal, but that still doesn't negate the fact that it's a silly reason to retire. I mean, we all contribute here knowing we're surrounded by nut jobs, dumbasses and children. You can't be surprised when stupid shit happens to you, and if you edit thinking "It'll never be me," you deserve to be the next. Taking a break is, of course, totally understandable. I'm just saying, retiring in protest over the dilution of some imaginary newly-tarnished reputation from a bad block is ridiculous. لennavecia 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

MoS UK

A recent post to the United Kingdom talk page implied that the access date style for references/citations has changed from this. If the preferred style has changed, would you mind providing a link to the suggested style change please? All the reference access dates on the pages I've created are in year-month-day format and I'd rather not amend them all if there's no real need. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of ISO 8601 dates is discouraged, except in special cases. Here's the relevant guideline.[5] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not "the originator". Please do not put words in my mouth. I do find it difficult to deal with idiots, so it would probably be best if you avoided my talk page in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was mistaken, or if I offended you somehow, but was there really any need for that? I found its vindictiveness to be quite shocking. Daicaregos (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a bit testy, I'm sorry for that. Just for the sake of clarity though, any changes in date formatting in citations or anywhere else are absolutely nothing to do with me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, my mistake. All forgotten & no harm done. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bridgwater and Taunton Canal

Having read your note at the top & some of the discussions above I'm loath to ask (again) but I value your copy edit skills highly & had just popped in to ask you if you had a minute to look at Bridgwater and Taunton Canal unless you were going to be the GA reviewer (as its getting near to nomination) - but having seen your comments its probably too much to ask?— Rod ^talk 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly won't be the GA reviewer, for obvious reasons, but if the GA review stalls for lack of a copyedit let me know and I'll see what I can do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral plan

I hadn't checked your talk talk page, and so hadn't received your message in response to mine with regards to the plan of Chester Cathedral. I see considerable advantage is bringing the numbering into line with the usual standard.

Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the image is there for you or anyone else to do with it as they will. Nothing to do with me. Not interested. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a very large image. I thought you might have one of higher resolution. You offered to send it on. Amandajm (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll check my original and let you know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I'm sorry please explain the message on my talk page. Million_Moments (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're talking to User:Gimmetrow. Who has done it again by the way...Million_Moments (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kindly fix the damage on the talk page. If I interact with either Million or Peanut right now, there is a fair chance a few people will get blocked. You could, for instance, set up a GAR. Gimmetrow 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding. I have no opinion on the review, or any interest in a GAR. I am simply of the view that you do not have the right to revise history to suit yourself, no matter how upset you may feel right now. You may be interested in this.[6] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell. Please start a GAR and remove that nonsense. Gimmetrow 21:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't appear to be thinking rationally. I said just above this that I have no interest in a GAR. If you or anyone else wants to start a GAR, then feel free to do so. My concern is simply with your attempts to rewrite the article's history. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song GAR

This is just a note to say that I have set up a GAR for Brenda Song here. This would seem the right way to air any differences that there may be concerning that article's recent GA review. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's probably the right thing to do. I don't have any opinion on the GA review though. My only concern was the repeated deletion of the article's history, which thankfully now seems to have stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

This article was just promoted to GA minutes ago. The article has serious content problems. The subject is pseudoscientific in nature. However, the editor has interwoven into the article legitimate medical diagnoses and evidence with this pseudoscientific, discredited therapy that borders on a cult. I have posted to the editor who just passed the article as I was posting my objections in the GA review and I got an edit conflict. So I posted my objections on the talk page as well. (This article has been in GA review since the being of September.) And he has agreed to discuss my objections with the editor. However, if the article does not sufficient disentangle the legitimate from the pseudocience in the article, I am wondering if I could post it to GAR? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're not satisfied as a result of your discussions with the reviewer and/or the editor then you should certainly take it to GAR. I've had a look through the article, and to me it fails 3b of the GA criteria in that it doesn't stay focused on this specific therapy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2008

(UTC)

Thanks, once again! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading the directions for a GAR, it looks like I should initiate and individual assessment first. Only then, it appears to say, should a community GAR be initiated. Is this what I should do? You delisted a GA article I passed a day or two after I passed it. Can I do the same? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

These are difficult days; the days of men may be numbered. I have delisted a great many articles, although I don't recall the one you're referring to. Anyway, I'm certain I was right to delist it whatever it was. :-) To be serious though, in this case you ought to open a community GAR, not an individual one. The instructions are misleading and often misread. A community GAR is the way to go here unless you want another tongue lashing from the great unwashed. But who knows, perhaps you like being told what a twat you are by a bunch of teenagers, so take my advice with a large pinch of salt :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question says he has to work and will not be able to address my concerns until the weekend. Just to get a glimpse of the level of obsession this editor has over this article, look: [7] I don't care about the tongue lashing as I rather feel like alienating people at the present. I would be uncomfortable in Wiki Niceland at present. Would it be O.K. to list it at GAR so quickly after it's promotion? One of my reasons is, given the level of obsession of this editor over the article, I do not think he can do it alone. I think the problem has been that this is a sole effort, and the editor has lost perspective. The other is that it is listed as a GA with such garbled information. I think it would be a massive job for one person, with no perspective, to fix. I was posting my objections just as the article was passing and got an edit conflict. So by the time I posted, the article had just been passed. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If the article's not a GA then it's not a GA. GAR drags on interminably anyway. Like you, I don't think that the article can be fixed by that one editor. I actually have a degree in psychology believe it or not, and I kept looking at the article, but thought better of getting involved. I'd suggest a community GAR now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...I am tempted. I don't know if you took a look at the notes I left on the talk page describing my objections. How detailed should the GAR be?

O.K. I'm going to do it. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your turn

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1 —Mattisse (Talk) 04:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

I've finally had time to complete my review (as in compare the article against the criteria :-) ) of Ireland. I supported your delist from the beginning, but my review has confirmed to me just how much work is needed to fix it. The quality of the sources is poor, which is reflected in the issues you noted and is something that is never easy to fix. (Hey, it involves going to the library, which Wikipedians are not so good at IMO!)

I'm sorry that meanwhile we have been arguing at cross purposes. I'm impressed that you've been able to escalate an argument with me, and also by your debating skills. I'm not really sure why you employed these skills to misdirect, misunderstand, and misrepresent comments by an editor who is sympathetic to your position and largely in agreement with you, but whatever. I can understand that you might find the discussion at WT:GA as comment on your delist, but I do not. That comment is taking place at WP:Good article reassessment/Ireland/1, where there is unanimous and ringing endorsement of your decision. Geometry guy 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have believed right from the start that not only was my review a fair assessment of the article but that I acted in complete accordance with the delisting process. As you say, fixing citations/sources is far from a trivial task when they are so far short of what's required nowadays, and if faced with the same situation again I would still have absolutely no hesitation in summarily delisting the article. The fact that 10 days later the article is hardly any better than it was when I delisted it is proof enough of that for me.

I have found though the recurring charges that I am an incompetent foul-mouthed loose cannon not fit to undertake GA reviews to be more than a little irritating, to put it mildly. Perhaps I inadvertently took a little of that irritation out on you, which I ought not to have done. So I'm sorry for that. I'm still unclear as to your position on "quickfails" and two day hold periods though. I truly don't understand the logic, but that's clearly not a discussion that can be had in the present poisonous atmosphere; hopefully later, when heads have cleared. I really wouldn't have a problem with changing the process to disallow quickfails at GA Sweeps, for instance, and that every article, no matter how bad, will get its seven days. What I am more than a little peeved about though is that I have been pilloried for following the process as it is currently defined. Not by you, I fully understand that, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus. I agree with your comments on this case, and understand your irritation. We may indeed have to wait until a later date to find an optimal solution, but meanwhile we have to deal with the current situation. Although it began in anger, that is beginning to fade, and some editors are trying to get something positive out of it.

It may clarify if I explain that "on hold" or "hold" is a concept that (to me) only makes sense once the reviewer has made contact with an editor who wants to fix problems. At GAN, such an editor is available from the beginning (one would hope!), but at GAR that isn't the case. The point of "allowing time for other editors to respond" is not to require an "on hold" period, but simply to see if anyone cares or is available to fix problems. I am firmly against compulsory 7 day "on hold"s for delisting, am willing to support some summary delisting at Sweeps (and in general), but would like to encourage a more frequent testing of the water. Does that clarify? If I am still not making sense to you, let's wait a while. If I am, let's try to find a compromise position at WT:GA. Geometry guy 20:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously right, in that one of the biggest problems at Sweeps is in getting any editor to take an interest in the article. Which is why I and I'm sure every other reviewer tries to drum up support by notifying at least the relevant projects when an article is put on hold. But even that can be just as fraught as a summary delist, as at [8]. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Quickfailing is a topic that needs to be explored coolly and unemotionally though, away from the distraction of one example where it has resulted in problems (which may well have materialised in a different form if the article had been put on hold anyway, as with Chocolate Hills). As for the Ireland debacle cooling down, doesn't seem like it to me. Take a look below at the Red Alert topic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am of course well aware of the Chocolate Hills mess and again have supported and support you completely in your actions. If you want my honest opinion (and maybe you don't, if so, just delete the following) I think your self-perception as a witch or victim has prolonged this whole business unnecessarily. Comparing this and this you might even agree with me. However, I don't blame you for it: you have been placed in a very unpleasant situation by multiple editors, and I wonder if I would manage so well. Geometry guy 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I always value your opinion, even if I may not always agree with it. In this particular case I'm inclined to agree with you though, which is why I've resolved to stay away from that GAR no matter what. Certain editors will burn themselves out if I'm not there to be baited. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Red Alert

Just notification. Synergy 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never taken any interest in the actions of the civility police and have no intention of starting now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude... my talk page... that's where you're supposed to limit the expletives to! لennavecia 20:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's rather a one-sided picture that's being painted, but it's foolish to expect life to be fair. I'm a witch; the only real question here is whether I should be burned or just let off with a hanging. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd favour the ducking stool, but only on a hot summers day. Or perhaps the spiked barrel rolled down a hill - as practised on the Isle of Man. Said to be rather painful, but fear not - if you survive, you get to be burned alive anyway.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Cinderella Malleus you will not go to the pyre! Seriously, the event smacks of a revenge attempt. Given that he posted a message with the edit summary of "Hypocrite" and then went running to complain when you reacted makes it almost good enough for a comic short story in its irony. You have to be cleverer than that to pull something like that off (The short story called "The CatBird Seat" by James Thurber describes one such successful incident)  DDStretch  (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My language was intemperate, no doubt about that, but my username really does describe what I'm like in RL. I really do have no time at all for fools, especially dishonest fools. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. Everyone snaps sometimes. To block or take any action more than a talk page message is dumbassery. لennavecia 00:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Shillings and stuff

Given your recent help with the £ symbol, I wondered if you could help me understand what 4.02d means? Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It means 4.02 old pence. It was quite common to use decimals for fractions of old pence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In some ways, it is a pity that the old pre-decimalisation currency was dropped: Of course it was a bind and made various things difficult, and modern decimal currency is far superior, but one advantage £sd would have had was to encourage people to get and remain proficient at multi-base arithmetic, and this is a very useful skill to have in mental arithmetic. I've certainly found it useful, though it was particularly drilled into me by me having a paper round in which I had to go round and collect the money on Saturdays on a round that was about 10 times the length of the ones they seem to have today (and you tell the young of today that, and they woon't believe it..... (mumbling Yorkshire accent)). It is one possible explanation as to why people may think younger people are not as good at mental arithmetic than older people (though this often seems more like a much-hyped popular myth, to be honest, as I don't think one can draw such firm conclusions.)  DDStretch  (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I certainly think that calculators have eroded many people's ability (confidence) to do mental arithmetic. I remember a few years ago going to pick up some filters for our cooker hood from a local kitchen warehouse. I forget the price but it was a round number, like £32 plus VAT. The sales assistant I spoke to was in panic when she couldn't find her calculator and was amazed when I told her the VAT on £32 was £5.60. I had to explain to her that 17.5 = 10 + 5 + 2.5, so all you have to do is calculate 10% of £32, half it, half it again, then add the three amounts together. Not exactly rocket science, but it's tricks like those that many seem to have forgotten, or perhaps never learned. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I can recall quite similar kinds of experiences to the one you had. I used to "amaze" younger people with various number tricks that worked automatically if you knew a little about arithmetic and various tricks, for example, to square a number which ends in a 5, all you do is separate the 5 from the rest, and do some very simple arithmetic: 35*35 = (a) 5*5=25, so those are the last two numbers. (b) we are left with a "3", the next higher integer is a "4", "3*4=12", so write 12 in front of the 25, and that is the answer: 35*35 = 1225. You can do it extremely quickly once you know the rule, certainly quicker than pressing buttons on a calculator. 95*95 simple! 95*95 = 9*10|5*5= 9025. 125*125 = 12*13|5*5= 156|25= 15625. There are many more, all discovered and used by people who had to use a lot of mental arithmetic. Another: 39*39 = 40*40 - (39+40) = 1600-79 = 1521. As a check, multiples of 9, which 39*39 will be, will always have the sum of the digits that make it up be divisible by 9 as well, or, if not, the remainder of the sum divided by 9 will give the remainder of the original number if divided by 9. 1+5+2+1=9, to use the above example. See Digital root.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Malleus, I just saw your edit on the talk page of the editor who nominated Netley Abbey at FAC. You are such a helpful person on Wikipedia, you have all the qualifications for being a decent admin. I know that you are not into that idea after reading your user page but frankly, you are what Wikipedia needs more of. If you ever reconsider adminship, I would like to either nominate you or at least have the chance to vote - I didn't know you were up for consideration before or else I would have filled the page with glowing compliments of your worthiness. I hope I will be given that chance in the future. NancyHeise ^talk 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much Nancy. I believe I'd have made a good administrator, but I also believe that it's vanishingly unlikely that I'd ever pass an RfA, at least in its present format. I'm certain that one editor in particular has WP:Requests_for_adminship/Malleus_Fatuarum_3 watchlisted, just waiting for the opportunity to sink it. Probably more than one in fact, as I'm not particular about who I upset, and people on here do tend to bear grudges. :-) I didn't especially want to be an administrator and want to be one even less now; I was just offering my help and my offer was turned down. I didn't enjoy the way it was turned down, nor did I agree with the reasoning, but it's water under the bridge now.

Your offer of support should I ever choose to stand again has quite touched me, but I really am serious about never walking over the hot coals of an RfA again. It's one of those experiences that if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger. But it's quite possible to act like an administrator without being an administrator. Had my RfA passed, for instance, I'd probably have been the most reluctant user of the block button in the history of wikipedia, except in the most egregious cases. Much of wikipedia can feel confrontational and adversarial, FAC being no exception, so where I can I like to offer practical help and support, so editors don't feel like they're battling alone. Sometimes the help isn't welcome, but most times it is, and it makes me feel better for offering it anyway. Wikipedia needs to be a personally satisfying venture in which we get pleasure from collaborating, not frustration and disappointment from having to battle with each other, as is too often the case.

Good luck with your own FAC btw. I've got everything crossed that you manage to get it over the line this time. What an achievement that would be! I felt very frustrated during Samuel Johnson's recent FAC, so I think I have a glimmer of what this marathon must have been like for you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire of the above is exactly why that redlink should turn blue, and far more relevantly why you both need and should be given the tools. But there we go. Pedro :  Chat  11:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If that redlink ever turns blue, you have my permission to shoot me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should salt it for you to prevent any accidental gun related accidents! Pedro :  Chat  12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Might as well salt WP:Requests_for_adminship/Malleus_Fatuorum too while you're at it. Let's burn all those bridges. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I have to tell you that some of the most helpful people I have found on Wikipedia were not admins (although some are). The person who got me started here is ^Ariel♥Gold. This lady was so patient with me when I first began editing, she walked me through everything and watched over my efforts until she felt I had the hang of it all. I would never have been on Wikipedia if it weren't for her initial important help and kindness. Wikipedia would be helped if they granted obviously helpful people like her honorary adminship to encourage and help spread all that good help around. NancyHeise ^talk 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know ArielGold, but I do know of quite a few other helpful and trustworthy editors who do a great job and would likely make excellent administrators, but wouldn't get through an RfA. Luckily most of them have had the good sense to stay away from it. It's instructive to look back at some of the early RfAs, when it really was just asking your mates to make you an administrator, instead of the thinly disguised arena for character assassination that it's become. Take a look here, for instance. You may recognise a name or two. Less than 1,000 edits, no experience in admin areas and only two or three supporting votes was once enough to give some currently high-profile administrators what's laughably called community consensus. Still, nothing will change. Too many have subsequently had to go through the hazing, and most of them don't see why everyone else shouldn't have to go through it too. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh where did you ever find that? I think that maybe back in 2003, there weren't as many people on Wikipedia as there are now which might be a reason for differences in the level of scrutiny - possibly? NancyHeise ^talk 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that! It certainly puts a perspective on current events. (I keep learning new and astounding information from people around here who are not wearing blinders and still retain their sanity.) Personally, I don't think becoming part of the bureaucracy and hierarchy would feel particularly good. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, for the little its worth, I would support you without hesitation or doubt as an admin, if thats what you wanted. But don't judge your value on this project against such a useless yardstick; you are inclinded to say whay you think, and are very honest and frank, and very much orientated towards content. You already have a respected voice, and thats enough; if you seek to become a part of the admin corp you would have to silence and restrain yourself, and thus loose the part of Malleus that makes Malleus Malleus. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words Ceoil. Actually I completely agree with you. The admin corps is most definitely not for me. Not now, not ever. Believe it or not I already do restrain myself quite considerably from saying what I really think about certain events; hard to believe, I know. :lol: Certain editors make great play of my alleged incivility. All I would bother to say in my own defence is that I have never been anything but polite and helpful to less experienced editors (in spite, or perhaps because of, some pretty horrible experiences when I was new myself), and never flinched from telling those who ought to know better where they get off. If that makes me a bad person in certain eyes then so be it. I'll be proud to remain a bad person if that's the case. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make you a a bad person, it makes you a truthful person. Expect your block log to grow as a result ;) That was meant as ironic bty, but my point is that editors with your approach, who call straight, are sorely needed and hugely valued. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite resigned to my block log reaching biblical proportions. At least I'll be in good company. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly true, man. Onwards! Ceoil ^sláinte 21:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am in complete and total agreement with these comments of Ceoil's:

[You] are very honest and frank, and very much orientated towards content. You already have a respected voice, and thats enough; if you seek to become a part of the admin corp you would have to silence and restrain yourself, and thus loose the part of Malleus that makes Malleus Malleus.

Becoming an admin, why do you even want to? It is just a form of being a flunky; it is that or you will find yourself at ArbCom with a blown up head. As far as a block log, I think is ridiculous to care about it. I could not possibly be that clean cut and have no desire to be. There is one admin I like and respect and trust as an admin. Some do little if any admin work and they are likable enough. But they are not taken seriously by the admin "heavies" in the admin hierarchy anyway. A do-nothing admin has little more standing, in fact less, with the big guys than a good editor who has clear opinions and just does his own work. Far freer not to have to "patrol". You have more respect now than most admins do. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we drop this?

Gimmetrow may well be referring to my presumptions about GimmeBot activity. Geometry guy 16:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow has not accepted that he was wrong, attempted to bully me when I warned him about his 3RR violation before making the report, has refused to explain his actions when I have repeatedly asked him, and is now playing the injured party. His repeated attempts to rewrite history to suit himself are unacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to criticise me, please have the courtesey to do so somewhere I am permitted to tell you exactly what I think of your opinion, which frankly is not much.[9] Else it's just more admin willy waving, which there has been far too much of recently. I really do think that you are losing the plot. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You can tell me what you think here, and I have been reading the above posts. Please bear in mind that I have supported you on many occasions and explained your approach to others who have found it startling. I have more to say on this, but I don't think it is helpful to say this now. You are welcome to say more on this, but for now, I'm fairly sure I haven't lost the plot, so you would need to be fairly convincing. However, you might also want to reflect upon whether you are really representing well your own assertion to work on "whatever interests me if and whenever I feel motivated to do so". I hope your contribs since you posted that represent your main interests. Geometry guy 00:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is of little interest to me, so I suggest you keep it to youself. I will simply say that I do not believe that you are behaving honestly, rationally or with any integrity at the moment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm impressed. This is the first time I have been simultaneously dishonest, irrational and corrupt (the opposite of integrity?) all at once. Has it occurred to you to compare your actions to the child admins that you resent? Where is WP:IAR in all this? Where is Pillar Five? Is winning more important than improving the encyclopedia? It isn't to me. I'm happy to lose. So if you have a winning response to this message, a nod of respect to you and lets get on with something else. Geometry guy 00:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"This is the first time I have been simultaneously dishonest, irrational and corrupt ...". You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as as I am to mine. Best say no more. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to msg

I'm not sure what has instigated such a response to my last edit and can only put it down a poorly conveyed message by me. When I mentioned the point of "looking down noses", I was speaking in a general term. Thats wasnt aimed at you specifically and if I offended you then I apologise. I mentioned the footballer/pop star issue as you it 'seemed' to be an issue you had which was a personal gripe. In this world of celebrity, I would undrestand your aversion to their inclusion onto an article. (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)).

I have made my point, and I have no intention of wasting my time in continually repeating it. In the context of an article about a settlement notability should be concerned with a person's impact on that settlement, or its impact on them. Not whether they happened to rent a house there for a few weeks, happened to be born in a local hospital, or even, as I've seen, their mother was born there. I understand that there is no consensus behind my view however, so feel free to build your lists. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"a person's impact on that settlement, or its impact on them." I think this is the key point, and it corresponds to the third of the triple criteria which I mentioned on my message on the project talk page. I think there is a rather overly lax attitude to who could be included in any "Notable Residents" or "Notable People" section, and it could certainly do with being tightened up.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bowie Seamount

Hi Malleus Fatuorum. Could you look at this article and see what is needed for GA? It's not a GA nominee yet but it's broad in it's scope, stable, contains images etc like what is needed for GA status. I'm asking you this before I nominate the article because then I can fix whatever is wrong with it and therefore it be less likely to fail; I'm not a good reviewer ;-). Black Tusk (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got a few comments:

• When was the volcano was discovered; how did it get its name?

• The volcano is more than 100 miles offshore, and its summit is almost 80 feet below sea level. How did the Haida come to learn of it?

• A couple of sentences don't make sense, at least to me:

• "It is the southernmost volcano of the Kodiak-Bowie Seamount chain, a range of underwater volcanic mountains stretching from the Aleutian Trench in the north to near the Queen Charlotte Islands in the south along the Coast of British Columbia, although some sources mention the Tuzo Wilson Seamounts further south the southernmost volcanoes."

• "Geological studies indicate the Kodiak-Bowie Seamount chain (also called the Pratt-Welker Seamount chain) might have formed above a center of upwelling magma like the one maintaining the Hawaiian Islands called a mantle plume that currently lies just south of the Queen Charlotte Islands and are being carried away from the mantle plume's magmatic source as the Pacific Plate moves in a northwesterly direction towards the Aleutian Trench along the southern coastline of Alaska."

• I'd suggest double checking all of your units and dimensions. A 3,000-kilometre high volcano must indeed be an impressive sight. I fixed the ones I noticed, but there may be others I've missed.

• Need to be consistent about how far below sea level the summit is. Is it 24 metres or 25 metres?

Other than that it seems like a reasonable GA candidate to me, so good luck with your nomination.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found any infomation about its discovery, naming or how the Haida knew about it; when it was a volcanic island perhaps?

As for the sentences, some web sources seem to claim Bowie Seamount the last volcano at the southern end of the Kodiak-Bowie Seamount chain. But others claim the Tuzo Wilson Seamounts south of Bowie are the southern volcanoes.

Mantle plumes are stationary and as the Pacific Plate passes over the mantle plume, it carries the volcano away from the mantle plume's source and therefore never erupt again (hotspots are the surface expression of mantle plumes). I just add the Hawaiian Islands to that sentence because that's a well-known example of mantle plume volcanism, see Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain for example.

Maybe it just needs some rewording. Black Tusk (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it does need rewording yes, because it's a bit muddled as it stands. To me at least anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just did some changes to the two sentences above. Does it seem less muddled? Black Tusk (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it reads fine now. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Images of species at Bowie Seamount would be nice as well, especially for the biology section. But I don't think any are free. Black Tusk (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)