User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2010/August

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

Bell Vue

Don't mention it. I really enjoyed reading it, loved the bit about the chimpanzee that wore the jacket and smoked the pipe!! Good luck with it, I'm sure it will fly through FAC now those image concerns have been addressed. Tom (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Brick tax

Just to say thanks for fixing the picture in Brick tax. I was going to ask for help and have made a note of what you did. Regards JRPG (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gliding FAR

Hi, can you see if any of the changes alters your position? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another ping YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Friends of Friendless Churches

I expect (hope) you noticed that Historic Chapels Trust, for which you did some copyediting, has been promoted as a FL. Thanks for your contribution to this (valued as ever). My next, related, venture is a sister list on Friends of Friendless Churches. The format is identical to the (successful) format for the chapels (no guarantee that this will succeed; consistency is not a feature of WP). Having said this, would you like to improve the text of the Friends list? When that is satisfactory I will go for FL.

I see that today you have done some work on Little Moreton Hall; going for GA? We should sometime, but where to start? It should be a must for the Cheshire project. (Maybe a bit "boring" for your interests!?) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good news about your list, I think you've developed a really pleasing format for them now. I'll try and take a look at the Friends list later this evening.

Little Moreton Hall has been on my watchlist for ages, and I looked at it again today after I noticed someone had made some changes to it. Far from being too boring for my interests, I have very fond memories of visits to the place. In fact, I think it's probably my favourite house in England. It really ought to be at least a GA, as you say. Its Grade I listed, so it ought to be relatively straightforward to primp it up for GAN. I'm sure we can manage to spice it up anyway, like I did with Ordsall Hall, with a few tales of hauntings, mysterious passages, and priest holes. ;-) I'm still waiting to see how Belle Vue Zoological Gardens is going to fare at FAC before launching into anything too major, but I'll have an initial scout around and see what sources I can get hold of. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I was a bit chuffed to come across this in which the list gets an "honorable mention", no less. I've not come across The Signpost before — wonder how many hon. mentions I've missed in the past. Can go smiling to bed now. Thanks for your part in it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you might want to ask Bencherlite and David Underdown regarding Friends of Friendless Churches; in my experience, they're both good at spotting niggles on church articles. – iride scent 21:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent for the suggestion. MF has done a copyedit on the text, and the format is a clone of the recently successful Historic Chapels Trust, so I may not contact Bencherlite or DU just at this point. And thanks MF for invaluable help again. I was out all morning at a meeting, and I've spent the afternoon in writing the minutes, so I have not had time to get properly to the list today. Re the Friends singular/plural, I think I'll take it a bit further. When I wrote about a trust I just referred to the "Trust"; now I'm writing about a charity, I think I will use the term "charity" rather than "Friends" — this also avoids the complication of Friends of Friends, if you see what I mean. And now I've discovered a "bug" in the refs, so I'll have to deal with that too. But as always, your help is much appreciated. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit request

For "The Body". I know it's a bit pop culturish for your usual focus, although it is described as the best episode of television of all time (of all time! suckit, Kanye). Just looking for what's not easily understood, out of place, etc. Whenever you can get to it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's another great piece of work. I've got a couple of questions that I'll leave on your talk page, but nothing serious. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As a Buffy fan, I found "The Body" hard to understand:

There are too many problems in coverage.
More specifically, Glory (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Character biography provides the back story about Glory (a god) and the Key, a magical artefact created in human form, Dawn, centuries ago by some monks. Glory can only reach full power and embodiment by a ritual killing of Dawn.
Willow Rosenberg's magic power increases quickly, so that she can delay Glory, who was trying to Buffy and the Scoobies.
On the other hand, IMO some parts are not relevant and I'd cut them, e.g.: Anya Jenkins the former demon vengeance; "Dawn is crying in the bathroom upset that a boy may not like her. In art class, she talks with him and they share a moment of understanding about being troubled while they sketch"; most of paragraph "In Willow's dormitory room, Tara tries to help Willow find a shirt to wear. Xander and Anya arrive and double-park. Willow panics, rejecting shirt after shirt, not knowing how to appear for Buffy and Dawn. She asks why her clothes are stupid and she is childish, weeping until Tara kisses and calms her. Anya asks Xander what she is supposed to do; he cannot answer. Willow changes her shirt again and Xander expresses his desire to find Glory and exact justice, then complains about Joyce's negligent doctors. Anya asks if they will see the body, then if the body will be cut open, and Willow responds angrily. Anya tearfully says she does not understand how to behave, or why Joyce cannot go back into her own body, complaining that it is all "stupid and mortal", and no one will tell her why things are happening. Xander puts his fist through the wall. As they leave to go to Buffy, Xander gets a parking ticket"; "Left alone with Buffy, Tara tells her that her own mother died when she was 17 and she went through something similar. Dawn goes alone to the morgue to see Joyce's body. While she is there, one of the bodies, now a vampire, gets up. After noticing Dawn has not come back, Buffy goes to look for her and finds her in the morgue, being attacked by the vampire. As Buffy fights and kills the vampire, the sheet falls from Joyce's face. Looking at her mother, Dawn asks where she went, as she reaches out to touch her cheek"; "in the previous episode, she (Joyce) received flowers from a male suitor, which Buffy finds at the end of that episode."
IMO Joyce Summers's death increase the pressure on Buffy as the slayer tries to fight Glory. Joss Whedon asserted that there would never have a "very special episode".
Per WP:SUMMARY, I suggesting much of the backstory can be moved into an article about series 5.

I think I've said enough for now. I'd continue only if you think it will be helpful. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Glory is mentioned three times. Once in the Background because she is mentioned twice later: in the plot where she is the focus of Xander's anger--a phase of grief, and again in a discussion of themes. One of the major themes of the fifth season is Buffy coming to terms with the limits of her power. In multiple episodes this appears in confrontations with Glory, but Joyce's death hits Buffy the hardest. Scholars have made this point several times, juxtaposing Glory's physical strength with the emotional loss of Joyce.

The points in the plot are mentioned again in the Writing and Themes sections. It's a rather concise plot section, so I disagree that it should be cut.

IMO Joyce Summers's death increase the pressure on Buffy as the slayer tries to fight Glory. Joss Whedon asserted that there would never have a "very special episode". I don't understand this. If a scholar says it increases pressure on Buffy, then it should be stated. But it can't be stated unless Whedon or a scholar have done so. Are you asking me to make a point in the article from your opinion or observation? There are two paragraphs about Whedon's rejection of the "very special episode", so I don't understand what you're saying should be changed.

I disagree rather strongly about moving the background section, and I suggest you ask readers who have never seen the show what they think. --Moni3 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've watched some episodes of Buffy, but not this one, and I'd certainly not call myself a fan. The article works fine for me as it is, allowing me to understand what's going on in the episode, and its significance. I wouldn't change anything. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never watched the show at all, and that article was very informative and helped me to understand the episode, even though to begin with I didn't know who any of the characters were. Big Dom 07:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Randon query...

But what got you started on Thomas de Cantilupe yesterday? He's in my pile of "get to eventually" bishops, but his article is really really barebones for the amount of actual research that's available on him... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I got there via William Cragh, whose apparent resurrection after being hanged was put forward as one of the miracles that justified Cantilupe's sanctification. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Surprised that article never got more attention, given the Bartlett book and the BBC documentary about it with their "Medieval Season". BTW, Malleus, you know the BBC "Norman season" starts tomorrow? I'm excited! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

One reason it hasn't gotten attention from me is that the U of I's copy of the Bartlett book has been continuously checked out for the last year and a half... and ya'll know I'm Beeb-challenged over here! And shame, Deacon, no comment about Hemming's making FA? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, never noticed (being rarely here of late, a 12000 article watchlist ensures I miss most stuff). Congrats! What's net?

I got mine for something like 9 dollars at the YooDub bookstore some years ago, so never had to check it out. Beeb documentaries can be found pretty easily btw, online, if you know what to do (even when google video search shows nothing). If you need to find any yourself, email me! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of Bartlett's book open in front of me now; it seems quite excellent. I got it from my local public library, and looking at the date stamps in the front I can see that it was last borrowed in October last year before I took it out yesterday. Philistines round my way. I'll keep an eye out for the BBC's Norman season Deacon. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A humble copy edit request

Hey Malleus, I know it's not really your "usual" area of focus, but I need someone with FA and copy editing experience. I was hoping you'd have a look at Lily Cole for me. I've been working on the article since last November, when it was in a right state. It's been greatly expanded and is now a GA and I'm hoping to get it to FA at some point, but I'm terrible when it comes to spotting glaring flaws in my own writing! There are a few other issues (the lead needs work, one or two dodgy sources and other things) as well, but if you'd have a look and see if you can make some improvements, I'd be grateful. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, overpaid totty is not a topic I'm naturally drawn to, but I'll take a look through anyway. My first impression after a quick skim is to wonder whether the GA reviewer actually took the trouble to read the article before passing it; difficult otherwise to explain "She is also recongnised for her porclien doll-like beauty". There's also too much recentism (does it really matter that she's in her 2nd year of reading History of Art, and that her boyfriend as of God knows when is Enrique Murciano, whoever he is? That kind of relationship is inevitably very fluid, so will that kind of stuff be kept up-to-date every time she decides to go out with someone else? What's going on here: "She also supports the charity WaterAid, speaking for the organisation's "End Water Poverty" campaign,[2] and the Environmental Justice Foundation[13][65] Cole has modelled a T-shirt with the slogan "Save the Future" to fight child labour in the fashion industry for the Environmental Justice Foundation"? Is there a fullstop missing after "Environmental Justice Foundation"?

The last five paragraphs of the Films section are a good example of something that would count against this article at FAC – too many short, choppy paragraphs, often beginning in a similar way: "She also featured as herself ...", "Cole also appeared as 'Lettuce Leaf' ...", "Cole plays the minor part of 'Aline' ...". The article really needs to try and tell a compelling story with a much smoother narrative flow; at the moment it reads more like a list of facts loosely coralled together. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"She is also recongnised for her porclien doll-like beauty" appears to have been recently added by a drive-by IP. Evidently one who can't spell. I appreciate your input, anyway– it's always good to have a fresh pair of eyes on something. I'll get to work on it later on, though any more help you felt like giving would be great. Oh, and "totty" is probably a little harsh– at least she can act, though I agree on the "overpaid". :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll look through it again as you develop it, but I really do have problems with stuff like this, of which there is really too much: "In December 2009, Cole attended a party, hosted by Sir Elton John for which guests were asked to design their ideal bar with the designs then sold at auction in aid of the Elton John AIDS Foundation." What exactly is that supposed to be telling me about Lily Cole? It's not exactly a surprise that a 22-year-old goes to parties is it? Did she design a bar? How much did it raise at auction? There seems to be a lack of coherent themes throughout the article, just dumps of facts in various piles. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

None of that surprises me! I just kind of added every fact I could find and the prose was an afterthought. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember this?

Hi Malleus! I think you'll remember Armero tragedy‎. I've expanded it significantly so that it includes details on pretty much everything - though I'm still looking around for sources - and so I'd like to get the prose checked out. I have my own personal opinion of course, but could you look over it first? My intent is to get it to FA by November, so please be as truthful and frank as possible. I'd really like for it to be a great article for the 25th anniversary. If you're overloaded with other stuff, excuse me for bothering you, please. Thanks, ceranthor 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not generally motivated to help copyedit anything that isn't just about ready for GAN or FAC, as it's often a waste of time until an article is stable, a bit like painting the Forth Bridge. Let me know when you're thinking of nominating it at FAC and I'll take a look then if you like. Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. I see that Ruslik0 is looking through it anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright. It's near being ready for being ready for FAC (:), but could use a good polishing. Excuse my redundancy. ceranthor 19:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were going to nominate it in November, but reading again I see that you want it to be an FA by then. I'm still busy on William de Corbeil, but I'll pop along to your tragedy when I'm done, or need a break. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. A heart-wrenching story it is. ceranthor 21:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So how does it look? ceranthor 23:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, my advice would be don't take it to FAC just yet, it still needs some work. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

One further thought. I realise that it was a tragic event, but you really do need to steer away from emotional language such as "Other chilling photos shocked people worldwide". Unless you're quoting someone else, that looks like your own personal opinion. It's difficult sometimes to write dispassionately, but that's what we have to try and do. On a few occasions, I've been editing with tears in my eyes when describing some particulary touching event, but I very much hope that isn't evident in the end result. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't planning on taking it to FAC ~~anyway~~ yet; it still needs a content check and then I need to finish up the referencing stuff (sources, publishers for newspapers, and notes where necessary). Thanks for your help thus far. ceranthor 23:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You said above that you were, so what's going on? Did you just come here to waste my time? I'm quite capable of wasting my time in more pleasurable ways, thanks all the same. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say yet. I apologize, and have now added that in. My brain is scattered - please forgive my stupidity, lol. I do plan on taking it to FAC sometime soon, but since you've mentioned it's not quite there yet, I'll work towards it until I feel it's ready. If you feel I was wasting your time, I certainly didn't mean to, and thank you very much for the generous copyedit. ceranthor 00:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am already uncomfortable enough that children like yourself (no offence intended) have been given the power to sanction me for the slightest misdemeanour, and too often do; that your brain is "scattered" does not increase my confidence in that system. I wish you luck with your article, but please do not ask me to help with it again, because I won't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All I can do is thank you for the help you've provided between the GAN and those last couple edits. I'm sorry for using a word that I didn't intend to, and I wish you luck as well. ceranthor 00:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edits on the Listed buildings of Rivington pages while I was out. :) I see you noticed I appear to have sunk to the level of "personal attacks" from being merely "rude". Whatever next, a block I suppose!!! Oh well c'est la vie.:)--J3Mrs (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a strange place. Iridescent often points out that you should write for an intelligent 14-year-old, something that the notorious but genial Giano once said I believe. The problem is though that while you're writing for that intelligent 14-year-old, you're also having to deal with the stupid 11-year-olds who take every criticism as a "personal attack". The only advice I can offer you is the same advice I offered to PoD, which is that you're thinking of becoming an adminstrator, do it sooner rather than later. The plain fact of the matter is that the longer you're here the more enemies you'll make, all of them queuing up to grab their pound of flesh. Just the way it is. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you add to this list of negative statements about admins?

Please pardon the intrusion. I'm working on an essay. Seriously, can you add to this list of negative statements about admins? "Admins are too imperious. Admins pursue vendettas. Admins travel in small packs, and always have each others' backs." I wanna stick to on-wiki behavioral things, rather than details regarding the moment of conception, intelligence, various fetishes/fantasies, etc. ;-) Tks.
- I certainly could, but it may be more prudent to keep my thoughts to myself on this occasion. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh wait, I just noticed the above thread... no reply expected, if you are indisposed. Tks. • Ling.Nut 13:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA

I don't believe we have any other zoos, and this one also has gardens and sports, so I don't know where to park it at FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's part of the popular culture of Manchester, does that help?--J3Mrs (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I considered Culture & society, but not sure that's the best fit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Geography and places, I'd have thought. It's where we put Postman's Park, and a zoo is just a park with more giraffes. – iride scent 19:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

History, well now it's gone it's history.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How about "Sport and recreation"? – iride scent 19:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think any of them are a good fit but maybe your first thought, Culture & society is the best, although there was sport it's popular culture that immediately comes to mind, entertainment for the masses, brass bands etc. Glad I don't have to decide.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, y'all are a great help. I'll roll the dice, and let someone else fight it out later :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view it was always remembered as a cultural spot - park, ten pin bowling, amusement park, speedway - it was a major destination for parent and children outings as well as school trips, when the roller coaster was everyones ambition, from my earliest days back in the late 60s through to the 80s. It is an historic place and I think culture would be the best place for it. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care where it goes, I'm just glad the job's done at last. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And well done at that (as usual) :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Willie...

Will go up probably Thursday, as I'm out of town Monday through Wednesday, and I hate nomming things and then running out of town. I'm not planning on taking my laptop on this trip since it's a day in the car up, a day doing errands and a day coming home. I haven't forgotten him though! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish the old boy luck. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What's a willie? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The differences in English between countries can be quite embarrassing to the unwary sometimes. What we call a rubber you call an eraser, because your rubber is what we'd call a durex, but that's a brand of adhesive tape in the States ... I suppose that might still work though ... Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. Ealdgyth's phrasing – "Willie will go up on Thursday" – makes it look like she plans her sex life well in advance. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just don't ask for a pack of fags. – iride scent 22:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Worse yet - "Can I bum a fag?" ..... Pedro : Chat 22:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Durex is a brand of home appliances (such as stoves and refrigerators) in Ecuador... well, that's one for DYK if they can find the citation. – B.hotep •talk• 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just about the worst disambiguation page I've ever seen. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, especially the thinly disguised advert for the "prophylactic for your roof that is guaranteed not to leak". I would prune it all up, but I would hate to think of anyone being deprived of a good laugh. for now – B.hotep •talk• 22:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Y'all are too easy. All I have to say is "What's a willie?" and hilarity ensues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you're clever

The old "outside the box" line makes me smile as very few people know where it comes from. Apparently you're +1 to the list of the very few, and yes - the (probably overly subtle) point is that unless you're on the outside looking in, your opinion is potentially, indeed likely, skewed and I think you're very right with your comments at WT:RFA.

Moving on - I walk one mile south. I walk one mile west. I walk one mile north. I am back at the same point I started at. How is this possible? Pedro : Chat 23:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You are either at the North Pole, or one mile north of the latitude near the South Pole where you can go "around the world" in one mile.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are multiple circles near the South Pole were you can do this, so I would express the second one as one mile north of a latitude near the South Pole where you can go around the wolrd in 1/x miles, x being any positive whole number.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Or... your compass is fucked. – B.hotep •talk• 23:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Lulz. Pedro : Chat 23:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bloody Wikipedians - too clever the lot of you. Pedro : Chat 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand that my opinion at WT:RFA, or indeed elsewhere, doesn't count for much, but perhaps especially there, because it's very easy for those who disagree to say that I'm just bitter about my two failed RfAs. Nevertheless I think that my opinion needs to be heard, before the whole charade implodes up its own backside, which is where RfA is headed right now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Just wanted you to know, I've struck the latter part of my comment there. Although I still maintain the original point about content not necessarily being representitive of good adminship, I've thought better of the last sentence and struck it. I had a particularly rough day working, and... well, I'm sure you know the feeling. I decided to take it out in a more productive manner later (I love patrolling new pages; I can help with some, especially Japanese (excluding manga- fucking hate that) and baseball-related articles, but I find the sorts of fucking garage bands that pop up here entertaining as well). I truly don't hold anything against you (though I certainly wouldn't blame you for holding something against me after that), and I hope this won't interfere with any future interactions. I generally agree with your PA philosophy (check out the box on top of my talkpage; seems to have gotten a little notice from others), but what I said derailed my argument more than it helped. And I also agree that RfA is totally fucked up right now; I've only been here since early March, and my watching that process has convinced me that it's a train wreck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't hold anything against you, we all have bad days. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, happy –- well, who am I kidding, let's make that good –- editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 02:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to unburden some stuff

I guess we all had different and personal reasons for registering with wikipedia. In my case it was to correct what I thought was a punctuation error, and about a year after that to help develop articles about towns in the area where I lived. Since then, I've made over 80,000 edits to a bewildering array of articles, most of which I had no interest in whatsoever. But I didn't join because I wanted to become an unpaid copyeditor, I joined because there were things I wanted to write about, things I thought were in danger of being forgotten.

Judging from emails I've recently received, and from comments made by various administrators and ArbCom members, it appears that wikipedia would be better off without me. Maybe they're right; I spend far too much time here anyway, but that's going to change. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'm one of the people you're referring to, but if so you misperceive how I feel, and I believe how others feel. No one, or no one I know, thinks Wikipedia would be better off without you. I occasionally think that Wikipedia and you could both benefit from changing the tone in which you say some things, simply as a matter of promoting a friendly and collegial working environment. That's a far, far cry from wanting you to leave, or even to edit less.

Of course, if you wish to edit less as a matter of your own priorities, that's not for me to challenge. I believe it was Khan (Star Trek) who admonished someone to "go—or stay—but do it because it is what you wish to do!" Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, why make such a statement now? I remember that you made a similar one in April.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 01:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia can't change, and I won't change. We're incompatible. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But that's the thing Malleus. In the short term, it looks like Wikipedia is static and things just are always the same. However, once you look at the bigger picture, you will see that Wikipedia has changed, for better or for worse at times but nonetheless, this place has come a long way from 2001. I was in second grade then and look at me now, I edit this place for the benefit of others, and there are many other people, young and old, who do so as well. Not to get a "badge", a "mop", a higher edit count or another GA/FA on their userpage but to help others and desipte what several people think of you, you are a not only a net benefit to Wikipedia but to the general public. Your work has contributed to the greater body of general knowledge and no matter how you feel now or tomorrow, remember that someone, somewhere has learned a new thing because of you. All the best,--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the people who emailed you are definitely cowards and you may have given them a collective stiffy by showing them exactly what they want. My funk following writing the Donner Party article was mostly internal and caused by myself and other stresses I was going through. However, I came to the conclusion at that time that all I was doing was harming Wikipedia. I don't now think that I'm doing any great benefit, but I left the phase of thinking my existence was a toxic pall. Did you agree with me that I harmed every article I touched?

I don't know what your emails said or what else you're going through, but if it upsets you take a break. I can say with conviction that you improve every article you've been involved in. Inter-Wiki politics are a distraction, but one that I find many editors get involved in because they don't have much of a substantial contribution to content or anything else of importance. So don't let it drag you down. --Moni3 (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was extremely upset by something that happened on Wikipedia last weekend and realized that sometimes it's best to step away (obviously not being very successful but not editing articles this week). Also, sometimes working hard on articles is emotionally draining, and then to have to watch some of the stuff that happens ... well, I understand your feeling. But, you are very valuable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I do need to take a break Moni3, you're quite right. See you in a week, a month, or maybe a year. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to email me, Malleus. Very few people in my life understand how challenging Wikipedia can be. Some of them see that it upsets me, but unless you're here working on it on a regular basis do you really get it. Even though we approach things differently, I don't like to think of you or anyone as upset as I have been about this place. --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear how upset you've been Moni3. I most certainly have never thought that you harmed every article you touched, very much the reverse, and I very much doubt that anyone else has either. I can only imagine how dispiriting it must have been for you; hopefully you're on the other side of it now. That Donner Party article was difficult on a number of levels, maybe we should have left it well alone. The feeling's been creeping up on me recently that I've spent a lot of time here doing stuff that I really have no interest in, for very little thanks, but what's worse, far too much abuse. I even saw one administrator arguing fairly recently that nobody should be blocked for being uncivil to me, even though I should continue to be blocked for using such abusive terms as "sycophantic". The recent emails haven't upset me in any way, they just gave me pause for thought. If I'm to be the butt of abuse, which seems to be inevitable, it might as well be for doing something that gives me pleasure, or that I can take pride in, rather than being a chore. So that's the extent of my "crisis", nothing deeper than that. I expect it'll pass, like everything does in time. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sincerely sorry if you feel I was soliciting you for copyedits, and I really think you should stay. The only reason I was asking for your input was because I knew you would be completely honest, and that's what makes so many people appreciate you and your work. That, and that you're so good at what you do. Please don't leave wiki, we can't afford the loss. ceranthor 01:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, please remember that those editors who send you aggressive e-mails and even those editors who, in a frank but collegial tone, communicate their problems with your occasional choice of words outside article-space, are but a ghost of a fraction of a minority of those who read what you wrote, without knowing who wrote it, without being aware of your (and other people's) caprioles outside mainspace. You don't owe anyone anything, but your contributions are lasting, enlightening, and in my endless optimistic naiveté I even believe they help spread knowledge and link worlds apart. The only reason I wish you sometimes chose different words or even chose to shut up on occasion is because of the ensuing drama (which also affects you and your motivation to continue contributing here). That is the only reason. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But then that wouldn't be me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I know we don't always get along, and your feelings about the youth cabal who supposedly run the project amuse me at times, but you are valued, and everything White Shadows has said is true. The project is large, we will never finish it. But we have to put our best efforts in, because damn it, it is worth it. I believe Wikipedia is a start of a compendium of human knowledge which will last when we are dust and people wonder who these people were who wrote the articles which started this thing. It is our legacy. If you feel you need a break to do better later, take it. But stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Fair enough. I hope your break is relaxing. I hope your break is short. I hope you return, in all your youness. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have one final point to make before I drift away into the darkness, and it's that the efforts of all those who choose to spend their time fixing grammar and punctuation are considered as naught against the valiant vandal fighters when it comes to RfA, most of whom would struggle to put a coherent sentence together. Still, not my problem. Bon chance. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You can always go the Keeper route, Malleus. I probably edit more now than I ever have, content wise, pre- or post-RFA. I log in when I notice a comment about baseball from Star Mississippi, but other than a random off-the-cuff comment on my own talkpage or from my watchlist, I haven't entered a content edit under my username in nearly 2 years, unless it was inadvertent (forgetting to log out). I have scant use of the admin buttons, in all their triviality. I've enjoyed Wikipedia immensely by 'retiring' my username. Now granted, my reputation had become that of a chatterbox, and the percentages of user/talk v content don't lie (<insert helpful link by Iridescent here>), but if I am guessing correctly, you don't do what you do for the "credit" of it. I'm a copyeditor as well. I add content, fix grammar, rearrange articles and expand and improve the look of things, all as an IP. I have no other username. I don't need accolades for adding commas; most copyeditors don't. Stick around. Do the pieces that you enjoy. Would it mean that you've surrendered, or somehow given in to the demands and retorts of your naysayers? Perhaps. But you'll like this place again once free of your avatar. Your post here also reminds me why I absolutely never will enable email; it arms the cowards, and protects them in shadow. Hope you stay well, Keeper | 76 02:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm another who thinks you're one of the greatest editors on WP. If you need a break, have one, but please keep your options open. --Philcha (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to say I was very pleased with what you did to help a small article and yes, you are appreciated.

People say things on emails and talk pages that they would never say face to face. If someone has really upset you, walk away for a couple of weeks. Don't let them get you down, you must get some fun as well and that doesn't seem to be happening at present. JRPG (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ey up cocker, bollocks to them emails. Do whatever makes you feel better, you only live once. Maybe you should write for free, for a local rag, plenty around. Parrot of Doom 09:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, I might look into that. I've had a book idea on the back-burner for a while now as well, perhaps it's time to turn the gas up on that. One thing that wikipedia has done is helped me to realise that although writing is hard word, or writing well is hard work for me at least, it's something that I actually enjoy, so my time here hasn't been altogether wasted. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds as if you need a break, which everybody does sometime. Do what you want to do, not what somebody else wants and don't forget you are one of the kindest most helpful and generous editors on this encyclopedia. I've really enjoyed working with you, in my small way, on Belle Vue where I've learned so much from a great role model. I know what you mean about copyediting and I'm still learning. I read what Moni3 said, odd how the best editors get fed up, not others. And by the way, you don't need to change, you're fine as you are. :)--J3Mrs (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that selfishness is the key to my continued involvement with wikipedia. No more copyediting Japanese Manga list articles, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just do what you want to do. As you said yourself, it is an unpaid job so you have to. Don't you? Otherwise you may as well be a Special Constable... – B.hotep •talk• 20:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How about copy editing German U-boats and battleships?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 20:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"No more copyediting Japanese Manga list articles, for instance." My bad, my bad. Belle Vue is a far better topic, undoubtedly. Perhaps you should start bugging some of us to copyedit for you? If you're ever in the need (though I doubt you will) I personally would be quite willing to take a look and I imagine many of those following this page would feel the same. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it difficult to write, and I can't remember ever feeling that I needed someone to copyedit anything I've written – arrogant of me I know, but there it is. Where I most often feel I could do with some help or a second opinion is in the structure and organisation of an article. Take workhouse for instance; I know it's all wrong as it is, but I can't decide on how it should be. Belle Vue was rather a similar problem. For all her self-effacing remarks that she didn't do much to help, it was when J3Mrs started to hack away at it that I began to be able to distinguish the wood from the trees. What we ended up with was way different from what we started with. It's similar with Parrot of Doom, who's a delight to work with as he tends to do a lot of the heavy lifting by adding content and sourcing, where I'm sometimes inclined to be a little lazy. On a similar note, if you were less concerned about Ottava's feelings I'm sure we could get The Author's Farce through its next FAC without too much trouble.

White Shadows: You've got the considerable benefit of having one of the most active projects in the whole of wikipedia behind you with your work on U-boats and battleships, and you've worked out a formula now, so you hardly need my help. In general though, Ealdgyth has a statement on her user page which I think sums up my position quite well. To paraphrase, if you've helped me, then I'll be more inclined to help you. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My advice is simple. If you're going to hang around here, find some truly shit article, like Flying Dutchman for instance, and turn it around. Get to the library, get a pile of books, and work on that article and no others. Or create something new, like Simeon Ellerton, or Anne Vaux (lots written about her). You must surely take more pride in articles like that and the Cotswold Olympicks, than some random article in netherspace... Parrot of Doom 21:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's good advice. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well have I ever helped you Malleus? To be honest, I don't really think that I have....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I created 1910 London to Manchester air race from scratch, and you know what, its one of the articles I'm most proud of. Because everyone I've told the story to has reacted with astonishment. I'm actually trying to get it made into a short radio documentary but am encountering the usual media nepotism. That's what I think you should do, the joy for me here has always been in learning about history. That's why you began, is it not? Parrot of Doom 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is. I think I said to Peter I. Vardy once that one of my initial motivations was to present the now almost forgotten history of places like Stretford in the hope that people might begin to see the place in its historical context. But as time went on, my interest expanded into almost forgotten history in general, hence stuff like wife selling and the Manchester Mummy. Thinking back, I think maybe the article I started from scratch that I'm most pleased with is Samlesbury witches; the Pendle witches was much harder to do, but I never really felt that it was mine in the same way, as it was substantially there and just needed to be rewritten and expanded. Good luck with your radio documentary proposal. Seems to me that the story of the air would be ideal for radio. I can hear the sound effects now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh god, the Flying Dutchman?! Do want. I've always been into pirates and other nautical nonsense for some odd reason. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 21:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, wikipedia would be a much worse place without you. I think your main problem is that you're such a good copy editor that lots of people ask you to do some for them and you don't like to say no. Editing on here does become addictive and you can get sucked in to all sorts of stuff you're not really that interested in. Every time I google some information on the net I end up being directed to a wikipedia article and then I usually end up rewriting chunks of it and putting it on my watchlist. I've even got margarine on there for God's sake! Please take a break and, when you're ready, come back and just get involved in the stuff that interests you. I can assure you that those who would miss you would far outweigh those who would want to dance on the virtual grave of your online persona. Richerman (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

ps I went through my watchlist and seriously pruned it down last week. Try it - I can assure you that what you don't know about doesn't worry you. :} Richerman (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I started editing for similar reasons to yours MF, who else would want to write about Leyth, Bent and Bongs?? I look forward to seeing your more "selfish" contributions and think the above idea would make a decent start. If you want pruning lessons, my fees are not unreasonable.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pfft, well if the politicianss are pissed off with you, you're doing things right. NYB bothered to turn up, so you've got the politicians panicking. Secondly stuff it if they don't like it. Wikipedia is worse than a corrupt third world army and if the rotund armchair generals are running around trying to assassinate you for speaking out against graft, then it's a testiment to you YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

+1, and this page is always fun to watch. Hang in there.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought of you again (andPoD of course)

Whilst looking for something else I came across this, The "Mock Corporation of Walton" Appointed during the early years of the institution were those of house-groper, jester, poet laureate, champion, huntsman or master of the hounds, sword-bearer, in 1708 a slut-kisser, and in 1711 a custard-eater, besides many others. [1]. There are quite a few book refs too. [2]--J3Mrs (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems to have something to do with the Jacobites. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Will you...

Hey there Malleus. I know that you said that you'd like to start editing articles that you are interested in from now on (No more Japaneses Manga ect.) but can you just do a quick look over User:White Shadows/SMS Wien for me? I've finished it and after you looked over the class article, you said that I could ping you to look over this one once it's done :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A promise is a promise. Can you take a look at the United Service Magazine reference again? It's formatted differently from the others. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've added in the author of the magazine instead of the name to make it consistent.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand that citation. The {{cite book}} says that H. Colburn is the publisher, not the author. Does Colburn write the entire magazine and publish it as well? Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

not entirely sure...I'll have to take a look.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

He's the writer....I'm not 100% sure about the publisher though having googled it.....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 02:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You should probably cite it as a magazine article then: author, article name, magazine name, issue, date, pages and so on, and move it up to the Notes instead of having it in the References section. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll do that ;)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 02:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I think....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 02:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Just about there now, but "pp. 437" isn't right. If the article appears on page 437 then it should be "p. 437", but if the magazine is 437 pages long, then the "pp." should give the start and end page numbers of the article. If you haven't got the magazine to hand though, I'd suggest that you just drop the page number(s), but don't tell anyone I said that. ;-) Good luck at DYK/GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cary Grant

I'm not going to argue, but you seem to be making a point. Please see, and review carefully, as is your wont, WP:UKNATIONALS. Meanwhile, I'm sure you will understand that while you are doing this, I have technical backlogs to clear, because that is what I do. Interruptions like this, unsupported by discussion, are disruptive, as I'm sure you have come to realise by now, and the appropriate venue for such discussions is the associated Talk page. Start from the existing agreed consensus, and then debate why it should be changed. I expected better from you, as an experienced content editor, but once again, I am disappointed. That's all. Rodhull andemu 01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for sharing your opinion with me, but I'm sure you'll understand that I have better things to do than to concern myself with your misunderstandings. I'm sure you'll also understand that your disappointment is a matter of supreme indifference to me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for all the helpful blue links. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site". I'm 57 and currently unlikely to see 60, but I want to improve this venture while I still can. All you can do is to subscribe to the rules that I have no trouble with following. But when there is a genuine difference of opinion, it is ill-considered to war over the topic, and better to negotiate. I wish you a long life. You lucky, lucky bastard. Rodhull andemu 01:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're 57 then you should know better. Now why why not run along along and deal with all those important backlogs. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"along along"? Patronising twat. Get off the bottle. Rodhull andemu 01:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You really are a hypocritical waste of space.[3] Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I find it a strange anomaly that someone who would say "All you can do is to subscribe to the rules that I have no trouble with following" would also have an "Ignore all Rules" banner plastered over his talk page. What I see though is that you regard yourself as the guardian of rules that apply to others, not to yourself, or else you would not have felt confident in your "patronising twat" remark, something that would have resulted in a mere peasant being blocked for incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You are both up past your bedtimes, if I understand the UTC correctly. And, I've popped in here to let you know that I've had quite a chuckle over this entire thread between the two of you, mainly because of the irony of both of you talking over the other one like school children with the "I know you are but what am I" antics, and I'm 99% sure you two are the two oldest Wikipedians on the site, in earth years. LOL! (that's what us whippersnapping, backtalking kids in our 40s use as an acronym for "Laugh out loud", in case you were wondering). You two should email each other, you'd get along famously. Same humor (sorry - humour), same outlook on things around here, more often than not. Just snagged on a bit of barbed wire here, I suspect. RH&E - is that SmithJones guy still around here? Keeper | 76 01:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're mistaken on several points, but I'll just be content to see Rodhullandemu find something else to occupy himself instead of hounding me. I find it completely unacceptable that administrators are allowed to call other editors twats, and that's absolutely not negotiable as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, agree on that last one. I wasn't sure I had made several points, but sorry to hear I'm mistaken on them, nonetheless. :-) Keeper | 76 02:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"You'd get along famously"? I very much doubt it. "Snagged on a bit of barbed wire"? Nope, I just don't like Rod's attitude. "Oldest wikipedian on the site"? Perhaps, but only in your Earth years. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The very fact that I thought you would "doubt it" (the getting along famously) is why I pointed out to you my perception that it would be probable, if that makes sense. "Not liking someone's attitude" is the very defintion of barbed wire - when two humans are trying to interpret each other's textual voices using their own head-voice (reading tone). How do you know his attitude? Other than the twat comment (does that mean over there what it means here in the states? I wonder but hesitate to google it, out of fear of the browser history on my wife's computer...), I think you are both misreading each other's attitude. And I put myself in the old camp, relatively speaking, to the median age of editors, "senior" or "veteran", or otherwise, so I meant no offense by it. He should apologize for the t-word, although personally I would have been more insulted being called a patronizer. Keeper | 76 02:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Twat" means the same here as it does in the States. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what it means here?. Keeper | 76 02:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignore all rules isn't magic pixie dust; it's there for when other rules don't cover the situation. In the current situation, the rules are fairly-well set out, as long as editors subscribe to them. But if they won't even enter into discussion, and sit on their high horses, I'm disinclined to get involved, and am prepared to let this encyclopedia go to hell in a handcart. My life isn't worth this amount of additional stress. I've set out my stance, and I stick with it. If others can't grasp the subtleties, that is no fault of mine. Rodhull andemu 02:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Try chucking your weight around somewhere else Rod, I'm just not interested, and neither am I interested in your real-life stress, so don't give me any sob stories. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Sitting on horses is more agreeable than kicking dead ones. You should retract or apologize for the twat comment, as it was over the "doesn't need a rule" line. Keeper | 76 02:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for that, but if Malleus really thinks "I'm chucking my weight around", he just isn't getting it. I'm a admin, sure, and I have a couple of extra buttons- but when it comes to content and policy, I'm just the same as any other editor and am prepared to argue my corner. If Malleus is unhappy with me doing the work I do here, he knows where to take it, and I wish he would. RFC or shut up, please. Rodhull andemu 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology is good, since the twat comment was way over any line for anyone, much less an admin who came here apparently to provoke Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something, again, or is this just another case of Rodhullandemu's head becoming far too large for the laws of physics to sustain? You should be careful Malleus, some editors might be too fat to run. You might get accused of fattism. Parrot of Doom 13:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the normal laws of physics apply to Rodhullandemu, who has it fixed in his head that Cary Grant must be described as British–American and not English–American, despite him being born in Bristol to English-born parents. He's deleted the relevant discussion from his talk page though, as it was making him ill apparently. There's a certain symmetry there though, as I'm sick to death with him and his ilk, particularly his over-inflated opinion of all the important work he does here, whatever that might be. Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You're just jealous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just amused by his "I'm really important" stance. Parrot of Doom 14:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm wonderful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

PING

I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Are you sure that "joint most" shouldn't be hyphenated? "Second-most" and "third-most" are hyphenated, so why not "joint-most"? – Pee Jay 01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure, but if you want a more authoritative opinion why not ask Tony1? My view is that hyphens are generally used to resolve reasonable ambiguity, particularly when using adjectives, so the issue is how reasonable is the ambiguity. In "Manchester United is the joint most successful club" there is no ambiguity, but "third most successful" and third-most successful" are subtley different. The first implies either that there has been a succession of "most successful" clubs, of which this one is the third, or that there is a league table of successful clubs each season, and that this club came third. In truth though I think it would be preferable to rewrite to avoid the need for hyphens. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The above answer remains a valid reason why I lurk on this page. I learn something new every time I visit --Senra (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just 'cause

Hey, Mal. I didn't want you to feel all alone and stuff in the uncivil accusations. Once I saw a movie with Albert Brooks and I can't remember the name of it, but at one point he just sat perplexed and said "I have no idea what to reply to that."

Natch, Albert. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Incivility has got to be the most widely and consistently abused word in the wikipedia lexicon. What it generally seems to mean is that you've hurt my feelings, so I'm going to tell Mummy on you. Crazy. I particularly like it when the poor wee bairns helpfully provide a link to a policy they plainly have never read themselves, or believe should not apply to them. Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. You watch that foul mouth of yours Madam. "Innuendo" indeed. I've blocked for less. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Shut up, assface. --Moni3 (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone else's funny broken, or just mine? --Moni3 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I have a translation please? Malleus Fatuorum 12:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, me. I think I'm hilarious with my ironic assface comment and everyone's out doing something important. Last night I saw a piece of vandalism so absurd and hysterical it made me laugh for 30 minutes. I think the mental unraveling is well underway. --Moni3 (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed my Freudian slip above: "I've blocked for less". As if. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill of Middlesex

Thanks for doing this review, Malleus; I've replied to most of your points, although I'm unsure about a few (probably me being grammatically ignorant). Ironholds (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to explain; basically sometimes the King's Bench is treated as plural when "them" is substituted for it, and sometimes as singular when "it" is. I don't have any strong preference either way, probably leaning more to singular than plural, but it ought to be consistently one or the other. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, got it; I'm in favour of "it" as well. I think that was one of my it's-2am-but-I'll-be-damned-if-I'm-dealing-with-this-shit-tomorrow articles. Now fixed, anyway. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That'll do for me, another nice job. I see you've got a few more in the queue; if they're still there next week I might take a look at them as well. Bad luck. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambrose Rookwood

Another notch on the powdery peg. What think yee? I've tried to make it flow as readily as possible and its probably little fluffier than you'd write yourself. I just need to write a lead. Parrot of Doom 19:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You're rattling through these. Got to pop out now and get a few chores done, but I'll have a good read through your latest oeuvre later. Are you heading for GAN or FAC? Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm undecided, because a good portion of the article is just the Gunpowder Plot, written from a different perspective. Its a similar issue with Everard Digby. Catesby and Fawkes are the two who can stand on their own, I think. Thomas Percy might be another, maybe. Parrot of Doom 19:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly "fluffier" than I'd write, but it probably uses a few more words than I would. I think that you probably have a more literary bent than I do, and you enjoy adding a bit of colour. My scientific/computing background and my general Zen philosophy mean that I try to use as few brush strokes as possible. It's just a slightly different way of writing. Anyhoo, having read through dear old Ambrose now I have only one issue to raise with you: "Rookwood had been asked to supply gunpowder to the group about a year earlier, under the pretence that it was for an English regiment in Spanish service, in Flanders—no longer illegal due to a recent Anglo-Spanish treaty". I think you're saying that it was no longer illegal to suply gunpowder to an English regiment in Spanish service, which looks strange enough at first sight (why would it ever have been illegal for the English to supply gunpowder to an English regiment?), but it looks like it could also mean that it was no longer illegal to ask for gunpowder to be supplied etc. That's a pretty small thing though; this is a great addition to the Gunpowder Plot opus. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my heart sank when I saw all the edits you made but when I looked at the diffs it was only minor changes, so I cheered up again :) I'll have to clarify that whole Spanish thing, if I can't I may just lose the "no longer illegal" bit. What do you think, GA or FA? I don't think there's much else to add to it. Parrot of Doom 22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I like to do it in little bits, makes it easier for you to revert anything you don't like, and I find it easier too. I'd be inclined to think about FAC rather than GAN. What else is there to say about the guy? Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot. I've exhausted what sources I have. Fraser is very thorough. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkey Test

I once worked for a fellow who wouldn't hire anyone (in the entire geographic Division) until they had had a long lunch or dinner interview with me; he said I had the best "Turkey Test". I was once gone from the country for a month for surgery, and he had to hire a guy in my absence-- a decision he regretted for the next three years.

Your talk page is the best Turkey Test on Wiki. The good folk congregate here and the Turkeys show up here first, and reveal their colors. It saves me SO much time :)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you had a great job there Sandy, reminds me a bit of how I got my first computer programming job. I answered an ad in the local paper and turned up with God knows how many others on the appointed to take an aptitude test. The test papers were taken away to be marked, and one by one we were called into an adjoining room to be told whether we were in or out. That was just the start of it though. Those of us who passed were sent to London for five weeks training and assessment, which involved being taken to a pub where the beer was free all night. The idea, we were told later, was to see how we behaved while pissed, as part of the job involved socialising with customers. Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes ... my Turkey Test was administered with scotch ... in places where you counted how long they poured, and if you couldn't make it to 18, it was a short drink! Amazing what people reveal when they're blitzed and can't handle a tall scotch. Or that they never realized that I always set up the waiters in advance, to keep filling my glass with ice under the guise of adding more scotch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.... now everyone who has posted on this page has to work out whether they're one of the turkeys or one of the good guys and gals. At least I'm usually sober when I do it - there again, did I write anything after the pub last Tuesday......? Richerman (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just you, I have to try and work it out as well. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys have busted AGF-o-meters ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think mine was broken when it arrived. I've always thought that AGF is largely a logic bomb deployed by idiots in a vain attempt to justify their idiocy, but that's probably just me. Why should I be expected to assume anything in the face of clear evidence to the contrary? I'm speaking generally of course, although I have noticed the discussion on your talk page SandyG. Don't know what to say about that really, except that it's a good thing that you have no aspirations to become an administrator. Prospective administrators must always be obsequious to the point of squeakiness, and must always preface any potentially confrontational remarks with fluff such "with all due respect" and other similar Californian civility popcorn. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Leave California out of this, you twat ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect you bitch, I'll say what I like about any US state. California's got nice geography but Californians are just crazy. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, now, I ... Uh... Darn it. We are. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bwaaaahaha ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to get some much-needed sleep, but this sort of bile seems to me to more typical of Wikipedia Review. As regards the bird metaphor, I consider myself to be more of a wounded swan than a lame duck, but I don't expect you people to get that. I just get on with things. Would that others would do the same. Rodhull andemu 00:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything I need to know, I learned on Wikipedia; then I fill in the blanks on WR. Please do get some sleep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed it. Who stole the bile? Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely it was Moni-- she's a sneaky one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

My fault, whatever it is. I fondly recall being recruited to teach 4th graders while blotto with a scotch in one hand and beer in another. Anyone want to guess if I passed? Speak softly of California today. I'm rather fond of it...until it does something stupid. I'm feeling rather sentimental about where I got married. --Moni3 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That must have been a pretty rough area if even the 4th graders were on the sauce. The only US states I've been to are California and Nevada, but what from I've seen of the others perhaps Vermont is the one where I'd feel most at home. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. One thing I do commend California for is its attitude towards marriage. We're starting to catch up here though with civil ceremonies. For those in a long-term same-sex relationship, not being able to make a legally binding public statement of commitment to a partner, which is what marriage really is, must put some strain on that relationship. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was immeasurably moved by the ceremonies performed in 2004 for the two weeks it was legal in San Francisco. Mrs. Moni and I made arrangements to go get hitched then, but it wasn't the right time at my job, and as soon as we made the decision the ceremonies ended and were voided. I think that's pretty much the way to go: marriage should require people to sit on the sidewalk for four days in the rain, not knowing when or if you will get called, sleeping in a wet sleeping bag covered with a torn garbage bag. There should be no glamour in a wedding. It should signify sacrifice, as if to say "This is what I would do for you." I saw today a gay-related bridal magazine and I thought "No, that's the wrong way to go." --Moni3 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite the MySpace aspect that this discussion has taken, Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 2 June 2010 needs some input from those Admins with fuck all else to do; at best, it will increase your editcount, but not gain you any visible kudos. However, that's not what you are her for- is it? Rodhull andemu 00:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of FAs that need to be written and reviewed, too. Go nuts. --Moni3 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I will forever find it incomprehensible that administrators like Rodhullandemu, on a project to build a free encyclopedia, have so little regard for those actually doing the writing instead of the really important stuff like checking to see if some images held on wikipedia are duplicated on Commons. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And here I was hoping to go read FAC, in Karanacs' absence, with a bit of good cheer on board! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

( Locally-putative turkey, here. ) Malleus, re "perhaps Vermont is the one (state) where I'd feel most at home", it might amuse you to learn that Vermont is the only one of the United States where both state residents and non-residents can carry a concealed handgun with no registration required or even possible, i.e. there's not even the provision for voluntary registration that other states employ. And residents of the state are certainly famous for being outspoken, as I'm sure you know, so it might be a great fit if you ever decide to emigrate. Besides, turkey shoots are a celebrated event there, every autumn, and from the contents of this thread, I can't but imagine you'd have fun at that. ;-) Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Alaska also allows carrying a handgun without permit. Courcelles 17:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Someone find me an interesting hook for DYK in Simon of Southwell! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Did you know… that Simon of Southwell was treasurer of the cathedral chapter of Lichfield Cathedral in 1203?" Some topics are inherently boring; if you really want a DYK in these cases, the only thing you can do is play it as self-parody and pick the most boring thing you can find, and trust that people will then click-through to see if the article's really as dull as it sounds. Doing this can actually generate a surprisingly high volume of traffic. – iridescent 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Did you know that Simon of Southwell, a medieval English canon lawyer, was named as administrator of the diocese of Canterbury during Hubert Walter's absence?" --Senra (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some trickery vis a vis "canon" and "cannon"? Or perhaps overuse of interesting Latin like "magistri"? Surely that'll grab the attention of some RPG nerds, yes? "Did you know that Simon of Southwell, described as a magistri mei in scholis, was a lecturer in canon law at Bologna?" ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 17:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School

Malleus, hope you're good. I'm thinking of taking this article to FAC in the near future (once I've sorted out the lead, and its had a copyedit) but I was wondering if you might take a quick look at it and tell me if I'm crazy to do so. I know you're busy so don't worry if you don't have the time (or just don't want to!). Thanks! Tom (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the dashes and just have a couple of points since this isn't a peer review; I'm not going to go over the top. In the lead, Specialist Music Colleges should just be Specialist Music College. In the table of headmasters, the notes "First headmaster" and "Longest serving headmaster" (which I think should be "Longest-serving headmaster") don't really serve much purpose as both can be reasonably assumed from the table itself. Also, the quote "an extortionate sum" needs a citation either after it or at the end of the sentence. Also a question: should subjects that are not proper nouns (ie. Art, Chemistry) be capitalised? Maybe they should in this context but I don't know; I'm sure somebody will tell you though. That's all from me for now. Big Dom 07:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dom, much appreciated! I've removed the entire notes column on the table. Regards the subjects, I'm really not sure. Anyone know? Tom (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You commonly see subject names like "Chemistry" capitalised in school and university prospectuses, but I think that's wrong. If you check with a dictionary, "chemistry" isn't capitalised, and neither is "art". Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus. Indeed the school website seems to capitalise them all, but I think I've changed them all, except from languages (which should still be capitalised, right?). Tom (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's my interpretation. Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus. I'm going through The Judd School with a fine tooth comb now, imagining it was written by Carlos Tevez. I was going to wait for your views before nominating, but I keep a close eye on your talk page and I wasn't sure how active you were these days. For what its worth, I think you should stick around; I haven't been on Wikipedia long, but I've been around long enough to that your one of the finest editors going, and you've always been really helpful to me so thanks!

I did wonder whether that made sense. I can't for the life of me think of what to change it to, any ideas? Tom (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated Malleus. Tom (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In English, words are much more commonly capitalised then in America. So checking a UK website by a school or university will reveal this. Having been away from Wikipedia for a while and now checking in and reading articles feels odd. Odd in the sense that it is like reading a newspaper that was written over 50 years before; so the styling seems old fashioned. Now I'm not sure what this has to do with 'Art' and 'Chemistry', but it's something about the MOS capitalisation that makes Wikipedia seem odd. Malleus is of course correct in that it's written 'art' and 'chemistry' in a dictionary. But somehow, that is not the complete answer but it is the answer within the framework of Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks once again Malleus for your invaluable help on this. If I can ever help you out in anyway please give me a shout, it'd be a pleasure. Tom (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I think if you're prepared to bend a little on the Taylor source you ought to be able to steer this through. For instance, I'd definitely consider dropping that "the Judd School had established a reputation with some of the leading universities" claim, and perhaps look at a few others that you might be willing to lose as well. In general though I wouldn't be too worried about that 1c) oppose at this stage; all you need to do is to counter the self-published claim with the author's credentials. With luck, Ealdgyth or BrianBoulton will be able to find the time to offer an opinion on the sourcing, but I'd still look to prune at least some of the arguably self-promotional aspects that are sourced to Taylor. I believe it's called a compromise. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Righteo, I'll have a look at it now. To be honest, when I added in the bit about the universities I did wonder, but I was trying to bulk out that section a bit. I've just read Brian's comments and I think he is spot on, I suppose schools are by their nature quite secretive in that the only people that really know whats going on are the teachers and pupils. Tom (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Polakovs

On 15 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Polakovs, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

St James' Church

I have been trying hard not to bother you. I am struggling to decide which is correct in an article title; St James's Church or St James' Church. I realise I can cover both using a redirect, though I would rather be as correct as possible with the article title. The MOS:Possessives states that either is correct providing one is applied consistently within an article. In this instance, I would rather defer to you than the MOS.

Go with what they call it Parrot of Doom 13:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Good advice but wrong Stretham – Website:St James' Church --Senra (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the church's official name is something like the Parish Church of St James, hence the inconsistency between "James" and "James'" when an informal name is used, so that's probably what I'd call the article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, look more closely; the one in Stretham is St James', the one in Streatham is St James. – iridescent 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Same thing applies; Images of England calls it the Church of St James, which I'd hazard a guess is its official name. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a photograph of the church sign today and unless Lynne Truss visited Stretham recently, "S^t. James' Church, Stretham" is what the sign-writer was instructed to call it --Senra (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sign writers often make mistakes, and perhaps the church prefers to use its colloquial name on the sign (with the full stop after "St" I mean). I don't think there's going to be a "right" answer here. I'd go with either of "St James' Church" or "Church of St James", and I don't think there's much to choose between them. I might just have a slight preference for "Church of St James". Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is. The full formal names of churches usually begin "Parish church of ...." which of course is no use (same in most European languages) and the clergy/parishioners use whatever common name they feel like at any particular point. Johnbod (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert

Why did you revert my indent? The user was blocked only moments ago for making such frivolous votes. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you have no moral authority to indent the votes of anyone you take a dislike to. The user was not blocked when (s)he voted. What is happening here is corrupt and dishonest. There is no "disruption" caused except the sanctimonious like yourself, who just have to get their knife in. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The user was blatantly trolling at the time. His votes were disruptive, pure and simple. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus is right. IMHO with the exception of proven SPA's all comments at RFA should stay intact. Having a less than 100% perfect vote at RFA doesn't give you a few less tools or something after all. Pedro : Chat 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the user was "blatantly trolling", not a proven fact. (S)he may simply have been trying to get other editors to think, an uphill battle on this site. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling

"Married women could not own property in their own right, and were indeed themselves the property of their husbands.[10]" - that comes from a Caine and Slug, 2002. Do you still have the source? I wondered if it elaborated at all on the status of wives. I need something along those lines to help explain why a wife murdering her husband was considered petty treason, and not just murder. Parrot of Doom 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant pages are available on Google books.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 11:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Parrot of Doom 12:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Civility coaching

I need some civility coaching :( --Senra (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In my experience there will be no shortage of ~~sanctimonious twats~~ helpful souls offering you their advice. My advice is to ignore them, especially those who consider themselves "your betters" as in this case, and just get on with it. Malleus Fatuorum 11:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So, he was such a gentleman not to mention, what he thought was, your lapse of memory but not enough of a gentleman to apologise when he realised he was completely wrong. Don't you just love it when people who consider themselves "your betters" make a complete dick of themselves? Of course, you would think such an experienced editor would know that there is no need to reference something in the lead that is already referenced elsewhere in the text. Richerman (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(re Richerman) you make a valid point that I too wanted to make, that there is no need to reference something in the lead that is already referenced elsewhere in the text. As I am still a relatively new editor, I was unsure of my facts. WP:LEADCITE seems clear. If the subject is controversial, it needs to be cited, even in the lead. In this case, I had hoped that the proper citations in the body covered the lack of such citations in the lead. I was wrong. My own personal remaining view on this subject is that the addition of two citations in the lead now adds undue weight. I am cool though; I have had my hot black Earl Grey; back to Senra/St James' Church which is taking me far too long :( --Senra (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I never cite things in the lead, it just seems messy to me. Even extraordinary claims, if they're in the body then I think that's fine. Parrot of Doom 16:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Same here - the lead should really be a summation of the text so why cite twice? if someone wants to argue about what's there just point them to the cited information. There are occasional exceptions where something merits a brief mention in the lead but it's not really enough to be worked into the text again later - such as here - then it needs a citation, but generally I think the lead is better off without them. Others may disagree, of course, but really there are no hard and fast rules about these things. However, a double citation in the lead for something that's cited later is, as you say, giving it undue weight. Richerman (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I'd ever put citations in the lead is to attribute direct quotations. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally do so for naming variations that aren't enough to merit a long discussion in the body, but that are something like a spelling variation. Classic example would be Thomas Becket, where the variant names merit a discussion in the body, versus Walter de Coutances, where the different names aren't that odd and not really worth an explanation in the body. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but of course only the vulgar (who don't watch QI) would call him 'Thomas à Becket' :) Richerman (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a strange article: "One of Thomas's father's rich friends, Richer de L'Aigle, was attracted to Thomas's sisters. He often invited Thomas to his estates in Sussex." If he fancied Tom's sisters, then why didn't he invite them to his country pad? Sounds more like he fancied Tom to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gods, I know. I know I should be working on Becket, but... I just can't summon the energy. Frankly, Becket was a nutter and just a bit ... insane, at least in my opinion. And the main definitive biography of Becket is written by one of my less-favourite writers, so .. he languishes. Of course, the same thing is happening to Anselm of Canterbury and Lanfranc - the folks I don't like much just don't get any attention! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you must be mistaken Ealdgyth. I'm reliably informed by the Guardians of the Wiki^TM that the project is now in its maintenance phase, everything now pretty much having been written. So yours and my services are no longer required. What we need is more administrators, to guard the Holy Grail. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh come now, Malleus. Administrators don't guard the holy grail. They are strictly tasked with guarding each others' backs and ability to block the lowly. :-) Keeper | 76 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Roswell

Hi Malleus. How are you? :) I noticed your edits to Maggie Roswell and just thought I'd drop by to say thanks. Where do you think the article is in terms of quality? I'm thinking about nominating it for Good article status sometime in the near future. Kind regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good and would probably stand a good chance at GAN. Parts are written a little too informally for my taste, such as "The company people do everything they can to fire her because they do not want to pay her retirement benefits, which are about to kick in", but I don't see anything major. You've even got a good and properly licensed picture for the lead, which is a nice touch. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that picture was actually uploaded today. Mrs. Roswell was nice enough to donate it to us. I'll try to make some parts of the article a bit more formal before taking it to GAN. Thanks again! Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Was Maggie *Roswell* her given name? Seems unlikely ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question. A quick Google search suggests that her real name is Mary Margaret Nena Roswell. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Her full name used to be in the article, but I had to remove it since I couldn't find any reliable sources to verify it. Theleftorium ^(talk) 12:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that this ought to be sufficient for that kind of info, although Ealdgyth may disagree. TV.com is a brand name of CBS Interactive. Malleus Fatuorum 12:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

... not so sure now, as it looks like any registered user can edit that entry. Malleus Fatuorum 12:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Since actor equity rules require actors to change their name if the name is already taken by another actor, my question actually relates to whether she was born with that name, or had to change it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My ex met Roswell in LAX. They were both flying to Denver and no seats were left. My ex gave up her seat because Roswell was fairly anxious to get back to Denver. In return, Roswell gave my ex (not a particularly fervent Simpsons fan) an autographed script of "Hurricane Neddie". I thought it was neat. So did her business partner at the time, who took the script and never gave it back. Bitch. --Moni3 (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for indulging/expanding my Roswell fixation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My ex also met Brenda Lee in a laundromat somewhere in Kansas. --Moni3 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have been so lucky in Kansas; instead, I went to CVS at midnight for ... oh, never mind, I don't want to offend MF's sensitivities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's guess anyway. You went to get a feminine product that inspired my username, did you not? --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, the kidney stone came later-- get the chronology correct ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks re: Kent Island (California)

Thanks for your help with the coding on the article. Wiki-markup is doubtless something that will take me a while to learn and master. Best wishes, Jusdafax 04:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're bored

Jack Ketch was an crap executioner, so crap in fact he once made a public apology. He has a fairy significant ODNB entry which makes for entertaining reading, and there's even a link to Punch and Judy. Apparently a room in Newgate Prison was named after him - the room where they parboiled heads. You should get your chops around that one. Parrot of Doom 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and just look at that lovely in popular culture section... Parrot of Doom 21:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's longer than the article! I wouldn't be surprised if user:Iridescent picked this one up. It would be a great addition to their series on Strange And Intriguing People From Centuries Past. –xeno^talk 22:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Before I disabled my email I had a message from another editor saying that she too was considering abandoning wikipedia, as "it eats content contributors". Increasingly I'm finding the system whereby children have authority over me to be completely unacceptable, particularly when they come here yelping about "incivility". Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I think you have the patience of a saint. When I'm working on an article, there are moments when I'm extremely grouchy and simply don't want to be bothered. I just want to get on with the work. If I had to put up with the stuff you put up with here, I'd be gone in a second. All that said - Jack Ketch is an interesting character. Might be worth thinking about ... and maybe worth putting up with a little more abuse to crank out yet one more great article? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to do anything to an article with that much popular culture trivia is an exercise in futility. Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The popular culture section should be dumped. There's not a lot in the page worth saving, so maybe hacking back to a stub and starting fresh would be the best course to take. That's how I'd go about it. Keep it on the back burner. Also, I've been thinking about your comment, sometime ago, about what others have done for you. When I have time, I'd like to have a go at restructuring Workhouse. I've had a look at it, and see how it can be restructured, but am too busy for a few weeks to give it the time it needs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Have at it. I'm happy to take whatever flak flies my way because of that, but I'm totally backed in policy. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 02:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nev1 as well. Clearly I've forgotten how to do my homework. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 02:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another thing to do if you're bored, go reply to my FAC!--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 02:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have another read through it later. One thing did strike me though, and that's from the sub's description (slow, unable to stay submerged for long, tendency to broach or dive suddenly after firing a torpedo) one gets the impression that it wasn't a very successful weapon, and yet UB-10 and UB-16 appear to have caused significant losses to enemy shipping. How did they manage to do that if they weren't fast enough to catch a steam ship on the surface and couldn't stay submerged for more than an hour or so? Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer is actually quite obvious, Allied shipping anti-submarine techniques were wither non-existent in the Adriatic and Flanders or were horrible. Remember, this was the first was with submarines being widely used and no-one knew how to detect or escape a sub attack. So even though the UB-1s were rather bad at their job, they succeeded nonetheless as the measures to prevent them (Otranto Barrage for example) were equally bad at stopping them from reaching vital shipping lanes or from sinking or damaging them altogether.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(od) Patent GB 112578 for an example of an anti-submarine net, invented by a man who later went on to invent the self-illuminating powder compact. It's available on Wikipatents.com. Basically the sub comes along, gets tangled in the net, the pull on the net causes a plug to fall out of the bottom of the mine which then sinks on top of the sub. Ning-ning (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA

I said it would happen: Now that the GorillaWarfare has ended and X has zapped the proficiency bar, there is a veritable stampede at the admissions door.--Kudpung (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed. I think that X! made a serious mistake. Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as I said strongly on his talk page. He basically has hung a sign out "No Experience Necessary".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We're undoubtedly mistaken though, as bureaucrats never make mistakes. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I knew !X was a robot! Because we all know that humans make mistakes :P--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was further amazed by Kingturtle's (crat) comment that prospective admins are not expected to have any experience of the RfA process. If they had, they would be more convincing, better prepared, and come across as less naive. I hope that the cratship criteria are not going to be turned into a joke as well. .--Kudpung (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody else noticed that we're running six RfAs, the lowest of which is at 85% while simultaneously holding "Adminship is too hard" and opposer hate threads on the talkpage? Coincidence? I think not. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I rarely believe in coincidences. Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gliding FAR

Hi Malleus! Would you mind revisiting the Gliding FAR (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gliding/archive1)? It looks like the main editor has been working on addressing your concerns, and feels that they are finished unless more comments are brought forward. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A fast response, as always! Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Informed opinion

Malleus. I am seeking informed opinion on a WP:RS matter being discussed on the RS noticeboard here. I believe my view of the The Bourne Archive is clearly stated. Your view would be very welcome --Senra (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not. And pretty much doesn't qualify as an EL either. While I'm sympathetic to the concept of not running off editors, neither should we be promoting bad sourcing. Too many of Wikipedia's articles use bad sourcing and we shouldn't give an inch on this, while certainly we should be polite in educating new editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ealdgyth. Malleus Fatuorum 12:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am getting too wound up here. Going to stop editing for a bit to cool down. Have fun --Senra (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's too easy to get wound up here Senra, and there are even those who make it their mission to wind you up. Ealdgyth is right; there's a misconception within wikipedia that what it needs is inexperienced new editors who might possibly produce something worthwhile, and a desire to drive away those who already have. The unaccountable way in which the project is governed has much to do with it, but that's not going to change unless the turkeys start voting for Christmas. Take a few deep breaths and then come back and do what at least some of us peons do, which is whatever you can in the hope that one day there will be a rational replacement for this broken project, to which our freely given work can be transferred. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

X!

In regards to your comment here, I was just wondering what the other display of poor judgment was. If you could point me in the right direction, that would be appreciated. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}19:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}20:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question for you

Do you think they will give me problems over the quote from Joseph Roberts in the final paragraph of this section? Or should I just cut it out now and spare them the trouble?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, leave it in; it adds a bit of period colour. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's my inclination. That era was very uninhibited. Thanks for the input.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. 67.80.250.138 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Which comment has troubled you? How can a comment be disruptive in any case? Which editor do you believe that I have attacked? So many questions. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It was This comment, attacking the judgement of X! 67.80.250.138 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You use the word "attack" in rather a curious way, so I'll have to assume that your first language is not English. Let me try to explain. It is not an attack to disagree with another editor, or to state an opinion that some action of that editor or others might be considered to reek of dishonesty, it's a difference of opinion. If you still don't understand the difference then I'll be happy to try and explain it to you again, using words containing fewer syllables if that might help you. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was this one, then I suggest that you take a few minutes to read all of your blue links and come back when you can distinguish between an opinion and an attack. Please consider this to be your first warning for disruption and incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I love experienced editors who hide behind the anonymity of an IP. Parrot of Doom 20:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly curious that an IP would issue such an imperious final warning in defence of a bureaucrat with whom I disagree. Presumably his intent is to shut me up. Fat chance. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You should be quaking in your boots, Malleus. The civility police will be here any moment to block you based on the templated npa4 warning from an IP address. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me, stranger things have happened. Have I ever told you about the time I was blocked for using the word sycophantic? Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes...at least a thousand times.... :P--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 21:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So have you learned the lesson from the story? Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, not entirely. Care to tell me? (I'm not being sarcastic at all in case you were wondering, I'm actually curious.)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 21:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read the H. G. Wells short story "The Country of the Blind"? I'm guessing not, because it's a pretty good analogy for what's wrong with wikipedia. Only those who embrace the status quo are allowed to climb wikipedia's greasy pole, the rest have to be cleansed of their heresy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How can one be given a final warning, when no others have yet been given? And anyway, I cannot even see any incivility, let alone an "attack". Aiken ♫ 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no logic here, just prejudice and stupidity. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey now, not all of us IPs are "hiding", trying to keep our edits from being linked to our account. Some of us are retired. Or are at least trying to be. And there's no attack here. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}22:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, as a member of the civility police, I hereby strenuously admonish you, order you to be ashamed of yourself, and dock two months of your pay. Any further criticism of bureaucrats may result in waterboarding. Swarm^Talk 02:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread is pitiful. No one is chasing Malleus away, no matter how lame his attacks might be. Swarm, I hereby order you to make that three months without pay as Malleus is being too nice nowadays. —fetch ·comms 03:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is this "lame attack" you're alleging that I've made? Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This per the IP, and while I don't endorse personal attacks of any nature, I remember the days when you'd be blocked for your opinions. Thank heavens for no-nonsense writers like you. I never got why this project is chasing away "uncooperative" writers. —fetch ·comms 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an easy one. Because its governance is lame, much like the old American Wild West. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Willie...

I've added a small bit of information to the article, and it should probably be mercilessly edited since I"m sure I was entirely too verbose. Deacon's been playing with the ordering of the article also, so I'm sure Willie's suffered a bit... thanks so much, by the way, for all you do. You're so totally underappreciated it's not funny. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this has come up before, and if so I forget what your answer was, but is "Great Britain" really correct here? "William, like every other Canterbury archbishop since Lanfranc, maintained that Canterbury held primacy—in essence, overlordship—over all other dioceses in Great Britain ...". Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's either that or "British Isles". And the problem is that it's kinda vague on where exactly the various archbishop's claimed primacy... did they include Ireland? Sometimes...did they mean Scotland and Wales? Yes, they did. I probably would have used BI here but Deacon put that bit in and GB isn't strictly speaking wrong. It could be qualified with "the island of Great Britain" to make it clearer we're not talking about the political entity. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not about to get into an argument with Deacon, so Great Britain it is then. Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, Willie's done. Just one final question: "The bishops argued that the oath had been imposed wrongly by Henry ...". Does that mean that Henry had no right to impose the oath, or that he'd imposed it incorrectly? Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No right to impose it. At this period of time I don't know of any disputes about the actual "form" of the oath being wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll slightly reword to make that clearer, then I'm done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The episcopal structure of the Western church was theoretically supposed to be derived from the provincial structure of the Roman Empire as it was in its last days in the West. People then were a bit fuzzy about whether or not Britannia included Scotia (which is the land north of the Forth ... there no concept of "Scotland" in its current form) let alone Ireland. It was a name for the island of Great Britain, for the area of Britain south of the Forth, it was another name for the Kingdom of England, and in Welsh Latin and some other pre-1100 texts it is the name for the area corresponding to what is now Wales. I wouldn't put "British Isles", but if something about it bothers either one of you just replace it with "England". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less ... but I don't wanna fight the anti-British Isles crowd again, I had a run in with them earlier in the year and it royally sucked. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey hey ... this is why I said "I wouldn't put "British Isles". Ealdgyth, while I'm here, do you hae access to Nicholl's book on Thurstan? This historian is familiar with Hugh the Chanter, who is the main source for Corbeil's first visit to the papal court. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have it ... somewhere. While I was gone to Europe this summer, the cleaning ladies... cleaned. And some things have gone ... awol. Still trying to find them (which is why Thurstan's not quite at FAC yet...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Crew"

Hi Malleus, maybe you can answer, or any Brits can jump in. "the 1000 crew", "the crew of 1000" ... are both possible on your side of the pond? We need "the crew of 1000" over here per the usual dictionaries. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Brit jumping in, and I would say that "the crew of 1000" would be the one used over here as well. Never seen "the 1000 crew" used, although "the 1000-strong crew" would be acceptable. Big Dom 07:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, looking up, I see a question I've always wanted to ask, and there are a whole nest of Brits here so ... I know the dictionary says "British Isles" means Great Britain and Ireland (if the latter two are taken to include surrounding isles) ... but is there any controversy surrounding the term in Ireland? - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(Forgive my jumping in!) Very much so. In fact there's an article about it: British Isles naming dispute. the wub "?!" 09:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wandsworth

Thanks for your tweaking and poking on that one. It may be one of the dullest articles on Wikipedia, but as you may know (IIRC you used to live in Chiswick) it's a genuinely high-importance one. Kew and Twickenham are still unwritten but they should be fairly quick, and that will complete the set. This kind of "genuinely significant but not much to say about it" article is always a hard one to write, and the sources are well and truly milked dry. – iridescent 19:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You're right, I lived in Chiswick for close on 12 years, so I know the bridges to the west of London fairly well, especially Kew Bridge of course. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Potentially instructive examples

I thought that one or two examples of the kind of emails I was receiving until recently may be instructive. This one in particular caught my eye, sent on 14 July:

Do you really think that I [User:MacDaid] and Mattisse and Xztou should be indefinitely blocked for behavior much less obtrusive that you and Moni3 engage in regularly? The three of us have contributed unstintingly to the good of wikipedia articles, without asking for "stars" or claiming "I wrote my articles" and such. It sickens me. None of us engaged in vulgarity or personal attacks. Moni3 is a self involved "editor", (I know you get along with females rather than males) who "owns" articles. You attack with vulgarities unnecessarily when you could get your point across in other ways. Is that the way to attract new editors to wikipedia, which it desperately needs? Or are you like Moni3 and turn you nose up at new neditors. Have you notices that the page hits for many, if not most FACs, is a few thousand a year at the most? Do you really care about wikipedia at all?

I found that one curious on so many different levels, not least of which is that I have never called for or endorsed a block on anyone. Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm more puzzled that anyone could get so worked up over this place that they would send such an email. I mean, really. Parrot of Doom 19:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but what is a "self-involved editor"? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. The whole episode made no sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it curious. Mattisse is still obviously troubled and has no familiarity with straightforward communication or taking responsibility for her own actions. She needs help and I pity her. I hope she gets counseling. She clearly needs it.

If you let these emails bother you, Malleus, just consider that she only appears to be able to manipulate and obfuscate and is trying to upset you, cause you to question yourself, and diminish your enjoyment in what you do here. She is succeeding. She emails people with whom she has had conflicts in the past when she is mentioned in various talk pages. Not to explain, build bridges, or improve anyone's lives, but to sow discord such as this. This will no doubt cause another spate of her trademark manipulative missives to the same editors, none of whom ever deserved her twisted attention. --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really bother me, I just find I can do without it. I did find the "I know you get along with females rather than males" comment rather strange though, as I've always dealt with people as I find them, regardless of their gender or sexuality. I suspect that was a knock at SandyG and Karanacs; you wouldn't believe how many emails I've had telling me what a bad lot they are. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

MF, dear, any attention is better than no attention to some people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, ready for round two

Hi Malleus, did a bit of work on the Varian article, ready for round two, though I may need some further feedback to fix a couple things. I hope that I clarified the training and philosophy sections so they are more understandable to non-horse people. I added some additional references. Jack also went through and cleaned up my refs a bit more. I also hope I fixed the pedigree stuff. Just let me know what else is having trouble, and I'll get to it as soon as I can (which may mean a wait of a day or so, but I won't forget about it!) Montanabw^(talk) 02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and take another look through it later. Malleus Fatuorum 11:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all you do, Malleus! Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

I opened a thread about your comment regarding my intelligence.Camelbinky (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it ironic, considering the comment under discussion, that you didn't bother to produce a link? Parrot of Doom 23:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you just proved my point Camelbinky. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Montmartre funicular

Thanks for your copy edits at Montmartre funicular. Si Trew (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 14:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I hope never to become a policeman, virtual or otherwise - they never seem to have any fun. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations; I have no fears of you turning into a policeman. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR request

Hi Malleus! I don't know if you have any interest in working on a couple of FARs right now, but there are a couple of new ones that could use your prose expertise. They both have inexperienced nominators who either don't thoroughly understand the FA criteria or didn't make it clear what their concerns regarding the criteria were. Anyway, this is probably more information than you need, so here are the links: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/0.999.../archive1. If you have the time/interest your input would be much appreciated; if not, I'll trundle along and try to find someone else :) Dana boomer (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll check them later, but perhaps not until this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 11:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. As I've said the the reviews, I don't think that either of those should have been nominated at FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For your commentary about six months ago. Nothing came of it, alas, but it is sadly rare to see someone whose principles outweigh personal feelings. Thanks. →ROUX ₪ 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you'll have to remind me Roux, six months is a long time ago when you get to my age. On your more general point, I have weeks where I sometimes think that I'm the only editor on wikipedia who puts principle above personal feelings. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Arf

There's no article for Straw bear day. I think I might have a stab at that one. Background. Parrot of Doom 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Enlarged and improved organ

At the (seriously unintended) risk of starting a puerile thread here, do you have any sources to help expand "the organ was enlarged and improved in 1907 by Mr. H. J. Lister" from here? --Senra (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You want User:David Underdown for that one. – iridescent 12:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[An organ geek writes:] There's this, FWIW. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow Bencherlite. That is what I call service. Thank you --Senra (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, and I could just about have manged a nudge in the direction of NPOR, but bells are more my thing. Organs are jsut somethign I sing along to, and hope that the person driving knows what they are doing! David Underdown (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No doubt in my mind, all you guys rock! Thank you Iridescent for finding the two people who knew their onions --Senra (Talk) 13:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On the same subject, do you think the DYK hook "Did you know that in 1907, Paddy Benson carried out a reconstruction and enlargement of J W Walkers 1886 organ in St James' Church, Stretham (pictured)?" is a double entendre irreverently too far? --Senra (Talk) 11:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Vangjel Meksi

Many thanks for your edits in Vangjel Meksi. It's a GA nominee: shall I take it that you are the reviewer? --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just mooching around GAN looking for something to review to get my own nomination a bit further up the queue, but yes, I will review Meksi. I probably won't get to it until tomorrow though. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, fantastic, thank you so much! --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank me when it's over Sulmues, you may hate me by then. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no I'm prepared for it. I know what it takes to bring to GA: it's that I have used all that can be used for Meksi, there is almost nothing else around. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You've obviously never had one of my GA reviews. Well, you're about to get one now, so hold onto your hat! Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Common Sense

I happened to notice your comments, it's nice to see that everybody on Wikipedia isn't a whining troublemaker and states the facts.

If Camelbinky's IQ is in the top 1% then I have only two things to say; first of all commiserations, and secondly that I'm a Chinese whore on crack. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is that soliciting the blocking/banning of other editors is a cancer that needs to be dealt with. BTW, calling me a troll is most definitely a personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is as funny as shit:

I'll just get attacked here for making another complaint and this wont be taken seriously and it will continue because everyone knows "make fun of Camelbinky and nothing will happen".Camelbinky (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be on Wikipedia for quite awhile, to many douchebags, one right after the other. There are people on here that are hell bent on what could be a good thing for everybody in general with penny-ante bureaucratic bullshit and you have to humour every misanthrope with an internet connection. Stick to your guns. 7mike5000 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that now he's unblocked, my favourite "fuck yourself with a chainsaw" friend is back on your case. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Roux is what he is. I have nothing but disdain for those like Camelbinky who try to get other editors blocked: "Um, can I get a 24 hour block on Malleus for what he said on the above closed thread?'" Pathetic. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in a lot of pain right now, so this seems like a good idea to post: the concept of effective pedagogy and education seems to be a foreign concept to many editors, which surprises me. The outcome of any effort to change your behavior, Malleus, does not appear to be as important as the punishment involved in these draconian exhibitions of "you hurt my feelings, now suffer". Bang the square peg into the round hole harder and it just might fit.

That, and per And yes, I would GLADLY put my best ARTICLE contributions against his best article contributions any day makes me point out that my penis is larger than any of yours. All of you. Me, big penis. I need drugs now. --Moni3 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The other day someone, I think it was MastCell, brought the quip "the internet is populated by eggshells armed with hammers" to my attention for the first time. Ever since, I see wiki-eggs wielding wiki-hammers all over the noticeboards. Can't get the image out of my head. (Malleus of course is a hammer armed with a hammer). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all just sticks and stones. I've never, and I never will, call for sanctions against another editor, unlike the self-confessed genius who calls himself Camelbinky. His friend Roux is simply unworthy of comment. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just couldn't resist the lame pun on your name. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I must be getting through to Moni; she's banging square pegs into round holes and talking bout big Willies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And there was Senra trying to avoid starting a puerile thread - some hopes! :-) Richerman (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear, Malleus. I don't think I've seen a more unreasonable block request, nor did I ever think I would (but then, I don't really hang around ANI; I've got bigger things to worry about than trying to get other editors blocked). Had I been around before the thread closed, I would have told your surly friends to go fight to improve an article instead of fighting to get back at the guy-who-chastised-them-but-broke-no-rules. Save the ANI for the real troublemakers and take a short break from Wikipedia if you're upset, my friends. What do you have to gain? Roux, if you're reading this, remember the advice White Shadow and I gave you. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Twilight Helryx 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

More silliness: KoshVorlon calling you a jerk, whilst removing apparent "personal attacks". Are you not allowed to say things about yourself now? Aiken ♫ 12:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of "personal attack" most commonly used here appears to be "anything I don't like or don't agree with", and it ony applies to other editors, so long as they're not administrators. 13:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, human nature. Don't these people have other things to worry about besides considering statements they find insulting "personal attacks"? Really, I've had pretty harsh things said to me before (both online and in real life), but they never bugged me enough to make me snappish. Can't we all just get along?--Twilight Helryx 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've long thought that forums like WQA and to a large extent ANI cause more problems thay were ever intended to solve. There's a certain type of editor who rushes off there on the slightest pretext with the hope of having whoever it that (s)he's involved in a dispute with at the very least blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. That's why, my advice to those who intend to hang around there would be to break out the coke and popcorn, because they're in for quite the show(s). Translation: Too much empty drama for any sane person to bother with.--Twilight Helryx 15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only editor who drives-by ANI just for a laugh now and again? At one stage recently, I felt like putting in a 24 hour block request against Malleus for "persistent unwarranted behaviour verging on extreme civility towards me" with a long list of diff's supporting my argument. I stood back for a moment. When I reasoned that the apparent lack of any sense of humour in such places led me to think that I myself might get blocked for being facetious, I withheld my post --Senra (Talk) 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm perhaps one of the most unselfish, helpful, supportive ... (running out of self-aggrandising superlatives here) editors on wikipedia I'm forever destined to be portrayed as an uncivil "dick of porn star proportions". So if you'd made that posting at ANI it would more likely have been me who was blocked, not you. Just because. I could give you a long list of administrators who are looking for any reason to block me, and the way it works here is that once you've been blocked you're obviously a bad 'un. But am I bitter? You bet your ass I am. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No you're not the only one Senra, I do it occasionally. Then again I do the same with the Daily Mail's website. Sometimes its funny to see how other people view life. Parrot of Doom 22:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ce?

Was wondering if you could ce Mauna Kea. I'm trying to get it through as many people as I can before I put it through FAC. Appreciated, ResMar 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look through, perhaps tomorrow. As has already been said in the peer review though, you really need to cut that lead down a bit. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I know I do, but can't, which is the problem D: ResMar 00:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite good at hacking away at prose, we'll get it down to a reasonable size. Just close your eyes and open them again when the job's done. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, hold off on it. The comments I'm getting right point to "total rewrite." Sigh...Res Mar 21:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad

No please go ahead, you are doing GREAT. I just thought it should have been me to put the "Done" template, as I was seeing one GA nominee. This is my first application. Undid myself, sorry about it. And the review is SIGNIFICANTLY improving the article. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My aim is to be able in all conscience to list your article as a GA, but I'm aware that I can be a little demanding. So if you're in for the ride, then so am I. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, let's continue. Again, sorry, I should have seen the diffs of the people who put the {{done}} templates. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you dreaming already of being Mr. Pinkerton? I sure dreamt of being Mr. Meksi when I wrote that article in June and now I'm reviving the dream, :-). --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Working with you was an excellent experience! I really had fun going after your suggestions and making fixes. Thank you for your time and support! I hope I can one day return the favor. --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It usually is; don't listen to what those nasty administrators say about me. ;-) Congratulations on a nice piece of work on what is undoubtedly to many a rather obscure topic. Just what wikipedia needs more of. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Another FAR

Hi Malleus - Thank you for your comments at the two recent FARs. Both of them will be able to be closed before going through FARC, which is always nice. If you are interested, there is another FAR that may be able to be kept pre-FARC. The review for Chess can be found at WP:Featured article review/Chess/archive3. Thanks in advance if you have the time and interest; no big deal if you don't. Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Only if you promise, cross your heart and hope to die, that you won't turn into one of those nasty administrators I was referring to above when your RfA succeeds. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll bribe her Appie to turn into a typical Appie if she does. That'd teach her. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me, why aren't you an administrator Ealdgyth? Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(snorts). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, he is a typical Appy, and that's why I like him. It would be if you bribed him to start acting like an Arab that it would "teach me"...*oh, buurrn* :) Secondly, Malleus, I promise to not turn into a nasty admin if my RfA succeeds (btw, thanks for the support, both of you), but only if you promise not to leave and make Ealdgyth and me find someone else who doesn't mind being inundated with requests for copyediting horses and bishops... Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've thought for some time now that my time here is up, and I'm surprised to find myself still here; my mistake I think was in not choosing a nice pink and fluffy username, but that's history. Oh, and in saying what I think in terms that seem to offend the Californian kiddies who seem to run this site. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just don't judge the rest of the US by the Californians :) Us out here in the midwest are actually usually pretty nice and laid back... And actually, on the Chess FAR, hold off for a bit, unless you're really looking for something to do. I had only taken a quick glance at the actual article last night, and upon a more thorough look this morning it's not quite ready for you. Sorry for getting your hopes up *grin*. Dana boomer (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK on both counts. Let me know when and if you wany me to take a look at it. Malleus Fatuorum 11:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Something that is ready for you to take a look at though, if you would like, is Andalusian horse. I'd like to nominate it the week after Labor Day weekend (err...do you have Labor Day in the UK? If not, it's the first weekend in September in the US), so it's not in a huge hurry, but I would like to get your thoughts on it if you are interested in giving them. There are some pretty complicated breed politics, and I'm not sure if I managed to explain them in a way that is comprehensible to non-horsey folk. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't have Labor Day, although we do have a bank holiday at the end of August, this weekend in fact. I'll get to it before Labor Day. Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

I'm not sure if you are still a copyeditor for hire, but I would really appreciate help with this dour fellow: Ezra Pound. Its a week or two from FAC, and at the 'calling in the heavies' stage. Its a fairly absorbing story, though seeped in tragedy and at times farce. Any help appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. I'm bound to learn something as well, as I know virtually nothing about Pound. Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sound, though its not a happy story, creaping madness/genious, antisemtism; at one point he was imprisioned in a suspended cage under the guise of mental health. But thats the early modernists for you. Considering that generation were almost reduced to cannon fodder, it not much wonder they were so bleak. Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus. I didn't want to bother you, particularly after you worked on Hemingway and Evans, but Pound is an interesting subject and needs your considerable skills. One of the lines in the article I like is that he challenged a fellow to duel because, in his words "stupidity carried beyond a certain point becomes a public menace". Take as long as you need. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

He sounds like a man after my own heart. I'll try and get through it over the weekend. Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment about the flow in the article. I've trimmed out some material. Feel free to either delete or comment out anything you see as unnecessary. Some things need to stay in for various reasons, so if necessary we can discuss on the talkpage. I'd rather trim and re-add judiciously (if warranted) to achieve flow, than have an article crammed with detail that doesn't cohere. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't finished my first run through yet, but when I have I'll go through it again looking for places where the flow might be improved. For better or for worse literature articles tend to be judged on prose more harshly than regular articles at FAC, at least I think so anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are. The challenge is to use a variety of sources, add the necessary (?) details, keep it within a practical length, and do it with brilliant prose. I'm more successful with articles I write from scratch. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a ref formatting question: what to do with two books, same author, same year of publication, and formatting per Harvard style? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Append the year with "a", "b", etc. {{Harvnb|Author|2010a|p=n}}, {{Harvnb|Author|2010b|p=n}}, and so on. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the year have an appended letter in the sources as well for correct targetting? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That worked. Btw - I wouldn't worry about the copyedit - I'm about to give up on the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why's that? It loked pretty good to me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've hit a wall. I hate the Paris section and can't get it come together at all. Maybe need to read more - I don't know. Probably a break from it is a good idea. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sleep on it, take a few days away from it if you need to. I often leave articles for a while and then come back to them; you see them with fresher eyes then. Meanwhile I'll continue to plod through it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to interject here: at vast expense, when writing Olga Rudge, I bought the "Anne Conover (2001). Olga Rudge and Ezra Pound. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-08703-9." book; it was so deathly dull I never got past page 17, but if you want any refs or quotes from it, just ask. I would like to feel it was money well spent. Giacomo 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll be most disappointed to learn that much of it is available on-line. And yes, extremely boring. I had high hopes for it, but they were quickly dashed. That said, feel free to add to the Paris section - if I could find a source that's direct without wandering off into all kinds of tangents about the Ezra/Olga in Paris situation, it would help. At any rate, I'll take Malleus' good advice for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I have another formatting question. The other day I had to opportunity to use a new iPod Touch and I read the Ezra Pound article on it. Really nice formatting - images centered, sections collapsed, nice font. One problem though, there's a blockquote that's formatting word-by-word in a vertical line on the right part of the screen. In this edit [5] you reformatted the blockquote. Without the fix it looks fine on my desktop monitor and I think we should reformat for the smaller touch screens. Does the image need to be moved? This is a bit new to me. Should I just test it to get it right? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the above. I think I've fixed it, though have to test on the touch screen. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Chess FAR

The members of WikiProject Chess are spread from the Czech Republic to California. So I've ask them to tell you when to start, to avoid ECs etc.

PS I did ever say that you are one of the most generous editors? I'm saying it now.

PPS If you get trouble, don't respond directly, tell me:

I'm less valuable
I can play the civility game right back at the civility police - it's fun and may confuse them. --Philcha (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please help with the chess article if you can. Probably the most important thing now is improving the text. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 22:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help. You guys let me know when you want me to pitch in. Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, we are ready now. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh!. I just noticed that it's one of those pending changes thingies ... not sure I want to play that game. I ought to make it clear somewhere that I won't work on pending changes articles or WikiCup nominations. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the support...

Just to say thanks for your time and patience with me on the Goodrich Castle GA review - very much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was a deserving case. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

you have a fan

Ma!!eus is an Elephant's Butt Plug, apparently! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, another well-deserved sign of this editor's heroic reputation. A ~~plug~~ badge of pride that makes me jealous. Malleus is apparently climbing the status ladder entirely through the unwanted efforts of others. I think we should start planning a celebration for his 100 000th edit, or the honorary bestowal of adminship. Whichever comes first. I wonder which that would be? Keep up the good work! hamiltonstone (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think my millionth edit will come way before any honorary adminship, if I live that long. Naive of me though it may be, I'm constantly surprised to discover how many enemies I've made here on wikipedia. I put it done to a surfeit of hypocritically thin-skinned Californians and their followers. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheffield

I request you to review your undo of may edit to the Sheffield article. This article became a featured article back in 2005, and one of the choices we took in the process to becoming featured was to remove a section on notable people. Firstly, we generally do not refer to people as notable as this is very POV; secondly, choosing who to include and who not to include is too much down to the editor is basically their own original research. We have a long list at List of people from Sheffield that includes everyone known to have been born in or lived in Sheffield about whom Wikipedia has an article; this article is linked from the main Sheffield article. As an aside, these sections are also one of the most susceptible to drive-through edits and generally become long and ungainly. The Sheffield article as been without such a section since 2005, and although the article lost its featured status last year, it has recently undergone much improvement towards regaining that status, including gaining the level of 'good article.' The 'notable people' section was added in the last few days, and I strongly feel that it is a backward step for the article. I also note that a currently featured article on the neighbouring and similar-sized city, Manchester, includes no such section. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As a general principle you're completely wrong, as a cursory reading of the UKCITIES guidlines shows]. As it happens I am not a great fan of the craze for "notable people" or "in popular culture" sections; I simply objected to your assertion that the choice of which people to include was "original research", which it clearly isn't. I have no particular interest in the Sheffield article though, so do with it as you will. Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary guidelines put together by Wikiprojects don't really concern me. I am more concerned with writing the best articles that we can, and a quick scan of British places that are currently listed as featured articles shows me that nearly all (e.g. Ashton-under-Lyne, Bath, Somerset, Blyth,_Northumberland, East End of London, Manchester, Sale, Greater Manchester, Weymouth, Dorset) don't include a notable people section. This suggests to me that the UKCITIES guideline is incorrect. I would like to make Sheffield be once again a featured article as soon as possible, so I would prefer to emulate the standard set by those articles that are already featured. —Jeremy (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You should look a little deeper, as several do; Stretford comes to mind for instance. But as I say I've got no dog in this race, so I wish you luck in your endeavour. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Lookie there !

Who's No. three? Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages with the most revisions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's rather depressing to see that Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is number one. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The item at 132. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You are more relevant than Global Warming at 133, my students will be in awe!--JimmyButler (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in awe of your students. I certainly couldn't have done what they've done at that age. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, did anyone notice that SandyGeorgia is about to overtake Jesus (93 and 94)? Is this some New Age thing? :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bwaaaa !!! Let's have a raucous ruckus on my talk so I can be compared to Christ! Or better yet, here, so MF can be, while I deal with IRL crap :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Life lessons from a plank

[6] Words fail me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's never happened before (kid)!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no hope for the rest of us mortals when words fail Malleus --Senra (Talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's strange really, I have such a high regard for John and the great work he does ... err... doing whatever it is that he does. I'm sure it's very important, whatever it is. Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

goodness, my eyes hurt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Have a nice day

Just in case you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in this one. – iridescent 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this on your talk page, but I haven't really taken a look at it yet. Interesting topic though. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On blocking admins

I noticed your comment over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: "administrators are scared rigid to block each other". Kinda off topic for that page so I thought I'd comment here.

I say, sure, why not? But would it work? I suspect that a blocked admin would still retain the rights to unblock himself. I'm pretty sure if I blocked, say, Jimbo Wales, he could easily fix that himself (and fix me while he's at it). I'm not certain what happens if an admin blocks another admin. Do they really get blocked? Maybe sometime I'll conduct a test. I do get the standard form to fill out when I try to block myself, but I haven't gotten the nerve to submit it.

If I block someone, I won't be paying any attention whatsoever whether the miscreant has sysop privileges. Disruption is disruption. If an admin is stupid enough to use a sockpuppet account, they'd get quickly blocked. I suspect many admins would feel the same way. There are a handful of admins whose names I recognize, but for the most part I don't know who else wields a mop around here. If someone is sufficiently disruptive to require a block, it shouldn't matter who they are.

That said, the bar for passing the adminship threshold is sufficiently high that it's unlikely that an admin would engage in behavior that requires blocking. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Admins can easily unblock themselves, if they are blocked. Though doing so is effectively digging their own grave, if the block was legitimate. Aiken ♫ 23:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Admins have the tools to break out of jail, but there's a hell of a fuss when it happens. Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They can also block themselves (intentionally, or by accident - which happens more often than you might think!). –xeno^talk 23:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Amatulic: If you're not checking who it is that you're blocking then you're in for a big fall I'm afraid. Different rules apply to administrators and non-administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like elitism. An admin is just another regular editor, with above-average experience and access to a few extra tools. If there exist different rules for blocking different classes of users, I can't see that they're written anywhere (other than the one about not indef blocking IP addresses). Would someone kindly point me to them? As I said, disruption should be dealt with consistently no matter who is doing it. As Nev1's reply shows, admins do block other admins from time to time. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no rule against blocking admins, but it's a rare occurrence. Nev1 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe not. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There are no actual separate rules for blocking fellow admins vs blocking other individuals, but it could be said that the blocker might be potentially more lenient on the blockee-to-be and give him/her a shorter block or substitute the block with a warning-like message of some kind. 174.52.141.138^{Also 67.136.117.132}00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"An admin is just another regular editor, with above-average experience". With all due respect Amatulic, you have only about 13,000 contributions. Doesn't seem to be "above average" to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What, it's below average? Among regular contributors, perhaps. 13K seems to be generally above the edit count of editors I routinely deal with, subjectively speaking. But this makes me curious, is there a tool somewhere to calculate the average edits across all registered accounts? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit Amatulic. You carry on doing whatever it is that you do and I'll do the same. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made no such mistake. And I must say, your curmudgeonly presence here warms the cockles of my heart. Wikipedia needs more of you. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It does, but it doesn't know it. Children like to be told what they can and can't do, they become uncomfortable otherwise. They can't deal with an environment in which the rules are subject to change. Hence wikipedia is held back by the children who the presumably well-meaning have "promoted" to the role of ~~gatekeeper~~ administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

dinner

is about ready I suspect. Geese and fish. Dloh cierekim 00:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Alboin

Hello Malleus, I was speaking recently with Nev, who, when I told him I was in desperate need of a copyeditor advised me to try asking you. I'm at the moment dealing with the FAC for Alboin, an article I rewrote and expanded to help give a better coverage of the Lombard conquest of Italy. Sadly, I'm not an English native speaker and my prose can hardly reach the standards needed to obtain a "brilliant prose" :-( And so, as I suspect you've guessed, I'm here to very humbly to implore your mercy ;-) In a less melodramatic way, if you think working on the topic would be something that could attract your interest and you have some time, great; but Nev told me that you want to reduce your time at wikipedia, so there's no problem if you opt out prefering to concentrate on something else, especially considering the article is quite massive. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course I'll help; I hate to see a great article like that fail just because the primary author isn't a native English speaker. The main problem raised in the FAC so far seems to be that the lead is poorly done, so I've reworked that somewhat (for some reason I got logged out half-way through the edit, but that ip is me). I've had a quick look through the rest of the article, and it seems to me that by and large the prose quality isn't at all bad elsewhere, but it's important to get the lead right as you only get one chance to make a first impression. There are still a couple of things I think need tidying up in the lead, but I'll start a new section on the article's talk page for those. Don't worry, I'd be pretty confident this won't fail for the lack of a bit of copyediting. Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :-) The lead has always been the part in articles I've had most problems with: even in my previous FAC on my previous FA issues concentrated there. Thanks again, Aldux (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to find leads difficult, whether they're native English speakers or not. They're important to try and get right though, as they set the tone for the rest of the article, and lots of reviewers won't read any further if they think it's poorly written. Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed. This is why I've always been for a long time quite diffident about the FAC process, as I've always had a feeling it often opted for form over substance, and worst still, many judged an article without even reading it. On the other side, I get it that they have a feeling if the article starts bad, it will only be worst after, and that I should be really more careful with the lead. Bye, Aldux (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's an entirely fair characterisation of FAC; form needs to follow function. The function of an encycyclopedia article is to educate, therefore it's not unreasonable to demand that it's at least minimally engaging. Anyway, I think that between us we've managed to pretty much sort out the lead now, so I'll start looking through the rest of the article later. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)