User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2009/July

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

So that explains it

Saw this and thought of Wikipedia admins. Dunno why....... Wikipedians are a bunch of grumpy introverts--79.64.194.248 (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that 69 Israelis can be considered representative of anything very much, not even Israelis. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sidelines

I think I am going to go to the sidelines because it seems like Peter will be going to ArbCom. He probably wanted this anyway. Sigh. Chillum and the others are gullible enough to take such obvious bate. One tiny sentence completely blown out of proportion. What was the saying? "Kill them all and let God sort them out?" Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ottava, can I join you? Maybe you can help fill me in on what I'm missing as well. — Ched :  ?  20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, Ched, this is how it goes. People claim Peter wants to destroy Wiki, yes? So they mass up together and decide to block him for that. They claim that he is going to destroy Wiki with his one line oppose which doesn't hold much sway and can be discounted by Crats. There is no policy or guideline about that. There is no real grounds for it. Instead, they try to stir up a large group of people to support a community ban. This causes commotion and drama. This distracts people from editing. This takes away from actually reviewing RfAs. Thus, regardless if Peter was actively trying to destroy Wiki or not, it is being destroyed by disruption over something that was really insignificant. Instead of being the monster that attacks Wiki, he turned a lot of people into the monster and they are doing his work for him. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
OUCH .. I have to admit, I hadn't thought about it that way. And, I'll admit to be as guilty as many of the others in that respect. Point taken, and thank you. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty good summary of my view as well Ottava. It's the administrators like Law who are destroying wikipedia, not Peter Damien. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that second part may be a little harsh - I think he had the best of intentions. It's not like he was the first admin. to every block the person. — Ched :  ?  21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Law had absolutely no legitimate reason to block Peter Damien. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I heard that a lot when I was a yonker. I never did quite marry into it though. I think a persons intension speak volumes, but then again - it's not like you and I always agree. :P — Ched :  ?  19:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Malleus. I'm here to request some help in understanding the Peter Damian situation. It appears that he has a great deal of support from a large number of people that I admire greatly, and I can see that there are pieces to this situation that I am not aware of. I'm trying to do my own research through links and history (apparently some of it has been oversighted). I get the impression now that the situation goes much deeper than a "plan to destroy", and "he can write good articles". Anything you could tell me, point me in the direction of, provide a link for would be greatly appreciated. I'm coming here to ask you because I know you'll be blunt and honest. I've just recently come to the conclusion that I'm missing a huge piece of the big picture here, and I'd honestly like to know more about it. Would you be willing to help me? Thanks — Ched :  ?  20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd help if I could, but I probably know even less about this situation than you do Ched. A better person to ask would probably be Iridescent. Of course I've seen Peter's comments on WR about "destroying wikipedia", but I frankly don't take them seriously, and I find the idea of destroying wikipedia by voting oppose at every RfA to be completely lunatic. As I said, to really destroy wikipedia one should vote support at every RfA; that way the body of incompetent admins will reach the critical mass needed to chase off every article writer by issuing daft blocks for "incivility".
And that's at the root of my objection to Peter's block. I don't agree with his stated position, and I've no reason to believe that many others do either, but there have been quite enough witchhunts of those who dare to oppose anyone at RfA, for whatever reason. The logical destination on the road Law set off down today with his heavy-handed blocking is that any oppose at RfA will result in a similar block if he or some other power-crazed administrator decides to take exception to it. My position is not one in support of Peter Damien, it's one in support of fairness, integrity, and playing by the rules. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Malleus, I'll try to come up with some acceptable way of approaching Iri - my first effort didn't fare well (my own ignorance), but hopefully she'll understand that I only want to help and improve things here. Thank you for your time and sage words of wisdom. — Ched :  ?  20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Iridescent's bark is far worse than her bite, or so I believe anyway. And like all sensible adults with far better things to do she doesn't harbour grudges. If you're lucky she may even offer her opinion here unsolicited. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have to go replace a network card for a client, but I'll check back - and keep my fingers crossed. ;-) — Ched :  ?  21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Malleus pretty much sums up the problem here; Peter Damian (along with Greg Kohs) is probably our most prominent example of a "thought criminal". It's a difficult case to reconstruct if you're not familiar with it, because his accounts have been blocked and password-scrambled, and then renamed to allow him to start new accounts under the User:Peter Damian name. Very basic summary (see this for more background):
  1. Former Arbcom member User:FT2 wrote a long userspace essay (User:FT2/ap, preserved off-wiki here – before anyone starts yelping about links to deleted content, remember that "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL" checkbox). Although FT2 argued (almost certainly truthfully) that this was a first draft what would eventually become a neutral article on an important if distasteful subject, it was certainly possible to consider it as a personal essay in favor of bestiality.
  2. Peter then started going through FT2's edits, to a degree which some considered harassment.
  3. Relations between the two deteriorated, culminating in this thread. Edits by FT2 which would have potentially demonstrated that Peter's arguments about him were correct, were oversighted without apparent legitimate cause, making it appear that Peter was fabricating allegations (see here for the alleged content of the oversighted edits). Following that Peter retired, followed a few days later by Jimmy Wales's "User says he is leaving. Good timing." hardblock and emailblock.
  4. As it became clear what had actually happened Peter was then unblocked subject to very strict conditions, which were later eased. (See here for Peter's version of events, which is obviously only showing one side of the case.)
  5. Last month, Peter proposed an "Association of Established Editors", to "represent such content contributors in the Wikipedia community, to champion their interests, and to defend them where there is just cause". Despite attracting a number of well-established editors willing to participate, it was promptly jumped on by an IRC clique as "trolling", and Peter was bombarded with abuse from the usual suspects. (Established Editors went ahead in a very modified form, without the membership criteria, as WP:AWN.)
  6. In a foul mood following the Established Editors debacle, Peter posted this thread at Wikipedia Review. One of his thoughts was "Demoralise the vandal fighters. Constantly vote against every RfA. Reduce the number of administrators to such a pitiful level that they will all give up."
  7. Peter voted "oppose" in 11 RFAs. (As per my comments at ANI, just to put that in perspective, Majorly, who is probably the most prominent advocate of "support by default" as an RFA position, has made 64 opposes, Malleus has made 57 and I've made 96)
  8. Peter was blocked on WP:NOTHERETOBUILDANENCYCLOPEDIA grounds for the RFA opposes.
I can easily see why Peter gets frustrated. He works mostly in an area (the history of philosophy) where there are very few people qualified to comment, but in which an awful lot of people feel the urge to add things they "just know are true". A well-known and long-established problem with the Wikipedia model is that, while it's great for arcane and obscure topics, there's no method for discerning contributions from genuine experts, from contributions by any drive-by crank with an opinion. (A common strand on the talkpage of virtually any "content expansion" editor – from Giano to Mattisse to Durova to Ottava to SlimVirgin to Malleus to myself… – is that despite the wild differences in style between them, every talkpage will generally contain at least one crank arguing passionately against their Censorship Of The Truth on some article or other.) I fundamentally disagree with WP:EQUALITY; this is a hobby, not a job, and those people who put large amounts of generally thankless unpaid work into keeping this site at least halfway stable and accurate, should be granted more leeway than the rabble of cranks and schoolchildren who treat the mainspace as a sounding board for their pet essays, and the userspace as Facebook for ugly people. I disagree with Peter more often than I agree with him, but Malleus hits the nail on the head; once we head down the road of indefinite blocks for expressing opinions an admin disagrees with (at RFA, for christ's sake!) we've taken a very big jump towards the blurry line that separates "open editing" from "self-appointed Citizendium-style clique". – iridescent 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The last point you make there sums up pretty well why I will always support editors at RfA whom I know to have added good content, almost regardless of any other consideration, but certainly regardless of the "not enough experience in adminly areas" bollox. Heck, I even supported Ottava, and not just to offer support. I genuinely believe that you have to have fought in the trenches to understand the point of view of the common foot soldier. All that spending excessive amounts of time at AN/ANI/XfD, on the other hand, ought to teach a rational person is that they want to stay as far away from them as possible. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I resent that! I have documented evidence of having 7 months of experience pushing those admin buttons and doing menial and degrading admin tasks at other projects before my RfA. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
... thus proving my point; I didn't hold that against you. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not really. My RfA was destined to fail for three reasons: 1. I didn't boast at all nor link to any of my content contributions. 2. I stated blatantly that I did not like nor wanted to block people or delete pages. 3. I stated that I would participate in unblock discussions. I was 100% opposite of every other candidate out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not entirely true, not every candidate out there. If it wouldn't be interpreted as simply making a point—which to be perfectly honest it would be—I'd have an RfA every year, on the same date each year, just to remind the honest of what a shitty process it really is. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Malleus and Ottava Rima have just made (again!!) a good case for splitting admin functions. Some are genuinely menial, as Ottava Rima. But anything that touches on disputes (ANI, AfD DRV, etc.) and hence the possibility of blocks should be handled only by admins with a strong record of content production, diplomatic skills and a cool head. -Philcha (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That obviously rules me out then. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
@ Ottava, IIRC - I did look at the contribs, and then supported ... zOMG, does that mean I agreed with Malleus? Will wonders never cease? ;)
@Malleus 15:11 post. Well, I honestly have put some work into Rex White, NASCAR, Tim Richmond and a couple other articles, but your point is well taken. Hopefully over the coming weeks/months/years - I'll be able to persuade you that I'm not such a bad sort after all. Admittedly, my recent efforts (when time has allowed), have been focused on the "how and why" things work the way they do here - but it's not "devotion", rather a quest for perspective. And for your help in that sir, I say "Thank you". ;) — Ched :  ?  20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you're a decent sort Ched, and I've got no doubt at all that if we met in real life we'd have a laugh and a few beers. I just don't agree with (what I see as) your naive attitude to how wikipedia is developing. No big deal though, friends are allowed to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

on the comment by iridescent

Can I say that was pretty damn good. Yes: I have a higher degree in philosophy and this area is easily the worst in Wikipedia - everyone understands their own philosophy, don't they? Whereas the usual ratio of experts to 'Randy from Boise' is 3 to 1 in favour of the experts, it is the other way round. Generally I am the only one there able to support 'Academic point of view'. This is very demoralising. Also I specialise in cult or POV-infested areas like Neurolinguistic programming and Ayn Rand, and don't forget Pederasty and other train-wrecks. It is very emotionally tiring and exhausting and very frustrating when admins have no sympathy and feel that Randy from Boise must have his or her say. So, yes. Thanks for those comments Iridescent. Peter Damian (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

... one of the worst. I'd argue that the psychology articles are in at least as bad shape, if not worse, but I've steadfastly refused to go near any of them so far, for the reasons that have got you into trouble. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Literature is easily the worse. Philosophy is controversial enough to have people make pages. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Television deserves an honourable mention in any "worst" category, ironically because far too many people know about it. Recent television in particular seems to have acquired a particularly irritating "all have won and all must have prizes" mentality, where nobody ever dares to point out that any given edit is unnecessary. As I may have mentioned once or twice, the unlikely trio of Realist2, LessHeard vanU and Rodhullandemu don't always get the credit they deserve for the particularly thankless work they do preventing the most important articles in Popular music from sliding down the same slippery slope, and Realist in particular can't be praised highly enough for keeping the most read article in Wikipedia's history from slipping into a POV nightmare. (Although he has now got the dubious privilege of Shankbone deciding to share his pearls of wisdom with him.) – iridescent 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Although MJ did receive 4 million views, Billy Mays received 1 million. In comparison, I think Mays should get the credit as he was relatively minor in comparison. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Realist deserves a lot of credit for his efforts, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Peter, I honestly do admire your passion, and even support your stance on so many things - but geesh, if you could just be a tad more subtle in your approach, I think it would really work wonders. Just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you "subtley" confront a bully? You don't; you get in his face and you make sure he understands where he gets off. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, normally I would say that it's best to approach the content rather than the editor - but just so that you know, I can think of one certain admin right now who has developed a habit of controversial blocking (perhaps not entirely sober decisions), that I can see your point. — Ched :  ?  20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
"Normally" I'd agree with you, but sometimes unpalatable truths have to be told, no matter who's offended. That the administrator to whom you allude hasn't been sent packing is a clear indictment of the "subtle" approach, and indeed very clearly demonstrates the corruption of wikipedia's system of governance, of which you yourself have become an enforcer. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "sometimes unpalatable truths have to be told" and that some will take offence, but there are ways of doing it without giving such people any leverage. --Philcha (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just another day on wikipedia. Note the saber-tooth admins savaging a new user delivering justice.
You're probably right. My view though is that if you're going to smash someone in the face with a hammer it makes little difference whether it's a 2 kg hammer or a 3 kg hammer. Your weights may vary, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a good metaphor. I prefer digging a pit and leading nuisances towards it, or pricking balloons - or occasionally holding a large hammer stationary in the face of an onrushing adversary. --Philcha (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have this picture in my mind of you and me confronting a Mammoth. I'm standing there with my little club shouting "Come on if you think you're hard enough", and you're standing behind me quietly adding the finishing touches to your newly patented Mammoth trap. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not patented, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 :-) --05:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism alert

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2009. Assuming Bad Faith of our readership and all that, but you may want to invest in a copy of Huggle before that goes on the main page. – iridescent 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that. I have to be honest and say I never expected it to be TFA. Vandalism alert indeed! Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, Malleus & PoD! --Philcha (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Unbelievable! Like PoD, I never imagined that would hit the front page. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. I'm impressed Malleus. That's my sort of article. Good work! لennavecia 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I should make demands more often! Nev1 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If I can just...(tap)...make my ....(step)...way through this appr..(walk around)..eciative audience, ;) could I ask what the proper word to use [here] would be? Where the asterisks are. Pre-empting, 'leading up to', 'influencing', 'his success leading to what powell predicted in his speech' - I know there's a specific word, I just can't get it out of my mouth. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
"Having a similar impact to…"? "Reigniting"? – iridescent 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest "foreshadowed", as in something like "when asked by The Times about concerns that his success was foreshadowed in Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech ...". Or perhaps "foreseen" as in "his success was foreseen by Enoch Powell in his Rivers of Blood speech ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That'll do nicely, I used 'presaged'. Someone can always correct it later, if it isn't quite grammatically perfect. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
"Presaged" is good too. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Malleus I wondered if you might have a look at this. I don't have the book, presumably Mr Stephen does, but presently the article is at odds with that claim. A simple shortcut might simply be to remove the location (London) until the matter is resolved. What do you think? I've left a similar message here Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the claim is bolstered by the Locations section, where Oxford has a Gropecunte in 1230, from the british-history website. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that discussion too. I've just rechecked the OED, and it doesn't say where the 1230 Gropecunt Lane was, but I'm pretty certain that Mr Stephen will be right, he pretty much always is. In any event, as we're attributing the 1230 first occurrence of the name to the OED, which doesn't give its location, then probably neither should we, so I've removed it from that sentence. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That would have been my recommendation. Is it me, or where there previously two edits by Raul, where there is now one? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure, don't remember seeing two edits by Raul ... --Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No deleted revisions showing in the history, by Raul or anyone else. It's conceivable that Raul reverted something with sensitive personal data ("xxxxx likes groping cunt, his phone number is xxx xxxx") which has now been oversighted altogether. – iridescent 17:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I thought I'd missed Gropecunt Lane being on the front page so I decided to check how many views it got. I was shocked to see that it only got http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Gropecunt_Lane 2,500], then I checked the date and realised I was about a week early. An ideas why there was a massive spike on 30th June? Nev1 (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea at all, how strange. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you've been recommended to me...

...as the perfect person to polish up my plodding prose, at Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (and you were the name I had in mind to approach anyway). No manga characters or Runcorn connections, I'm afraid, but you might be able to think of more synonyms than I could for "construction", "renovation" and "woodwork". Oh, and it's been suggested that I might overuse brackets (can't think why). Anyway, if you would be so kind to do a pre-FAC polish, I would be very grateful for your time, but if time does not permit, I will understand. Regards, and with anticipatory thanks, BencherliteTalk 22:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No manga characters you say? Not sure that sounds like my kind of article at all. Of course I'll be happy to take a look. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Poking my head in, but you might want to wave this one under Giano's nose as well. Even if he doesn't touch it himself, anyone with an interest in historic English architecture is likely to have his page watchlisted. – iridescent 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. (I would have bugged you as well, iridescent, of course, but you helped me last time round and it's only fair that I spread the pain around a bit...) BencherliteTalk 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I've got quite a few problems with this article, so I'd encourage you not to rush to FAC with it. Many people won't bother to read further than the lead, where they'll see this in the second sentence: "Construction of buildings by Price, which replaced and added to those that were already on the site, began shortly after the college's foundation and continued in stages after his death in 1574." What's that trying to say, exactly? What buildings already on the site? The site of what? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the improvements you made. If you get a chance to let me know what the remaining problems you have are, that would be very helpful. I wasn't planning to rush to FAC, as I was going to give the article a chance to get established and improved by others who are unfamiliar with the subject-matter. I'll see what I can do about the lead, although in my defence the version of the lead that existed before you started your improvements did in fact define what I meant by the "site"! Regards, BencherliteTalk 01:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right in that the article did describe the present extent of the site, but what it failed to do was to describe the original 16th-century site. Anyway, I've made it a policy never to attempt to "improve" an article when I feel that my "improvements" are unwelcome, so I wish you the best of luck with what is really a pretty good article anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't think that I was saying your improvements were / would be unwelcome; that wasn't my intention at all. Is this any better? BencherliteTalk 01:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a very big improvement, and I'd suggest focusing you efforts on the lead, as that's all that most readers (and even some reviewers) will take the trouble to read. For instance, are you attempting a world record for the most repetitions of the word "Oxford" in one sentence with this: "The main buildings of Jesus College, Oxford, one of the constituent colleges of the University of Oxford, are located in central Oxford"? I think even those without the benefit of a classical education may have begun to get the point that Jesus College Oxford is in Oxford. What about "Jesus College, one of the constituent colleges of the University of Oxford, has its main buildings in the city centre." --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good now, and worth a punt at FAC when you feel that it's "matured" sufficiently. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Elegantly done, sir. See you at FAC at the end of July (post-holiday). Warmest thanks, BencherliteTalk 16:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Why 'one of the constituent colleges?'. What does 'constituent' add? Why not just 'one of the colleges'?Peter Damian (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Another redundant word eliminated, thanks. After comments from Giano, incidentally, the infobox is gone (I never liked it anyway...) BencherliteTalk 09:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Infoboxes have their place, but in this case I think Giano is quite right. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ba Cut FAC

Hi. I've replied YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've accounted for the remaining typos/carelesslly inserted words YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you know who this sock puppet could be? He reminds me of the Mumbai IP nuisance that was causing problems during The Lucy poems FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't even begin to guess Ottava. All I can be certain of is that it isn't one of mine. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So nothing's changed?

Resolved: Malleus writes in idiom and metaphor. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

;-) ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Malleus. He does that. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I do, and that ain't gonna change. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You wouldn't be the loveable fuzz ball we've all come know if you did... ;-) ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
When telling the truth becomes a wikicrime then I'll no doubt be among the first to be stood against the wall. My hope is though that enough will come to see the idiocy that wikipedia's governance has become ... but you know what I think anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for that. I knew there was something I forgot to do. :) Theleftorium 18:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Evening

You and me, we oughtta get together, take this fucker out for a spin sometime. I like your style. Baileyquarter (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that we kiss and make up. Making up I can deal with, but not kissing ... unless of course you're a foxy ... oh no, let's not go there. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, aside from the Jimbo RFC, I believe we have more in common than you might think! Baileyquarter (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed Wiki_brah sockpuppet, indefblocked. – iridescent 10:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII

Delivered on 4 July 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK Hooks

I remember reading on your talk page a few weeks ago about how you thought DYK hooks were boring... I remember it because I couldn't agree with you more... I've written a rough draft of an essay that I thought you might enjoy. Like I said, this is rough draft form right now, but I could use some constructive feedback/criticism on it... this was pretty much free flow thought.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the hooks that are boring, but many of the articles are pretty dodgey as well, perhaps because of the daft DYK time limit. Just for interest's sake I've looked through most of the main page DYKs over the past few weeks, and they're mostly pretty embarassing. Anything you can do to raise DYK's game is only to be welcomed. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
That's got the makings of a good essay. On the main page as I write is this DYK: ".. that Admiral of the Fleet Sir George Martin was the grandson of another admiral of the fleet, William Rowley? I added the bolding, just to make the point that the DYK "reviewers" clearly don't check spit, much less have an eye for a good hook. Admiral of what fleet for Christ's sake? Earlier today I had an interesting discussion with the author of The Exchange, Bristol, about railway time. I think a DYK from that article about Bristol's lost 11 minutes in 1852 could make a good hook, but as it was written a couple of years ago the article isn't eligible. We're stuck instead with stuff like "... did you know there's a leaky dam in Sri Lanka? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Which brings up the "So what" factor that I should include in the essay... who cares that there's a leaky damn in Sri Lanka? (Heck, it's Sri Lanka, some might be surprised if there wasn't a leaky damn somewhere there.) The question then becomes, "WHY does this matter?" What are the risks of said damn? Why hasn't it been fixed? Good observation...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As I've said before, a lot of the problem is that potentially interesting things seem to get worded by whoever moves them to the DYK template to be as dull as possible. To take the example I used then, "Did you know that that the Niue Star, founded in 1993, is Niue's only printed newspaper?" – which made the main page – is dull as dishwater unless you already know that Niue is a country; reworded to "Did you know that there was not a single newspaper printed in the entire country of Niue until the Niue Star opened in 1993?" has a "fancy that" factor. Of course, some are unsalvageable. – iridescent 18:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • BTW Malleus, how do you rate my DYK articles? AdjustShift (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I generally don't look to see who's written any DYKs. Which ones were yours? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's one that for me stands head and shoulders above what I normally see at DYK. The hook though is dire: "Did you know that in the 1774 speech "On American Taxation", British member of Parliament Edmund Burke (pictured) argued that Britain should reconcile with the thirteen colonies?" --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it is rather obvious that Malleus was referring to my articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Remember a while back how you were concerned about bad information in DYKs, that people were just pushing them through with plagiarism and the rest. Well, I keep finding more and more of these problems with GAs and FAs lately. I am really confused by how they are even able to pass through without anyone caring - then I get comments by people basically saying that original research, verifiability, and the rest, aren't real standards and they can be ignored. It makes me feel like we almost need an editorial task force to go around and really clean out things. Something like a group of people willing to take the time to make a hard review of some of these FACs and the rest to at least put forth some attempt to make sure it doesn't slip by and ensure that these people knock it off. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism at FAC? Can't say I've noticed that. I'm not even aware that plagiarism is much of a problem at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Plagiarism, OR, and all the rest, to be more exact. Anything in which content does not match sources or is stealing from sources. FAs are supposed to have honestly done content. In the past three weeks, I've had run ins with a handful of people that really seemed to have destroyed the standards and don't care. I really don't know how they got through. When this recent thing ends, I will send you some link of some of the previous problems so you can get a sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know which cases you're thinking, but there are some quite tricky areas around OR. For instance, to take a recent example, yesterday I was reviewing an article in which it was claimed that time was standardised throughout the UK because it was required by the introduction of the telegraph, a claim that was supported by a plausible source. Yet I know that it was the introduction of the railways that forced the change, the telegraph simply made the synchronisation of time across the country easier. It then becomes a judgement call about how many reliable sources make one claim as opposed to the other, and how plausible are those claims. Whichever side you come down on arguably you've done some "original research" in making up your mind which way to present the information. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
When Theleftorium had an edit at the Battle for Middle Earth video game page that cited information about the video game to the 1950s book, that was beyond a doubt original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
That does seem like a fairly clearcut case, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool's_Main_Page#Gropecunt_Lane

Thought you might be interested in that. My preference is no (I'd rather see Mary Tofts up there when its ready). Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, Mary looks like a much better April 1 candidate. Seems a bit early to be worrying about next year's slot anyway. Let's stick with the current slot and see what happens on the 9th. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you are interested

But I just came across this and, as your name is mentioned at least twice, thought you might fancy a look:[1]-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This made me laugh: "Not just no, but hell no, not in a million years could this possibly be considered a good idea". It's always nice to know that one's efforts are so well appreciated. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 12:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it did make me smile...a little! But I did find it a touch ironic that the FA writers they name are some of the best on Wikipedia. Without them, the encyclopaedia would be a lot poorer. Without admins, well......!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Admins always know best, even when they don't, but wannabee admins are almost as bad, and in some ways worse. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus, you might find this amusing. --Philcha (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a shame that Ironholds and Roux don't hold themselvs to the same standards of behaviour that they demand of others. A shame, but hardly a surprise. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinion requested

I have signed up to review Linois's expedition to the Indian Ocean, which is a well written, fascinating article. It is a summary of three other articles plus additional information. Given its size, it is remarkably readable. I do have some questions about the appropriateness of such size and detail re focus issues, but have been unable to express myself clearly. See Talk:Linois's expedition to the Indian Ocean/GA1. However, I am ok with passing the article. What do you think? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent article, and although a bit longer than the average GAN it's still only about 39kb of readable prose, which isn't too much. My initial concern was whether the level of detail given in the summarising sections was appropriate with respect to the length of their main articles, which I guess is at least partly your concern as well. Having looked through them all though I'm happy that they do, and quite impressed at the way the background sections have been tailored in each case. It's a clear GA for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility poll

I checked out the civility poll and I was confused - where is the option to say that Civil is both too lenient and too strict? The fact that it is simultaneously over enforced and under enforced is the problem. People have different standards and don't warn correctly. Instead of it being used to try to instill a proper discussion it is a tool to smash opponents. The policy isn't flawed, those who use the policy tend to be the ones flawed. Anyway, why do people block on Civil when policies like OR never end up with blocks? Blah. No poll option could ever contain a proper view. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is little point in wasting time on people who see nothing uncivil in the comments made about you and I here, but come all over in a swoon if I use the word "sycophantic", and block on sight. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Why am I always lumped with you two. :P Roux's comment there was funny. I think it is really funny that it was able to die on the day it was started. Proposals should be given at least five days. But yeah. Go figure. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not being lumped with me you ought to be concerned about, it's being lumped with Giano. I find it quite strange in a way though, as I don't see myself as being similar to either of you. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You can see my response to the inappropriate closing. It seems that people have no respect for WP:CONSENSUS anymore. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why Roux and the rest are getting so excited about the proposal anyway, and have chosen to personalise it in the way they have. What makes them think I'd agree to be an administrator? I haven't even agreed to be a rollbacker, I've got absolutely no desire to block anyone, I very rarely feel the need to look at deleted material, or move over redirects, or to spend more time than is absolutely necessary at XfD. What would be in it for me? I don't need to be an administrator, it's wikipedia that needs administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a coincidence that, in the two hours it was discussed, the opposes came from the Wikipedia-en IRC users and then another closed the discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Not really. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait, clarification - the negative response to a negative statement in English strikes again! Are you saying that it is a coincidence or are you agreeing that it isn't? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have misread; I thought you were being ironic, and had written "Isn't it a concidence ...". To which my reply was "Not really". In case there's still some lingering doubt, I'm agreeing that it seems like rather an unlikely coincidence, more like yet another blatant attempt to suppress an unpopular view, or at least a view that's unpopular with a vocal minority who delude themselves that they are in any way representative of "the community". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with the proposal, and I wouldn't be affected by it regardless. However, brushing things under a rug is just inappropriate. Bleh. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think tying FA and adminship together like that is probably a bad idea as well, at least until there's a proper desysopping process put in place, but it probably isn't any worse of an idea than the present RfA popularity contest. I must say though, when I saw the comment from (either Roux or Ironholds, can't be bothered to check which) about what a "shitstorm" it would be if I stood at RfA again I did start to sprout horns and a little pointed tail. I think it's quite possible that one day I may choose to stand again, to blow the whole corrupt edifice apart. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Goodness me, what a sad little world when we can use a policy proposal (all be it a misguided one) to have a pop at other editors. What a bizare method of discussing an idea from some of the editors; "Don't implement this because User:xyz will become an admin and I hate them" seemed the majot thrust of some arguments. People who expound that view have clearly no clue about communal discussion. RFA maybe/is buggered beyone repair but it's rather like a Mark I Ford Fiesta with no tax or MOT. Suprising though it may seem it might just get you from A to B occasionally despite the odds. Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The irony of that discussion was sadly lost on several of those contributing, but that's the way it is, civility is only required of the plebs, not from the civility police. The even more absurd idea is that any of them think I'd even want the job, or ask for the admin bit to be switched on. Hell, I even asked for my rollbacker bit to be switched off, and that other daft thing I can't remember now. Even though I've apparently got the required 10 FAs, I wouldn't have supported the proposal. Heck, that would mean that Ottava could become an administrator.</joke> :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the "auto-patrol" thing. Irony. Me with my 3 DYK's get autopatrol on creating content, others with multiple FA's don't and have to go cap in hand to ask for it. Bizarre. I keep on seeing more and more permissions that admins can grant - which frankly is an issue. I passed RFA long before any of these "rights" started; as did many others - so we have exactly zero community mandate to flip these bits on. Back on track, yes I could not agree more. To effectively state "User:xyz will never get the bit - they're so rude" and not have the common courtesy to 1) phrase the comment with a modicum of respect and 2) notify the person you were talking about is mising the point by several miles.
To whit - if you want to call me a wanker then that's fine, but at least be decent enough to say it to my face. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
These additional permissions that admins can grant—some of them only to themselves of course—are indeed becoming a problem. Or at least they ought to be to anyone with half an ear to the ground. The tipping point for me at least will be how flagged revisions are handled. If that's another permission handed out by the grace and goodwill of administrators rather than automatically then I will be gone. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but what are flagged revisions?--79.64.215.52 (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The short answer is another bauble to be handed out or taken away at the whim of any passing administrator. The longer answer is here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha

What is a "Parliement"? :D Ottava Rima (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A typo. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I know. I am gloating. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You're the top contributor to the bear pit! I unwatched that page some time ago, as editing it only made me angry and irritated. So I still see the latest RFXs I use this, without having to watch a load of old circular discussion that goes nowhere. Majorly talk 15:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What a memorial to a sad waste of time. All that effort and not a damn thing's changed. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. There has been at least one positive outcome from WT:RFA and in particular WP:BN - my decreased involvement with Wikipedia. Surely good for all. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I must disagree with the above statement, Pedro, I've always values your opinions. Even when we disagree, you are someone whose edits make me think and consider. -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Most kind Avi. Pedro :  Chat  22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

<- Oh god. I'm in the top ten. I'm so very sorry. Not as sorry apparently as Malleus and Pedro, but sorry nonetheless :-) Keeper | 76 01:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I never would have guessed I was in the top 50. -- Avi (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring

Have your concerns about this article been addressed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at the FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your conduct

I've been monitoring your participation in RfA's and your conduct is clearly detrimental to the process. I implore you to review your contributions in hopes of improving your user relations. 174.103.152.118 (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

lol. Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're quite right of course 174.103.152.118. My conduct at RfAs is quite appalling, as is that of everyone else who is stupid enough to oppose a popular candidate, or to demand that equal standards are applied to support votes as are applied to oppose votes. Appalling at least in the eyes of editors such as yourself anyway. Still no need for you to fret yourself about my being "detrimental to the [wonderful] process" that is RfA. It's a corrupt and corrupting system that there is no will to reform, so nothing I do could possibly make it any worse. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It's this misanthropy that I'm talking about. I hadn't seen your message at the top until now, but I think an indefinite wiki-break is best for all parties involved. You're right that WP needs fewer "children" running the site. It also needs fewer cynics. 174.103.152.118 (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You can talk about whatever you like, but talk it somewhere else please, I'm not interested. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to continue to monitor your contributions and will not hesitate to report any infractions to the proper administrators. Keep your nose clean...and for god's sake, take a break. 174.103.152.118 (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) It's good to know that you care, I feel like I'm in safe hands. Who are these "proper administrators"? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, what is it you think is going to be accomplished by stating this? Or doing it even? --Moni3 (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't help but note that if I'd stated my intention to monitor the contributions of another editor then I'd have been hanged, drawn, and quartered by now. What a palace of hypocrisy. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
One has to giggle. Mal you don't half seem to attract them. The poor souls must travel on the bus. LMAO. --WebHamster 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
why do I have a feeling I know this person... but they've chosen to hide their identity?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My question is why is this IP editor being allowed to harrass me? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Because a certain amount of latitude is given to care in the community members? --WebHamster 23:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ironic, Webmaster, that in the middle of this discussion about harrasment you turn up with a comment that is totally disgraceful to members of society who can have no comeback here and often deserve considerable support. Mental illness (which is the leading reason for moving people into Care in the Community I might add) is not funny. Refactor your ill-thought out comments please. Pedro :  Chat  23:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I really would prefer it if you two kept whatever disagreements you might have off my talk page. As it happens I agree with Hammy, but this isn't the place for that discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any disagreements (in the plural) with Webhamster, just this poor turn of phrase - and I'm suprised you find it acceptable Malleus to be honest. Nevertheless, you're correct that this should not be cluttering your talk. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat  23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Come to my talk page and tell me to. There I can quite happily tell you to go get a humour implant rather than mucking up Mal's page. And FYI just because you don't find it funny does not mean that it isn't funny. --WebHamster 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong question. It should be "why has no one stopped it yet". And thus the circle is complete...... And no, I'm not blocking an IP without a warning - or should I? Pedro :  Chat  23:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, I think, that they know I don't give a shit what they think, and that I even doubt whether they're capable of thinking at all. So their only recourse is to turn up the abuse control. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So the "AGF" response is to tell them to knock it off. Which I've done - admitedly totaly ineffectually however. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I thank you for that Pedro, but it seems clear to me, as WebHamster says above, that I attract ... well I'd better not say, because I'm not an admin, and not excused naughty words like "sycophantic". Just check my block log if you dont know what I'm talking about. This place makes me feel sick. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
MF (et al.), serisously. You're arguing with a 'bunch of numbers' here and it's ridiculous. If all it takes to set you off is 32 bits, you need to take a break. 174.103.152.118 (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Malleus has every right to reply to comments on his talk page, and in whatever manner he feels fit, especially as a number of people watch his page. Personally I'd rather Malleus didn't take a break, since he's clearly a first class contributor to the articles on this project. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think anyone is arguing with you, 174.103.152.118. You are somewhat entertaining, and apparently good for an exhibition of chutzpah, but I don't see any disputes over you. That would give you way too much credit, as if your point was valid and worth heeding. --Moni3 (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin reform proposal

You might find User:Roux/RFA-reform interesting, as it includes a very concrete proposal for de-sysop. --Philcha (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty sensible proposal, so there's no chance that'll get a consensus behind it. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you ignore Roux' provocations at the other admin discussion. Let him harm his own reputation, at which he seems rather good. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Your advice is very sound, and I shall take it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An expression of thanks.

Malleus,

Just a little note to thank you for your contributions to the SECR N class article, which has now been promoted to FA. Despite my little 'tantrum' about the prose, it is editors/reviewers like you who make the FA process worthwhile, and as your user page states, editors like me are 'suffered' rather than wholly embraced on Wikipedia, as we tend to stick to our guns when our views are challenged, sometimes to the detriment of article quality. So once again, I thank you for putting up with my protestations, and hope you like the improved article.

Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that. I watched the article improve, and I think it well deserves its FA status. I've long felt that it's the articles on these "little" topics that mark wikipedia out. Where would you be able to find a better online article about the SECR N Class? So congratulations to you and all the other editors who did such a great job. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A sequel?

Our glorious history: center left, second peak from the shoreline.

There's already a featured picture for a "Mount Whoredom" in colonial Boston. Durova273 04:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Another fine front page ;) I hope you realise that if your frustrations with some of the absurdities on this site caused you leave, you'd be hunted down and persuaded to return (perhaps involving sellotape and hypnotic suggestion). Srsly, nice work. EyeSerenetalk 07:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Mount Whoredom is my domain. I wield my terrible swift sword over it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wish I could be sure it's a name and not an instruction... EyeSerenetalk 13:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt article

  • I have read the article - long before today's FA publication. The good work and effort involved is not in question. The decision to make it FA is the issue that some people regard as having the look of a high-school prank, not the article itself.

Maybe you are a bit too close to the subject to have an objective view and have misinterpreted the criticism of the decision to make it a Featured Article a criticism of (your) article. I have not read any criticism of the article itself. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And what about your comment about notability? Nev1 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This suggests your problem is with the FAC process itself. In that case, you might want to approach WT:FAC or the editors who commented on the nomination. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm uncertain whether leaky_caldron's objection is to the article's FA status or to its inclusion on today's main page. If the former then I think he's talking bollox, but if the latter then I still think he's talking bollox. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have already made it clear that my concern, along with at least 2 dozen other contributors today, is about the placement of the article on the English Mainpage. It ticks all the boxes as a FA and if my interchangable use of the terminology has caused you to be confused, I apologise.
I resent your personal attack that I am talking bollox (sic) Bollocks leaky_caldron (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack, it's a personal opinion, and one that is unlikely to change. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Calling someone a "halfwit", as here is a personal attack. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If your complaint is the article's appearance on the mainpage, don't cloud the issue by throwing about terms such as "notable". It makes your reasoning appear confused. Nev1 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the big to do about this page was from parents who have their children go to school during the summer and that their schools allow them to sit on the internet all day and look at the Wikipedia mainpage. Seems like their anger is over something far worse than your article. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

He's a self-promoting idiot, who cares what he thinks about anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I was poking fun of the pathetic public school system which allows kids to surf Wikipedia all day instead of actually teaching them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The net result of fannying about, pussyfooting around the issues and beavering away

207,000 hits in a single day. (Amazingly, that out-did Thriller's stint on the main page on the day of Jackson's funeral.) And you got yourself mentioned in Popbitch. – iridescent 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that popbitch thinks it's "one of our dirtier articles". Someone else who just swooned at the sight of the word "cunt" and didn't bother to read the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow. That's huge! Though you wonder how many of those people got to the page, realised it was a street, and went to another article (here's an interestingly coincidental stat). Apterygial 16:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
That brought joy to my soul. XD لennavecia 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Same goes for "grope" (144 views on the 8th, 22.9k views on the 9th), "street name", "Middle Ages", "expurgation", and as far as I can tell nearly everything linked from Gropecunt Lane. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I find that kind of strange. Did people go to Gropecumt Lane in all innocence without knowing what either a "grope" or a "cunt" were, and then have to follow a link to find out? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
All those children, no doubt :-/ Majorly talk 20:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Avebury

I've left some suggestions for expanding the article on the Avebury talk page. I've got access to the 2004 Gillings book so I was thinking about improving the article and was wondering what your thoughts are on my suggestions. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems a sensible approach to me. You've got a lot of experience with these ancient monument sites now. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The Neolithic is a different kettle of fish from the Iron Age, but I think the general structure can be adapted from other sites on historic monuments. As much as I like producing decent articles, Cheshire's Maiden Castle and Eddisbury hill fort have felt almost too easy (although they're not GA yet!); there's not a lot to say about either and the information is pretty much on pone place so developing them to the point where I thought it would be worth nominating them for GA was almost an accident. While I find the subject interesting, it did feel a bit formulaic writing the articles. I'm looking forward to the challenge of Avebury, the modern interpretations with druids and stuff should be interesting. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I like trying my hand at different kinds of articles too. In particular I think that Avebury's modern history could be quite challenging to get "right". Worth the effort though. I was almost tempted into a series of what would undoubtedly have been "formulaic" historical computer articles, but I quickly realised that I'd already written about the only two I really cared about, so job done. I might have a crack at one or two of the earlier mechanical/electromechanical computers one day though ... --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Advisory Council

Seeing this, I wonder how your name is not on that. It is rather obvious that you contribute far more than someone like Drini, Joopercoopers, Sam, etc. Half of these people I wouldn't trust them with content in any situation. Blah. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have accepted even if I had been asked, which I wasn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would rather have you there than most of them. I wonder if anyone bothered to ask Sandy, Karanacs, Raul, or YellowMonkey. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Those are four very prominent names missing from the list, I was thinking of a couple myself as I think FAC and the standards it sets are important to the future of wikipedia. Another name I'd like to see there is Tony1, but I suspect he wasn't asked because of the whole date autolinking thing, which is a shame. Nev1 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they have been asked, just haven't made up their minds yet. I agree with you about the importance of FA. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm more interested in the thinking behind "a cross-section of the community that's not otherwise involved in [Arbcom's] work", when said cross-section includes two current members of Arbcom. I'm sure there's a logic here, but this looks to me like Jimbo trying to set up an in-house version of Wikipedia Review. – iridescent 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It would explain why there are so many Wikipedia Review members on the list. But that makes me wonder, why aren't you or Xeno on it? :D Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Ditto Malleus: I wouldn't have accepted even if I had been asked, which I wasn't. I'm sure everyone involved has the best of intentions, but this look designed to become Wikipedia's version of the European Parliament; a meaningless, unelected and unaccountable committee with no formal powers, which ends up only existing to rubber-stamp and legitimise decisions. Maybe I'm being cynical, but the current list of members looks like a deliberate attempt to create sinecures for the noisiest critics of the current setup, on a "better inside the tent pissing out" principle. I'm quite surprised Giano, in particular, accepted. – iridescent 19:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sort of like it was surprising to see who accepted some of the invitations for the Established Editors Cabal. لennavecia 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I really think we need to turn Malleus's talk page into a true Village Pump that is able to pass all sorts of proposals and have more authority than ArbCom. That would probably be the best and would make more sense than most of the stuff I've seen lately. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(re Jenna) That was going to be an elected group (all we were "accepting" was the right to be put forward as candidates in the election) and almost all of those accepting were hedging it round with disclaimers as to exactly what they would and wouldn't get involved in if elected; I don't see any of that here (this just looks like Arbcom's revival of Jimbo's old arbitrary appointments without the need for anything messy like elections or selection processes). FWIW, the Established Editors Cabal, in the modified form proposed by myself, Moni and Juliancolton, is doing pretty well at its intended purpose. – iridescent 20:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to sell me. I've shown support for it; however, considering the way it was presented and by whom, it has been surprising to see who accepted invites. Also, I'm pretty sure if people have specific concerns with any of the appointees, they can bring it up in the discussion. لennavecia 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I asked Malleus to put in a request, as I think he would be an asset to the council. And I, too, would like to see SandyGeorgia join. لennavecia 19:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised by your appointment, Jenna - I didn't think the Tool project was that worthy of having a whole representative. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Tool is more significant than you realize. لennavecia 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that heavy drinking was involved in the creation of this list. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I had assumed as much. لennavecia 20:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I do know that at least one of the names mentioned above was asked and demurred, as I suggested that one myself and was informed that the person was approached. Forgive the deliberate obfuscation as I did not contact that person directly and am unsure as to whether or not the refusal should be private. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I may regret many aspects of this comment, but I know also that one of the names mentioned by OR was asked. I was also asked and I have been positively tortoise-like to respond. Not knowing anything about it, including much about the person who sent the invitation, I was consumed with skepticism and general tabula rasa-type question marks. Contributing to my sloth is my recent generalized displeasure with some of my experiences and I suppose my indignant nature not to get sucked in to offer ideas with bright-eyed enthusiasm only to face doing work by myself or overwhelming apathy by whoever else was asked. The last correspondence I sent was in the nature of "I guess so, gee. Keep me informed." I suppose we shall see... --Moni3 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What an ill-thought-out idea this is, and what a poorly thought through list! There are several good choices of advisors there, but also a number of editors who have been involved in controversy, at least one (very good) editor who seldom contributes any more, and one editor who vowed never to return, yet whose earliest (returning) edits refer to arbcom as "a bunch of cowardly little shits". If that is the kind of advice arbcom would find useful, WP is one step closer to the brink of insanity. Geometry guy 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, Arbcomm doesn't have to take the advice of the council, and it seems to be a think-tank so you need people with ideas and opinions, which will inevitably make one controversial. If a think-tank can't generate new ideas it serves no purpose. Nev1 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know everyone on the list, but I know some of those listed, such as Giano and myself, are among the louder critics of the project. We just bitch about different things. Maybe that's what they're looking for. Also, to take one comment and suggest that's the "advice" that will result from discussion is a little less than genuine. لennavecia 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It is arbitration from a position of weakness and low self-esteem to provide yet another forum for editors to bitch about the governance of wikipedia, especially when the robustness and integrity of arbcom has seen so many improvements since the new year. Including an editor who has not contributed to the project since mid-May demonstrates just how casually this list was thrown together -- apparently (in part) to represent some vocal interest groups and out-of-date back-history. I am sorely disappointed. Geometry guy 20:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not arbitration. لennavecia 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I got the impression it was more about who makes the most noise and less about who actuall is a cross-section myself. I did find it telling that a number of FA contributors who are "quiet" were skipped over, but vocal FA writers were included who had less contributions. More navel gazing when really we should all be writing more. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thought provoking. I was quite puzzled why I was asked. I consider myself, as I replied to the invitation, "a quiet crank". --Moni3 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd have selected you because of your steely resolve. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I find it interesting that in checking contribs and project memberships, that many of the people asked or accepted were part of the LGBT project. However, none of those listed deal with Religion articles and a few members are rather outspoken anti-Religion. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I owe myself $1,000. I regret saying anything. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you had nothing to do with Rootology being added to that group. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I think it's ridiculous that not one FAC/FAR director was appointed. (Excuse my interruption at will, sorry to butt in, Malleus, but I must voice my opinion on such an outrageous thing). Obviously, they expect that people familiar with quality (David, Cas, and Awadewit, and the like) will deal with such things, but it's not the same. The directors are chosen for a reason, for full and excellent comprehension of the MOS, quality articles' criteria, and such, not necessarily for writing it. It's not looking potent at all to me. ceranthor 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The content editors that they chose aren't really reflective topic wise of the community either. There are many subject areas that are completely ignored and yet important to ArbCom. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
True, but it may be the case that they haven't replied yet or have decided not to tak epart for whatever reason. It doesn't look like we'll find out unless they tell us themselves. Nev1 (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Nev, there are two editors there, as far as I observed, who contribute to science and technology articles. Two. ceranthor 20:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I already pointed out one area that was lacking and one that was heavily included. By the way, I submitted John Carter's name to an Arbitrator as someone that would be good choice to include. There are many people like him that cover many projects that are neglected, which is a little off. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you stating that WP:LGBT is well-represented in this group? Is Rootology in WP:LGBT? I had no idea. As someone who frequented the project's talk page for a couple years, no one on the list of people who accepted is a frequent poster there. Nor am I any longer. --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The two statements aren't connected. :P But yeah, LGBT had quite a few participants chosen (more than any other project, from what I saw). Rootology was very anti-Catholic and made his views on religion known on my talk page - no one from the religion wikiproject was chosen. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
On the list you linked at the top of this thread? Is there another list? Is there another WP:LGBT? --Moni3 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the list - go through contribs and displayed images, not everyone keeps their memberships in projects updated. Plus, included those who asked, which I have heard quite a few people so far who were asked but not listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the number I and another determined was 3. I think there are only 2 or 3 of MilHist. By the way, the Tool wikiproject has more than Religion. I don't know about weather or roads. I'm sure a few of them would represent videogames. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Since I recognize none of the people on the list as frequent contributors to the project (reverting vandalism at Lady Gaga does not make anyone a member of WP:LGBT and adding one's name to the list to see what's up does not make one a representative of the project), I invite you to join the Crackpot Realization and Advancement Party. I am its founding member. I made CRAP. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you would recognize yourself. As I said above, I was talking about those invited, not just those that have accepted so far. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I put my comment in the wrong place. I was referring to the FAC/FAR directors' responses rather than commenting on certain areas being over- or under-represented. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No comment on the notable omissions of US Roads and Tropical cyclone members ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the lack of Gary King? Ha. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. I don't see any immediate problems in that department. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait, so you think that Gary King shouldn't be in the council? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I think he would be a capable addition. I just didn't know what you were getting at. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, I'm not getting into this yet again, but I will take it as a direct personal attack if you again call me "anti-Catholic", and I ask for an apology. I'm a baptized Catholic, former altar boy, and because I strongly disagree with your own views and interpretations of the Church doesn't make me "anti-Catholic". I'm informing you that I consider that a personal attack. And no, I'm not in the LGBT wikiproject, but what would it matter if I was? rootology (C)(T) 02:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Your rambles of hate against the Catholic Church on my talk page were enough to secure you the description of anti-Catholic. By the way, when I brought up the point a few Arbitrators agreed that your background made it very unbalanced, especially without there being any individuals from the religion WikiProjects there. And a side note - no one said you were a member of the LGBT project. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And my own history of content creation is right there, if anyone is curious to review it. rootology (C)(T) 02:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And I wouldn't boast about that. I created far more content than that and have been here a far shorter time. And guess what? There are many, many more that have more content contribs than I do. If you think the guy who created the "List of LiveJournal users" is representative of the content contributors, then I really have to ask what community you are part of. At least have a decent self awareness. Or do you think that your contribs are more than someone like Gary King? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus, I've played the urchin who shouted, "The King's got no clothes" - see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#What is this Council for? I'm sure you can contribute some useful comments, probably more amusing than mine (easy enough) but hopefully not inflammatory (might require effort). --Philcha (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, some from FAC/FAR who were asked have had to decline for real life, personal reasons. I have always trusted Kirill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that changes the spectrum up a bit. But can the other users be trusted overseeing content advisory without one person who is an expert at their role on wikipedia (FA/FAR director)? I do trust many of the users too, but can they give expert advice when it's an important topic none of them are "editorially" familiar with? Ie. religion, weather, weather conditions, and technology in general to name a few. (As well as earth sciences, my favorite!) Maybe Awickert could be added, he's a real life expert. ceranthor 11:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm only now becoming aware of this concern relative to the council and FAC/FAR. Raul and YellowMonkey, as former arbs, are already "in the loop" with ArbCom. Karanacs recently had a baby; asking more of her doesn't seem right. I simply can't take on additional Wiki duties right now; my Wiki time is limited and FAC is my priority. I agree that Awickert is an excellent editor ... and there is a long list of other competent, able editors ... but I trust Kirill to do the best that can be done within the constraints of a volunteer venture. I should add that I have never felt that ArbCom wouldn't listen and hear concerns, whether or not I'm on the council. If they need more recommendations, someone will ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

c/e request List of Grade I listed buildings in South Somerset

Hi, I'm getting close to putting List of Grade I listed buildings in South Somerset up for FLC & wondered if you would be kind enough to take a quick look at the lede. You know the quality of my prose &, based on previous experience, this is what will attract criticism rather than any issues about the accuracy or referencing of the content.— Rod talk 13:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Good luck with the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again.— Rod talk 16:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite

It wasn't nonsense WebHamster made a personal attack. See the ANI discussion for details.--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is nonsense, and no he didn't. He expressed how he was feeling in rather colourful language, that's all. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll remember not to follow policy next time.--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that last comment was quite rich. But seriously if we were in the middle of a content dispute and I said People like you are not worth my time you would call it a personal attack, wouldn't you?--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No I wouldn't. I'd simply think that you were an idiot. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User rights

Hi Malleus - I noticed in my user rights log that two admins have been playing around adding multiple additional rights to your account including Autoreviewer and Abuse filter editor. Given that I am aware of your (in my opinion reasonable) distaste for administrator-given rights and the fact that yet again noone seems to have asked you in advance, would you like me to remove them again per your long-standing wishes? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
All done - I have left User:Law a note about this on his talkpage to try to prevent a recurrence. If you want, you can give me a standing order to remove such rights - then I can just cite the diff and not hassle you, since I doubt that this is the last time it will happen. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks once again. Yes please, my mind's made up about these "rights", I don't want any of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I was headed here with the same question. I'm just not fast enough I guess. ;) — Ched :  ?  15:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a pity Ched, I'm sure you'd have liked the practice. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking them away is abhorrent enough, but why would any administrator reinstate them without your request? Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect that Law did it with the best of intentions. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, of that I am sure, I'm just wondering where he gets the audacity! Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Malleus, may I ask a favor? If you do not want any rights/tools, I understand. However, could I ask you to reconsider when it comes to "autoreviewed"? You are definitely someone whose edits, when you choose to make them, are quality, and if you create a page, it's pretty clear (unless you decide to go rouge[sic]) that it is appropriate, and should not need someone else to check up on it. This way, it saves a little bit of work for others. If you still wish not to have that tool, I understand. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it's not a right that anyone would be likely to threaten to take away, as it's damn all use to me, but I don't create all that many new pages anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, in that case, it will be left toggled off. Thank you for replying. -- Avi (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The requirement for autoreviewer that's been established is the creation of about 75 articles, and Malleus has only created about 20. It goes without saying that his articles are of extremely high quality, but if he doesn't want the right, it's not a big deal IMO. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Malleus, I'm petitioning for a user right that only I and someone with Founder privileges is able to give to users. If the WMF agrees, will you let me give you that privilege you? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Not if you also have the right to arbitrarily amd whimsically take it away. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The privilege would be called "no privileges" - it would block anyone from changing your privileges except for either myself or Jimbo. It would also instant block anyone attempting to block you for being uncivil and disruptive. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that one does sound useful. I accept! --Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Having fun, OR? Perhaps we need to re-cast WP:OR specially for you Face-grin.svg -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A lookalike of your lookalike…

Seeing as this page is the surrogate ANI anyway… If you get a moment can you (or anyone else watching) go offer some opinions on this thread before everyone starts shouting at each other? There will be something truly pathetic (in the literal sense of the word) if anyone ends up getting themselves blocked over an article about an Australian professional Roger Waters lookalike, of all things. – iridescent 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be indeffed for warring over such a page instead? Or how about editing such a page? It would seem reasonable. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I've heard from people who've seen them that the band's very good Ottava. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
To Iridescent: This is the kind of thing that ANI just isn't suited to dealing with, a content dispute. The reverting/edit warring is irrelevant really, but all that administrators are equipped to deal, so I guess it's only a matter of time before someone gets blocked. What you've already said there sums up my view as well. The feuding editors to take this to a content resolution forum. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, you've got a bloody long memory. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on WP:BN

Forgive me, but I moved them down when I responded. Maybe it's the wikignome in me. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it's just that I didn't feel that I fitted in either of your categories. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
"Too smart" comes to mind... -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility yet again

Stop testing the limits of civility as you are doing here. I know you are trying to push to see how far you can go and get away with it, but we can't very well let you make people feel unwelcome here. You have no right to act rude or dismissively towards Wikipedians like that. Everyone here deserves to be treated with respect, and if you don't accept that you will find yourself blocked. Chillum 22:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good grief your baiting is tedious Chillum. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you care to explain that statement? You are out of line I think. How is asking a user not to be abusive baiting? Chillum 22:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you have made an unsubstantiated claim that I was "abusive". I would suggest that your own behaviour is abusive. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You clearly don't know anything, so stop pretending that you do Chillum. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any intention of maintaining a basic level of respect when talking to others here? Chillum 23:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I will always give others the respect that they deserve. What about you? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Practice what you preach. While I don't find what Malleus said offensive, using it as a yard stick means that comment was at least as "bad". Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Chillum, I think you are going to learn very fast that consensus is clearly against you. This, combined with many problems and lack of following policy from the past three weeks will end up with a result that you will not like. You already crossed the line and can be blocked for making false accusations. So do yourself a favor and stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention his stunning lack of ability to indent. Chillum, you stuck your nose in knowing the sort of response you would get from Mal. That makes you a troll in my view. You poke a tiger and you'll get your arse bitten, you know this and yet you decided to do it anyway. As for testing the limits of civility. Once again in my view Mal was nowhere near the 'limit'. The response you got was as a result of the same response anyone would get had a fart suddenly cut the air. It was eye-watering, unwanted and seems to follow one around wherever one goes. May I suggest that it may be a good plan for you to stay well clear of Mal and mine's talk pages, unwatch them. That way you won't be tempted to pipe up with your inanities and piss off everyone in the process. --WebHamster 11:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, because Mall comes here to defend you, me asking you to be civil is trolling? I am glad you don't have any special buttons to go along with your interpretation of policy, because it does not seem to follow its wording or spirit. Chillum 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain this and how you think it is appropriate. I'd be interested in your explanation of what appears to be documentation of a petty grudge. Nev1 (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I find that rather disturbing, particularly as User:Mattisse was chastised in a recent ArbCom case for maintaining a similar list. One law for the administrators and another for the rest? Certainly looks that way. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Chillum, I strongly recommend you delete that page, it's completely inappropriate. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
According to this MfD, such lists should be compiled only if the user intends to use them in the near future as evidence for an RfC/U or Request for Arbitration. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Then let's see what Chillum has to say for himself. Right now it seems to me that the one the brink on an RfC is Chillum. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Trolling in that there was no necessity for you to butt into something that was already dying down. You saw that Mal was a part of the conversation. You knew what response you would get, but regardless you did it anyway. That in my view is trolling, ie saying something to which you know there would be a negative response. And if trolling wasn't your purpose (which I highly doubt) it shows a complete lack of diplomatic tact on your part, not a good thing for any admin. --WebHamster 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As always Mall, I welcome scrutiny of my actions. And RFC would be a fine idea. Chillum 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're full of puff Chillum, take it elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
A typically gracious response when he's caught in flagrante delicto. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone point me in the direction of the "threat"? Nev1 (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm a little concerned Chillum has been changing Malleus's user rights in the last 48 hours ([2]). This looks like a conflict of interest to me. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

He was just messing about because of something that User:Law did yesterday. See the thread above. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, just cottoned on... I was somewhat alarmed, but that's fine. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK - you were right

Malleus, thanks for being a responsible member of my advisers/mentors team and stepping up to the plate. I didn't feel very grateful at the time, but I am now. My panel proved itself and didn't refrain from trying to jolt me into reality. Please do it again any time I need it. Your perspective is welcome any time. Your grateful advisee, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that the people you picked would ever be shy of stepping up to the plate Mattisse. Glad it's all blown over now. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Chester Rows

I am considering offering this new article as a GAC in a couple of weeks (after a Wikibreak). I think it says what I mean it to say but, as always, your improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in anticipation. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I don't think you'll have too much trouble with that at GAN Peter. Enjoy your break. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That's amazingly fast! I thought it would need much more attention than that. Many thanks again. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Soon you won't need my help at all Peter. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll always need a mentor! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of a favour

I appreciate you probably have much better and more interesting things to do but, if you are willing, I would very much appreciate you giving BBC Sports Personality of the Year a once over. It has recently had a lot of text merged into it, and I'm asking because you were recommended to me, but please feel free to refuse if you lack the time or even if you just don't fancy it. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. One thing strikes me straight away, and that's that I'd drop all of the honorofics like Sir Chris Hoy. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have done that. If you have any other suggestions please let me know. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
One more thing strikes me reading through it again. We're familiar with Gary Lineker, but those not so fortunate as ourselves to be English may not be so well informed. "It was presented by Gary Lineker ...". I think you need to make it clear that Lineker was himself a significant sportsman. Also, with others mentioned, such as "... which was won by Steve Redgrave", I think it would be a big help to say which sport these individuals were involved in, such as "which was won by rower Steve Redgrave". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You definitely raise a good point, but how far do I go? Jimmy Hill, Cliff Morgan, Sue Barker, Clare Balding and Gary Lineker were all significant sportsmen, but as many do, they went on to presenting. I think it may be too much to add sports for all them, because in this ceremony they are just presenters (something they all have or had a career in). It is not like they are a sportsmen who don't usually present but were drafted in because of there sporting credentials. I agree that winners, e.g. Redgrave and the like, should have their sports mentioned because that is what they were being recognised for. I'll add them, and await your response regarding presenters. Thanks for all that copyediting you did whilst I was offline. Also one more question, would you consider this to be an "article" or a "list". It was originally a list that became featured, and then it had article text merged in. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks fine now with the changes you've made. Is it a list or an article? I think it's still a list. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

More groping

I thought I'd alert you to this, a comment I made in response to this. Geogre appears to be a very competent writer and his/her concerns seem valid to me. I'm not proposing any immediate changes but I think the line of thought is worth consideration. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what more we can say about the etymology and use of the word "cunt". It seems plain that its etymology is unknown, and to say any more than we have would involve us in original research. Some interesting observations on your Grub Street article though. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Grub Street is turning into something more than I thought it would. Its going to take a long time to get it into shape before I can copy it across. It doesn't help that I know very little about the subject, but lately I've been finding 18th century English history rather fascinating, much more so than the stuffy old Victorians. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I wondered if you had any advice on the structure of User:Parrot of Doom/sandbox3? I'm not really sure how to structure everything. I have plenty of interesting info, but a lot of it is spread around a bit like a loose jigsaw. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's difficult isn't it, because you're actually writing about two different things, the place called Grub Street and the literary Grub Street. I'd try to separate the two in the article by first of all focusing on the toponymy/geography/history of the physical place, and then moving on to the pejorative term it became, instead of trying to deal with things chronologically. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a plan. I already have most of the geographical history covered, it won't take much to shift the latter history into that. Thanks for the advice. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Where do I send the bill? :-) BTW, any suggestions you have for Samlesbury witches, which I'm hoping to take to GAN soon would be welcome. It's not quite finished yet, need to say a bit more about the trial itself and then wrap it up at the end, but I think it's starting to shape up. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll add it to my watchlist and have a look in the morning, but meanwhile have you seen this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that to be honest, so thanks for the reminder. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Begun or began? I thought I knew but now I'm unsure. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Begun. Without any shadow of a doubt. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
BURN HER ANYWAY! - is a higher quality scan of the 'wonderful discovery' image. The Amazon source (where I nicked it from) is on the Flickr page description. I can't see any copyright restrictions, so feel free to view it at maximum resolution, and upload it, replacing the one you have presently. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Official Complaints - first, LMAO, second, do you have a link to any of them? I can only see discussion about the effects, not the complaints themselves. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know how to see OTRS complaints, or even if we're allowed to see them. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
OTRS is co-ordinated over on meta - only "approved" volunteers are able see requests. Pedro :  Chat  14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
OMG think of the children. I'm quite happy with the complaints though - it does somewhat reinforce what the article says. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It would have disappointing if it hadn't ruffled a few feathers. I'd place a substantial bet that most if not all of the complaints have come from the States. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Give credit where it is due when speaking of the children. --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Big discussion Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha! Good clean fun :D --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your copyediting skills are wasted mate ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I've only just seen this, from Stephen Fry. If nothing else PoD we got people talking. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 12:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd seen that, thanks :) I was hoping for The Daily Mail but Mr Fry will do nicely :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The furore this has caused amongst the righteously indignant has certainly given me pause for thought. I notice that cunt isn't even a GA yet, for instance, but that one's obviously a bit too ... well, obvious. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, not one of them...not one...has actually been able to quantify what kind of damage might be caused to children (although I'm sick of hearing about children) by reading the word, or even the article. I put that down to their unwillingness to admit that really, its the loss of control they have as parents that they're angry about.
My parents told me nothing about anything - nothing. I had to learn it myself, from my friends, at school. I wish I'd been able to read it here, but Wikipedia probably wouldn't work well on a Commodore Pet 8k. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
PS [3] Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
That's good. I particularly like the comment from the Austalian politician. Slightly annoying though that the article says "The word comes from the Ancient Egyptian 'qefen-t' ...", when I was at pains to try and point out that the etymology is unknown, just that the word obviously has a very ancient root. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think he was trying to link that, with Eat, Pray, Queef :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You know, I've never seen or heard the word "queef" before. Obviously I should watch more television. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a vivid memory from when I was about 9 or 10. I was barreling down the hill outside our house on a home-made bogey/trolley when one of the wheels came off and I was thrown out. I must have have been going at least 30 or 40mph ... well it seemed fast to me at the time anyway. :lol: The point of the story though is that as the wheel came off I shouted out "Fucking Hell" right outside our house. My mother came charging out with a face as dark as thunder, and I think you can probably guess the rest. I had no idea what "fucking hell" meant, I'd just heard my friends saying it. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to fill your talk page with filth, but... Well actually, I do. Tobacco smoke enema Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfuckingbelievable! Where do you find them? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That one, here Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Tobacco smoke, my a***. IIRC a documentary I saw decades ago about early 19th cent surgery said a cigar was sometimes inserted in order to relax the muscles of the lower body and legs. --Philcha (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

c/e request

1968 Illinois earthquake was recently archived at FAC, any chance you could try to give it a solid copyedit? If you're too busy, just tell me. Ty ceranthor 16:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I replied to your comments1. ceranthor 18:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, I ran into that same problem when writing the prose. Since I don't know what it means, either, I took it directly from the site[4], do you think I should put it in quotations and hope for the best? I've done some searching, and nothing turned up. ceranthor 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to be careful. This "A post office canvass and meticulous field inspection of the epicentral area indicated the strongest shaking (MM VII) took place in the Wabash and Ohio Valleys and other nearby lowlands of south-central Illinois" from your article, is strikingly similar to "An extensive post office canvass and a field inspection of the epicentral area indicate that the strongest shaking (MM VII) took place in the Wabash and Ohio Valleys and adjacent lowlands of south-central Illinois" from the source. Have you actually read that paper, or just the abstract? If you can't explain the "post office canvass" then either you'll have to find out more about it or drop it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
See Tony's talk page for a note, please. I did mention you "ran" through the text... :) Best, ceranthor 17:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Where under "Preferences" to I uncheck what you said to uncheck, so that so much text does not show up for an image? I have hunted around under browser Options and Preferences but can't find anything relevant. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the second option under Content, "Load images automatically". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I also discovered that the web developer add-on has an alt option which shows the alt text. Guess I was freaked out. Hey, would you look at an article Fertilisation of Orchids, currently an FAC, and tell me if there is anything hugely wrong with it, from your point of view? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a really useful add-on, I've just installed it myself. I'm not really sure I can help much with the orchid article though; my wife's forever chastising me for digging up plants from the garden I thought were weeds. I was brought up in Scotland, where we believe that anything green is poisonous, or at least I do anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Fertilisation of Orchids is a monograph by Darwin on evolutionary theory, not gardening. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah! --Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Peace?

If I have, I didn't intend to piss anyone off in this situation. You are right, it is Noloop that is the problem. I say that we let the admins deal with Noloop and WebHamster. Between us, how about we just move on and let the situation go.--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to sign your name here Wikipedia:NODRAMA. Let's have 5 days of solid article bulding, yes?--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see how that works out. I won't be signing up though, as I'm not prepared to watch good editors like WebHamster be thrown to the lions no matter what the date is. Where there is evil ... well, you get the idea. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just saying

re: this. I thought I saw a comment recently about "sauce for the goose...". For some reason I was remembered of that. ;-) — Ched :  ?  13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never attempted to justify my behaviour here to anyone Ched, and neither have I ever formally complained about the behaviour of anyone else by going crying to AN/ANI/WQA when someone is rude to me. If there were more like me this place would run a lot more smoothly. Just my opinion, of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It does seem that noloop's desire to put me against the wall does have all the appearances of a perpetual motion machine, but what the hell eh? :) I can attest to Mal's non-hypocrisy (I wonder if that should be called hypercrisy?) when it comes to his response to being the recipient of 'rudeness'. And I also agree with his contention that the place would run smoother if the request for donations accompanied a similar request for editors with thicker skins. --WebHamster 13:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been wondering for a while whether there isn't a quite fundamental difference in attitude towards this whole civility issue between UK and US editors. It's certainly my impression that we in the UK are by-and-large much less precious about the odd ding-dong or a bit of honest name calling than the Americans currently running so much of this site. Thinking of Giano, perhaps it's a European thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm with you on this one. It could be that beneath the false facade of "have a nice day" friendliness and overly patriotic behaviour the citizens of the US are actually quite emotional and sensitive. Perhaps our brusqueness cuts right through fake politeness and political correctness and hits them where they really are and they just can't handle the fact (I'm so tempted to put "truth" here instead) that some countries tend to see life as it is and now how they'd prefer it to be. Who knows muahaaaa! --WebHamster 14:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
For some reason that reminds me of the Sam Goldwyn quote: “I don't want any 'yes-men' around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them their jobs.” --Malleus Fatuorum 14:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There might be merit to a cultural divide regarding free speech in the U.S and civility on Wikipedia. It's an interesting question at least. In my experience, Americans tend to use the phrase "free speech" without understanding what it really is, or disappointingly short-sightedly. When many cry "free speech!" they of course mean that no one should argue, verbally attack, or otherwise judge or respond in any way other than being supportive. That is not what the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights intended it to be. Americans sometimes forget the courage it takes to speak one's mind, then stand and accept/listen to what others think of their opinions. I used to tell my students that yes, it is legal for someone to carry a sign on a sidewalk that states "I hate (group)", but it is also legal for someone to come and say that the sign holder sucks. They were surprised at both. The safe environment that is trying to be set in schools for kids to have the freedom to begin to express themselves while demonstrating patience for other opinions carries over into general culture, and clearly here on Wikipedia. In sanitizing these environments to make them safe, students aren't really taught the responsibilities that go with their rights. --Moni3 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps an analogy might be our modern passion for hygiene and anti-bacterial cleansers everywhere. I think it's well established now that children fare better when they're exposed to a bit of muck and germs when they're young, helps them build up their resistance. I remember when I was a kid if a friend or neighbour had something like mumps or chickenpox my mother would rush us all round so that we would catch it as well and get it over with. No mollycoddling. The PC craziness has seeped in here as well though. One of my favourite stories is of a junior school football (soccer) match, in which one side was getting badly beaten. They were 9–0 down at half-time, but instead of their coach taking them to one side and giving them a shot in the arm and sorting them out, the match was abandoned to save the poor darlings the humiliation of getting beaten by an even greater score. Pathetic. Life's at least as much about losing as it is about winning. Anyone can win gracefully, it's how you take the knocks that defines you. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
America is a country descended from outcasts and political/religious refugees. We all have persecution complexes. People call each other assholes only from behind the relative safety of the their tinted SUV windows. If you call a spade a spade, you either get shot (West of the Mississippi) or you become the CEO (East of the Mississippi). --Laser brain (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Australia though is famously a British penal colony, and you don't get much more straight-talking than Australians. Tony1 is a pretty good example, so it looks like the cultural divide is between the US and the rest of the world. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Remember the story of the English tourist going through passport control at Sydney Airport? When the immigration officer asked if he had a criminal record he replied: "I didn't realise that was still obligatory". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Realizing that I'm vastly outnumbered here, I'll still risk the following comment.[1] There's a "rest of the world"? ;)
  • [1] It's likely due to that "American arrogance" thing I've heard tell about.Ched :  ?  15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
A "World Series" in a sport that no other country plays might be a clue ;) --WebHamster 17:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Poor maligned and forgotten Canada. Will no one ever notice her mapleness, even in the lead sentence? --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not surprised based on the second paragraph "and one club from Canada". :) --WebHamster 18:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Salford,_Greater_Manchester#Early_history

Malleus I've just emailed you a scan of a book, I wondered if you wouldn't mind taking a quick look at the above link, and seeing if the changes I've made around 'Burgesses' makes sense? I'm not quite certain I've gotten it right. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll check my email shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I don't know whether you added this or not, but I just don't understand what it's getting at all: "Information about Salford during the Tudor period and beyond is available from the surviving volumes of the Portmote Records. 'October 03, 1601 - A tusellment made ye 3 October betwixt Robert Tetlow and Mr Dainsford man and James Hilton and no blud shed.'" The first bit's fine, but what the Hell is account of the "tesellment" doing there? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
No idea, I didn't add that bit. I did see the Portmote records in the library, but they had centuries of dust on so I didn't touch them :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's dump it then, and get to GAN. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Here, here. I think we can handle GAN without much trouble. Nev1 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
OK then, who's going to do the honours? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Not yet. There's still lots to do IMO. I added some stuff on mills, but I think there are two mentions of the same 'twist' mill now, that needs sorting out.
I also have mucho to input, about trams, horse carriages, omnibuses, broughton, pendleton, and ordsall, as well as a couple of odd bits here and there.
I should be able to add a fair bit tomorrow, Sunday I'm working all day, so I reckon you'd be best waiting until Monday - unless GAN is particularly slow right now (actually I have 4 articles there, only 1 has been reviewed so far). Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I've come across more than a few instances of 'too many references' syndrome (same reference 3 times in one paragraph, uninterrupted by others) that could do with being tidied up.
I'll leave it to you to decide when you think it's the right time for GAN then. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
PS. One way to get some priority at GAN is to review other people's articles. Admittedly I've been a bit lazy in that respect, I've only reviewed 300 or so. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it'd get torn to bits at FAC tbh :) I do review the odd article at GAN, the trouble is I'm a bit...picky, and tend to end up asking for corrections and clarifications on every single sentence :) For instance. I don't know if thats normal or not, but I've had 'my' articles pass GAN with barely a comment. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we'd struggle at FAC as well. When you've finished your additions and it's a GA we can look to tidy it up for the lions. Of which I'm often one, to be fair. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If I only read what people said about you here, I'd have you down as a Hyena tbh :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I think of myself more as a wolverine, solitary and misunderstood. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just want to let you know that I appreciate your input in the recent ANI thread regarding civility. I am eager to see our community's notion of civility become more sophisticated than a list of no-no words. Your input in that direction is valued, and I'll continue to think about what you said. I may disagree with you about certain things, but don't think I'm not listening. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the questions you're asking as a good faith effort to open a sensible discussion on a subject too many have closed minds on. I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with my point of view, but I think the discussion needs to be had nevertheless. Even if all I achieve is to make people stop and think about the present daft situation, that'll be better than blindly going on down a path that is leading nowhere good. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Falcon, Chester

I'm always willing to learn, but did I do anything wrong by giving the article this title? Before I could blink it had been moved to The Falcon (public house) and I still cannot understand why. The discussion with the perpetrator has been copied to the article's talk page (as s/he suggested). I still think the new title demeans the article - it was not written because it is a pub, but because it is one of the outstandingly important buildings in Chester. Was my title wrong? If so, OK. If not, what do you advise (or should I just calm down)? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the move either, and if necessary I'll write another "The Falcon" article to force the issue. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Nev1 has done the necessary move back. And List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area) has been accepted as a FL. I know you're not keen on FLs, but the two matters together have made MY day. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That section

I thought it was time it went after it had been flagged for so long. I thought briefly about retaining the stuff where a ferret was an important element of a story but then released that that was a fact about the story and not one about ferrets. I was going to say that after all Ring (jewellery) doesn't mention Wagner or Tolkein, but I've just gone and checked and had to remove the latter.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the only significant thing in that section was the Aristophanes info, which suggests a date for when ferrets may have been commonplace, but as you say, that was already mentioned in the History section anyway. I'm also not happy about all the airline info, which is going to be liable to change and is really not about ferrets at all. I've really wanted this article to become properly encyclopedic for ages now, but it still looks like an owner's manual to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Not an owner's manual? You mean I can't add something about the dangers of ferrets vandalising Wikipedia (User_talk:Peter_cohen#April_2009)? I'll leave the airline info for you to deal with. I appreciate your point that the info is liable to get out of date and mislead people. Perhaps it falls under something in WP:NOT or you can propose an addition there. At least we haven't got the problems like Rottweiler and Pit Bull where there is a lobby trying to downplay the hazards. I'm waiting for someone to sue Wikipedia claiming they were misled. I notice that Dobermann Pinscher at least has started to link good references to academic research on dog aggression which highlight the fact that while Dachshunds and some other toy breeds may be more snappy, the larger dogs can do more damage. --Peter cohen (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mwah ha ha ha

Some people asked me to run for the Wiki Board. I would probably just be running against Kohs and have a complete bonkers of a campaign. What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's something you think you might enjoy then why not? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I am tempted to use my image with an image of Cthulhu in the background, as if I was his puppet. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You Know

I knew I was asking for it. I hit save and thought, you know what, there goes my article. Tilted Kilt is of a higher calibre, I believe, solely because the food really is the focus. Law type! snype? 03:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a much more interesting article; pity we don't have them over here. Needs more pictures though :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Should you find yourself in the great state of Southern California, I'll buy you a pint and a chicken wing. Law type! snype? 03:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
By the time I get back to California they'll have made alcohol illegal. Again. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Well good. I'll stock up on Boddington's and some mash, just in case. Law type! snype? 04:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Donnchadh again

After (and of course if) hamiltonstone's concerns are resolved, I'm gonna print this thing off and have a final copy-edit. I'm going to co-nom you on the Donnchadh article, whenever it is ready to go forward, owing to the work you put in. Because of that you'll probably want some final say about when it's ready, so after my final copy-edit I'll leave you a notice to check. Would that be ok? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to check it through again when you think it's ready, but I really didn't do enough to warrant a co-nom. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 80-odd edits is more than enough I think. I'm gonna go ahead and nom it tonight. I've given it another serious copy-edit and slightly reformatted it. If you have time can you double-check for any potential problems I may have created (trailing typos, and so on)? :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Will do. I thought it was just about ready before anyway. I've been slaving over the Samlesbury witches for much of the day. Honestly, I think GA is getting to be almost as hard as FA. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Argh, maybe, but its a bit of a lottery on what reviewer you get. Ready before? Maybe, but there are a lot of very particular users, and if you don't present FAs often you can get a hard time for so many things. The readier the better! :) I've went ahead btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try to review Seward and Donnchadh tomorrow, after my eyes recover. (pokes Deacon) Urse??? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
A yes, Urse. Almost forgot about that! I'll try to do some work on it tomorrow ... that is depending on the [lack of] presence and/or size of any fix list on either of those noms. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nikita Zotov

I just wanted to thank you for the work you did on the Nikita Zotov article while the article was on the front page. I have been toying with the idea of possibly getting the article to GA standard, and I was wondering what additional work you think would be necessary to do so (aside from the abysmal lead, of course). Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's still quite a bit of work to do before it'll be ready for a GA nomination. I'll leave a few notes on the article's talk page for you. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I figured it would be as much. Thank you for all your help. NW (Talk) 15:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Samlesbury witches

Hi there. I've done a review of this here if you want to check it out. Ping me at my talk page if you want, or I've got your talk page and the article on my watchlist anyway. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. It shouldn't take me long to make the changes you've suggested, most if not all of which I think I agree with. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
When I get unburied from this current set of work, I tend to force you to work on some similarly themed topics (and other works by Ainsworth). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I look forward to working on Ainsworth's Lancashire Witches, and I can feel an overarching Lancashire witch trials article coming on, perhaps even a Cheshire witch trials as well. But before then I've got to at least try and do the Moors murders article justice. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can help you on the Lancashire witch trials article. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Good, 'cos I'm not sure where to start with it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Easy. "Once there was an old woman. People didn't like her. They declared her a witch." :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
To be serious, just for a moment, many of those convicted of witchcraft were male, and many witches who hadn't committed a capital offence by actually causing death were dealt with in the lower courts, and maybe put in the stocks or whatever, not hanged as they could have been in the high-profile assizes.</serious> --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh great template expert...

Can you figure out how to add an alt text parameter to Template:Horse infobox? I'm just off spending 11 hours in Photoshop, so my brain is not up for finicky things. I need a good black and tan right now... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's no great trick really Ealdgyth, although I'd like to be able to claim that it requires a brain the size of a planet. :-) I'll sort it tomorrow if nobody else has before then. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New list?

Enjoyed doing that review. I was thinking of creating List of witch trials. Any thoughts as to the wisdom of this before I go ahead? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Only one, which is that I think it's a great idea. Probably better to narrow it down though, perhaps to English, Scottish, or American trials though? Those Europeans went mad, so it would be a big list if it included every witchcraft trial everywhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah. OK, will ponder. What about a template (navbox) for the bottom of the pages. I find them useful, and have just done one for Business in Australia. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think a navbox could work to link the various List of witch trials in ... articles that you haven't written yet. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a person slower on the uptake at WP than I? There at the bottom of the relevant articles, is Template:Witch Hunt. Oh look! So. Anyway, I did some work on it to make it more readable. That will do for now I think. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Justiceout

The trouble with bringing this up is that Wikipedia is often rude and harsh. It is not inconceivable that I will be attacked for bringing it up. I have seen the reporter of a problem being attacked in ANI before. Besides, the incident happened about 3 months ago so the blocked user is unlikely to keep checking their account. There is no point in trying to discipline the administrator because that is always fruitless. The threshold is much, much higher than regular users. (One might argue that the threshold should be much, much lower because administrators are supposed to be WP's best users).

The best way to resolve this would be to discuss the matter with all parties and the community at the time it happened. I only discovered it because I was researching an article for the dramaout article writing campaign and was clicking on links of related topics, one of which had a failed AFD. I noticed that the AFD submittor was an administrator with a bold looking, custom made signature and the author of that article was blocked by the same admin.

In Wikipedia, maybe we should adopt the "highest possible ethics" as the standard. American dentists cannot date patients because the dental licensing board wants to be very cautious. In some universities, professors cannot date or have sexual relations with students or recent former students. In Wikipedia, we don't have such standards. Administrators and long time users should abide by high standards. Such high standards would serve to differentiate Wikipedia from a message board, from knowledge websites like Yahoo answers, and from social sites, like facebook. User F203 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no will for change among the entrenched minority in positions of authority here. If there was, then the daft civility police would have been put up against a wall and shot ages ago. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection?

Hey Malleus - you did some copyediting/formatting on this page, wondering if you had any sort of input for this RFPP request. Tan | 39 21:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I probably only edited that because it was a DYK, can't remember now. Anyway, I can't see any reason to protect the page, but what the heck do I know. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

November Nine

If I could get your thoughts/input here it would be greatly appreciated.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll struggle with that at FAC I think; I'd suggest FLC instead. I don't really do peer reviews, but I'm sure that if you could enlist the help of a good copyeditor to eliminate things like "but delaying the final table all nine members became instant poker celebritities" the article would have a good chance as a featured list. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oooops... the only way you'll see my name at FAC is if I'm piggy backing on the work of somebody else (like I did with The Wiggles. I meant FLC, thanks for the catch.) And it's the copy-edit part that I need help with... any suggestions?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
See what comes out of the peer review and take it from there. The reason I don't get involved in copyediting articles at peer review is because they're potentially so volatile, and it's just a waste of time to fix something that's going to be changed again 20 minutes later. I'll be happy to help once the peer review's over though, and help the article through FLC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't plan on having it there for long... maybe a week, while I actively solicit some insight from people. I don't plan on leaving it there for months on end.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, you might also like the DYK I've proposed, "... that the game Rock, Paper, Scissors (pictured) has been used to determine the winner of several events at the World Series of Poker?"---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a damn sight more interesting than the typical DYK hook. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I try to find the odd angles for hooks (but this one was actually inspired by another user.) My original idea was along the lines of "that ESPN covered the World Series of Rock Paper Scissors?" Another user pointed out that the winning hand at the WSOP might be RPS.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I thought from your user page that you were withdrawing from wikipedia? Hopefully what you really meant was that you were refocusing you efforts on articles. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Areas for Reform

I think you have a very valid point about civility blocks. However, I think this is the question forwarded in the section "Civility" - please look at that section, and the description of the problem and see if I am right (note: editors can always edit/revise/refine the description). (I created the section, but at the suggestion of another editor) So far no one has started a discussion there, but i suspect a lot of people share your views. This is a more specific issue than "blocks" although perhaps you would argue that the two topics overlap. Be that as it may, I think you raise an issue that deserves a thorough discussion and I hope you can open it up here and get others involved. I believe there are at least hundreds if not many more editors who share your view and it would be great so see this issue worked through seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I see no hope for changing anything here on wikipedia, so I'm reluctant to waste any time in trying to find that most mythical of beasts, a consensus. My plan is simply to do what I can until some clown indef blocks me for "incivility". Then I'll be gone. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah! But once that clown blocks you for incivility, I will unblock you. You can still stay away but on your own recognizance. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want want to be here by the patronage of any administrator. Neither do I want any of the pretty baubles that administrators are now allowed to hand out, like rollback and who cares what else. It's just not for me. I just want the civility police to get off my case and fuck off. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, it was just a joke - lighten up! And if you are angry at the "civility police," go complain to them, not me as i am not one of them. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, new policies or policy changes in practice are determined by up/down votes, not consensus which is no longer a practical principle. Slrubenstein | Talk

It may be a joke to you, but take a look at my block log. It's not a joke to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What i wrote to you at 2:42 was a joke - your response led me to think you misunderstood me, so I explained it to you. But on the general issue of the civility policy of course I do not think it is a joke. Based on my comment of 2:02, I cannot believe you would think I view it as a joke. Did my 2:02 comment really not convey to you how serious I take it? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not the civility police, you are far worse. Law type! snype? 03:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That's disgusting. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not mix up the problem of racism with that of civility, they are separate issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In your position I'd stop digging. The hole is already deep enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No doubt. Lara 06:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What hole? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, Malleus, I've given you something to shoot at. --Philcha (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

I don't suppose you know how to make the verse quoted at the bottom of Mary Toft behave itself, do you? I'm rubbish at html thingies. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Malleus's reputation is so great that language reformats itself before him. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If only. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It still appears to have a loads of whitespace around it. I wonder if a load of carriage returns would fix that. Failing that, I could just remove it from the box.
I'm almost ready to take this to FAC now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Try that, I just butchered out all of the formatting that could cause any "white" in it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It still has loads, on both Firefox and Opera. Odd, because in this version it works fine. The only difference is the third image in that section. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Try refreshing your cache. It works fine in all versions of my firefox and internet explorers without any white space. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait, do you mean -outside- of the box? You silly git. It has a template that causes it to end the section only after everything else. Look at the very bottom of the section. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the box works there, but if you stagger the images I think you should be able to reduce the whitespace. It's the images that are forcing the whitespace. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Didn't you add a third image between the version that worked and the one that doesn't? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Aww you killed my box :( Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It just wasn't right. You'd have had to remove it at FAC anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
pfft, what do they know, they passed that stupid car mascot article that was TFA a few weeks back! :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Much better now, thanks. I had thought there was too much text for smaller images but actually its fine. That Ottava character clearly doesn't know anything ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you've seen this, but one comment from Brianboulton about the size of a caption in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Toft/archive1 is keeping him from supporting. Now personally I'd rather do a Toft with Wasps than change it, but its only a minor point and I'd appreciate your input if you have time. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't matter now, I've managed to reach a compromise with Brianboulton and that user is now one of three supporting. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's good. It's a nice article, deserves to be FA. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

GA notability?

Maryland Route 284 - would you say that such an article warrants GA? I've been looking through the list, I've 'quick'failed a couple of articles that were very poorly referenced, but looking at this I'd suggest that it barely covers the basics. For that to be a GA, I'd want the road's entire history, its phases of construction, signage used, traffic levels, etc. Right now it looks start-class or a stub. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Another example is The Beatles in the United States - I'm considering reviewing it but frankly the prose is poor throughout. What would you do, a quick single-paragraph summary of your concerns, or would you go right through the article pointing out all the errors, knowing that none of your recommendations might be acted upon? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with you about Maryland Route 284, it's little more than a stub. So far as The Beatles in the United States is concerned though, while I agree with you that the prose is fairly poor throughout the question is, is it good enough? I don't think it is quite, but we need to be careful not to expect too much of a GAN, it's not FAC. I'd have some concerns about the content too, for instance it doesn't even tell me how many concerts The Beatles did on their August 1965 tour; I'm also concerned about the tone is some places, such as "a shocking event had taken place there". I'd tend not to pick up an article like that one unless I was prepared to have a go at the prose myself, as I don't like having to fail an otherwise good article just because of its prose. If you took on the review and were uncertain about how your comments would be received, or whether they'd be acted on, then I'd make a short list of some important things that need to be addressed and see how that's responded to. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
So were you to review MR 284, what would your suggestion be? I'd like to fail it on a lack of comprehensiveness but I don't want to look a fool if that isn't allowed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd fail it because it doesn't (IMO) meet good article criteria 3a, i.e., it doesn't address the main aspects of the topic. GAs don't need to be comprehensive—that's for FAs—but there ought not to be obvious and big gaps in their coverage. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I failed it on just the criterion you suggested. I don't like to do it, especially as I've reviewed one of his articles last year (and he worked hard to improve it), but IMO it was just too short. I gave my reasons on the article's talk page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude, as it's not my business. But to have allowed this article as a GA would have been a nonsense. If this article were to have succeeded as a GA, virtually everything I have written would pass as a GA, and that would make a mockery of the assessment. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree Peter. Just look at the work we had to do to get Salford through GA, or the Samlesbury witches.
PS. Feel free to "intrude" whenever you like. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Also butting in here. The problem with road articles, particularly the more insignificant ones, is that you're usually hardpressed to find substantial coverage outside of maps and such. This would normally indicate a lack of notability, but numerous past discussions have decided that most state highways and higher are inherently notable. This, combined with the fact that GA was originally intended as a means of recognizing articles unlikely to reach FA, usually leads me to be a bit more lenient when reviewing highway articles. Note that I'm not commenting as to the quality of this particular article, just road articles in general. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If they're notable, then something notable ought to have been written about them somewhere. If it hasn't, then they're not notable, whatever the "consensus" may have been in the past. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
"numerous past discussions have decided that most state highways and higher are inherently notable" - who decided this, where, after how much discussion? We get a drama a month at WT:NOTPLOT, but state highways and higher are inherently notable even if only cartographers and traffic cops know about them? --Philcha (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

With your permission, I would like to perform a true FA review on this page. I will put it on a subpage so you will not have to accept it as part of the FA. However, I am just tired of the double standards and bs people put. If people want to see what a real review looks like, and how to analyze real details in a work and get at the heart of the matter on what is necessary to truly make a page one of Wikipedia's best, then they can look at what I am already preparing. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I might withdraw my participation in that nomination actually. Certainly, there'll be little point putting any more manpower into this article if the FAC is taken over by other issues. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)
I've just seen the discussion about the name, disappointing. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and the problem for this kind of article is that its topic is too obscure to attract much attention, so if one or two users make it some ideological issue, it's essentially fucked. Still, it's the quality of the article that counts, not whether it has an FA star on it. And it's by far the best and most up-to-date thing about this guy, on the internet or anywhere else! Most likely it needs a few more little tweaks for aesthetic purposes, but that can still happen anyway. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's my view that some editors get far too wrapped in minutiae, and just can't see the bigger picture. Did you see the long-running saga about what name the Roman Catholic Church ought to have, for instance? The mediation may even still be dragging on now, I really can't be bothered to look. Reviewers sometimes need to be reminded that they're assessing against the FA/GA criteria, not some Platonic notion of "the perfect article". Where in the FA criteria, for instance, does it specify that an article must be named in accordance with the number of Google hits? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm ... maybe one day we'll change article names to the 3266325 type, and deprive titles of their undue importance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to perform a "true FA review" on Ashton-under-Lyne. It's only had one review (apart from Ealdgyth's review of the sources and comments about alt text) and it's about halfway down the nomination list without appearing to generate much interest. Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Nev - my reviews, even in their lightest, always have complaints. As you can see from the hostility above when I made a complaint over stuff that is prohibited by policy, -policy-, that was just ignored because no one cared, I am the one getting attacked. Malleus is one of the few people that is willing to handle stuff no matter how difficult because he wants to get it right above all else. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt it, that's why I'd be happy for you to do a review of the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


  • User:Ottava_Rima/FAC_review - Paragraph one is reviewed. Of course, these will become more complicated when I have to deal with references and verification where I can. You can get a sense of the length. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    Finished lead. Will be going through the next section tomorrow. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    The next paragraph is now complete. I will only be able to devote a limit amount of time to this today, but I will try and get you the first section by tonight. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ottava, if I see anything in your review that's important, I'll edit accordingly. I'm, sure Malleus would do the same. What's the big deal about sources though? Only a very poor range of sources are online, no-one expects the editor to add comments only from the reviewers book collection. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
There are many databases besides google books that includes online versions of books or snippets from them. I also have access to libraries and the such. Plus, you have the sources so you can always provide an excerpt to verify that the content is in the source and not just interpretation. Verify, verify, and verify again. :) But yeah, I'm just being thorough about what I can determine. If I can't check something, then it should be noted incase other people can. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I would use sources per their worth rather than depending on whether some chap in North America has put it online. But sure, I'd be happy to provide "extracts" upon request. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I think reviewing so thoroughly can be counter-productive. Besides taking an unreasonable amount of time, most of it can be processed and judged in the subconscious without being expounded. Often that's better, as that part of the brain has a better understanding [than achievable for the conscious brain] of what's good and what's not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm more trying to draw attention to various things in general than saying that people should do exactly this. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I did some more copy-editing, following Andy Walsh's comment on Siward (I do have a "this" problem I think ) and Tony's comment, and I see you did the same. I think there are probably still ways to improve the text. Just a note though, in case you need to get me, I might have internet problems over the next few days [starting tomorrow GMT afternoon]. I don't know yet what they'll be like, but I could be cut off for a day or so. Just a heads up. If any content issues come up, I'll get straight to them when I return. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The caption of the lead image reads "winged dragon" but from the minute amount of heraldry I've seen, isn't that a griffin? -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't have a clue what it is. Henry Laing, who cataloged it in the mid-19th century, called it a "winged dragon". In truth, he didn't know either. Aren't griffins usually more feline? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clartifying. I was going on (apparently flawed) visual recognition; if that is a description by an expert I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong and move on. -- Avi (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd call it a gryphon, actually. The bird beak is the clue you need. And the feathers on the wings and body. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A griffin is supposed to have the body of a lion, and the "dragon" appears to have claws rather than paws. Although that's a very bird-like head. Then again, I doubt the person who drew it had seen a lion before, let alone a griffin. Nev1 (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As Ealdgyth said, there are feathered wings too (maybe I'm not that blind :) ). -- Avi (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Nev's point is a very important one for all insular art of this period. Ealdgyth, it sounds like you are describing a mere bird ... then again I have no idea how cat-like griffins usually look in this kind of art in this era. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Who says dragons can't have feathers :-) Nev1 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is the oriental dragons that have feathers, the European heraldic dragon wings are more bat-like (membranous) 8-) -- Avi (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It certainly looks more like a griffin/gryphon than a dragon, I think. As Ealdgyth says, the bird's head and talons seem to be the clue; griffins have the talons of a bird. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
For what it is worth, here's Laing's assertion [5]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Maybe the best thing is to source the "winged dragon" to Laing (ref note). This way we're relying on Laing overtly, any visual resemblance to other mythical creatures notwithstanding. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good point: I added the appropriate ref. Funny thing is that future Carricks don't as far as I can tell use this (and neither do the Kennedies, who are supposed to have adopted their arms). I guess the family probably took a while to decide which emblem to represent them, the practice being a new introduction to the region in Donnchadh's lifetime. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. Solves the problem nicely. (I still think the beak clinches it) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of works of John Douglas (new churches)

I'm thinking of taking this to FLC. Any comments, copyediting, etc would be most welcome. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu

Hey Malleus, how you doing? I saw that you run Ubuntu - so I had a few questions. I have both 8.04, and 9.04 desktop ISO files burned - as well as the 8.? Server (I think it's 8.04 as well). I'm going to install somewhere - but where is the question. I have a P2P file server that's currently a dual-boot (XP and Red Hat (version 7.something)) - but it's kind of awkward to actually sit an type at due to its physical location. I have my "travel" laptop (HP) which would be a good choice, except for the fact that I use it to debug client modems, routers, etc. It also has to be able to run MS Access 2003-2007 because of my database development for the CERT/EMT/VFD/PD things I do - and all the MS versions of OpenOffice I've tried won't work with the GUI I've built, as well as half the forms being funky. I do have one other computer that I've finally got put together that might be an option - kind of "bits and pieces" from all the old broken ones. So ... my questions:

  1. Will the current version of OpenOffice read the MS Office 2007 files w/o a problem?
    I've got OpenOffice 2.4, which reads MS Office 2007 files jusy fine. I also run MS Office under Windows emulation (see later) though, because I've found that there can be the occasional minor differences between PowerPoint and OpenOffice as to how some slides are presented. Nothing serious, just that if I havent had a chance to flick through all the slides beforehand I prefer not to be surprised at a client presentation.
  2. Which of the GUI desktops has the % fade of the toolbar - KDE or Gnome? (yea I can find that pretty quick ... so not a biggie)
    I think that's KDE. I use Gnome, but you can choose to install either Gnome or KDE as your graphical client under Ubuntu.
  3. What does the "server" version give me that the desktop version doesn't?
    Server apps like the Apache http server are included, which I had to download and install separately on my client installation. Basically comes server side software like a mail server, DNS server, but the main think you'd notice is that it has no graphical desktop, so it's probably not what you'd want on your laptop. It's very easy to add whichever server applications you need to the client anyway. I'm running the standard LAMP stuff (Linux Apache MySql PhP) on mine, along with Mono .NET and C#, connected to a Windows network via SAMBA.
  4. What's currently available to run "Win" apps in Ubuntu? - (some sort of X-Windows?)
    There's a free Wine, but I've found by far the best is CrossOver Office from Codeweavers.[6] There's a small price to pay after your trial period runs out, about £25 I think, but it runs all of my Windows software, including all the MSOffice apps and IE Explorer exactly as they would run on a Windows box.
  5. I ask that mainly to know if I'll be able to run Starcraft II when it's released - about the only "games" I do really.
    To run games you'd need the Professional version of Crossover, which is almost twice the prise of the Standard version that's enough to run NS Office apps. Starcraft II is currently listed as "untested" at Codeweaver's compatibility list, so the best thing would be to try it during your initial trial period.
  6. What's the current native browser with Ubuntu? ... and does it support all the goodies like: Flash, Shockwave, Adobe reader, Silverlight, etc.?
    There's no native browser, but Firefox came bundled with my installation, which obviously supports Flash, Adobe, and so on. You can also run IE Explorer under Windows emulation if you like.
  7. I haven't looked - but I assume there is a "Firefox" for Ubuntu - right? ... (I like Chrome too - but not so much for WP, and I know they don't plan a version for Ubuntu anytime soon) - I never did like safari.
    Yep, I'm running Firefox 3.0.12.
  8. How good is the driver detection and support for network cards, sound, vid, etc.? My Red Hat (2002-2003) version was lacking a bit in that.
    Ubuntu detected almost everything on my laptop, which I bought in 2008. I only had a sound issue, solved with a quick search of google. It really is a very simple installation, best to dual-boot first. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. How good is the "wireless" detection proggie? .. what's it called so I can research it a bit?
    I've had no problems at all with Ubuntu's wireless networking, except once when I disabled it by accident on my laptop (there's a disable/enable function key on my Dell laptop) and couldn't for the life of me figure out what the Hell was going wrong. It's all done through a bundled utility called Network Manager.

Anyway - anything you're willing to offer as suggestions is always appreciated. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  06:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I had my laptop stolen about 18 months ago, and when I looked at replacements I saw that Dell were offering pre-installed Ubuntu, which obviously was quite a bit cheaper than the equivalent Windows, so it seemed like a good opportunity to try it, as I'd been thinking of switching anyway. It just worked straight out of the box, but I did run into a few initial problems when I tried to install MySql and connect to it from PhP, mainly due to poor documentation, and particularly when I upgraded the operating system after installing the Mono .NET framework. Underneath the graphical client it's still Unix, and there are some things you have to do at the command line as a superuser, especially if something breaks. Having said that though, I've been very happy with Ubuntu. I was initially a bit dubious about the Windows emulation, as one of the applications I needed to run was the Enterprise Architect CASE tool, and Crossover don't list that as a supported application. It worked fine though, so I've never been tempted back into the world of Windows. I do still have other machines running various flavours of Windows, but mostly I've been using Ubuntu for the last year or so, with no regrets. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW .. thanks Mal. Sorry to hear about your laptop. I'll probably do the install here sometime in mid-Aug, and use it as a file server too. Maybe for my photos and such. I do appreciate the time on this. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I run Ubuntu too, when I need to run a Windows program that does not work in wine, I will run XP in VirtualBox. It works very well. Chillum 05:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocks

I don't understand. Why is requesting an unblock a detriment to "self-respect"? — Ched :  ?  04:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Who deals with unblock requests? The same clowns who hand out the blocks, made even more obnoxious when faux apologies are demanded. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I agree that nothing is served by demanding apologies. I just don't see a statement in an unblock request like: "I will do A from now on. I did not realize that doing B was a violation of C.", as demeaning in any way. If you're talking about an editor that feels in their heart that they did/were doing the right thing - then yes, I can see the point. — Ched :  ?  04:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's try this. Suppose that some trigger-happy administrator decides to indef block me for incivility—not an altogether unlikely scenario—and makes it clear that I will only be unblocked if I promise in future not to be uncivil. Let's further suppose that I do not agree that I was uncivil in using the phrase "sycophantic wannabee", not directed at any particular editor—a real scenario that you can check in my block log. What would I be apologising for exactly, or promising not to do in the future? Disagree with the wikipedia establishment? No chance of that. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in—oh what the hell, I'm not sorry—but perhaps we could say that many times asking for an unblock would be detrimental to self-respect, but that there are occasions when it wouldn't, at least for certain people (but not others). Also I'd like to add that "SycophanticWannabee" would probably make a terrific user name. How could you not make friends around here with a handle like that? Call yourself "SWann" in your sig and then you have a big picture of a swan and/or of this guy on your user page. I think it would be terrific. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
<* Ched reads, smiles, and leaves quietly *> ;) — Ched :  ?  05:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, being a Pittsburgh native, and Steeler fan, I'd opt for the "this guy" pic. ;P — Ched :  ?  05:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

what killed the cat

Just curious, a few times on articles I watch, I have seen yourself and other users add "&nbsp" after a number, but I can't tell what this actually does. What am I missing? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It inserts a non-breaking space, so that numbers and letters are always kept together. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah-ha, thanks random talk page watcher! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigtrygg Silkbeard: thanks for reviewing

I think I have addressed all the main issues you brought up in your review of Sigtrygg Silkbeard. If there is anything else to discuss please don't hesitate to do so. Thanks for reviewing and especially for copyediting and catching out typos. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up with my fiddling with your prose. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice?

Malleus,

Since you are one of my mentors, what should I do about this? You will probably say do nothing. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. You're right in supposing that I'll say do nothing; let me try and deal with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, very predictable results! I guess I have to resign myself to the fact that I am of endless fascination to my little group of followers, of which User:Giano II is one. He is president of my fan club! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Way to go, Mattisse! ROFL :-) --Philcha (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I just figured it out! It doesn't matter because no one takes him seriously anyway. My arbitration actually accomplished a lot. I have way more confidence now. It's comical! While I'm here I'll ask you some questions. What does P, D, and wrt mean in people's posts? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
wrt is shorthand for "with regards to", usually. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you referring to emoticons? :P and :D? --Moni3 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess so. People often use P and D as a sign off. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 :D is a big grin, as in looking at a happyface on its side. I find it used as with :) and ;) to portray laughter, or its poorest employment is used with a snarky or critical commentary, to try to lessen some tension, but clumsily. :P can be used as a synonymous sticking your tongue out in disgust or blowing raspberries at someone or something. I tend to stay away from emoticons and say what I mean in words. --Moni3 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have never guessed those meanings from the context. Now I am wondering about ROFL :-) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
ROFL = rolling on floor laughing, or similar variants. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
0_o is one of my favourites. Probably an expression seen on the faces of many people who read a certain article recently on the front page, and hopefully one they'll have again next 1st April :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite. On the occasion that something makes me look like Spanky from Our Gang the 0_o expresses "Zoiks!" quite nicely. I've also used @ @ to do that, or to represent rolling eyes, but as I said, rarely, and only if I am certain there can be no misunderstandings about my intentions. That, and the 0 button on my laptop is missing. I'm so ghetto. --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me just say Mattisse that whatever you may think of him Giano has done a lot of good work for wikipedia, and it's no more becoming of you to belittle him than it is of him to belittle you. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, believing a page is worthless is now an egregious abuse of civil. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Civil" is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately too many of those beholders are still in high school, prissy Americans, or both. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that Americans believe the British are far more concerned with civility. Our impression is that the editors are foppish, educated scholars, who are likely donning monocles and a powdered wig, sipping tea and calling each other "Gov'ner," while inserting the letter 'u' wherever they can. ;) Law type! snype? 02:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That reminds me of a Canadian girl who married a friend of mine, and came over to live in the UK. She maintained that English men sounded to her like homosexuals, because of the accent. Naturally I had to tell her where she fucking got off, and that we'd abandoned that big piece of cold empty space she laughably called a country long before she was born. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
PS. I'm also reminded of an essay I saw recently about the distinction between "politeness" and "civility", which ought to be mandatory reading for all civility police candidates. I'll try and look out the link. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I literally lol'd. Your description of France jr. cracked me up. Find that essay. Personally, I would like to see WP:CIV completely erased. Instead of repressing our grudges, I rather have someone tell me to fuck off, so I can tell them to eat shit, and then we can hash it out. Law type! snype? 02:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm a foppish, educated scholar who sips tea while editing wiki. Other times, I'm heavily drinking brandy, sherry, or the like because people have become untolerable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I often drink tea while editing, in fact tea is my favourite drink. Tea in the States though is just awesomely bad, and kettles seem to have passed the whole country by. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
My favorite drink is either the blood of virgins or the souls of the innocent. Unfortunately, they are impossible to find anymore. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain you can drink a soul Ottava. You're beginning to frighten me. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, being a Catholic, that means that I have all sorts of dark powers. Did I ever tell you that my campaign for the Board would be as a loyal servant to Cthulhu? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Or as a reincarnation of Elric of Melniboné, complete with Stormbringer :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm a Catholic too, or at least I was. My wife at one time hid my rosary for fear that I might revert—got it back now, although it does look pretty tacky with that supposed holy water bead. Anyway, did you ever take a look at Samlesbury witches, possibly the first Catholic show trial? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
PS. Have you ever seen what what the Protestants claimed were witch's spells? I think you'd recognise some of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I've paid careful attention to that page, especially when looking up information on Ainsworth. I find that going through the dozens of novels by Ainsworth, I'm starting to get a strong refresher on English history (I swear, he covered just about everything). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
For anyone with the energy to do it, there's a great article waiting to be written about Catholic recusants. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Smart

By the way, Christopher Smart's asylum confinement just died at FAC with an impressive 0 supports and 0 opposes. A month and no one really showed interest enough to review. Pathetic. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
With your edit and Casliber's edit, that page has actually reviewed more attention than it did at its time at FAC. How sad. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Did I ever tell you my crazy idea for the RGV review process? RGV (Restoration, Georgian, Victorian), was going to look at the "Empire" and be a page devoted to reviews that weren't reviews of pages that really showed some great aspect (pro or con) about the Empire. It would emphasize great works, authors, individuals, etc, on the topics of art/literature, science, philosophy/theology, politics/law, and history. Mostly, it would be a system in which a private list is created in which a group of individuals agree what works really shine on the 250 year or so important time in British history. I came up with the idea because I hate the processes as stand, and I would rather have a private list devoted to what works truly represent the area in order to create a sort of mini wiki devoted to the time frame. It would be determined by a small exclusive group that evaluates based on pages they would want to see in print based on content and quality. But yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Has Smart's FAC closed? You got some good comments at the review at least, and to be fair the article does need a bit of a dusting prose-wise. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to get it through next time though. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The prose has very few technical problems - most of the concerns are personal flavor or what people think would better explain meaning. The GA review was rather thorough, and I had copyedits from multiple people like Julian before hand. No one even bothered to mention anything encyclopedic, which should be the first concern at a FAC. It is disappointing. I almost feel like "retaliating" by performing extremely thorough reviews on every article on the level of my only GA review. However, you can just imagine the hate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Any editor who actually cares about improving their work would appreciate a thorough review such as that. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That is like claiming an person building a sky scrapper should care more about window shades than the engineering. This is an encyclopedia, not some beauty pageant of flowerly language in which no one can disagree. It would be good for people to actually focus on whats matter and actually put forth objective statements instead of purely subjective "well, it feels like it should be this way" nonsense. When I performed a grammar review, I stated the pure mechanics and explained what each is doing and how to make it do something else. The "copyediting" reviews at FAC are nothing even close to that. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to your GA review, not whatever went on at the FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I was confused by the use of your word "thorough". On wiki, "thorough" means "my subjective opinions about your work in which I will only accept my view". On wiki, my GA review would be called "harassment" and met with "don't you know how many FAs have that were passed through simply because I have a lot of friends who only provided base subjective views and don't understand true mechanics?" I could send you a few situations with some of the more prominent people there if you are curious. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW Ottava, and I mean this as constructive criticism, you're borderline incorrigible at FAC. Most people avoid your noms like the plague. But I'd still buy you a beer. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well then, if they are going to ignore my articles then I will perform real reviews. Lets see how people like getting 30k worth of text of every mechanical abuse of the English language in their pages. I've sent Sandy many, many complaints over the years how some of the most blatant violations are just passed over and how FAC is gamed as a vote. If people would be willing to back me up, I would put forth a real review sometime and we can really see what is what. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Purple's post is a wise one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
His post isn't wise. It merely states a corruption in the system that people were unwilling to purge. FAs are not to be determined based on who your friends are, and they shamefully are. Look at a recent FAR where I pointed out extremely blatant OR. This is in many, many FAs that have passed. The reason why I stopped bothering with FA is that people point out purely bs claims about grammar that are 100% false and yet don't even bother to look at the really important stuff. It is a joke. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) From what I hear, the fan vote issues used to be much worse than what they are now. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can give you a list of about ten names that get pages passed at FA that I wouldn't pass at GA level. That includes some of our "most valuable FA contributors". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Then do so, publicly, so we can all know who they are; inquiring minds want to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Shall I start with Awadewit, where I have sent you lists of multiple MoS violations within references, images, and other things that were obvious from just clicking on the page? How about Theleftorium who put forth blatant OR? I'm not even going to bother with the Roads and Weather people, as I have already tore apart those recent FAs in a recent RfA. Shall I go on? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this one Sandy - I wrote most of The Lucy poems page. The content is mine. The research is mine. Most of the "copyediting" added in errors, problems, and the rest that I had to correct in GA and in the recent FA review. Where is my name on the nomination? No where. Other people who contributed very, very little to it are there. Did you do anything to fix that? And yet those same people can drag me through the dirt. It is absolutely pathetic when people steal credit for other people's work. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Ten names, the way the specific editors have abused FAC or gotten articles passed that were unworthy at WT:FAC. Quit making noise and think very carefully about your words and why you're posting what you're posting. If improvements should be made, list them. If FAC regulars think you're full of shit, and you're doing this to fulfill a personal vendetta or because your article did not get reviews at FAC, you could end up worse than how you started. Put up or shut up. Your penchant for drama is unfathomably endless. --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
My offer was for Dabomb to receive my list. I never stated that I would do so publically, nor did I say that I would share it as a whole. Now, that should have been obvious. As such, your attitude is completely unacceptable. Furthermore, I have brought these problems up to Sandy via email quite often, brought them up at the boards quite often, and other places. Your idea of "putting up or shutting up" is utterly reprehensible. That right there shows how corrupt people are with their unwillingness to actually perform real reviews. Where were you during that, Moni? You are acting all high and mighty here and yet there is a glaring problem. There is no excuse for that page to have passed with such a huge amount of original research that was obvious. Anyone who even bothered to look at the page would have seen that things were attributed about a video game to a book that was published in the 60s. This shows that Dabomb didn't bother to look at it. That Laser brain didn't bother to look at it. How about this winning quote "I can't find anything to oppose on, I guess. :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs". Casliber and Julian also failed to find what was obvious. This should never have passed. NEVER. There is no excuse. There is only failure. Instead of attacking the person who points it out because it is unacceptable and shameful to FAs as a whole, why don't you go and perform real reviews. Your attitude disgusts me. If you are unwilling to fix the problem, you are part of the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
For what purpose would you secretly send a user with no ability to change something by himself a list of all the errant articles that have been passed at FAC with a list of the editors who are the most frequent abusers of the process? If articles are being passed that are not worthy then say it, right out in the open. For all the fuss you enjoy making, why get shy now? PhysChem62, I think, it is he who posts at WT:FAC every time an article is on the main page that has blatant errors in it, right? Yes, he's annoying, but correct: more attention should be paid to details and frequent reminders not to be sloppy are sometimes necessary. Improvements cannot happen at FAC unless problems are brought to the attention of regulars. It may be unpopular, which I think you can live with somehow, but if it needs to happen it will. If your primary concern is more than yourself: the quality of articles produced at FAC, it should happen. If your primary concern is lashing out at editors who have excluded you, neglected your articles, maligned your efforts, and rejected your attempts at getting an FA passed, then your current course of action is more appropriate. It should be kept quiet on a user's talk page--certainly not Sandy's--disguised as sour grapes grumblings. If it's not something you believe in strongly, then it's not worth standing up for. --Moni3 (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Moni, normally I find people who are constantly correct deeply annoying. I'll make an exception in your case. We are seeing a vendata spatting at whatever passers-by happen to be passing by.. Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Errant articles? Where did you make that one up from? Moni, if you wont have the decency to actually bother to read what I say, then please, don't respond. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record. While there have probably been a few times that the privacy of e-mail was legitimately needed for FAC business, it is almost never necessary or wise to e-mail about a FAC. Unless there are confidentiality needs or blatant disruption, it's best to keep comments on Wiki. By the way, OR, I don't recall these e-mails about Awadewit you mention; I check articles before I promote them, so if one of her articles has these errors, please point it out so we can all correct the problem. I am worried that some of this discussion appears headed towards turning FAC into a battleground. If you're concerned about having your name on a nomination, while not disrupting the FAC (I do hope that is your concern?), then you can add yourself to WP:WBFAN if it's promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to manually add myself in. The fact that I've had to endure non stop personal attacks against me and some of the most absurd and vicious statements by Ceoil lately is really inappropriate. Now, for the emails it will take a bit because my network transferred over to Google mail and my internet is crawling. I don't believe that you have received too many emails from me, but they were about a closing of a FAC around winter time. And you know very well what kind of response I get when I point out errors, even if I put them in gentle terms and say "support" in front of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Content concerns should be raised on FAC, not to me in e-mail. If you really e-mailed me about MOS concerns on an Awadewit article, those issues should have been raised on FAC; I don't recall that ever happening, or I may have simply ignored the e-mail as inappropriate if it did. I'm surprised to hear this complaint about MoS issues on Awadewit's articles, as I still check them, regardless of how many FAs she has. My job is to determine if there is consensus that articles meet WP:WIAFA, not to referee children's games. I've heard it said that "Men will be boys", but some of this is getting out of hand, and the only losers here are going to be FAC and the articles. I suggest time is better spent working on articles than arguing politics and fighting with each other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I've now reviewed my e-mail, and find no indication that you have ever e-mailed me re: Awadewit; in fact, I only find that you complained at length about a FAC after it was closed with unanimous support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
As I stated before, the concern was that you closed a FAC after only a few days because people supported even though there were some blatant MoS problems. So, your statement above verifies that I did, indeed, complain about it. You then responded in the email that there was nothing that you could do if no one was going to oppose and point them out. My complaint was that there were FACs that I could review and would review, and point out these problems that needed to be fixed, but they were instead closed in a short period of time because of mass supports instead of quality reviews. I don't know how you can claim to be surprised. You can see from the FAR where something very, very obvious and a blatant violation of policy got by you and some of our most prolific reviewers. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What article are you talking about, Ottava? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about which one. This is just general petulance, not really a coherent argument. Best smile understandingly and back away slowly. Lazer mentioned plague and Moni full of shit. There you have it. What more can be said to one who wont listen? Ceoil (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually no, forget that. Just for the sport, 10 names please Ottava. Ceoil (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What article am I talking about? Where? The one I emailed you about? Well, you should be able to figure out that one. Or do you mean the one that I linked to the FAR by Theleftorium in which a group of people couldn't spot a blatant Original Research which showed that they didn't actually bother to read the page. There is no excuse for that. It is sloppy reviewing by a mindset of people that really don't care. Sure, they wont bother to read my pages because they have some sort of personal problem against me. However, if they are just going to pass off horrible policy violations like that as a featured article, those people should be banned from FAC in general. Such behavior is completely unacceptable. If you, Moni, or Ceoil want to defend such actions, then FAC really should be torn apart. There is no excuse for petty games and approval of blatant policy violations. I slaved over the Johnson page. I went through every major source. I bent over backwards on every single MoS guideline, all of our policies, did whatever it took. And yet I got treated like crap by reviewers. Then we have pages that are absolutely revolting getting through without anyone caring. Sandy, I don't think you have any right to even bother to respond until you can ensure that this kind of thing never happens again. We both know that it happens because of the same political games that are happening here. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, 10 names please OR. Without getting you knickers in a twist this time. Deep breath and try again...just put your mouth where you foot is, and let it all come out! Ceoil (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I only offered it to Dabomb. That was obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
O yeah I forgot about that. You only substantiate your wild claims to Dabomb and the other 100s who email you daily to back you up and offer their support, but who are oddly, and consistently, shy on the internets themselves. Nice, that. And handy. Bty, do you have a plan C to carry on this attack against 10s of people you wont name, which is supported by 100s of people you cant name. I'm interested from a clinical point of view. Ceoil (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Attack? Do you even know what the topic is? If you bothered to read, you would see that I get crap reviews and Sandy blames my personality. I, in turn, show that such actions cause major policy violations to go unchecked and causes serious problems. She doesn't have the nerve to bother to prevent the crap from happening against me, she could at least have the decency to prevent major policy violations from being known as some of our best work. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
O Ottava my all my suspicions confirmed, my many thanks! You dont have a leg to stand on, when in a corner you just look at who is about and go for their necks. This is too easy, all your hot air was about nothing, just a defence. I can ignore you now finally. You are an empty troll at root. Ceoil (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I think its time to make another move to have you comm banned. God knows youve earned it. You cant run to WR for sympathy this time, but eh, thems the breaks. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Give it a rest the pair of you and stop drama-mongering. Ceoil, talking of a ban is ludicrous; Ottava, deciding only to provide the list of names to Dabomb undermines your position. Nev1 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
My position? My comments were a personal comment to Malleus about treatment. Sandy only confirmed that such treatment is intentional. There doesn't need to be anything else known once you look at Theleftorium's FAR, see blatant original research, then look at the FAC from 6 months ago and see how flimsy the supports were. Then you can take that and look at the same people responding to my recent FAC. Quite different responses. My pages don't have blatant and glaring policy violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Will you all please stop? Ottava, you are putting a lot of words into my mouth that I didn't say, and I still have no idea which Awadewit article you are referring to. I can find no such e-mail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
How can you say that when you above stated: "in fact, I only find that you complained at length about a FAC after it was closed with unanimous support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)" I stated at the very beginning that it came after a FAC. I stated that you said that nothing could be done because no one bothered opposing about it. I told you that it was closed before I even had a chance to see it, and that I would have brought up opposes. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The e-mail that I am referring to is NOT an Awadewit FAC, it is a musician, and writing to me after a FAC is closed isn't helpful. All right, now that we've cleared that up, I'm done with this conversation. OR, I suggest a few days off to calm down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The whole topic was about closing of FACs. If I am pointing out problems before a FAC is closed, perhaps you should take them into consideration when you see the reviews and not accept them even if they "unanimous"? Look at the FAR with blatant original research. When it was pointed out, Laser even stated that it was obvious to see. He missed it in his original review. Everyone did. Something really obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, as you can see from Ceoil's comments verification of why I stopped bothering with FAC. As soon as someone actually fights for what the policy say, want fairness, want people not to play these games, and actually has standards, people like Ceoil want to community ban. Absolutely shameful. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nev, there is the small matter of [7]. I made a huge mistake here, infact Ottava should have been banned at the time. I gace him a break, but he has dissapointed me since, over and over again. He is a net negative at this point. Ceoil (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys, can't you take this to your own talk pages? I'm not sure exactly why Malleus' page is the preferred spot for this...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(to Ottava) Well by all means post your list then, in the open. Unless somebody has qualms about it, I don't think other people should be deprived of the chance to know. I'm not keeping track of the discussion; please ping me on my talk if anything else is needed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(clears her throat again) AHEM! I think this has nothing to do with Malleus or any articles he's working on. Surely there are more appropriate pages this could be taking place on? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides my surprise that you are female, I just wanted to note that this was started as a complaint to Malleus about people not bothering to review FACs. Malleus, and his talk page, would know to then go to the page and try to make up for it. As you can see, Malleus -did- go to the page and look at it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


By the way - if you ever have a chance, could you do a tiny makeshift peer review of the Smart page? Just a few comments about the positives and negatives of the page. I want to get three before I submit it back for FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't do peer review. Why not just fix the issues that came up at the FAC. wait a couple of weeks, and resubmit? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Because I can't actively solicit FAC reviews, but I can solicit ad hoc "peer reviews". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll happily help with the article, but not at peer review. I'm a showpony you see, or perhaps a cleverdick.[8] --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't do "Peer Review" at Wikipedia. However, I do use the term in its academic sense. You are my peer and I trust your judgment in a review. It would only be a talk page evaluation so I know what I need to do to get this passed FAC because others refused to tell me. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me finish off working through Fertilisation of Orchids first, which I'd really like to see get through FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddities

That looks like an interesting topic, it depends what there is on it though. Mooncalf is another. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit on it. I'm just looking through The Times digital archive, and there are loads of references to it, like this one. Even classified ads desribing wives for sale would you believe.[9] The Times of 1830 has a short extract from the Legal Observere, describing the idea that a man can divorce his wife by selling her in open market with a halter round her neck as a "vulgar error". --Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thats a classic. I wonder if anyone from Grub Street commented on this kind of thing. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll tell you another article that's in a dire state - Dick Turpin. Right up your street methinks. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Along the line of User:Ottava Rima/Jack Sheppard. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot Parrot might not get the reference. Jack Sheppard was the second of William Harrison Ainsworth's famous/infamous "Newgate novels". The first was Rookwood, about Turpin. When I settle down with some of the stuff I have right now, I am to finish working on Ainsworth and Malleus is to help. If you want to join in and help with the historical stuff during that time, it would be great. I will pull you in for the historical background of the Pope poem also. I will do the literary background and criticism, you could do the real life individual, Malleus can fill in the gaps, do whatever he wants basically, and so on. Some deliciously fun British historical writing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've still got Grub Street to get to GA, I'm slowly getting there but I'm still a bit aimless. I think I'm almost done on Mary Toft however. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I always find article's like Turpin's rather depressing to work on. Fairly well developed, but almost completely uncited trivia magnets that everyone thinks they know something about it. It's bloody hard work trying to source someone else's stuff, I've a hard enough time citing my own. On the other hand it does need some attention though, and it's certainly an interesting subject ... --Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Turpin though, well its very much like The Dark Side of the Moon, a complete mess once with some nice bits of prose, I just took it over and demolished it (mind you I have to continually monitor it for unsourced changes, and people buggering up the tracklist with CD timings). I might have a go at tidying Turpin up and removing the bollox. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing some digging. The lady in the top middle is Sarah Mapp (shes in the Oxford DNB). There's a bunch of weird and wonderful people listed here. I think I have my next little article, especially as Mapp can link to Hans Sloane (in Mary Toft) :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Orchids

The actual article now being worked on is in User:Dave souza/Sandbox/Fertilisation of Orchids, so edits that you make in the article space may be wasted. Before when this happened, the user space version was used in replacement. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's a shame. I won't be wasting any more of my time on it then. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about this misunderstanding, the sandbox is to try out proposed actions for consideration before implementing them on a piece by piece basis, and any changes implemented would not overwrite the excellent contributions you've made. I looked your changes over and liked them, the only one that baffles me is {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} which does nothing for me: it may be the way I've got my laptop monitor set up. So, your time was not wasted and the changes will be kept. The sole exception under the current sandbox ideas would be the paragraph where Darwin "asked Hooker for some plants from Kew Gardens, writing "I long to stock it, just like a school-boy", and sent his butler with a cart." – as that's biographical detail, it could perhaps be moved into the detailed biographical article about Darwin at that time, Darwin from Orchids to Variation, rather than remaining in the article about the book. The sandbox version responded to views expressed at FAC that there was too much biographical information, but in trying out trimming that it was surprising how small the changes were. If you could express your opinion on this issue one way or another I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks for your work on the article, dave souza, talk 09:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That's good, I'll look again then. The {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} change I made is described here. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for helping out with this. My browser doesn't seem to support the multiple column feature, doesn't much bother me but means that I don't appreciate the result. Not sure if there is any merit in withdrawing the article from FAC and restarting when we seem close to sorting the problems, any advice on that will be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 20:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't even think about withdrawing from the FAC is my advice, let's just sort out whatever remaining problems are left. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, it was a bit of a worry as I'm not sure about procedures and practice. There aren't many problems left to tackle, apart from concerns about quality of text there's a bit to reword in the section on the book itself, and a bit more to add about its scientific impact. dave souza, talk 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That's me done now, with luck there will be no more changes. . dave souza, talk 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How coincidental

...for this article to appear only 10 days after Gropecunt Lane was TFA. The good thing though is that it provides the following - "As puritanical protestant beliefs took over in the 16th century, the ruder street names started to disappear." That might be a nice line to use somewhere, especially as it almost certainly comes from Baker - what do you think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but note that The Telegraph avoided using the c word. Where has this research been published? I don't think a chat over a few beers in a pub is going to cut it exactly, no matter how respected the participants are when sober. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing someone saw the article, and sent a few emails, or made a phone call. I don't think it was anything more than a column-filler - unless the duo have published something recently, there's nothing else in the book I've already used. I did search it to see if we couldn't tie the change in meaning of cunt to the loss of the street name, but there isn't anything to use. It may be the case that a change in attitudes toward prostitution may have been more responsible for its loss. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything in that Telegraph article that we can use, do you? Our article was about "Gropecunt Lane", but they're speculating on "Grope Lane". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, however it might be another avenue to investigate, that the removal of prostitution from daily life (whatever the cause) may coincide with the loss of the street name. I'm too tired to think about it now but I may investigate tomorrow. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
When did prostitution disappear from daily life? Only a few years ago I was on my way early in the morning to Picaddilly station to catch a train to London for a 9 am meeting. The lights on the approach to station were against me, and I as I stopped a scantily clad girl asked me if I "wanted to do any business" That same morning, I was asked the same question by another lady as I was walking down Euston Road ... perhaps it was just my raw sex appeal, or the scent of my after shave. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Around the back of Picadilly is the city's red light district. I did some filming there a few years ago, one prostitute was actually a bloke who was saving up for his sex-change operation.
Seriously though, the Holt-Baker essay talks about how some cities dealt with prostitution by only allowing them to work outside the city walls, and how Gropecunt needs more investigation (they only did a loose study and found them easily enough, so there are obviously many more instances yet to be discovered) into the types of businesses on the street, and how such activities were conducted. The Banbury Gropecunt they suggest is a bit of a mystery, being so wide and straight its difficult to envisage explicit activities taking place in the open air. Hopefully they'll study the issue further, and publish something. I'd still like to get my hands on a copy of that 'historic towns atlas' Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm so confused by the above. I don't understand what you two are saying. By definition, isn't cunt short for country, and grope means to wander? So, isn't the street referring to wandering over the country? How does that have anything to do with prostitution or the changing attitudes of it? It would seem more like urbanization and the building up of the city life would instill uniformity in a street network (removing any "groping" about) while destroying the rural elements (and thus no more "country"). That has to be it, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Here in Boise we have a Ropecunt Street, because we do our courting from horseback. Randy from Boise (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just Wondering

Do you still believe that I was canvassing there? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have suggested that you were otherwise. Are you suggesting that you were looking to recruit opposers instead of nominators? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What what? Did you go canvassing the opinions of those you thought might not be sympathetic to your cause asking them to nominate/co-nominate you? How many editors have you asked to nominate/conominate you? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
No. I had not even heard of it until you accused me of it. As I said before, I only asked Xeno, and Balloonman originally. I then asked Tdrss as Xeno said that he was a bad writer and Balloonman is remaining neutral. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I think all you're doing is underlining your lack of knowledge of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I don't agree with some of them, but at least I'm aware of most of them. Seriously, do you really feel that you're ready to be an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What I'm seeing is that you think that I asked Balloonman and Xeno because you think that I don't know the policies here. What benefit would it bring to me if I asked them besides a "sparkling" co-nom? I could've easily gone around them and nominated myself. Of course i've learned the impression that that gives to others, so that's why I looked to them for guidance. And yes, I do believe that I am ready. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • While your other concerns may have merit Mal, I think you are being a little hardline on this "canvass" angle. How else does one seek a nominator? (Else shall they self-nom? Just wait and hope someone might offer someday?) –xenotalk 13:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Exectly. ""Just wait and hope someone might offer someday", as the candidate is obviously never going to be the best judge of whether (s)he's ready or not. Why the unseemly begging for nominators/conominators anyway? Is there suddenly a critical shortage of administrators? I hardly think so, in fact I think things would run a lot more smoothly if a couple of hundred or so of the current lot were sent packing. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Which is why in the past we've actually encouraged people to seek out guidance and input from more experienced editors/admins, to get that feedback. The editor themself may not be the best judge as to whether or not they are ready, thus the practice is to seek advice/council. He sought Xeno out, who explicitly told him to seek me out. I'm stepping back from the situation and told him that it was sometimes better to get a person who knew you better rather than an RfA regular. So he asked his current nom. I see nothing wrong with that. Getting input before an RfA has been an accepted practice for years... your oppose based upon those grounds is very Kurtesque.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've seen a perfectly good admin seek out others to nominate him/her because he/she did not want to self-nominate themselves (however, the admin I have in mind had probably received offers to be nominated previously). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pushing people before an event to build up momentum for an event is a rather sneaky way to get around the Canvass wording. However, Canvassing does have a section called campaigning. Normally, politicians would do this same thing before a vote, and standard English describes that as campaigning. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed... it is loophole, but it is one that has been overlooked/ignored. I think there is a net positive to asking for input from others in that it might forstall a person from running who shouldn't... or get advice on what they should do first. If an experienced user is willing to look over a candidate it might prevent bruised feelings and cluttering up RfA with candidates who are most likely going to fail. I don't like the notion that will result from MF's position, that doing so is Canvassing because it will mean more ill conceived RfA's in the future.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think you fully understand my position Balloonman. If I had confidence that Kevin was aware of and understood the policies that administrators are tasked to uphold then I may well have held my tongue. But everything I see him write persuades me otherwise. His initial answers to the three standard questions were just a joke. I also see asking a third-party for an asessment as to fitness quite different from soliciting advantageous nominations/co-nominations. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And that is a different story and completely justifiable... I just don't like the implication that because he asked for input (which he didn't get this time around) that he should be opposed on that basis. Opposition on his lack of qualifications or ability are a different story.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, he asked you to write a nomination statement; I don't see that as "asking for input". But anyway, had that been my only concern I would simply have ignored the RfA, like I do most others. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Even that I don't mind... if there is somebody you trust/respect, its a compliment to be asked... just like I've asked you to review some of my articles... doing so before an FLC is not canvassing, but seeking the input of a respected member of the community ;-)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The canvassing policy is absurd I think, primarily designed to keep dirty processes like RfA private. So I'd never oppose anyone solely because I judged that they'd been canvassing. In this particular case though it seems patently clear that the candidate is a long way from being ready. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I had to oppose. I would never oppose on the training aspect. However, if someone is to receive admin training, can the trainer please, please, explain to them what the questions are asking. The third question makes it seem like they didn't even know what a conflict over editing is. Sigh. This is like putting a gun into a kid's hands and sending them out to war without even the basics of training. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I was rather interested to note that the candidate claims to have written the answers to these questions a month ago, so there's no excuse for getting so horribly wrong. And as you say Ottava, the persistent confusion between conflict and edit conflict, even after Julian explicitly drew the candidate's attention to the fact they were not the same thing, is just mind-boggling. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Reading it honestly hurt me. It is like watching a rabbit be attacked by a hawk or a squirrel trying to cross a busy highway. There is just no chance for it, and it is hard to watch the inevitable end. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
While I don't necessarily agree with your reasons, thanks for explaining. (FWIW, my ulterior motive in sending him to the B-man was in hopes that he might offer some coaching prior to RFA). –xenotalk 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Not only am I not accepting coaching right now... I'm not sure as to how much longer I'm going to be editing WP... my tolerance for the wikidrama is reaching it's end... and I'm generally wiki-adverse. With the exception of Ottava I don't think I've really gotten into it with anybody on WP ;=) ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)