User talk:Eric Corbett

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.

WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements

• Manchester Mark 1 promoted to FA 28 September 2010
• Manchester computers promoted to GA 23 September 2010
• Trafford Park promoted to FA 9 September 2010
• Hyde F.C. failed at GAN 5 September 2010
• Belle Vue Zoological Gardens promoted to FA 7 August 2010
• Manchester United F.C. promoted to FA 27 July 2010
• 1910 London to Manchester air race promoted to FA 1 June 2010
• 1996 Manchester bombing promoted to GA 17 March 2010
• Chadderton promoted to FA 2 February 2010
• Rochdale Town Hall promoted to GA 26 January 2010

Happy Christmas!

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

LouriePieterse is wishing you Happy Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

"The greatest gift they'll get this year is life." ~ Bob Geldof & Midge Ure

Spread the hugs & cheer by adding {{subst:User:Deliriousandlost/happy christmas}} to your friends' talk pages.

Good Article review mentoring

I appreciate your suggestion for walking me through the process a couple times. I went in and reviewed the article for Johannes S. Andersen since it was one of the older ones and placed what I saw on the articles talk page. I am sure I missed some things but I don't necessarily know if everything I suggested is necessary for GA. Please let me know what you think and I will go and start the official review of the article. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good, thorough review. You've caught the two things that bother me most about this article, Ref #1 (what the Hell is it?) and the prose quality (lots of short, choppy sentences that often don't seem to fit together very well, and in places quite unidiomatic). the article relies on ref #1 so heavily that it's a particular worry. Some of the things you've mentioned, like using the {{Persondata}} template obviously aren't related to the good article criteria, but no harm in suggesting them nevertheless. It's obviously down to the nominator whether or not they agree, so probably best to make it clear it's a just a suggestion, and that whether or not it's done won't affect the outcome of the review.

Also, some of the things you (quite rightly) mention I'd be inclined to just fix without comment, like the dashes. It only takes a second to run a script through the article, which I've done. As a reviewer you can just make the straightforward changes yourself, and it's often easier to do that. With the prose as it stands at the moment, I'd be inclined to say this articl is at best marginal in meeting criterion 1a, and probably falls a little way short of it. My approach to basically sound articles like this one, obviously written by a non-native English speaker, is to roll up my sleeves and copyedit it myself, but it's obviously your choice. You could simply suggest that the prose needs some improvement and recommend that the nominator finds a copyeditor if you prefer. As the article stands right now, it should obviously be put on hold, but if the prose and ref #1 issues aren't sorted out I'd say it's looking unlikely that it would be listed as a GA.

If that's your first GA review I'm seriously impressed! Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the assistance and yes that was my first review although I have quick failed a couple GA's in the past that clearly didn't meet the criteria (both completely lacked inline citations). I will go and initiate the official review shortly and I have no problem doing some of the cpyediting but I will let the initiator have first crack at it. I will also incorporate some of you comments above into the ones I have already posted. Thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I posted the review on that article and to the users talk page. I also found out that the user apparently went on a wikibreak till july but in the spirit of bettering the article I put it on hold. If he doesn't fix it in the seven days Ill fail it. Ill pick out another one later and work it as well. --Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, that's a shame. Perhaps another editor will step in, but, as you say, it's not going to get listed in its present form. Forget the backlog and pick something that interests you next. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good day to you good Sir..err.. at least I think your a Sir, anyway if you don't mind could you stop by the article talk page. It looks like they have addressed most of my comments, although in some cases the information just isn't available. Im sorta on the fence with this one. On one hand if thats all the info then the articles as "good" as it can get. But from the other side of the coin, that doesn't make it a "good" quality artcle. Since the article isn't "bad" other than some short sentences which can be fairly easily fixed what is your advice on how I should address it. My inclination is to fail it based on the missing info but I'm not 100% sure that info is needed for it to be GA. Thanks in advance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly male, but I baulk at being called Sir, bit like Fred Trueman. I'll look over the article again later this evening and let you know what I think here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I appreciate tha help and I saw you left a comment on the article talk page. Thanks again. I am going to pick out another one to review (maybe even 2) this weekend. --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is just about there now. I still don't understand what's going on with ref #1, and I'd say the lead should be expanded a bit to better summarise the article, but that's about it IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though the issues we identified have been fixed on this article and I was going to pass it tomorrow. Do you have any objections? --Kumioko (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

None at all. I think your excellent review and copyediting has had the desired result, a worthy GA. Malleus Fatuorum 04:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tan | 39 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's something I never thought I'd see... –xeno^talk 18:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh? WTF is that about? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to assume that Tan had an unfortunate twinkling accident. Either that, or he's taking the mick - you calling oyster a 'cheeky bugger'. –xeno^talk 18:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

But I am a cheeky bugger! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was funny; MF is well aware I share his views on civility police. I was riffing off the thread above this. However, it seems to have been lost on everyone... oh well... Tan | 39 18:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak. Cheeky bugger is a term of endearment, I don't think it's ever construed as a personal attack... Don't be noobish. (← now there's a personal attack! ;) –xeno^talk 18:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I could have blocked him for a week. Would that have been more humorous? Tan | 39 18:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's atrange how different our (US/British) use of language is. Things that wouldn't turn a hair elsewhere in the English-speaking world are considered rude and and incivil in the States. As Xeno says, "cheeky bugger" is almost always used affectionately, at least in England. And Fred is a cheeky bugger anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. If you ever blocked me for "incivility" I'd be the first in line demanding that you were desysoped, because your account had obviously been compromised. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted that "warning" due to the entire above thread, not the "cheeky bugger" line. I was going for some sort of nonchalant irony, or a furtive nod in a dark room that we're on the same page about the entire civility issue. This entire endeavor whistled overhead, had everyone dashing for cover, and then went "thud" as it failed to detonate. I'll try to be more in-your-face with my humor from now on, like throwing in a few "fuck"s or making unveiled references to other idiot administrators. Tan | 39 19:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I'm not very good with "subtle", and as SandyG has repeatedly pointed out, my sense of humour sometimes goes AWOL. Looking on the bright side though, I have the attention span of a goldfish for stuff like this ... err, what were we talking about? Nobody died, nobody's been upset, no problem. Fred is a cheeky bugger though. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I missed this party! Well, at least someone else got to ask "What's a cheeky bugger"! (Stop picking on California!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a "cheeky bugger" anyway. Or a bloody wanker? You Brits sure have a strange grasp on the language you invented. Tex (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's our language, so we can use it any damn way we like. I'm particularly impressed with the way that Australians use language that would probably have a Floridian arrested and sent to one of those jails so many Americans now live in. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious that you choose Floridians out of 50 states that have quirky natives. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Had I thought about it, I'd probably have chosen one of those appalling Bible-belt states like Alabama, or the ever-so-boring California, but I didn't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Moni3, I'm detecting some hostility, and I can only assume that's in some way related to the Donner Party FAC. I'm quite happy to walk away from that and leave it to you and Karanacs if that's what you'd like. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, hostility would be telling you to go fuck yourself. I'm not angry or hostile at all. I suppose I have the unfortunate modus operandi of only working on what moves me, which inevitably connects me to the subject matter, makes me write about it emotionally. I don't know if this makes what I write better or not. I've encountered those who tend to think distance is more prudent. Perhaps that is the case. It's not the way I want to write, however, and I have to adjust to the conflict between becoming a part of the article and removing myself when it's time to take criticism. I don't do that well sometimes. I may never. Any problems I have are mine, though. --Moni3 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that. I choose distance, you choose passion; neither of is right and neither of us is wrong. Takes all sorts to make a world. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You choose distance, MF!!! --Philcha (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(gets popcorn) – iridescent 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(looks for cliff to jump off) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I'll pass. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Now do you see why I was so eager to delve into the depths of human suffering? Your edits to Donner so far look great! Karanacs (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a lapsed Catholic (still got my rosary), so I'm not entirely objective about the CC article, but I do welcome the chopping that's been done to it, as I do the chopping that's been done to the Donner article. I never imagined it would be so tough to get that through FAC! Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're on alien turf with that one. Its obviously racism! ;) Parrot of Doom 22:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR

Hi MF. Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Biman Bangladesh Airlines/archive1 please? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow probably. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Very nice job on Buttock Mail. Greetings from Alabama, that appalling Bible-Belt state. Dr Aaij (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to take the credit for that, but I didn't really do much to it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard

Would you please review the hook of your nomination? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with either of the alternative suggestions. Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Main page

Wife selling worked out really well actually for April Fool's. It looks good! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that even now some think it's an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Parrot of Doom and I, but I swear it's all true. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons it's so perfect for today. Reading the main page blurb, you honestly can't tell. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to compliment you on the wife-selling article; very well researched, very well written, a pleasure to read. Thank you. Billare (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but I can't take all the credit. It was a joint venture betweeen Parrot of Doom and me. He specialises in the whacky, whereas I'm just a diletante. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Malleus! I very much enjoyed reading the article (and the talk page comments). :) Theleftorium 12:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling

hi, Malleus. I can't find the porn your friend was talking about. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither could I. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

the entire article is history and English porn!--Parrot of Doom 06:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Read some of these and laugh. Raul654 (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article is causing quite a stir. Many still believe that the article is a joke, however... —Aaroncrick (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Including, incredibly: The Guardian Parrot of Doom 11:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary. I can't believe that so many people think it's a hoax. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's only The Telegraph, after all how many people read that these days ;) I do like today's Google's April Fool gag though :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd heard it all. Thankfully someone with more sense took action. Parrot of Doom 15:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done Tan39. I'm sure he'll get some flak for it, but I'm equally sure he won't give a shit. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Swing and a miss :) Raul654 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

At least whoever wrote that has (hopefully) learned something today. What staggers me is that so many have approached this topic with blinkers. The article clearly says that the woman had to agree to the sale, and we were at pains to stress that. The "sale" was usually little more than a public dissolution of a failed– and unregistered– marriage. The transaction had to be public, otherwise the man would remain responsible for his wife's debts. In any event, I've certainly learned something today, which is that the world is no less full of ignorant peasants than it was back in the 18th century. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazing that none of these people are checking the history of the article or any of the sourcing. Tan | 39 17:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it sad when people can't open their minds, and just spout their prejudices without, as you say, checking their facts. I thought there might be some reaction to this article, but I never imagined it would be like this. Raul654 is either a genius or an idiot. Thanks for semi-protecting the article; I've been out and about for much of the day, but it was clearly wearing me old mate PoD down. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Raul was just pointing out that blog, and is not the actual shopkeep of that moronic blather. Amusing enough, it appears they pulled it down. Tan | 39 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, probably wasn't clear. I meant that Raul was very brave in choosing wife selling for today's main page. I never thought for a minute that he'd written that garbage. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. In other news, CNN is reporting it as an April Fools joke (see bottom) Tan | 39 18:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's 6 billion people in the world Malleus, and roughly half of them are less intelligent than the average person. (I know, bad averages etc) Parrot of Doom 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, psychology is one of my specialist subjects. IQ scores are adjusted so that 100 is always the median score. It's a bit like Gordon Brown's definition of poverty– anyone who earns less than me. Malleus Fatuorum

Anyway, now that most of the bollocks has finished, I think we'll find that Wife selling has been a pretty damn good choice for TFA. Not as good as Cock Lane ghost, but you can't win them all ;) Parrot of Doom 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have voted for Mary Toft. Her story is just way beyond bizarre, but she'd had her main page day. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tobacco Smoke Enema next for me. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to all involved with this (and the DYK below). I agree with Malleus above that Raul made a brave choice (and that's why I wanted to make sure he was aware of easier options - it was not intended as lobbying). My impression is that, although it hasn't been plane sailing (it never is), his choice has been vindicated.

Those readers with enough clue to realise that the article is not a hoax also have (in general) sufficient clue to spot that it is based on considerable research and treats the subject with encyclopedic seriousness. It is amazing that even though every April 1 main page in recent history has been based only on verifiable material and true stories, so many media outlets report it as a hoax. It is a great tradition, which exposes that those who comment on the unreliability of Wikipedia are even more unreliable themselves. :) Geometry guy 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have to point this out. L. M. F. A. O. Parrot of Doom 10:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

  ..and yet if you Google the IP address of this obvious disciple of Gandhi, you'll find he loves to hang out here. Should we be seeing this as a warning? • Ling.Nut 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• 307.6k views. Not too shabby :) Parrot of Doom 11:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

She's baaaaack Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

One more review for Michael Bourtzes

I went and did another GA review for Michael Bourtzes and left the comments at Talk:Michael Bourtzes/GA1. I also notified the user. Would you mind double checking to see if I missed anything and then I think I should be able to strike out on my own. Thanks again for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning (at least its morning where I am anyway). I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at this one too. I posted this at the same time as the other so I thought you might have missed it. Thanks--Kumioko (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I had missed that, yes. I'll take a look later today. Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I know your about to go to bed but I was wondering if you had a chance to take a look at this one yet? --Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look, another very competent review. The major problem with the article, as you pointed out, is that it deals only with Bourtzes' military career. I think as well though, some of the writing needs attention. Just from the lead, "Bourtzes re-appears in a prominent position in the as well as his role in the overthrow of Emperor and in the civil war ...", doesn't make sense. Also, you can't "fall into disgrace by". There are similar problems throughout the article, such as "Bourtzes threw in his lot with a number of other prominent generals who were discontent at Nikephoros". The prose really does need to be tidied up. Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I appreciate the help. If you don't mind could I ask your opinion on another unrelated article? I reviewed Biuro Szyfrów and there seems to be a number of problems with this article (I will probably fail it) but I wanted to ask before I failed it. Aside from the article needing a lot of work (Much of which was also mentioned in a previous review) it was submitted by am IP, with no talk page info and it doesn't appear they were an editor. I would assume that this would be grounds for a failure in itself. Would I be correct in that assessment? --Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who nominates an article, so the fact it's an IP isn't of itself grounds for failure. I'll go take a quick look and be right back. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Biuro Szyfrów doesn't look too bad to me, so I'd definitely keep it on hold and wait to see if your concerns are addressed. The major issue with the first GAN was a lack of citations, which seems to have been fixed. I'm not particularly happy with all those short paragraphs in the Polish-Soviet War section, and I'm unconvinced by some of the image licences, File:Płachta Zygalskiego - decrypting Enigma.jpg for instance. Overall though I'm not seeing much that's seriously wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if it was an issue with the nominator not being a major editor. I will leave a note on the nominators talk page as well as the top 3 major editors to see if they can fix the issues. I appeciate the assistance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

!

Bots never lie. – iridescent 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blimey! How the Hell does that happen? I only started the page as a bit of a laugh. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(10w+2p+l), where w=number of watchers, p=pageviews and l=incoming links. Unsurprisingly, you're well ahead of WP:Ethics; more surprisingly, you're on a par with the much-misused WP:DTTR. – iridescent 17:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this page while browsing around the Wiki, and couldn't help but point out this. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 05:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tickle Cock Bridge

On April 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tickle Cock Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay, the main page is mine! Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a question but how many times have you gotten a DYK on the main page Malleus. If "the main page is yours" then the main page has been mine 10 times over!--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 18:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, yes. Come back when you not only have TFA and DYK simultaneously, but one of your articles is the subject of news stories worldwide, and you can say something like that without looking arrogant. – iridescent 18:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Many congratulations! I'd never have thought you could have done so much with it. It amused me anyway.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done Malleus! Yes, the main page is yours today - what a coup! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh put a sock in it Iridescent. I did not know that TFA was a work of Malleus.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 18:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a collaboration between Parrot of Doom and me, not my work alone, but to answer your question I think eight now. Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats too to PoD! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. thats odd. I thought that you'd have way more than only 8 DYK's.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at my editing history you'll see that I create relatively few new articles, so not that surprising really. I didn't create today's TFA, for instance; it had been around for a long time, but in a pretty poor shape. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well I try to create new ones. (My eventual goal is to Make an article on every WWII German U-boat, though this may take years) Or at least expand old ones.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly fertile soil, and I wish you luck with it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks. Oh and what does fertile soil mean?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It means the soil is good for planting DYKs –xeno^talk 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. I guess that If I created the reminder of the missing U-boat articles, I could get over 500 DYK. I doubt that that will actually happen. Hopefully someone esle would make at least a few of these before me.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April fools

Thought you might find this interested since your were one of the developers of the Wife selling article for April 1. The |pentagon is moving. --Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Dlohcierekim 23:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised they didn't use the fact that military spending has effectively decreased so therefore they are going to have to downsize the Pentagon to a square. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the main page pick; looks like you had some particularly persistent vandals though. It's amazing that people didn't figure out it was all true :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Malleus. I can't remember what time zone you are in, but if you are going to be around for a bit longer, could I ask you a quick question? Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of bed, but I'll probably be around for another half hour or so. Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Would you be able to check your e-mail? Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not until tomorrow I'm afraid. Are you sacking me? Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow would be good. Glad to see your sense of humour is still intact. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. I can see you've got a lot going on article-wise, and I've got plenty to do this weekend as well. If you do have time to have a very quick look and you don't have time to take a longer look, could you suggest someone else I could ask about this? Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming "this" is that "this" and not some other "this", hmwith or Moni would probably be pretty good choices (although Moni will be as tied up as Malleus at present). – iridescent 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just found the forwarded email you were talking about Carcharoth, and I've replied. Iridescent, sadly Moni3 has withdrawn from the fray, hopefully only temporarily. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Donner (2)

I'm getting worried that Ms. Johnson's changes are going to bring the article right out of FAC status - she's introduced primary sources, in some cases the prose is now very weak (in others her changes are good). Some of the text, which I think was sourced to people other than her, she is changing to fit her interpretation of the facts, and I worry that it means the article will soon reflect only her viewpoint. I'm not sure what to do - her input is certainly valuable, but at the same time she doesn't understand WP rules. Karanacs (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Watching, worried, and tomorrow is Saturday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we can do. Maybe we just have to accept that this is heading towards being archived and take what we can from the experience. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep chipping away ... Johnson is knowledgeable, but you may just have to clean up behind her primary sourced edits. The FAC is not near archiving, but her edits have to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen that Karanacs hasn't given up on it yet, so neither will I. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have company today and will be gone all day tomorrow, so I don't have a lot of editing time. I made a first pass through by looking at the diff of what's changed from the end of the day on the 31st through when I posted today. Overall it wasn't as bad as I thought - there was really only one section that had changed drastically. This is the first time I've had an expert in the topic be very involved - it's a fine line to walk! Karanacs (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed. I've chipped away at a few things, and I'm really hoping that not much more gets added to the article so we can finish tidying up what's there. I'm going to be away for most of tomorrow as well, so I guess we'll just have to cross our fingers and hope for the best. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#WP:TFASTATS

Thought you might be interested in this, since we seem to be specialists in garnering page views for controversial and bizarre TFAs :) Parrot of Doom 19:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hi Malleus, hope all is well. I'm just stopping by to let you know that I'll soon be pinging you for help with David A. Johnston, hoping that I'll be able to expand the article to a full amount and get the prose to at least a decent standard. I'm planning to get it to FA by May 18, so this will be a very difficult task to attain! Not surprisingly, I see that Wife selling did very well yesterday, congratulations to you and Parrot of Doom! I thought about you two on the plane ride home, when I saw a fortress purported to have belonged to Blackbeard. ceranthor 23:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tickle Cock Bridge

Hi Malleus Fatuorum, I was happy to review it, but I must admit I did not recognise it from the photographs. It was only when I checked the citations, that I recognised it from the TV pictures. I'm not being too precise when I talk about "roof". From memory, from the TV programme, it was an underpass through a railway embankment with narrow approaches having high side walls on either side of the railway land. My so called "roof" was probably the roof of the underpass. Network rail, Railtrack (who ever) seem to have have take away the old structure, built some load-bearing side walls further appart than on old structure and laid a concrete slab or beams across. It also looks like the the side walls have gone. The picture in ref 1 looks like a right muggers paradise. I've not been there myself, perhaps I've just been fooled by the "angle" of the TV production. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Two things

1, Well done!!! What a weekend for you:-) and congratulations to your fellow editors on Donner Party too. 2, MF, you are by no means a woman hater, too many people on here with other agendas, rise above it, you usually do with great style. Wife selling is an excellent piece of social comment on the past and deserves an airing. Well that's what I think.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll admit to a little feeling of childish pleasure in getting an FA and a GA through on the same day. I think I'll be looking for something a little less exciting than the Donner Party or wife selling for my next project though. Maybe 19th-century Manchester and Salford horse-drawn omnibus routes. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey you, Make this a third thing, I wasn't going to do any more on Manchester United as I keep getting "Cleaned up". I forgot to say, is it ok?? --J3Mrs (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I like your edits. The article's written too much like a sports page at present, and needs a clinical eye to the prose. Frankly, without a lot of help quickly, I think this is going to get a hammering at FAC. I'm not even sure I'd have passed it at GAN before all the peacockery was removed. It's good that you're a girl as well, you'll give it that feminine touch. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Look mate, having just been "cleaned up" again I'm off to bed. I spent my teens on the terraces, a long time ago and know quite a lot about football. I think I saw all these players. Agree totally about the prose, it's awful. Rewrite the first sentence (the Trafford borough-ugh!)and the one about Cantona (an absolute cracker) because it'll be cleaned up if I do it:-( --J3Mrs (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this; who's "cleaning up" your edits? The Cantona bit is pure tabloid. Without a lot of editors helping quickly, including you, this is going to be an embarrassment at FAC. I wasn't lucky enough to see any of the great United players like Best and Charlton play at old Trafford. The team was pretty crap by the time I started supporting, but I do remember the old Stretford End: no cover, no seats, crammed together with people pissing on the back of your legs, and being pressed against the anti-crush bars struggling to breathe every time there was a United attack. I'd have to say I really don't miss it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the edit summaries. I've edited the Ground section twice. God I feel old! I loved the all standing areas, all we could afford. I got hit on the head with an old penny when I was ten at Old Trafford :-( Put me off 'em for life. --J3Mrs (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to put a stop to this– not you being hit on the head with pennies of course, I don't have a time machine. This article has been crap for far too long, and FAC is a serious business. It needs as much help as it can get, and it needs your help. BTW, I much preferred watching Crewe Alex play at Gresty Road. Might get a crowd of 1,000 on a good day, and I have a vague memory as a young kid of seeing the Alex draw with Spurs in an FA Cup tie, only to get thrashed 9–0 (IIRC) at White Hart Lane. The draw was great though ... or was it a dream? Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried, but I think I'm failing. Real life calls. I remember Crewe Alexandra beating Bolton in an FA Cup match, or did I make that up? --J3Mrs (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Crewe drew 2-2 with Spurs, but then lost 13-2 in the replay! [1] B.hotep (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Really stupid question…

…but with your witchery experience I assume you know; are heretics "burnt at the stake" or "burned at the stake"? Both look wrong to me. – iridescent 20:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
PS. You really don't want to touch anything to do with buses right now, unless you have a blinding urge to be sucked into this trainwreck. – iridescent 20:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I always saw the latter in my textbooks, but I speak the corrupted version of this language, so what would I know? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll give 19th-century Manchester and Salford horse-drawn omnibus routes a miss then. Is there nowhere safe? Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Burnt is past tense whereas burned can be present or past tense. Either can be correct dependant on the context it's being used in. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"in 1532 Lollard radical Thomas Harding was burnt/burned at the stake in the town for heresy". – iridescent 20:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Being a Brit I'd tend to use "burnt", but I suppose it's the equivalent of our "lit" vs "lighted". I think it's one of those choices where either can be correct. So toss a coin :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

On a sidenote, if I've stalked this page correctly over the last couple of months, I don't think it fair to call Malleus someone with "witchery experience". I would say it's more "people-who-have-been-accused-of-committing-witchery experience". Heh. Toss pot.  :-) Keeper | 76 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...but

I wanted to thank you for encouraging User:JohnsoKr to create an account and edit the Donner party article - it is wonderful to have an expert helping us out. On the other hand, I was a little dismayed that I was the only person who left a personal welcome message on her user talk page and volunteered to help her learn the ropes here at Wikipedia. Please don't forget that learning our ways can be confusing and time-consuming. We need to welcome outsiders into our strange village. Awadewit (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't encourage her to create an account, I encouraged her to edit the article. I have also tried to explain wikipedia's ways wrt verifiability vs truth vs original research at the appropriate place, the relevant article's talk page, so I am unconcerned with your "dismay". In general I do not respond well to prissy and sanctimonious messages like yours. What do you want, a fucking medal? Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And we wonder why people don't want to edit. I'm mystified. Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not all you are Awadewit, as I tried to explain to you above. Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to chip in, but: Awadewit, do you think replying to a "prissy" message with an openly sarcastic one is maybe not the best way to deal with things, when you've just lectured somebody on being all lovely and hippy to users? Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the talkpage of the IP she was using before she created the User:JohnsoKr account, which has not one but two detailed welcome messages. What's the point of explaining something to someone a second time when one knows for certain that they've already received an identical message? – iridescent 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Awadewit is on a feminist crusade, and one that I have no sympathy with. I'd bet the mortgage that she wouldn't be even half so bothered if Kristin was a bloke. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that bet - I'll admit my bias, but it has nothing to do with women in this case. It has everything to do with experts - I think we should actively recruit experts. If Kristin had been a male expert on the Donner party, I would have done the same thing. Awadewit (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The same thing being accusing others of not welcoming this "new" editor, who had already been welcomed twice already? Give me a break! Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I've ever discriminated between those editors I believe to to be male and those I believe to be female, but if Awadewit thinks that I have, and can provide some evidence to support her belief, then obviously I'll have to eat humble pie. I discriminate only between those with a functioning brain between their ears and others, regardless of gender. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of that, but I do find it interesting that you continuously use language that demeans feminism, such as "feminist crusade". Even if you don't mean such language to be derogatory, that is the effect of your posts. Awadewit (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

One day, when you can see more clearly, it may not be necessary for me to tell you what I find interesting about your crusade. In the meantime, piss off. Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to go for a fucking medal, but I'm afraid my testosterone levels are too low and my back is too creaky. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You should talk to Mastcell .. he's got some get-rich-quick scheme that involves prescriptions for what ails you :) Hey, Malleus, are you breaking promises already? You owe me ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have massive respect for those women who campaigned for universal suffrage, some of whom even died for it. What I have no time for is aggressive feminism. Believe it or not I have many friends, both male and female, and I'd be mortified of any one of them accused me of being a mysoginist. In real life, there's nothing I would say to a male that I wouldn't also say to a female, but there are some things that I'd offer to do for a female that I wouldn't offer to do for a male. Like carry a heavy box for instance. Does that make me a woman hater? Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Seneca Falls Convention/GA1

Hey. Just poking you to make sure you didn't forget about this. Doesn't look like he fixed your concerns though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just thinking of reminding the nominator about this. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's it! Thank you for you patience and your sharp-pencil eye for editing. Your recommendations for the article made it much better. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your nominations are pretty easy to review. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard

On 5 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Help

Hi, Malleus Fatuorum. I'm a new user here, and I hope that you would be able to teach me how to expand stubs, as I saw your article about wife selling on the Main Page on April Fools. Could you show me how to copyedit Laroi and find references for it to expand it so it is no longer a stub? Thanks in advance for your help. Codedon (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have been in about as many conflicts as I have over the past few days, why do you think that is? Anyway, to answer your question with a question, do you live in India? If you don't, you may find reliable sources on Laroi hard to find, but they're what you need to take it beyond a stub. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in India; however, my ethnic roots lie in India. I think I've "been in about as many conflicts as [you] have over the past few days" because the customer service here is not as developed as I expected. I'm quite disappointed with editors with the likes of Mono and especially the belligerent Svick. My supposed customer service agent Mono continues to ignore me, and his deputy customer service agent Svick continues to belligerently attack me. How do these incompetent people get hired? Answer that for me. Codedon (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My grandparents lived in a village near Laroi. Codedon (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a volunteer effort Codedon, there's no "customer service", and nobody gets paid. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I did not realize that. Nevertheless, those people should not be attacking me. Is that what one should do to a newcomer?
I'm glad you are not belligerently pouncing on me. Thank you. Codedon (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not going to be able to expand Laroi, could you recommend to me a stub that I could try expanding? Codedon (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are loads of stubs; I'd guess that the majority of wikipedia article are stubs or just a little bit more. What topics are you interested in? Do you have access to a library? Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I respond, I'd just like to reiterate how grateful I am that you are so much nicer than the other people here.
I'm interested in Indian topics, since of course it's my past and I'd wish to learn about it. And, yes, I am situated near a library. Thanks for your help, Codedon (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of good people here. Unfortunately there are lots of shits as well. Anyway, if you're in the UK, what about working up one of the Indian history stubs? There should be plenty of sources available for the period of the Raj. The Anglo-Mysore Wars could do with some work, for instance, particularly the First War. Is that the kind of thing you might be interested in? When picking topics to work on, I tend to be guided by what sources I can get access to, particularly books and articles. Why not take a look through your library's online catalogue to see what they have available on India? It might give you some more ideas for a suitable topic. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of the good people, save for you. I'll try working on the Anglo-Mysore Wars. Again, thank you so much.
By the way, would you mind if I changed the adoption template on my userpage from "Mono" as the adopter (which sucks) to "Malleus Fatuorum" (which sounds very grand)? Codedon (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm always happy to help, but I don't really do adoption, and I've got no idea what it entails. I'll be here to help with whichever article you choose, but you should be aware that I can be very critical ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. After all I've endured from Mono and Svick, I can't see how much more acrimonious you can be than those two hooligans. Codedon (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's best not to dwell on things. I've got absolutely no doubt that Mono and Svick aren't "hooligans", and are in any event just volunteers like you and I. Let me know when you start work on whichever article you choose and I'll keep an eye on it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've decided I don't want to work on the Anglo-Mysore Wars. Wars don't really interest me. I want to work on Kaithal honour killing case. Its name attracts me. Codedon (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It certainly needs an awful lot of work. Do you have any ideas for how you're going to approach improving this article? Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to do an overall read through, and fix anything I see on the first pass. Also, I guess I need to take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources before I make references. Thanks for your support. Codedon (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Airlines

Hi Malleus,

NielsenGW has completed his pass through the article. Could you please finish what you were doing (and undo any changes needed to bring the prose upto FA standards) please.

Many thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 07:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A step backwards?

I realise it's difficult to explain your objections to an edit in your edit summary, so what exactly was your problem with my last change? – PeeJay 15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the lead is the only chance you get to make a first impression, and the phrase "... Old Trafford, in Trafford, Greater Manchester" is ungainly and strange. Would you say that Bolton F.C. played in the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton, for instance? Old Trafford is a place in its own right, as well as being the name of the stadium. A few other points:

• It's unnecessary to link pound sterling.

• Easter eggs like "controlling interest" are to be avoided.

• "In July 2006, the club announced a refinancing package totalling £660 million, on which interest payments will be £62 million a year." Will be when?

• "This result of this new financing plan will be a 30% reduction of annual payments." Will be when?

• You removed "match-going" from "A protest was organised by supporters groups, encouraging [match-going] fans to wear green and gold". Are fans encouraged to wear green and gold at all times?

Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

hmm...

What do you think about this article from a new editor? It reads more like original research than an encyclopaedic article to me, but I wanted another opinion as the editor is new. Parrot of Doom 20:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to believe that the material came from the two books given in the References section; certainly Darnton is mentioned several times in the text anyway. The problem is a lack of inline citations, so it's difficult to tell. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok think I'll leave it. Meanwhile if you're running short of exciting, even brilliant prose, have a look here for inspiration :D Parrot of Doom 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of those are quite brilliant. I particularly liked "Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph." That's really making a point. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"She walked into my office like a centipede with 98 missing legs" is worthy of Douglas Adams.... it reminds me of.. "they hung in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't" from HHGTTG. PoD - that's a great find. Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Superb. My fave "The politician was gone but unnoticed, like the period after the Dr. on a Dr Pepper can." --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FARs

Hi Malleus! If you have the interest, there are a couple of FARs that could use your attention:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Israel/archive1 - The nominator concerns seem to have been mostly addressed here. However, so few reviewers want to get involved in any Israel/Palestine articles that the FARC is having trouble getting interest (I'm assuming that's a major reason, at least). It could use a good eye on the prose.
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manila Light Rail Transit System/archive1 - This has been hanging around for ages. The nominator seems willing to work with reviewers, but getting people to stick around and make a definitely keep/delist declaration has been a major problem. The process seems to be approaching an end point, however, and the prose could use a look-through.
• And, a quick question. Does your delist vote on the Biman Bangladesh Airlines article mean that you have made up your mind and will not be working further on the article? Just checking to make sure - I don't want to make a final decision on the review and then find a nasty note from you tomorrow because you were halfway through a final copyedit :)

Thanks you for your work at FAR, and thanks in advance for any comments on the first two above. Dana boomer (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There will be no nasty note from me. I felt that Biman Bangladesh Airlines could just about make it with some work, but I'm afraid I lost patience after the efforts of the GOCE, so I'll not be looking at it again. My view of copyediting seems to be radically different from the "let's fix the obvious grammatical and spelling mistakes, job done" crew; I also want the article to be well organised, consistent, and intelligible. Perhaps I ask for too much. I'll try and look and the other two you mention tomorrow. FAR seems to have even more problems with reviewers than FAC does, which is a shame. Malleus Fatuorum

OK, I've looked at them both now. Just between you and me Dana, I think that Israel article is a disgrace, and I wouldn't even have passed it at GAN, never mind FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work, Malleus. You are correct that FAR has even more problems attracting good reviewers than FAC - it is something I'm trying to fix, although with little luck so far. Lack of reviewers is a constant across WP, though, so I'm not exactly surprised... If you see the response to your comments on the Israel article, you'll also see why the review is having such a hard time attracting independent reviewers of any caliber. If you know of any other hard-headed editors willing to jump into the fray, please feel free to drop them a note...although I would put money on it that most of them already watch your talk page! Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No real surprise in the response to my comments. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." For me, the article is a marginal GA, nowhere close to FA, but as you suggest, sensible non-partisan editors won't touch topics like Israel/Palestine/Ireland even with a very long barge pole, because everyone knows it'll just end up in bickering and squabbling. Not me though, I've already delisted the Israeli West Bank barrier; the message has to get home that crap just won't be tolerated. In general I'd have to say that in my limited experience FAR seems far more tolerant of poor quality than FAC, and that can't be right. Surely the same standards ought to be applied at both? Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. I took a quick look at a few other reviews that caught my eye, but they all seemed to have plenty of input already. If there's ever something that seems to be stalled though, please feel free to ping me and I'll happily offer an opinion on it, without fear or favour. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In a perfect world, the same standards would apply at FAR as at FAC. However, in reality, we have fewer high quality reviewers and fewer reviewers overall, which means that quality tends to go down, even when the reviews are up for multiple months. Also, the default at FAR is keep, while the default at FAC is to archive, which definitely makes sense on one side (maintain the status quo unless there is a proven reason to change), but it also makes it so that if main editors stall and argue for long enough, they generally get to keep the article as they like it. I'm sure you already know most of this, though... As for the Israel article specifically (and please don't take this as me being critical of your review, because it is spot-on), it must be considered that the last time this article was reviewed was late 2007, which means it has had over two years to accumulate cruft, not to mention the standards of both GA and FA were lower then. I just wish the main editors would see this as an opportunity to polish an already relatively good, although maybe not Good, article, rather than seeing it as their work being attacked. Well, that's my rant for now! Thanks again for your comments, and I will keep you in mind when other FARs become stuck... Dana boomer (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. The standards at FAC and GAN have risen considerably over the last couple of years. GA bit the bullet, with its sweeps project, which is thank God finally over now. I never took the view though with the 300 odd articles I reviewed that the default was the status quo. For me, the default was if this article doesn't meet the GA criteria then I will delist it. Here's what I think is wrong with it; your choice. For me, FAR should be the same. Bugger the status quo, does this article meet the FA criteria? Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, completely. But when you don't have any editors willing to take a stand that the article doesn't meet FA criteria then sub-standard articles can more easily slip through. Or editors who don't look at all of the criteria and vote keep because the article looks good on the surface. Dana boomer (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Buried somewhere (I really can't be fagged to go look) I'm sure Raul said somewhere that when deciding whether to delist at FAR, he considers whether it meets the GA criteria as opposed to the FA criteria, given the constant escalation in standards. If you're planning to do FAR's "to the letter of the law" it would probably be worth getting agreement from Raul, Sandy and Karanacs as to exactly what standard they expect the articles to be judged against. – iridescent 23:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's the consensus view then I guess I've been doing FAR reviews wrong. Mea culpa. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We're obviously singing from the same hymn sheet, but could you even begin to imagine an article getting through FAC today with six citations to Britannica and three to Encarta? Ealdgyth would likely be thrown into a swoon (or am I thinking of that Sandy from Georgia?). Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see a whole different problem at FAR; a lack of motivation for people to work there at all, because it's not being actively managed as Marskell did, and FARs are simply dragging on too long and never going anywhere. Marskell managed each FAR quite actively, stated what he was waiting for on his decisions, pinged editors in for feedback, and dug in himself whenever necessary-- there was a real camaraderie in working there. That's why I recommend closing them as a default keep when they've been up for insane amounts of time like four months-- they're just bogging down the page, close 'em, they'll be back in three months. Marskell saw it as a place to improve and restore articles as much as possible, with the idea that even if stars couldn't be saved, articles would at least be improved while there. Now it's become more of an automatic delist place. Something has to happen to make FAR the fun place to work it used to be, where there was great pride taken in restoring articles and saving the star. Otherwise, there's no motivation for anyone to go deal with the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

GAR has much the same conflict. Is it a garage where poorly articles get fixed up, or is it an assessment programme? If it's both, how are the conflicts between the two supposed to be resolved? Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't accept your point about FAR being an "automatic delist place", and in fact I've done quite a bit of work on several articles currently at FAR in the hope that they won't be delisted. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're engaging! It's neither a garage where poorly articles get fixed up, or an assessment programme-- it's turned into a garage with no diagnostic tools, and I suggest restoring some motivation to work there is more important now than whether any individual article is defeatured or not-- arguing for four months is not helping anything, those things need to be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It would never fly, but how about time-limited FAs? That is, abolish FAR altogether, but once an article's featured it only stays featured for (say) two years, and after than has to be renominated. That incentivizes article maintenance even after the hoop's been jumped through, and does away with some of the more problamatic elements of FAR; by taking away the tension of "I don't think your pride-and-joy deserves to be an FA", and all the potential backbiting that comes from that, it might calm down the bear-pit atmosphere. – iridescent 00:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Too much process, unfairly penalizes FAs that are rigorously maintained by their nominators, like ... ummmm ... my one and only :) Would increase backlog ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's rigorously maintained, there's nothing to fear… You know as well as I that there are articles by certain people which will never go to FAR, no matter how far they slip behind current standards, because nobody wants the hassle of the inevitable backlash. – iridescent 00:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it ?

Is it "demoted back" or "demoted"? I've changed it so many times I don't know! --J3Mrs (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Demoted back" sounds a bit strange to me. I'd probably say "demoted to". Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure its like "reverted". Cheers --J3Mrs (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think you're right. I'm also inclined to think that "demotion" is maybe not the right word here. I'll need to take a look at that whole sentence ... Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and Goodnight, MUFC is very wearing, I feel as if I have played a full match and extra time against Norman Hunter or Tommy Smith. --J3Mrs (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bog turtle

Hello Mr. Malleus, it's been a while. We are still pushing forth with the bog turtle article as the current school year draws to a close. On the verge of submitting for FAC, I would like to have the article copy-edited by professional eyes one last time as per User:Sasata's wishes. In short, I was hoping you would still be interested in helping some humble high school students!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No need for the formalities, you can call me Malleus; it's not my real name, after all. :-) When are you hoping to take this to FAC? I'm sure I'll be able to look it over in the next couple of days or so. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to put it to the critics fairly soon, however, we're having some intense discussion on the talk page...Any time in the next couple of days (i.e. spring break for me) will be just fine (p.s. the only reason for the "Mr." is because I am myself just a minor -_-). Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Must be tough with the coal dust getting everywhere.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Minor" is a homonym of "miner", just a silly joke. Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha(I guess...)!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway

Thanks for keeping an eye on him! I hadn't noticed, but the protection must have expired. Am running out, and can't ask for a new protection for a few hours but if it's very bad it will need protection again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Malleus, check your emails if you haven't today. – iridescent 23:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this about what I think it's likely to be about? I'll go check my emails shortly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)