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

While I find it amusing in a weird ironic sort of way...

Can we (being a generalized we that includes everyone here) stop playing at blame games (i.e. witchhunts, thus the irony about it taking place at Malleus' page) and try to NOT include personalization. This ain't a battlefield and we may or may not have a problem, but it's not helping to dredge up incidents from the past and/or bring up specific articles/people/etc.

What I see is:

1. We had an issue with one article, perhaps more, that was TFA.
2. Some folks think that copyediting should be as it is in the real world, where the publishers copyeditor is responsible for fact checking as well as prose
3. Some folks don't think that's possible because of the fact that copyeditors on wikipedia can't access all the sources that an editor uses.
4. Some people are using this perceived crisis to bring up other favored causes/hobbyhorses/etc in order to try and push them through also.
5. From all of the above, everyone is playing battleground games and getting entirely too personal (on ALL sides) about things.

Step back. Be responsible for your own behavior and stop personalizing things and taking things personal. It's not a "oh, my god, we've got to fix this now" thing and we'd probably be better off going and getting some idea of the scope of the problem before we get this heated and agitated. Let's agree on terms of reference, on what the problem IS, the scope of said problem, and then discuss how to fix the problem, if such is needed, WITHOUT taking potshots at each other.

What a HELL of a way to come back to wikipedia after my wedding. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to copyedit this, but then realised that you haven't provided a citation for your marriage. I therefore move that your post be scratched from the record, and your account suspended while an investigation takes place.

As this is on Malleus's talk page, some of the blame therefore lies with him, and he should be banned immediately. Parrot of Doom 12:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that suggested elsewhere, did you copy that ban proposal and then add a couple of your own words? Nev1 (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm finding quite enlightening is the number of different ways that I'm to blame for this debacle, at least according to SV that is:

• I don't check sources, therefore my copyediting is crap and actually has the effect of disguising copyvios/plagiarism
• I encourage other editors to take articles that are plainly not ready to FAC
• I browbeat any opposition during the review
• I am one of a secret group whose articles receive less scrutiny than those of other editors

I'll be very interested to see what else comes up during the course of the day. Perhaps I'm actually SandyG's sockpuppet? Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot: killed Jimmy Hoffa, did 9/11, kept Steve Guttenberg in movies, and belong to the Pentavret. → ROUX ₪ 13:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is he responsible for Jar-Jar and the rumored seventh Star Wars movie? If so, blame may not be enough... (But we really DO need to be serious here, folks.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm deadly serious; I had absolutely no doubt that this would somehow be laid at my door when it all blew up on Saturday evening, I just hadn't realised how inventive some folks would be. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't really that inventive, nearly everyone can see right through it. You're not required to check sources, its his opinion that articles aren't ready (and his opinion is one of only 6 billion), browbeating is not equal to saying "no I think its fine, I won't change it", and the secret group...? Well I tell you what, lets see SlimVirgin put his money where his mouth is, and tell us who's in it. I've already asked him. Parrot of Doom 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Parrot, you're saying we should be copy editing and reviewing FACs, without looking at the sources the article is based on? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're explicitly reviewing whether the sources support what the article says and/or whether there is plagiarism, then by all means look at the sources. However, if all someone is doing is fixing or reviewing prose, then you can't expect that person to be willing or able to look at sources. Really, when you're copyediting something that you're not an expert on, being expected to authoritatively check sources is unreasonable. That's why copy-editors should work in collaboration with source/subject experts. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And you're right when we're dealing with academic issues, or sources that are hard to find. But this was an Associated Press article, cited 29 times. It was a short article. Anyone reading it would have seen (a) that it was not a good source because it was relying on a local woman who was trying to raise money, not an expert; and (b) that it had been plagiarized.

If we're reviewing articles without reading even a short newspaper article to get our bearings about the topic, then what is the review based on? When we say "this is FA quality," what is meant? I'm not only talking about this article now, or about these reviewers, because I've done the same thing myself. We all need to ask ourselves what we mean when we support something. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating the roles of reviewing and copy editing. Copy editing is the process of improving the prose to make the article read better. This can be done independently of the sources; indeed if your primary concern is to improve the prose then looking at the sources is generally superfluous. If you don't understand what's being said and want to rephrase something to make it clearer, then it might be worth consulting the references to shed some light on the matter, but often it makes more sense to consult the author of the article as they should know what they were trying to convey and will probably be more widely read on the subject than you. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is where I'm disagreeing. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be creative works. They are derivative; they are meant to be based entirely on reliable sources, but not so closely that they're copyright violations. How can an article be copy-edited in any meaningful way without at least glancing through the sources it's based on? A copy editor is supposed to spot red flags, awkward turns of phrase, check with the writer about what was meant, and before you tell me that's not so, it is so in every area of publishing outside Wikipedia, and there's no point in us deploying a special definition of common terms. Good copy editing is difficult. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In an ideal world, a copy editor would review the sources, but until Wikipedia starts paying its editors comparing it with real world publishers just doesn't work. For starters there's the issue of the availability of sources, although you already know that. It is possible to recast a sentence or a paragraph without having to consult the source. It's quite a jump from the usual "can you check my article to see if the prose stinks or not" which is usually considered copy editing on Wikipedia to "can you check the article too see if the prose stinks, the sources are fairly represented, and that there's no plagiarism". Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider saying no when people ask us only to work on prose, because it truly can have the effect of masking problems. Or at the very least we should make clear on the FAC page, if we do copy edit something that ends up at FAC, that we haven't looked at any of the sources, and can't vouch for the content at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I've already considered the fact that getting an article to featured status is more trouble than it's worth. Anyone is welcome at any time to check prose and sources. I welcome constructive commentary, but asking for an article to be deconstructed when it does not need to be, for its quality to be diminished in the name of an overly sensitive FAC process, and nominating an article when no improvement could come from it just isn't fun times when I volunteer my time and effort. I've learned that the path of least reasonable resistance is writing an article with FA criteria in mind and keeping it at B class or lower. The same amount of people read it every day and I catch far less crazyass shit. --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles are not meant to be creative works" - in other words, Wikipedia articles should be boring. Thanks, but no thanks. Parrot of Doom 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth: Firstly and most importantly: Congratulations, and I hope you have continued happiness.

On the Wikipeida compared to the real world: There are a number of ways publishers vet articles, including fact checking by persons specifically assigned to that task, copyeditors, and a final polish of prose. Such processes vary, but often are linear and somewhat hierarchical processes. Wikipedia is neither. Prose edits can come at any stage; a prose editor often does not have the advantage of having the facts already checked against sources (which should catch plagiarism). Those who would impose a particular publisher's model on Wikipedia are likely to be disappointed. And those who want to assign "blame" for this or any other incident are in the wrong place here. Kablammo (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be quite impossible for wikipedia copyeditors to check sources on the articles they are asked to copy edit and I don't beleive anybody has ever thought they did. Just look at the variety of articles Malleus has been asked to copyedit over the last few months on his talkpage. It is the responsibility of the authors not to plagiarise or violate copyright and to watch what the copyeditor does to ensure no accidental plagiarism creeps in by changing the wording. If you want somebody to either fact-check your work or check for plagiarism and copy-vios then you need to find an editor qualified to do that which would be somebody with access to the sources and the relevent knowledge base. I am not convinced by the "copy-editing disguises the writing and so masks plagiarism" argument either. On wikipedia different styles are more likely to result from a multiplicity of editors. I think FAC reviewers ought to at least spot check sources for accuracy, plagiarism and copy-vio where they can and say if they have or have not done so. If this became routine, rather like image checks, then it would be a lot less tempting for editors to deliberately plagiarise and might also make people be a little more careful about accidental plagiarism. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A case in point - if I asked Malleus to copy edit my post above I would expect him to correct the spelling of "believe" but not to ascertain whether or not this really was fainites opinion. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"And those who want to assign 'blame' for this or any other incident are in the wrong place here." On the contrary, they think they can smell blood. Well perhaps they can, but perhaps it isn't my blood. I still haven't got over being accused earlier today of deliberately enginering this situation so as to get rid of Relvse. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has accused you of that, as you well know. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Accused him directly. A lot of insunutation and capitalising is flowing around, from a few predictable sources. I think thats what he means, as you well know. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What I well know is that you are lying. Just take a look a little higher up this page. Also, take a look at Rlevse's nomination of Grace Sherwood, where he says quite clearly that many editors had encouraged him to take it to FAC. I'd really like to know why you're trying to pin the blame for this whole fiasco on me ... well actually I know already, so don't trouble yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) Article on obscure French town copied wholesale from website in 2007. Same article tagged by me as copyvio in 2008, and this pointed out to the French culture group. Various minor edits carried out by other editors after the tagging, but the majority of the plagiarism left untouched. Article blanked as a copyvio yesterday, two years later, when a bot reports the similarities. Ning-ning (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So all that remains to be done is to invent some reason as to why that's my fault. Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's easy. You speak a bit of French. Must be you. Oh, and BTW, tell us who you got to shoot Kennedy already. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You had Nigel killed‽ Ning-ning (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How much of this actually was there?

HISTORY OF WAT PASANTIDHAMMA 109.155.102.127 (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been a great deal more of it than has so far been admitted. I've found interesting to see the desperate efforts of fellow administrators and even arbitrators to sweep this issue under the carpet by pretending that it was just a one-off few sentences inadvertently copied into one TFA. Anyone who seriously tries to question that party line is accused either of "grave dancing" or "disruption", possibly both. The dishonesty on display is rank. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A question

"exercised his authority in a manner which gave some cause for complaint, not least an officer he replaced" - is this grammatically correct? Parrot of Doom 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In a word, no. The last part of the sentence "not least an officer he replaced" appears to be disconnected from the first part. Is there perhaps a word missing there, "from an officer he replaced"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I view "an officer he replaced" the same as "Joe Bloggs, who...", in which case I don't think a 'from' is necessary...is it? Ideally I'd like details of the complaint, but IIRC I don't have them. Parrot of Doom 23:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the complete sentence might make sense, but certainly the fragment you quoted doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's in Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot), the GA reviewer mentioned it but I thought it was ok. I can't even remember now if complaint is a synonym for "pissed off about it". Parrot of Doom 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm with the reviewer, it needs that "from" to make sense. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you plagiarise that argument? ;) I changed it, I'll go with the majority view. Parrot of Doom 01:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I never read what anyone else has written, I'm just a comma shuffler. I think you made the right choice, and in years to come when you've got that English Lit degree you'll look back on this discussion and slap your forehead. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

With the reviewer as well. Without a qualifier, it's not clear if the complaint is from an officer he replaced, or regarding an officer he replaced. – iridescent 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

John Robert Radclive

Would you be interested in expanding John Robert Radclive, Canada's first hangman?(You may find some links at resource exchange helpful.)Smallman12q (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! I didn't notice until just now that the article's still in your user space. Hope you don't mind me having messed around with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine...I'm keeping it there until I get the stomach to write about the rest of his hangings=P.Smallman12q (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Tramp

One of the essays in the book I looked at today for GF Night was about Tramps. I think this is an excellent subject, nobody calls tramps tramps anymore, they're "homeless people". Call me un-PC, but I think that Tramp needs to be taken back. I might investigate further. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That article certainly needs some work, in common with 3,126,798 of wikipedia's other articles. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Change the subject line: I thought I was being summonsed in edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There used to be a perfume in this country called Tramp. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't do perfume-- too busy with hair, fingernails, toenails, shoes and makeup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This post is useless without pictures. Parrot of Doom 21:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, busy drinking my Ensure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

They remind me of tins of Carnation Milk. Parrot of Doom 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a slow and torturous death, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember how often PoD an I have been through this same nonsense before, so it can die a death as soon as it likes. We won't be adding the details of a second-rate film to the article and will resist the efforts of anyone else to add them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we just stop having every person with a peeve of the day wanting to change instructions at FAR? The FAs will still be there in a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it, seems to be the way things work here. If an FA doesn't mention the only thing I think I know about a subject then it clearly fails the comprehensive criterion. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dongan Charter GA

Just wanted to let you know I'm taking point on the issues in Talk:Dongan Charter/GA1.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's good. I thought it might have been abandoned, as the nominator appears to be no longer active. Let me know when you're done. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, though I've got a question I'll bring up on the GAN.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

174,000

I like to think that at least a few of those now understand that it wasn't just "some bloke who wanted to blow up parliament, innit". Parrot of Doom 12:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully a few of them learned something about punctuation as well (yes, I'm thinking about "James's"). Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to the two of you; obviously the best team of editors on WP (if viewing figures are anything to go by)! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Some even rediscovered the etymology of part of their username. Geometry guy 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Blimey. Think I proposed the wrong article. Parrot of Doom 23:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. 'Ya missed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, you can propose that one for 5 November next year :) Richerman (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rehashing old topics

• Neener, neener! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The Wrangler? Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't have a Wrangler, although I do like them, I have a Grand Cherokee. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It's a JEEP ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Actually, to be truthful, the Cherokee is really my wife's car, although I use it more than she does. This is my car. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
            • What is that thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
              • It's a Jaguar XJ-S, if I'm not mistaken. I bought my own piece of British metal recently. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                • I'm coming to visit you, not Malleus! I never got to buy my own cars-- new ones kept showing up regularly in my garage, like it or not-- but when I do get to choose one, it may be a VW Jetta diesel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • Well I haven't managed a wheelie yet... might be a good time to try, hehe. The Jetta diesel is one of the best cars out there! --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • Well, I'm not entirely stupid, 'ya know, even if I have been driving cars I didn't get to choose :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                • It is, yes. Nice bike. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Script error?

[1] (already fixed, reporting FYI). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Challenge to you...

Find me an interesting DYK hook in Pancartes. I'm failing miserably. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Did you know …that historian Marjorie Chibnall states that the medieval historian Orderic Vitalis used now lost pancartes of various Norman monastic houses as sources for Orderic's historical writings?" Sometimes, making it so cryptic and arcane that people click through to find out what the hell you're talking about is the only thing that works. Or you could just go with "…Pancartes were medieval historical documents, drawn up by a monastery, that recorded a sequence of gifts to the monastery". (Of course, there's always the "maybe there's nothing here that's actually of interest to the non-specialist, so putting it on the main page isn't necessary" route…) – iridescent 16:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the idea of a DYK on this article, but figured if someone (i.e. talk-page stalkers) found something interesting... it might be worth it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You can try finding one on Norwich Market if you fancy DYK-hunting. I thought with all those mass-executions, dick fools, whifflers and girls of sixteen with no bones they'd be jumping off the page, but it's surprisingly barren ground. – iridescent 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Did you know …that twice in the 16th century, persons convicted of sedition had their ears nailed to the pillory in Norwich Market for a period of time, and when their pillory time was over, their ears were cut off? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you know …that historian David Bates strictly defines a pancarte as being a charter which contains more than one other charter's piece of folded paper? Ning-ning (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Iridescent: "Did you know …that in medieval times, gifts to a monastery were recorded on pancartes?" Geometry guy 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That works; it makes it cryptic enough that people click through from the "well, what the hell is a pancarte?" factor. – iridescent 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I quite like that one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed the suggestion of "Pancakes" and hope the hook is good enough to take forward:good luck! Geometry guy 00:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny timing

Sources and info for that book have been removed. There weren't essential anyway and can be readded providing the page numbers are given at a later date. Surely this is GA quality now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's my feeling as well, as I've just said in my closing speech at the review. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was concerned it was going to fail on account of that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I like to think that I'm not always the unreasonable sob I'm painted to be on here. :-) Even FAC doesn't demand perfection, and the sources were named and could be checked by anyone interested enough to do so, plus it wasn't really very important stuff anyway. The article improved a lot during the review. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of you doing a GA nomination?

Pit-yacker has been working hard on London Road Fire Station, Manchester and put it up for GAN 12 days ago but there have been no takers yet. Would you have time to have a look at it? Richerman (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. Twelve days isn't very long to have to wait at GAN these days though sadly. There seem to be fewer and fewer editors willing to do reviews, which is understandable I suppose, as it's a largely thankless task that takes time away from what it is that presumably brought you to this project in the first place, writing about something that interests you. Anyway, on a very quick first look through it looks good, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are a shining star! You have my thanks at least. Richerman (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've finished the review now, not too much to deal with hopefully. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to look at Cheddar Cheese?

It is a very popular article, but I am sure that the history is wrong. That is to say that the cheese was originaly made in Cheddar. I think you might be able to fix it!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you fix it? Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg

Malleus, I would like to ask you to do me a big favor. Could you please take some time to read Skanderbeg? It is a long article, so please take your time. I plan in bringing it to GA in a couple of months and in FA in 2011. Gaius Claudius Nero is the main author of the article, but I'm getting involved recently too. There are still some references to be fixed there, and it's a complex article, so it may take a while to get it to GA.

For now I would just like that you get involved with your thoughts with the paragraphs management: currently we have the wars, which occur almost throughout his 25 years (1443-1468) as the head of the confederacy of the League of Lezhe, and then the foreign relations, which of course go throughout those 25 years. I personally tend to merge the diplomacy paragraphs (relations with Venice, Naples, and Pope) into the main body of the article, and thus to give a clear chronology of his life, so that the article becomes more readable. I would gently ask you to tell me if you would see that article better flowing with a clear set chronology, or with those paragraphs separate as they are now. It would be awesome if you could also get involved in the discussion for that matter.

Thank you in advance, and please understand that I come to you as I see you the best wikipedian in writing with perfect elegance. --Sulmuesi (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You make me blush, I just do what I can. I remember the good work you did with Vangjel Meksi, and certainly Albanian topics aren't yet very well covered. I had a quick look at Skanderbeg and as you say it's a big article, so it'll take me some time to read through it and absorb it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've offered my opinion on the article's structure, which I think pretty much corresponds with yours. The article's full of good stuff, but the pieces haven't been put together right, or even at all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

…and there's more pieces arriving in the post every day, from Serbia, Macedonia and all points Balkan. Latest consignment is an image of the seal of Skanderbeg with an image caption larger than the article, most of it in Greek, and Hitler. Ning-ning (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that trying to tell any story about the Balkans is an enterprise fraught with problems. Malleus Fatuorum 11:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 18, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 18, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dick Turpin (bap. 1705 – 1739) was an English highwayman whose exploits were romanticised following his execution in York for horse theft. Turpin may have followed his father's profession as a butcher early in life, but by the early 1730s he had joined a gang of deer thieves, and later became a poacher, burglar, horse thief, and murderer. He is best known for his fictional 200-mile (320 km) overnight ride from London to York on his steed Black Bess, a story that was made famous by the Victorian novelist William Harrison Ainsworth almost 100 years after Turpin's death. Turpin's involvement in the crime for which he is most closely associated—highway robbery—followed the arrest of the other members of his gang in 1735. He then disappeared from public view towards the end of that year, only to resurface in 1737 with two new accomplices. Later that year he moved to Yorkshire and assumed the alias of John Palmer. While he was staying at an inn local magistrates became suspicious of "Palmer", and made enquiries as to how he funded his lifestyle. Suspected of being a horse thief, "Palmer" was imprisoned in York Castle, to be tried at the next assizes. Turpin's true identity was revealed by a letter he wrote to his brother-in-law from his prison cell, which fell into the hands of the authorities. On 22 March 1739 Turpin was found guilty on two charges of horse theft and sentenced to death; he was executed on 7 April 1739. Turpin became the subject of legend after his execution, romanticised as dashing and heroic in English ballads popular theatre, film and television. (more...)

Someone called Dick on the main page. What could possibly go wrong? – iridescent 12:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And what's even worse, someone that every schoolkid thinks they know something about. Poor Pod, Raul must have it in for him this month. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 12:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just get Bishzilla to EAT all the vandals? Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Show me an editor who doesn't think that writing an FA gives you experience of vandal fighting and I'll show you an editor who's never had one on the main page. Malleus Fatuorum 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

At least we can protect the real magnets now without getting summarily overturned due to the suicide pact. I get that feeling this one might end up with a couple protection log entries on the 18th. Courcelles 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I noted on 5 November that Gunpowder Plot wasn't really touched until the yanks woke up. Says a lot, does that. Parrot of Doom 12:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was the English, unemployed, sleeping late, and stoned. I got one too, Saint-Gaudens double eagle, November 11. Well, it does mention WWI, if that is any consolation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I think on the unemployed scale the colonial traitors win. And its the First World War, not WWI! Parrot of Doom 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice you are not defending the stone crack ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt we have as many crackheads as the US, although the Scots and Welsh might dispute that... Parrot of Doom 15:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Having just returned from California, you are probably right.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You all had better watch John Lennon starting now before the real fun of December 8th-- betcha we ain't seen nothin' yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be watchlisting it that day.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be watchlisted by many now ... lots of folks gearing up for that anniversary, we need to avoid article deterioration beginning now. I'll add a note at FAC as soon as I get time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Already edit warring over there-- any admins on board who can make a call as to when semi-pro is needed? I don't know policy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's going to be a battlefield; I never really cared for Lennon's pretentious rubbish, so I'm staying away. Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

All I need to know about him is that he screwed around on his wives, so although I am watchlisting for generalities, I'm fersure not paying attention to details and don't know much about him or give a crap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I escaped, although since I just had one Sunday, I guess I've already done my penance. Must say, horses on the main page are easier than bishops... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, religious folk tend to emulate the rear half of the equine.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Seven instances of 'Turpin' in that box up there. Where does one go to fix such things? Parrot of Doom 21:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here – iridescent 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. While you're here, any clues on where to find reliable information on Bonfire Night food? Buggered if I can find anything, but I've always associated Bonfire Night with treacle toffee and that must have come from somewhere. Parrot of Doom 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Google Is Your Friend. – iridescent 21:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It won't let me read it, not even through a proxy. Stupid sexy Google! Parrot of Doom 21:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just dump "Bonfire toffee" into GBooks. Or, indeed, fish out the ridiculous number of books in the bibliography of Bonfire toffee. (And find out where "in the North, darker sweets are preferred" came from. I have a vision of Londoners eating Milky Bars, Brummies eating Caramacs, Mancs eating Galaxy Bars and the Scots gnawing away on Black Jacks.) – iridescent 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In York, they fancy Yorkie bars. Of course.--22:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No luck searching for toffee, or celebrations in commonwealth nations. There isn't a great deal written about such things, the three decent sources I have on Gunpowder Treason Day don't really mention them much. I guess what's sauce for the goose... Parrot of Doom 21:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You've already done more than enough to halt the rot with that article. It's always easier to defend something that's in good shape than it is a crock like it was before. There's a software development principle called refactoring which I think is analagous, although you wouldn't know it from reading that article. Why is it that almost all of the computing articles are crap? Even this one, on a technology fundamental to the way that wikipedia works. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that almost all of the computing articles are crap? - I'd like to know the answer to this too. Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got half a mind to do something about that, once I get beyond valve computers. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Decisions, decisions...

Alexander of Lincoln or Walter de Coutances? And .... how close are you to the actual location of Liudhard medalet? I didn't get to Liverpool while I was there, and I don't THINK it's close to Manchester, but I could be wrong (since both places are only notable in history well past the period I usually study, I never have got a good feel for where all those Industrial Revolution cities were located...) I think the hunk of gold is the next "weirdness" that I wanna work up. (I'm not feeling very manuscriptish right this moment) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm about 40 miles and half a world away from Liverpool. Any city that renames its airport after John Lennon is a place to be avoided. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I recommend what used to be called an "Atlas" but is now known as Google Maps. It is amazing: you can scroll away from the North American continent without even leaving home, and so discover a whole new world of Geography, with far-out place names and everything! There is even a magnifying glass to view the smaller countries. Ace! The kids will love it! ;) Geometry guy 00:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth did the Grand Tour this summer, but the span of her historical interest doesn't extend to the Industrial Revolution, so no reason for her to have visited the mecca that is Manchester, or the scally paradise that is Liverpool. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How sad she missed out on Birmingham (I presume). There are some very fine inner city ring roads in the West Midlands ;) Geometry guy 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I once wanted to know how far it was from Manchester to Liverpool, so I googled it and ended up on somewhere like answers.com where there is a vote on which is the best answer. The one that came out top was " not fucking far enough!" Richerman (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I know that Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all over in the western/northwestern part of England, but beyond that, I'm unclear. I also discovered something while I was in England - that the English think going 200 miles is "a LONG trip" whereas this yank thinks nothing of it. We routinely do 400 round trip to the inlaws in one day along with a long visit, so what I'd consider close by the map probably isn't considered close by an Englishperson. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Did 200 mile "trip" yesterday- 5 hours (last ten miles took 1 hour), 30 GBP of petrol, so 400 mile round trip with long visit would take all bloomin' day, cost 60 GBP, involve 3 minor accidents, 2 road rage incidents and 1.5 visits to a motorway service station toilet. Ning-ning (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's your roundabouts. They are evil. We routinely average 65 miles per hour here in the states. No roundabouts! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone's going to mention Swindon now… and Hemel Hempstead's shortlived bidirectional roundabout. Ning-ning (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The one in Hemel, at any rate, is decidedly still there. We even have an article on it. – iridescent 19:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't resist. You folks will love my neck of the wild west. Where I live, the 75 mph speed limit is really just good advice for those suckers who don't have a radar detector. Anything under 85 is a wrist slap if the cops are bored enough to pull you over. Nonetheless, the locals have become inordinately fond of tiny roundabouts at uncontrolled intersections of paved rural roads as a "traffic calming" measure. The only problem is that they are too narrow to navigate through with a cattle truck, so most have wheel marks over the curbs. Plus no one wanted to install a water line, but they still put in non-desert landscaping, so now we have roundabouts with three dead trees in the center. This one is a classic in-town variety: http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/index.aspx?nid=587 Note the people to get the sense of (inadequate) scale. Oh wait, they call it "Context sensitive design." Where I live, they are doing these in the country. Anyway, have fun furthering the conversation... Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So that's where stimulus money went? Towards building roundabouts 0.o.Smallman12q (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Ealdgyth says that he's glad we didn't run across that roundabout while we were in England. His exact words were "EEEWWW!". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Try him on this. – iridescent 23:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, someone wanna look over and smooth over Leges Henrici Primi enough for GA? I'm about ready to chuck it out the window as I really dislike manuscript studies... that long list of manuscripts defeats me every time... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre story

As you have an interest in bizarre stories, would you mind looking over Datalink Computer Services incident?Smallman12q (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't look like my kind of thing at all, sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That is probably the craziest scam I've ever heard of. 0.0 --Twilight Helryx 00:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought the story was a scam when I first read it 0.o.Smallman12q (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Again me

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 27, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 27, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

100px|The Manchester Mark 1

The Manchester Mark 1 was one of the earliest stored-program computers, developed at the Victoria University of Manchester from the Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Work began in August 1948, and the first version was operational by April 1949; a program written to search for Mersenne primes ran error-free for nine hours on the night of 16/17 June 1949. The machine's successful operation was widely reported in the British press, which used the phrase "electronic brain" in describing it to their readers. The Mark 1 was initially developed to provide a computing resource within the university, to allow researchers to gain experience in the practical use of computers, but it very quickly also became a prototype on which the design of Ferranti's commercial version could be based. Development ceased at the end of 1949, and the machine was scrapped towards the end of 1950, replaced in February 1951 by a Ferranti Mark 1, the world's first commercially available general-purpose computer. The computer is especially historically significant because of its pioneering inclusion of index registers, an innovation which made it easier for a program to read sequentially through an array of words in memory. Many of the ideas behind its design were incorporated in subsequent commercial products such as the IBM 701 and 702. The chief designers, Frederic C. Williams and Tom Kilburn, concluded from their experiences with the Mark 1 that computers would be used more in scientific roles than in pure mathematics. (more...)

:) Parrot of Doom 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have to give up writing FAs, too stressful. I didn't create this article, it's been around almost as long as wikipedia, so heaven knows what horrors may lurk in its history. It's changed quite a bit since that first version though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually even older than that—that one goes right back to Before The Dawn Of Time. (The 2001 database dump is always strangely fascinating; the page view statistics in particular.) – iridescent 11:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rivington

Thank for reviewing. I will attempt to address the points but it might take a couple of days as I have a temperature, 'flu I think, and an intermittent broadband connection and we've had two short power cuts today.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no rush, take your time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do now but I'll be glad to get this one finished. Thank you for your help so far. Even the broadband works today!--J3Mrs (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's all done now, so I'm going to list it as a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again thank you, done without cake!--J3Mrs (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we'd best get it done quickly, in case you felt the need to rush out and buy cake. Now you can relax with a nice glass of wine. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Vicks vapour rub would have been more appropriate I think, just made do with cocoa.:(--J3Mrs (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A favor?

Would you mind checking over Haflinger (horse) for me, if you fancy another dip back into the horse world? It's the next one I want to take to FAC, and I would love you have your copyediting skills applied before then. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Malleus! Are you still working, or was my prose actually not that bad this time? (Usually you fill up a whole page on the edit history!) Dana boomer (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've only just started Dana. ;-) I'll try and get back to it later. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm finished now. FAC (like GAN) depends on who turns up, but I wouldn't be opposing on the basis of your prose. One thing though, this looks a bit ugly: "The others are either gelded or sold to other countries. Other countries base their registration ...". Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I've tweaked that sentence a bit, so we'll see how it goes. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Barnstar
		For your wonderful contributions in the Featured Article realm. You are not only a prolific writer of FAs, you also copyedit other editors' efforts, review at FAC and clean up at FAR. Keep up the good work. Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I can never remember if you accept barnstars or not. If so, then enjoy; if not, feel free to toss - I promise my feelings won't be hurt! Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for the thought Dana, but my eyes were opened to barnstars when one (now) administrator took his back after I upset him. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Haflingers

Hi Malleus,

Sorry about the edit conflicts, we were tweaking the intro at the same time. Hope my stuff will dovetail OK with your stuff. I'll get out of the way now and leave you to the rest of your work. Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice, but you carry on; I'm done for the evening. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Malleus Fatuorum, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You stupid bot. Malleus Fatuorum 05:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the Manchester Mark 1, why is the file called Manchester Mark2? – iridescent 10:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea, I didn't upload it. It's definitely the Mark I though.[2] There never was a Manchester Mark 2 so far as I'm aware. Malleus Fatuorum 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bot, it was most kind of you to also visit my house after an arb put a non-free image on my talk page. Keep up the good work; nice seeing your around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I always thought DASHBot was a Miss. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I think my advice to you at ANI bears emphasising: "You should not make unevidenced accusations of bad faith. It is not a laughing matter: if you have something serious to discuss, then let's do so, with evidence. If you just have suspicions, kindly keep them to yourself (and avoid the Boy Crying Wolf effect). And if you're just pissing about at ANI for no good reason, please stop it." Unspecified and unevidenced accusations achieve nothing except making you look bad, and making it less likely people will take you seriously when you have something substantial. (You already know, of course, that it's unhelpful and somewhat disruptive, even if people have the good sense to merely ignore such remarks.) Rd232 ^talk 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your opinion, which once again demonstrates that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In what way? Rodhullandemu 03:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In every way. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, what are you doing here, other than continuing to poke at Malleus? Rd232 has no history with Malleus, and if he wants to make a comment, at least he's not here to poke. You've been warned many times to cease your baiting and poking at MF; now heed the warning, or plenty of people will be happy to start on RFC on your conduct. Malleus, I suggest that people are finally heeding the message, and you could advance "the cause" against admin abuse and double standards by letting others take the lead for a while. Heed the message: there is a way to deal with admin abuse, and it seems to be working in the "other" case. I don't think some of Rod's diffs would hold up very well at RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I am not here to provoke conflict; that is not what collegiate editing is about. If, as you suggest, that Malleus takes your second point that patience is wearing thin, fine. But I want to see a commitment to that. In the absence of, RFC must follow, for which ever editor is considered by the cummunity to be out of line. Rodhullandemu 03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this response is constructive because ...? (hint: we are not all on the same peak of adequacy as you, so some education to lesser mortals might be regarded as educational, as opposed to patronising) I detect you're on thin ice, given the responses you've already received, and perhaps the time has come when you should no longer be complacent of relying on your fan club here. Make no mistake, Malleus, wasps are not welcome at this picnic unless they subscribe to Wikipedia values, with chapter and verse, and continued abuse of other editors, bald or otherwise, will not be tolerated. I know I've previously blocked you incorrectly, but your next block is entirely up to you and your behaviour as regards this community. Bottom line is that neither you nor I should receive special treatment for any reason whatsoever. Nobody's fireproof here; but patience can be exhausted, and it is my considered opinion that general patience of you is running out. Rodhullandemu 03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)