User talk:Eric Corbett

I no longer have either the time or the inclination to do more than to dip in to wikipedia from time to time. I will finish what I started, and then work on whatever interests me if and whenever I feel motivated to do so. The child administrators have won; my enthusiasm for the project has ebbed away. Just as I wish that they would.

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

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Significa liberdade	89	4	0	96	Open	22:18, 21 September 2024	5 days, 6 hours	no	report

June Newsletter, Issue VIII

Delivered on June 12, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester September Newsletter, Issue IX

Delivered on 2 September 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Last day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samuel Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Greater Manchester October Newsletter, Issue X

Delivered on 4 October 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Kennet and Avon Canal

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

Didsbury

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

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

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

Science vs Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't take away my credit! Remember, this Samuel Johnson thing is all my fault according to SandyGeorgia. [1] —Mattisse (Talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's that time again...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image opinion

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

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

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

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

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

I can tell its time for a cookie break!

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

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

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

Strawberry Panic!

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

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

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

For Sam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice

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

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

FACR

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

Ireland GAR

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

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

Dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The article takes quotes out of context.

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

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

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

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

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

— George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

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

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

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

— Larry Portis, Soul Trains

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

Notes

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

Admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chocolate Hills

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

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

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

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

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

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

Itanium

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

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

Good wishes

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

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

Good luck

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

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

What?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of artificial intelligence

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