User talk:Eric Corbett

I am outraged that the AdminWatch initiative to level the playing field between the standards of behaviour expected of administrators and non-administrators was taken to MFD. It may work, it may not, but the defensive attitudes displayed by some administrators left a bad taste in the mouth. No wonder that so many editors simply walk away from the project in the face of unchecked administrator abuse. The chaotic, inconsistent, abusive, and arbitrary way this project is being policed and run has become unacceptable to me. IP editors are allowed to run amok, yet long-standing contributors are held to standards of behaviour met by very few administrators. If there are ever processes put in place to deal with the children who have taken over the project, then I may consider returning one day. Until then, adieu.

Wotcha

Horribly addictive this place...... Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I popped in to finish off the GA review I'd started before I was so rudely interrupted. Whether the motivation to do anything else here will return remains to be seen. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I note you at least seem to have found some motivation to edit a popular website that provides critical commentary regarding the Wikipedia project..... :) Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I have. Quite eye-opening. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Motivation. :) That is 50% of the early life page sans discussion of his juvenalia. You can see part way down a section that the Peterloo Massacre should probably be elaborated on. There are some other Manchester things that need to be discussed. I will be working on this more during this week. But yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be coming along nicely. I see that you've got your hands pretty full with Lucy at the moment though. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind complaints about a need for copyediting, especially when I didn't touch the language since the content was first added. However, I get upset when someone implies that it is the worse thing ever, especially after there were many copyedits by multiple users and there was jargon thrown out that has no connection to their actual use. It is so frustrating. >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good article reassessments

Hi, when you delist good articles in the future, could you please also remove the good article ratings from the Wikiprojects? I corrected a dozen old ones. Thanks. Hekerui (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The project assessments are nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with any GA review. So to answer your question directly, no I won't. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In the "Pass" section of WP:GAN it says "Also, update the class parameters to "GA" for project templates on the talk page." So the way a Wikiproject tag gets a GA rating is exactly with the GA review process, therefore it makes sense to change the rating with delisting. It would be a lot unnecessary work to go through all of your delistings, as you contribute quite a few and they are reasonable, and this is why I suggested changing the ratings along with the article history. Please reconsider, thank you. Hekerui (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that it may be better for you to bring this up at WT:GA, as I have absolutely no intention of altering any project taggings. How would I decide (or how do you decide) that a delisted GA should be a B-class, or a C, or whatever? That's a matter for the projects themselves to decide. I'll contribute to the more general discussion when/if you decide to bring this matter up at the GA project. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Hekerui (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Would you mind if I moved you to the list of GM inactive participants? The way I see it, it's not just a list of members who haven't edited for a while, but a roll call of the people who've been a part of the project. While I understand you want to sever your ties with wikipedia, I think it would be right for WP:GM to remember those who've help make it the one of the leading UK projects. Best wishes, Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done. Is there any chance of you reversing your request for withdrawal of Baby? I've asked WPGM to look after it, and as long as nothing major pops up, I think we can guide it through. But if you think reviewers wouldn't like to spend their time on an article without it's main writer around, best to withdraw it. Nev1 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think that the project can guide it through, then please do so with my blessing. I'll strike my request and you can add something underneath explaining. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson filmography

Hi Malleus, an editor has nominated the above article at FLC, there are concerns about the prose. The prose isn't actually that long, once you take out all the lists and references. I was wondering if you had the time, could you help copy edit it. I did come to wish you well the other day, but your talk page was fully protected (so us mere mortals couldn't edit it :(). Thanks. — R² 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I won't be able to help. I'm just tidying up a few loose ends before taking my leave. Whether or not I come back depends on whether or not any real changes are made to the way this place is run. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see, and understand. Please return. Best wishes. — R² 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to consider prodding Lara out of retirement for this one. Dweller is quite good with this kind of list, too. 63.164.47.227 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Favor ?

Hey! Are you still talking to us?  :) You're the only outstanding oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Byzantine navy, so I'm wondering if you mind saying how strongly you feel about the prose now. If not, I understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to strike my oppose Sandy. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; sending you good thoughts and well wishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Song Parody

Title: Something Happening Here
Artist: Malleus and the Wikpedia Review Chorus
Composer: Stephen Stills and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: For What It's Worth
YouTube: For What It's Worth (Buffalo Springfield}

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a clan with a banhammer there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Admins making up rules
Becoming storm-tossed on their Ship of Fools

I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Another page to delete
A dozen vandals to baleet
Singing songs with lyrics most snide
Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your talk page it creeps
It starts when you're always too bold
You step out of line, the ban comes along
And gives you a scold

We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

CopyClef 2009 Stephen Stills and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Insurrected Wreckware. All songs abused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.164.155 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN

I gather that you have retired from Wikipedia, or are on a break, and will not be doing any Good Article reviews. In light of that I deleted the review page you created for Millennium '73. Thanks for all of the contributions you've made to the project. I hope to see you around again.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Yet!

You have become somewhat legendary among my AP class. They enjoy your ruthless wit and writing style! Your assistance to the project does not go unnoticed; it is a point of honor when you take the time to review their efforts. Having you as an ally seems to boost the confidence - they dare not imagine the alternative! Irregardless, know that in our little part of the world your perspective and support is highly respected and appreciated. --JimmyButler (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jimmy. I wish Yohmom the best of luck with her Banker horse article; she deserves to do well with it; it's a really nice piece of work, clearly a labour of love. She's got some good people from the equine project supporting her though, so I'm sure she'll manage just fine without me. But if the FAC ever looks in doubt, then just give me a call and I'll be there to kick some ass for her and manhandle it through. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

quick hi

Just dropping in to say hi. I've been well out of the loop for some time now. I see you've been having what Macmillan would call a little local difficulty? Anyhow, whether you stay or go, and for all your gruffness, here's hoping that nil carborundum illegitamae. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for not using that "civility" word, the one that just sets my hackles on end and starts me tugging at my chain to savage as many people as I can reach. "Gruffness" I'll settle for, that's a fair comment. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Retirement

I hope you reconsider your decision to retire. You're an asset here, and we're certainly the lesser without you. Raul654 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I will travel to Manchester and force him to work on the Ainsworth project (40 novels, 7 biographical pages, and dozens of short stories and essays) if he thinks about -ever- backing down. This will hopefully keep him around for a long time. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Raul, much appreciated. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are still about

I've sent Noel Park to FAC; although I wasn't originally planning to, on reflection I think it meets all the criteria (even the dreaded 1(a), inasmuch as it's possible to be "engaging" about such a dull topic). Since you did a lot on it (officially you're the main contributor to it!) if you are still about then obviously any comments you make as to why it is/isn't ready ought to be heard.

Incidentally, you're on course to overtake Sandy this month. – iridescent 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you've got mail, check your inbox please.--Patton^t/c 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with Noel Park. I've long been in awe of your ability to hone what many might think of as a rather unpromising subject into a really quite informative and sometimes even interesting article, while all the time skating dangerously close to the edges of the MoS. I realise in retrospect that I started going down that path myself, with obscure historic computers and even more obscure Victorian novelists that hardly anybody but me (and Ottava in the latter case) gives a monkey's about. I ought to have stayed there, and not got myself involved in attempts to try and change the ludicrous and grossly inequitable way things are run here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Boring Is Good. "Interesting topic" is a synonym for edit war; when you're writing about the abandoned underground railway system of Ramsgate, people leave you alone. As far as I'm concerned the model Wikipedia article is Tomb of Liliana Crociati de Szaszak. (Incidentally, as far as I can see that technically meets every single FA criteria, since it's such a dull topic there's only six lines worth to say on the matter. Maybe I should submit it just to metaphorically see the look on Sandy's face.) – iridescent 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at that article before, can't remember why, but once seen that scary statue is never forgotten. Isn't there a copyright problem with the poem? And the translation in unattributed. SandyG would spot that a mile off. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The translation was my guessing from rusty Spanish and Latin, and double checked by Giano to make sure I'd got the Italian right. You remember it from a rather dull discussion on my talkpage in November about fair use vs free use as applied to photographs of works of art in Argentina, during which all hell suddenly broke loose. – iridescent 01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable tombcruft. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just try it… Five references in a four-sentence article must be some kind of record. Besides, I wanted an excuse to use that creepy photo. – iridescent 02:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Bah. Whatever. Next thing I know you will be claiming that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or Jesus's Tomb should have Wikipages. We need to stop this tombcruft before it gets out of hand. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The first picture on Tomb of Liliana Crociati de Szaszak is frightening indeed. Does it remind anyone else of, strangely enough, The Scream? Notice the two figures seated in the distance on the right. There's something really disturbing about it. Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Corpse Bride is what you're thinking of. This one – complete with stray cat sprawled across her feet – is, I think, the most disturbing. – iridescent 07:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the statute is pretty. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Google "Liliana Crociati" and somewhere in there you'll find a fan club complete with teenage goth girls wanting to look like her and slightly creepy teenage boys writing love poetry. – iridescent 14:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine navy FAC

Hello! Since your comments a week ago, the article has been extensively edited for content, MOS and style by several editors. Would you care to review it again, and, if you find it OK, strike your opposing vote? Best regards, Constantine ✍ 17:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to SandyG here. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that. Anyway, thanks a lot for the time and effort! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wilfrid

He had a PR, it was the usual "Polish your prose" (whines) I want my Malleus! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony gave me a spanking over prose earlier today at this FAC. My confidence is all shot to hell now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's always harder to do your own prose. I can usually do a fair job of copyediting someone else's prose, but my own? Dream on. In my defense (ha! Americanism!) one of my day jobs involves writing descriptive prose, which means that I really don't want to lose my touch with THAT, so I don't put much time into Tony's exercises for Wiki. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a difficult balance between that formal encyclopedic tone and being "engaging, even brilliant", or whatever the current 1a says. I doubt that few of us will ever make it, but at least if we can see the mistakes in each others' prose then perhaps one day we'll get there together. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnson

By the way, I put the Johnson early life page at FAC. Someone who decided to oppose over rather shifty concerns decided to them try the same with this one. I mostly listed it to see if they are really there to go after me and not actually look at the page (it is blatant from them that they refuse to look past the lead in either page, which is just disrespectful). This is also the guy who stated that he would pick apart the main Johnson page because of how faulty the English is.

I know you wont want to bother about it (and don't), but I just wanted to mention what was going on with our page even though I can handle it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that Fowler made some good points about the lead, which probably still needs a bit of tweaking. Where I disagree with him is in his extrapolation of the problems he saw in the lead to the rest of the article. I've only glanced at the rest of it briefly, but a lot of it seems very similar to what I remember was threshed out during the main Johnson article's FAC, so I'm certain any preceived problems with the new bits could be easily fixed. Just keep your cool and deal with any additional problems as they come up. If they're unreasonable or not based on objective evidence, then I'm quite sure others will see that and make their own minds up; Raul, SandyG and Karanacs aren't fools. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read on Raul's page, this started when he attacked Ceoil's The Lucy poems page at FAC by describing it as being poorly written, etc, and then claimed that -none- of the pages I worked on were well written. He also stated that he would pick apart the Johnson page (the one that is already an FA). So yeah. Thanks for looking through it again. I'm going to drop you an email in a second. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If he's just being vindictive then others will see that and you don't need to do anything. Where he's making reasonable observations, as I think he was with the lead, let's just deal with them. Nothing that any of us writes, even the best of us, will ever be perfect, or be to everyone's taste. Does that make it "poorly-written"? Not in my book, only imperfect, just like us. If FAs were required to be perfect then we'd have exactly zero of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. Have you considered the possibility that saying none of the pages you work on are well-written may be a deliberate attempt to provoke you, for whatever reason? Not saying that it is, I obviously don't know, but if it is then it seems to be working. Don't give anyone the satisfaction. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that it was an attempt to provoke me. Hence why I picked the strongest page and put it up for FAC to see if he would continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)