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. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

Millwall F.C.

Interesting - football fans often write with an exuberance that would be nice to preserve despite trying to mould text to neater more neutral prose. Tricky thing about this one (which I am reviewing for GA) is exactly how much space should be allowed for discussion of supporters (given discussion that exists about the club...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but I can say that Millwall's supporters are notorious in England. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

i wouldn't be caught dead at the New Den. Accordingly, I left five minutes early.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Children's Playground

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Moni3. Once again the children are taken aback by someone's articulation of the truth and try to redeem themselves by resorting to the "civility" card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.93.29 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So nothing's changed then. Moni3 is perfectly capable of looking after herself in that playground though. For myself I regard it as prima facie evidence of adolescence to initiate these "Please Miss, X was rude to me" threads at WQA. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment

Your comment here? [1] I completely agree with you. Dayewalker (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Me too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bodiam Castle

Sorry to hijack your talk page, but could you or your talk page watchers keep an eye on the Bodiam article tomorrow? It will be the TFA but I'll probably be unavailable until the weekend. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be working in the afternoon but I'll keep an eye out in the morning. Nev, how on earth do you always manage to include such lovely photographs in your articles? Parrot of Doom 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think part of it is seeing a really good photo and trying to build an article round it. The importance of the lead picture can't be underestimated as it's the first thing that catches the eye. Bodiam is just about the most picturesque castle in England, but I really must get round to finishing off Warkworth and Rochester. Nev1 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In the past I wondered why castle articles were so much better than the articles on the villages they're in (e.g. Bodiam and Warkworth, Northumberland). Looks like your involvement with the former is the key difference... Alzarian16 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also the problem that writing articles on settlements is seriously hard work on several levels, not least the broad scope of the topic and the constant battle against trivia. Who cares that some footballer you've never heard of once lived there, or some novelist once spent a weekend in a hotel there? Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tell me about it. When I wrote Cambusbarron I ended up mentioning a football I've never heard of, although he was born in the village, ran a local newsagent after retirement and managed the village's football team, so his connections were stronger than most. Flatly refused to allow this to stand though. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing about castles is a hell of a lot easier than settlements. English Heritage produce some good-quality guidebooks which have everything you want to know, whereas for settlements you have to draw on a range of different sources. And taking the example of Bodiam, I found the castle more interesting than the settlement and apparently readers did too (500 visitors to Bodiam in August, compared to nearly 8,000 to the castle the same month). Nev1 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've completely run out of steam on Flixton, Greater Manchester. Parrot of Doom 17:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers alert...

Anyone see anything DYK-worthy in Honorius of Kent? He's not likely to grow much past this size, so there isn't a pressing need for DYK, but if anyone sees anything, they are welcome to nominate it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you know Honorius of Kent? If you did, please tell us something interesting about him. Ning-ning (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The only one I can think of is DYK that Honorius was one of King John's proctors, until sacked for opposing him (…sounds of snoring from audience). Did you know that the study of proctors is called proctology? Ning-ning (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

On a serious basis, a variant on the above, "DYK that Honorius tried to help King John appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury, but was later sacked by the king?" Less seriously, "DYK that Honorious wrote seven manuscripts of the summa decretalium quaestionum; the final copy may, or may not, have been eaten by his dog." :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"DYK that if Honorius of Kent had been born west of the Medway, he would have been known as Kentish Hon?" Ning-ning (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi Malleus, selection criteria have mostly been word of mouth as we interview editors. I personally love foul-mouthed uncivil louts, so I'd be down to interview you, if that's what you were implying and if you're inclined. Moni was recommended by another editor who enjoyed working with her. As for what we're looking for in the process, it seems to be editors who inspire readers to click the donate button. The most successful appeals have been the ones from people who feel that Wikipedia is changing the world for the better. And they are able to express that sentiment in a convincing, interesting way. More on the fundraising tests this year here and here. Would you want to participate? Please let me know. Cheers, Matthew (WMF) 21:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

popcorn.gif --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I for one would pay to read a personal appeal from Malleus Jebus989^✰ 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Err no, I don't think that would be a great idea. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying to imagine a personal appeal from Malleus to give money to the Foundation. :D SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

It's a mind-boggling thought. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, you should write a parody of Jimbo's appeal! :D  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "Johnny Rotten" Lydon would oblige?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How much exactly would you pay, Jebus989? I have a number that might make it worth our while :) Matthew (WMF) 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably in the region of several million pounds! Jebus989^✰ 09:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in Malleus. Best, Matthew (WMF) 23:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I also turned Matthew down, but mainly because I felt me on a banner ad would not endear me to fellow Wikipedians. He didn't even call me names.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I was only using the name Malleus used for himself on Moni's talk page. I wouldn't volunteer that if I didn't think it was in the spirit of his humour. Matthew (WMF) 16:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I turned Matthew down, assuming that the most upbeat and positive of editors would be ideal for this project. Ones who are aesthetically pleasing and superhumanly excited about giving money to Wikipedia. I can't muster that kind of impossible enthusiasm. Perhaps Matthew should explain how he might edit an ad using interviewees who treat Wikipedia like a the last magic grizzly bear on earth; a fascinating creature that can recite poetry but hasn't eaten for two years. --Moni3 (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I used to play College Bowl for my university, including one year it was televised on the Disney Channel. I heard later that the reason Disney only ran the one year was that the players were not aesthetically pleasing, having been selected as good players rather than good lookers. I suspect the same is true of Wikipedia editors. Matthew may have some difficulty there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't make claims about him aesthetically, but Brandon's banner has been the most successful to date. As for editing an ad for an interviewee with that disposition, I personally think it would be fun. I can't say it would work for fundraising, but I'd gladly try. Matthew (WMF) 17:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, Malleus is just the guy to be our Bob Geldorf. Otherwise it will end up looking like "I'd like to teach the world to give money to Wikipedia". Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I should be interested in seeing how Malleus' editing methods translate to fundraising.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

how's this for an idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• LOL*. That rivals "First we sow the seeds, then nature grows the seeds ..." as my favorite Young Ones scene. :D

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

This remark is uncivil, and likely only to further inflame things. Please avoid saying things like that.[2] Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In the very unlikely event that I ever need your opinion I'll ask for it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

[3] Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell. What's the standard for hauling someone to ANI these days? That's two frivolous complaints on the same issue in one day! Perhaps we should rename it "Administrators' Noticeboard/Everything that doesn't need or has no hope of getting admin action but provides a venue for people to winge"? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that Tom makes it very clear what the purpose of ANI is, it's to punish those who don't roll over when an admin comes calling. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom resigned as admin in 2010, I believe. I'm inclined to agree with HJM that he and Malleus are being dragged to AN/I in a somewhat frivolous fashion. I liked what User:Georgewilliamherbert said, that it's suboptimal but was provoked by the other party. In context, it wasn't particularly offensive; less so in my book than being accused of being a "POV-pusher" or a "CTer" (how 2006!) when making suggestions on an article talk page in the context of a content review, though your mileage may vary. MONGO is an unfortunate phenomenon, a bully who has become accustomed to getting his own way. He doesn't seem to know how to handle it when things seem to be going against him on the content front. I hope I didn't overstep the line when I explained it to him here, but he needs to see that threatening everyone he disagrees with isn't a winning strategy. Any suggestions are welcome. --John (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It was perhaps an improperly-worded case of WP:SPADE, but I have to admit that it was not much different than what I had been thinking. Yes, it was uncivil. Yes, Malleus should not have said it. Nobody's going to be blocked for it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I discussed this matter with Tom Harrison and thanked him for going to bat for me, but I am permitting Malleus to come to my talkpage and say anything he wants anytime he wants...that way if he needs a place to vent he can now go there and be exempted from further administrator actions.MONGO 19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by further administrative actions? Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This way you have a safe haven to vent so if you are angry you can go to my talkpage and go bonkers and use whatever language you want...MONGO 19:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You are a joker. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, while this may seem frivolous and from the leftfield, the interaction above reminded me of this video. You can be Ferguson, the rest of us Bullard... Make of that what you will but please note I mean no offence! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but how do Brits pronounce "whinge"? Seeing it on wikipedia, I always assumed it was an alternative spelling to our "whine", but I think I heard the guy on An Idiot Abroad actually pronounce it as it is spelled. Do whinge and whine mean the same thing? Tex (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The same way as "sponge". Parrot of Doom 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its "winje", but we are lucky enough to have lots of both whiners and whingers over here, maybe more than in Texas. There's not much difference between them. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, 'whinge' means pretty much the same as 'whine'. Australians are very fond of calling Brits 'whinging Poms' as many of those who emigrate to Oz supposedly harp on about how much better everything was back home. Richerman (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Whinging Poms who never bathe, as in "my throat's as dry as as Pommie's towel". On the other hand we've got at least as many jokes about them, as in "What's an Australian bloke's idea of foreplay? Brace yourself Sheila." Or the old chestnut about a Brit being asked at Aussie immigration if he had a criminal record: "I didn't think that was still obligatory." It's a very good-natured piss-taking relationship though, except when it comes to cricket, or rugby, or ... Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, can we keep this civil and stick to objective, dispassionate and collegial analysis such as, "Q: how can you tell when a plane-load of poms lands at Sydney Airport? A: The whining keeps going when the engines are turned off." Mention of the state of Australian cricket or rugby in this context is simply in very poor taste indeed. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

Hello, Malleus. I believe that all issues raised by you to the article have been fixed. If not, please tell us which ones we missed. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's fine. Why won't you support it? --Lecen (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm still unconvinced by the prose. I made a few changes to the lead, as I said on your talk page. What's your view on those changes? Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe they are fine. Couldnt see anything wrong.--Lecen (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You oppose is temporary, right? Although Astynax argued against some of your suggestions, I corrected (or simply removed the thoublesome pieces) all of them after that. Saying "weaving to try and persuade me that what is obviously ungrammatical is actually grammatical" is quite unfair, since all issues raised by you were eventually corrected that way you proposed. --Lecen (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

My oppose is a holding position. I don't feel that my concerns were properly dealt with, but if they are than I'll quite happily change my mind. "Weaving [and dodging] to try and persuade me that what is obviously ungrammatical is actually grammatical" is actually what happened, not at all unfair. Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Which ones were not corrected? --Lecen (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have given you many examples of problems, several of which Astynax has unsuccessfully tried to persuade me are not problems at all. I have already said that I will read through the article again over the weekend, and either fix or flag up anything else I see. Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And let me just remind you that it's not my job to get your article into shape, that's your job. I'm prepared to help, but only to a degree. Malleus Fatuorum 05:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I believe te entire idea behind Wikipedia is so that a group of people can help each other. I'm really glad you've taken some time to review the article. When I ask "what is wrong?" or "what did I forget to correct" I really mean it. I'm not trying to fool you around. You must remember that there are two editors behind the article, not just one. Even though Astynax argued that he believed that some of your remarks perhaps had no need to be addressed, I corrected them later. You may simply check the article's history log to see my editions. I hope you may review the article again and point out which passages you believe should be improved (and how, because I must confess that English is not my native language). Your help is appreciated. P.S.: If you prefer, you might as well simply make the corrections yourself if you're not willing to write them down one by one in the FAC nomination page. --Lecen (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, remember, FAC is not peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that. Thank you. --Lecen (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Malleus. You and Dank have both made significant changes to the article from top to bottom yesterday. Is there something else missing? --Lecen (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

	The Genji Award
	Thanks for your help in bringing Murasaki Shikibu through FAC. I couldn't have done it without your copyedits and encouragement. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you deserved it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see something so completely non-western reach FA. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I imagine it must have been quite a challenge to put together. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hey Malleus, could you please provide feedback at this peer review? I'm planning on bringing the article under peer review, Silver Reef, Utah, to FAC soon, and I want to make sure all of the major problems are taken care of beforehand. Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm strangely fascinated by ghost towns since I saw one or two on my trip through California about ten years or so ago ... might have been fifteen years ago ... can't remember. Anyway, I'll be happy to take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 03:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few comments at the peer review, but in general I think you need to recruit a good copyeditor before you think of taking this to FAC; there are loads more problems than those I've identified. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask around. Thanks for your help. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Bath Abbey

If you had the time or motivation would you kindly take a look at my prose on Bath Abbey as I'm hoping to nominate this at GAN before long.— Rod ^talk 07:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI remarks.

Those sexual remarks made to a minor [by Delicious Carbuncle] are wholly inappropriate, possibly criminal, and can only serve to bring the project into disrepute. Do not replace them. Consider this a warning.--Scott Mac 15:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Warn away, but I do not agree with you and I will revert any further attempts by you to remove what are perfectly proper comments concerning a minor who wishes to join the pornography project. Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we must have been at cross purposes. The "fisting" aside was the target of my removals, and my objection was that you replaced this remark which went beyond any reasonable debate. I think the problem was that you were more concerned with the etiquette of not removing debating points, rather than with the offensive aside and I was more concerned with removing the offence rather than with the etiquette of inhouse protocol. However, we now have the offence removed, without the debate being stifled. So all's well.--Scott Mac 16:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just so there's no misunderstanding by potential passers by, the remarks Scott objected to me were not made by me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think just the fisting question should have been removed, or possibly taken to talk. The rest of it seemed OK. I would not want the discussion to stand with a 13 year old, if he is, urged to look at an article on a particular sexual practice. If we were all sitting around IRL, it would have been ill advised for DC to make the comment then, I don't think it improves with print.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably agree with that, with the proviso that we can have no idea whether the editor in question is really 13 years old or not. And as we don't know, it's all too easy to censor on the basis that he(?) might be, which is what I fundamentally object to. I don't know if everyone does this, but I generally have in my head a picture of the editors I deal with regularly, at least in terms of gender, age, nationality, level of education and so on, although I may well often be wrong. But what's certainly true is that there are things I would likely choose not to say to someone I had good reason to believe was still at school as opposed to a grizzled old veteran like myself. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your standard "You are a joker" is probably the safest bet. Not too insulting, impervious to age: very neutral. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 07:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I made no comment at all. Malleus Fatuorum 07:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Image grid table fixed

I thought you might be interested to know that user MissMJ has come up with working table code to replace the image grids I've been using. You can see an example at Super Science Stories -- I'm going to go through and replace all the image grids (gradually -- there are quite a few). It looks to me as though the line-height setting, combined with setting a font size, is what did the trick. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks very nice. I'm disappointed with myself that I didn't think of increasing the font size to match the minimum cell height. Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice sought...

Morning! I was after a favour... If you had a chance, would you take a look at Stephen, King of England? I'm trying to judge if I've got the prose into a suitable state for a run at FAR with it, and would value your opinion. (NB: as with earlier articles like Windsor Castle, etc., its usually the fine detail of the prose that lets me down! - I'm pretty sure the research is up to scratch). Yours, Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be excellent to get this one through FAC (not FAR, heaven forbid). I see my copyediting notes are completely unhelpful ... "ce, ce, ce" ... but I remember being happy with the first half. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

FAC, FAR... you can tell my own copy-editing skills! :) I'll give it a shot. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ship canal

You know what working on this article makes me think, is that the way the Irwell is treated as it passes through Manchester is nothing short of a disgrace. Here's a city with a whacking great river running straight through the middle, and it's still completely hidden from view. I can understand why people once wanted to hide it from view (see the filled in parapets), but nowadays? There's no reason why it couldn't be made a thing of beauty, instead of a forgotten drain. And don't get me started on the River Irk, which I think the council would much rather did not exist.

Anyway I think the canal would now stand a good chance at FAC. Parrot of Doom 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do a copy edit

Somewhere above you promised/threatened to review one of my GA submissions but then backed down from that awesome challenge. Anyway, I just nominated an article by a different user for GA, Heinrich Rau. The thing here is that this is someone I disagreed with before but I've also watched him work really hard on this article over the years. The other thing is that his first language is not English so some of the prose is/was quite awkward . I've tried to clean it up but it could use another set of eyes. More importantly, and I still get lost in this, the GA conventions can be a bit esoteric for users who are unfamiliar with the process. But Henrig has spent almost two years tweaking this thing, and in terms of being accurate and informative I think he's got it right. So, I am going to trade that promise in, even though I let you slip by before, and ask you to help out here. A going-through and a decent grammar/style edit would be sufficient. (And yeah, this is a topic which I don't care about at all either). Volunteer Marek  02:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, too

I've looked at everything I have here, and I just don't have anything on South American royal names. I do remember being told that Brazilians (and South Americans generally) are fussier about royal names than we are, that they abbreviate them less ... but whether that means that "Pedro II" is justified throughout Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, I have no idea. FWIW, Lecen says that none of his bios ever call the guy "Pedro". (And btw, thanks so much for your help with this one, the article is looking so much better.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to appear here without invitation, but I'd like to remark that that's not something that "South Americans" are "fussier" about. I mostly use English-written books authored by either American or British historians and they follow this pattern [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Even books which are not devoted to Brazil have the same standard [9], [10]. --Lecen (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the correction. (Btw, although "fussy" sometimes has a negative connotation, I apply it to myself all the time in a non-negative way ... there are some situations where a stricter standard tends to be applied. No offense toward South Americans intended.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I know you were just kidding. P.S.: There is nothing wrong about being a South American (would someone feel bad about being European, North American?). --Lecen (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed nothing wrong with being a South American, and I haven't seen anyone say that there is. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, although I appreciate your effort to review the article (after all, you did it without having been asked to and even less been obliged to), I'd like to express my feeling that you could have been more polite and reasonable back there. We (nominators) did exactly everything you asked but in a few moments you were rude and even threatening. This is not how people should deal with each other not in here or anywhere else. I'm not criticizing you, but merely expressing my point of view. I hope that in the future, if for some reason we find ourselves again in the same article, our relationship is better and more supporting. I mean it. --Lecen (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What about a bit of honesty Lecen? Without my help this article would not now be an FA. Why is it that so many attack the reviewers? You can rest assured that I won't be looking at any more of your FA nominations. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)