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.

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)

I don't do GA reviews any more, but a quick look tells me that the prose will be a problem. I've made a few fixes and I'll try to get through the whole thing over the next few days. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll read over it a few more times over the weekend as well. Volunteer Marek  18:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The more I look at this article the more work I see needs to be done. You must surely realise that it's nowhere near meeting the GA criteria? I'm not inclined to spend any more of my time rewriting an article I have absolutely no interest in. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's fine, you've helped a lot already, thank you. As far as it being GA ready - it's comprehensive, well sourced and best as I can tell neutral so in other words, it's something I can work with (if the problem was with one of those three then there'd be nothing to be done). Like I said, I'll try to fix the prose this weekend and see how far I can get. Volunteer Marek  12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

TFA fun...

I've already reverted once so can you take a gander at diff and straighten this out? I know you do a bunch of stuff with my "that"s and I don't want the article to degenerate from your high standards...Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That edit looks OK to me Ealdgyth. My general rule of thumb is that "which" naturally follows a comma, whereas "that" doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Malleus, Turban Head eagle, of which you were the GA reviewer prior to its peer review, has been nommed at FAC. FYI.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't think you'll have too much trouble with that after such a rigorous GAN Wehwalt. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Workhouse

What else do you need for this article? I enjoyed digging up more info on the Ship Canal, so would be happy to help out here as well. Parrot of Doom 16:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Great! The things I know still need doing are to make some mention and explanation in the architecture section of the "paupers' palaces" view expressed by some in the 19th century, the work section needs to be expanded and tied in with the spike mentioned in the lead, the lead probably needs to be rewritten, or at least substantially expanded, the diet section still looks a bit frugal, I'm not at all happy about the last paragraph of the living conditions section, which is largely uncited anyway ... in short I'm fairly comfortable about the first few sections and the final later developments section, but I think there are still some gaps in the sections in between. You'll probably see loads of other gaps as well as you look through. I was thinking of just doing enough to stand a chance at GAN, but if you're on board we might as well go the whole hog, with perhaps a stop-off at peer review, which really was quite helpful with the ship canal. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And as with our wife selling magnum opus I'm very keen not to get pulled into having to deal with workhouses in Holland, workhouses in Germany, workhouses in France, workhouses in ScratchMyArse ... I don't even know if there were any in those countries, apart from Holland, but you get the point. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'm full up this weekend but will try to read the article during my lunch tomorrow. Will get thinking next week. Parrot of Doom 19:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll post here so the article's talk page doesn't get confusing. I read it at dinnertime (lunch, pah), my first thought is that it's very compartmentalised, to the point where there seems to be little to no connection between the workhouses' staff, inmates, and work. My second thought was that there isn't nearly enough detail on workhouses themselves. For instance, I want to know what peoples' rooms were like, if they shared beds (day/night shift sharing), if there were bathrooms, privies, was there any entertainment, the usual stuff. I want to get a sense that I've walked in and around a typical workhouse, and know its layout and function. I don't think the article does that right now. I'm sure there must be a few workhouse buildings left, working museums perhaps. Parrot of Doom 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There's at least one workhouse museum, The Workhouse, Southwell. But one problem is that there is no "typical workhouse". Southwell is an early one, but after the New Poor Law they were based on a panopticon design, then later a pavilion style based on Crimean War military hospitals. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I get that. IIRC there was a workhouse in Radcliffe, and a tiny thing it was too. I haven't had time to look at any online sources so I've no idea yet what's out there, but I think we should certainly add more on the buildings, rather than the institutions (which are adequately covered IMO) Parrot of Doom 20:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, that was my thinking in starting off that Architecture section. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I will get around to this, it's just that Sunday was absolutely bloody exhausting, one of the longest more tiring working days I've had in ages. Parrot of Doom 23:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it paid well. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok-ish, not brilliant, but the company do pay within a few days, which is rare. Parrot of Doom 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I see what you mean about this subject. Lots of strings in a tapestry, pull one and the whole thing comes apart. Sorry if my edits appear ham-fisted, I'm not removing text from citations. I've been looking at some of the books online, there are some good ideas for structure in there. I think the article really needs much, much more focus on the bricks, mortar and people. The legal background is, for me, secondary. Please feel free to revert me if you don't feel I'm improving things. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What you've done looks fine to me. I think the legal and social background is important, so I wouldn't want to see it reduced further. What ideas do you have for an alternative structure? Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's where I think the fundamental difficulty lies; there is absolutely nothing you can say about workhouses that would be true of all of them at all times during their 200 or 300-hundred year existence. Therefore the social and regulatory frameworks within which they operated over the years is the only structure we have. Of course that problem gets even worse if we have to consider workhouses in Scotland, for instance, to say nothing of other European countries. When I started this rewrite I had a very clear image in my mind of a typical Dickensian workhouse, as I suppose many of us do, but I quickly realised that story was just a snapshot of the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Heinrich Rau

Hi Malleus, you've done a good job with the English improvement. My English is rather scanty and it was also welcome, when Volunteer Marek improved some things similarly at a former stage of the article.

I see only two passages, where I disagree a bit:

In the first of these passages I had written: After his recovery in military hospitals in Weimar and Ludwigsburg, he managed to get vacation and joined on 8 November 1918 the revolution in Stuttgart, where he participated in the events of the following days in Stuttgart's streets.

You write: After being treated in military hospitals in Weimar and Ludwigsburg, and while on leave from the army, Rau took part in the revolution in Stuttgart that began on 8 November 1918

Really, Ludwigsburg, (where the second hospital was) is only few kilometres away from Stuttgart. Rau get vacation on short notice on November 8th and joined the revolution in Stuttgart. Large demonstrations in Stuttgart started already on October 30th. They extended and accelerated during the following days and developed to a revolution. You can scarcely exactly say, that it began on November 8th.

In the second passage, concerning Johannes Rau's statement, you replaced the passage he was introduced there as "Prime Minister 'Heinrich Rau'", whereupon Johannes Rau ironically commented that Heinrich Rau was communist and he was not. by , he was introduced as "Prime Minister 'Heinrich Rau'", to which he responded by observing that Heinrich Rau was communist and he was not. Johannes Rau's response to this lapse, described by 'Der Spiegel' was clearly ironical. This should be mentioned.

This is my little critique on a good job. Henrig (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, apologies for my misunderstanding. I'll go back later this evening and sort out my cock-ups. Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Malleus Fatuorum and 9/11. Thank you. —— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that Arthur. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the situation enough to determine whether a sanction is actually merited, and I doubt that I will be doing so; there are far more intelligent things that I could be doing with my time. Nonetheless, as required by the decision before any action is taken: formal notice that September 11 attacks and all related pages fall under discretionary sanctions. NW (Talk) 02:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Does that include talk page discussion? Bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, discretionary sanctions have generally encompassed talk page discussion as well, so as to allow administrators to remove an editor from a discussion who is being unhelpful. For example, someone who posted over and over again on Talk:AIDS, stating that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, probably shouldn't edit even the talk page. The same would go for someone who referred to Arabs as "sand niggers" on Talk:Six-Day War or something of the sort. There are a myriad of examples that make extending the sanctions regime to talk pages unfortunately necessary. NW (Talk) 02:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Then do as you will, I couldn't care less. Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish to apologize for the poor wording of my last post. While I meant to give only obvious cases of why talk pages would fall under discretionary sanctions, which you appeared to be questioning, I pretty stupidly lumped together you telling someone to examine their conscience, if they had one, with calling someone an ethnic slur. I don't think your editing on that page has been optimal for certain, but it definitely isn't at that level. So again, my apologies. Also, as I said earlier, I certainly don't intend to be acting as an administrator in that topic area any time soon. NW (Talk) 07:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

MalleusBot

Hey Malleus, I was thinking of creating a new bot... MalleusBot... it would notify you everytime that a new ANI notice was started against you, thereby saving the complainer the effort necessary to notify you... my biggest concern is that it might get so much activity that it might cause WP to crash ;-) ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 07:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not have one that detects his being blocked, then unblocks him twelve minutes later ... save a lot of grief all around.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see one that automatically blocks anyone starting ANI reports. Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We're at, what, three AN/I's and one ArbCom enforcement so far, in three weeks? It would be great if an uninvolved admin could block the next person to file a spurious report on this area. Four looks like overkill, and it is noticeable that they all come from the same "side" in the argument, the self-styled "Defenders of the Wiki". It shows the paucity of their arguments on content if this is their only way to "win" the debate. No wonder the article is such a cesspool. --John (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to find words to express my disgust at what's been happening over the last couple of weeks ... actually that's not true ... I'm finding it difficult to find words that wouldn't result in me being blocked. Again. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe User:Ceoil could jump out of the offender's computer-monitor and smack him upside the head?

:)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What would you like to see?

Personally, I think refusing insert a link to CT as a See Also seems a bit unjust, but seeing we have pages all about the CTs, I'm wondering why we need to explore them at length on the attacks page. Today I was reading a jstor article about why Booth killed Lincoln (an older scholarly work which explores virtually every reasonable answer to its reasonable conclusion), but personally don't believe it deserves discussion on the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln page. BusterD (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think events have moved beyond any rational discussion, as I'm now apparently about to banned for disagreeing with Arthur Rubin. It will be a merciful release. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does take two people to strangle each other. (you folks are such a bad influence on me) But what would be appropriate, in your opinion? A subsection, a section by section addition? What would be the thesis statement of such insertion? I'm actually curious. I don't disrespect your position, and even as an eyewitness who lost a friend, I have doubts about the completeness and full veracity of some of the official reports myself. What would such insertion strive to say? Why would country of origin affect viewpoints so significantly? I want to understand better. BusterD (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not MF, but its not just country of origin. I'm quite American (Midwestern, but had friends in the city, etc etc) but any "historical event" that relies so heavily on newspaper accounts and only presents one side, when there are conspiracy theories, (even though I do NOT believe them) without mentioning them at all, looks wrong to this historian. It also seriously lacks a legacy section. I get that some folks want it to be purely about the attacks on that day themselves, but even one-off historical events should have a legacy section. And now, 10 years past the events, we are getting serious scholarly works that not just recount the events of that day, but also analyze the events. I tend to think we should be using those for the framework of events, and not newspaper accounts or the commission's account - we should rely on secondary accounts and at this time frame away from the events of that day ... the commission is starting to verge into primary source territory. I haven't opined on the pages there, because frankly, I don't care to be labeled a "CTer" or similar. There are plenty of other spots on Wikipedia where I can work without elevating my blood pressure (at least usually...). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a simple story. We in the UK had suffered from American-funded terrorism for many years before 9/11, and to ignore that fact is dishonest. Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What you mention is certainly important, but to my Scots-Irish New Yorker's eyes, not related to 9/11. Am I missing some connection? Thanks, User:Ealdgyth. Nice to see your datestamp. I've recently praised several editors for protecting the 9/11 cluster of pages from vandalism and controversy, mostly because I've avoided facing them myself, and largely trust the Wikipedia process of conflict and resolution. I'm not convinced the pages are pro-USA or even incorrect, but as the days roll by, more information comes to light. (I remember when I first read about the August 6 presidential briefing and 43's response to the CIA briefer; I also remember before the attacks the July 26, 2001 CBS news article which states Ashcroft has switched to private planes because of an unspecified threat.) I'm not drawing any conclusion here, but merely agreeing that newspapers will become poorer sources as better more scholarly works appear. BusterD (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to argue the issue Malleus, but what did the U.S. do? I only ask because I simply do not know. And to BusterD...part of the reason the 9/11 attacks article uses so many news refs is because the book based history is not nearly as broad as it will be in another 10 or 25 years...so though now 10 years ago, it really is by no means ancient history.--MONGO 03:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You answer my question about Cirencester and I may then think about having anything more to do with you. Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Provisional IRA, MONGO. It's in the lead. Ucucha (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd still like to know what the articles being discussed are missing which would satisfy you. Do you really want to insert the IRA stuff into the 9/11 stuff? Is that what you're holding out for? You know this subject better than I, but that seems a bridge too far. BusterD (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No I don't, but it no longer matters what I want since the recent threats. Anything I say that goes against the party line will get me blocked, so I'm afraid you'll have to sort out that pile of horse shit without my help. Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I read it...it doesn't indicate that the U.S. Government was officially or even indirectly sponsoring this organization...only that some funding from various entities within the U.S. did provide money and weapons....--MONGO 04:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, you've won, let's drop it now. The article will remain the pile of ordure it is. But it will never be a GA until you wake up. Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay...but the reason I asked is because I didn't know...and there is surely more to the issue than the article indicates, so I am surely still ignorant of this...but all I saw was that perhaps some private clandestine entities funded the IRA.--MONGO 04:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm unable to comment further on 9/11, so I'm afraid I can't help. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, I am amazed you are editing articles on terrorism apparently with such little knowledge of the subject. PIRA regularly and openly fundraised in Eastern cities and together with Libyan help killed soldiers in Northern Ireland and civilians in the UK. Read up on the subject if you are going to participate in it. --John (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a terrorism expert...never said I was...again, I don't see that the U.S. Government knowingly sponsored this group...all I see is that monies from within the U.S. did...this could and probably is private donations?--MONGO 05:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Really ironic to be having this conversation with you on a talk page of an encyclopedia which contains this article. Unless you are just trolling. It really might be worth reading some of the basic background on the subject of terrorism if you are going to edit articles on the subject. --John (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So show me in THAT article any evidence that the U.S. Government was in any way involved in supporting the IRA or any of it's branches. Like I said, this is a private organization, yet you and Malleus seem to indicate that the U.S. Government is to blame...thats ludicrus.--MONGO 12:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that neither Malleus nor John said such a thing. Ucucha (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To my reading, it certainly seems both implied such a link. I still haven't heard a thesis statement. While important background, I'm not seeing an assertion of connection between the conflicts. What would satisfy editors like Malleus and John? I'm sincerely curious. (MONGO, please pipe down. I'm trying to listen.) BusterD (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As an outside observer (and one who was entirely too young during the time frame to pay much attention to the IRA recruiting efforts except to know that they took place) ... the fact that "officially" the US government deplored terrorism and was supposedly against it while allowing the IRA and others to openly fundraise (and it was pretty blatant, if I could notice it) makes it semi-official, at the worst. Yes, technically the US government didn't "fund" the IRA, but they sure as hell didn't do much to stop the (large) fundraising efforts. I didn't read the statements by John and Malleus as stating that there needed to be a specific mention of the whole NORAID issue in the 9/11 article, I think their point was more that there needs to be more than an American perspective on 9/11 in the main 9/11 article - and that to some in the UK (and I'm sure they have sources to back this up) the issue isn't nearly as cut and dried as the current article makes things out to be, especially in the aftermath section. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the fundraising - where the "government" issues included US visas, then required, but also refusal to extradite, various judicial & immigration decisions, & sometimes the behaviour & statements of US diplomats (never mind Congress). There's no doubt the British government found the US government, on several levels, very unhelpful on terrorism for a long time. This despite an American passer-by being killed in the Harrods bombing and so on. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And then the immediate, embracing (and perhaps self-righteous) pivot the day of 9/11. OK, now I'm getting a better sense of the roots of disagreement. I know this issue is like the tar baby, and that's one of the reasons I've avoided discussing it (or perhaps making any effort to contemplate it) for so long. BusterD (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus is brave indeed at going into the 9/11 article. I avoid such things like the plague, although that is mildly insulting to WIKIPROJECT:PLAGUE.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You note I'm only commenting on the issue here and on John's page.. you couldn't lure me onto those pages with a ten-foot pole, especially after watching the GAR ... toxic doesn't begin to describe it. I thought academic disputes got nasty... (And the worst part about the whole set of pages, is that the folks who regularly edit there can't see that the atmosphere is toxic and that this is why so many more "rational" editors won't touch the place) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have touched it myself, except that I fundamentally disagreed with its promotion to GA. The GAR makes very revealing reading, starting off as it does with abuse directed towards me from MONGO and several others, none of whom have either apologised or been sanctioned in any way. And after having been added to the ArbCom sanctions log, which I find rather insulting, I certainly won't be having anything else to do with the article, that's for sure. Malleus Fatuorum 13:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Being one of the parties in that arbitration (which, as you should know, does not imply "guilt", but only involvement in the initial conflict), I'm automatically considered warned. You should get used to it. (And, for what it's worth, I don't think it's a GA, either, but for completely different reasons than you don't think it's a GA.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't presume to know what I think. I have said right from the start that the article is a crock on several different levels, and there seems very little prospect of it improving any time soon. Malleus Fatuorum 14:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I certainly have no opposition to an expansion in article space about U.S. Governments' lack of assistance on this matter or their turning a blind eye to it, or even more egregiously, their ignoring it/thereby condoning it behavior. It is deplorable that the U.S. didn't force these fund raising efforts to be ended and to have assisted U.K. authorities in the apprehension of wanted fugitives. I don't know what the sourcing is for this, but I imagine there is plenty available. I wonder if there were any congressional hearings on this matter...one would have thought so.--MONGO 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Popular nutty theories in science articles

I asked this question of MONGO, on his talk page, out of my genuine curiosity:

Why do our historical articles mention nutty/conspiracy theories, when science articles ignore nutty theories (like the power of crystals, and Dog-Whisperer/Jeanne-Watson "energy fields" etc.)? Is it only that the consensus of scientific editors articles allows us to exclude fringe views? Or is there another principle that justifies that exclusion?

(Thinking about this question, I moved closer to MONGO's position after having held Malleus's; I have no intention of editing anything about 9/11.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it's a lot harder to define "nutty" in historical circles. Although, I gotta say, our articles do exclude a LOT of really nutty theories, its just that most folks won't have heard of them (I've seen some real wild ones in my years ... I have a small shelf of "nutcase" historical books, that I find amusing to read) And we have articles on the power of crystals, I don't doubt it. On the CTs, I think we do a disservice on the 9/11 to NOT mention them so that they can be derided and debunked. Right or wrong, they have gained a lot of followers or people who are mostly sure that they aren't true, but when you don't mention them at all ... it tends to lend credence to the folks saying that the "truth" is being surpressed. As an example, I'm a pretty firm believer that William II of England probably wasn't homosexual, but the possibility that he was is there in historical circles. TO my mind, that idea is a fringe theory, but we have to cover the theory because it's held by others. Another example - Gundred, Countess of Surrey for many years was held to be a daughter of either (or both) William the Conqueror and his wife Matilda of Flanders. This theory was decisively debunked by Edward Augustus Freeman in the 1870s, but you still run across folks who believe it, including a genealogical society, according to our article. (Some of our noblity articles really really suck, and if our bishops articles hadn't sucked worse when I started editing wikipedia, I might have dug into those instead of bishops...) I think it boils down to it's a lot harder to fight historical fringe theories for a number of reasons - the inherent nature of the evidence, the fact that most people are historical illiterates, and the fact that historians themselves are a fractious lot and often disagree quite strongly about things. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My favourite "conspiracy theory" is that the the green children of Woolpit arrived on Earth as a consequence of a matter transporter malfunction on their home planet. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is a further information link in the Abraham Lincoln article...none of the claims about what his sexuality was are made in the main article.--MONGO 17:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And the US government shot down TWA 800; actually, trimming excessive coverage of those conspiracy theories in the main article was one of the very first things I did on Wikipedia. I would never have considered trying to remove them completely though, even as a newbie, because even though they are ill-founded they are highly notable. As Ealdgyth says, history articles need to keep a more open mind than, say, science ones do. --John (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the circumstances on a case by case basis...there may be no way to make it black and white.--MONGO 17:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Cirencester

Ever been there? Just curious.--MONGO 02:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Many times. Why do you ask? 02:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a brief flash of something that looked like a newspaper report that MONGO seemed to have posted here, but it appears to have been deleted now. I'd very much like to know what it was. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my fathers family was from there, almost 400 years ago. Someday I will visit it before I die...till then I have to rely on street view at google maps.--MONGO 03:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I obviously can't see deleted content, but I would ask any honest admin to let me know what it was that MONGO posted. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted as far as I can see. Ucucha (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nor I, although I'm not an admin. I see just three posts to this talk page, and all three of them are still on the page. Weird edit glitch? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Might be, but I definitely saw a flash of a newspaper report. And the question is rather strange, because I've spent a lot of time working in Cirencester. If was picking a random UK town I doubt it would be Cirencester. Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems on my page I see all the posts for this section...your response to my initial quiry wasn't fully signed...it only had a time stamp...--MONGO 03:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my fathers family was from there, almost 400 years ago. Someday I will visit it before I die...till then I have to rely on street view at google maps.--MONGO 03:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, its true...I think it was more like 1653 when he came to the colonies...certificates indicate my ancestor was christened in Cirencester in 1635.--MONGO 04:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

One fairly long shopping street, rather quaint, but nothing to make a special trip for, and the parking some distance from the shops, and both the parking and the shops rather pricey. That's the way it was when I was there in 2004, I doubt it has changed much.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The one-way system has been altered, making it more difficult to bypass the bypass. Unless I've missed it, the article doesn't mention the giant hedge. Ning-ning (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight...perhaps I'll get there someday.--MONGO 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hobey Baker

Would you mind revisiting WP:Featured article candidates/Hobey Baker/archive1, where you opposed on prose? Ucucha (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do, in the next few hours hopefully. Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for enforcement

This is notification that I've filed a request for enforcement against you per WP:ARB911.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The dishonesty on display here is quite astonishing. Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No surprise, though the audacity is unparalleled, this is nothing more than we have come to expect from this user. --John (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's all too common for an editor to be sanctioned for misbehavior in one venue, then move on to conduct himself in precisely the same way in other venues. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. So I just got a templated warning regarding an Arbcom case from 2008, from an editor who is topic-banned by Arbcom since 2010 for engaging in battlefield conduct? Wow. --John (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the dishonesty on display here is quite astonishing. Malleus Fatuorum 04:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignore. Dont get suckered down to their level. These guys are experienced gamers. Ceoil (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Good advice. --John (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression they are trying to wear ye down, and they are certainly baiting Malleus. Your a very easy going and honest person John, and have taken the pops at you with grace while steadily sticking to your guns. Nice one. I think the tactic is to stonewall ye until ye loose interest and move on, but the community seems to be on yer side. Geometry guy's review was very balanced, insightful and acute, and he is respected by both sides, working through his recommendations is the way forward. Ceoil (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is starting to die of its own accord.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I say the commuinty is behind yer stance on this one. Ceoil (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

However, in a way, the 9/11ers win, as they have successfully driven Malleus from the article. I am not worried too much about any FAC though, I suspect it would be given a hard time. And then some.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Harrison tried that and it was more or less and rightly snowed. Then MONGO, in his way, got indignant, very publicly made a fool of himself asking that standards be lowered for this one article and anyway FAC is run by cretins; he was told to fuck off but did not appreciate that; the rest is history. So far so boring, but the incident is significant as its the last nail in the coffin for the 2007/2008 style of bully boy admins. They are totally disgraced. Ceoil (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with Ceoil - the community is behind you. Certainly these comments about non-American editors made me cringe, and really show the POV on the page. I've only partially been keeping up, but think the GAR was necessary. Geometry Guy's comments were very good and shows a starting place. This, in so many ways, is similar to the Catholic Church page, and I think eventually will go in that direction - a complete rewrite, an RfC, then it will die down. Karanacs went through that war, so is a good ally on this one. I'll just give you moral support. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, ditto. But I think it would take many allies to overcome the axis of powers arrayed at the 9/11 article. I'll be crouching right behind Truthkeeper88 (just in case of shrapnel from the battle)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, TK is a woman and about 5ft 4. Stand up and take your shrapnel like a man. Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

5ft 2. So you'll be crouching very low. I'm dismayed to see that, once again, in telling the truth Malleus is taking the flak. I still think someone really gutsy should just jump in and re-do the page. That's what happened at the Catholic Church - it upset a lot of people, but the article was cut down by half and much of the POV eliminated. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't join in on the chorus at AN/I or at the arbcom enforcement against Malleus as I didn't think there was much to the issue. BUT, while Geometry guy at the GAR and Karanacs at the article talkpage HAVE offered a mature, detailed account of issues they see and of ways to make the article better, Malleus HAS been doing little of that...and I suspect to a casual observer, his comments in various venues on these pages would appear to have been done for little other reason than to pick a fight...and that is a disappointment because he has proven his objectivity and helpfulness in a myriad of other topics. I think myself and others who have discussed issues such as ONEWAY, FRINGE, WEIGHT and summary style have valid arguments...I also think the SCOPE of the article is way too broad, but my opinion in that seems to be a lone one...but I have long believed that the best article on this event would have half the sections it has now and those remaining sections would be expanded greatly in detail...dwelving into peripherals certainly has a place in the SCOPE of other articles, but I can't see why an expansion of these things in the main article helps to maintain the SCOPE there. I respect that the American worldview on this matter is NOT the only view...and consequently, there are sections there that aren't exactly what the average American conservative wants to read about. For instance, the section on Hate Crimes...yes there were a few examples of this, and it deserves mention, but an entire section?...see, that section is not U.S. POV "friendly", but I have never argued for it's removal...however, to find out about the issue of people celebrating about the attacks, one has ot go to a daughter article...here...which is fine but even there, the issue is qualified. This is why myself and some others have opposed putting in things that aren't explicitly about the event itself...because each potentially controversial section ends up having two or more divergent views about it, ends up becoming a COATRACK and ultimately takes away from what the FOCUS should be: September 11 attacks. Malleus and John were arguing that there was nothing in the article about "why the worlds largest air force failed to act" during the attacks...well, I looked at that issue and saw that there was indeed no mention on what the air force was doing...so I added what happened and, based on the reliable references, read that there wasn't a failure to act, but there was, due to poor communications or a badly designed set up due to bureaucracy and bad planning, that various entities did not relay information very well...that is in the article now...Also, the article makes it clear that the operative known as KSM was waterboarded in the course of his questioning about his involvement....none of these three issues mentioned would be in the article IF myself and other "nationalists" as John has called us several times were actually stonewalling.... This comment from above is based on a conversation Kiefer Wolfowitz and I had at my talkpage...here, where he initially disagreed with why I oppose mention of some fringe issues and especially conspiracy theories in the article...and that rationale is based on the WEIGHT issue, but he now apparently understands where I am coming from.--MONGO 16:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, the 9/11 article is no longer of any interest to me, except insofar as if it's ever nominated again at GAN or FAC in anything like its present state I will once again be opposing its promotion. Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur the article needs work before it should be at either venue.--MONGO 17:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we can now close this discussion on a note of agreement at last. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning... " --Shirt58 (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Toa Nidhiki05 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, it's rude to use templates on experienced editors ... not wrong, but rude, so you shouldn't be surprised the person you template just gets defensive. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that you'll find yourself blocked if you keep this up. The review is closed, live with it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one facing disciplinary action at ARB Enforcement, you are. Toa Nidhiki05 01:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You've already been warned not to re-open closed discussions, and I suggest you heed that warning. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

...And I suggest you heed my warning not to refactor my comments. Toa Nidhiki05 12:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The solution proposed by Risker (putting comments in the discussion page) was a reasonable one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to reign in your mouth Toa Nidhiki, it seems to be running away with you. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Risker's 3:30 statement on Toa's talk page clearly notes the impropriety of reopening closed discussions, the possibility of opening a new discussion, and the imprudence of templating established editors. Toa, you should acknowledge your multiple errors and apologize to Malleus, particularly for the rudeness of your "warning" given 8 hour's after Risker's clarification.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize - Malleus removed my comments without even informing me. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just about had it with your childishness, now knock it off. I never ask for or demand apologies, as my only interest is in what people do, not what they promise they will or won't do in the future. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Toa, I would suggest you think about removing your age and other sensitive issues from your user page. You may ask for help at WP:Oversight to remove the page history with this information. Go in peace, and live long and prosper.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Really...

They want to whine, let them whine. Don't get bound up by "process-wonkery". And for the templater, it's really really rude to template the regulars - you will definitely get better results with most folks if you write a personal note. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And MF, before you ask, 16. I swear, young males are all hormones and challenge at that age... even my own child has his moments, and I've been working on him since he was born to make sure he respects his elders. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I guess when I was 16 I probably thought I knew it all as well. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I, being smarter than the average bear (Do they still show Yogi Bear reruns anyway?) will not comment further here... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's on Boomerang. When my five-year old says, "Hello Booboo, I'm Yogi Bear," I'm in stitches. I have no idea if she's quoting correctly (it's been over thirty years for me), but she says it real cute. She's hardly 16, but one of her favorite things to say is "I know everything about everything." Drmies (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And who taught her that then, eh? Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

St Somewhere, Llansomewhere

Go ahead, punk, make my day... Funnily enough, I was thinking about you this morning as I walked from King Street West through to Manchester Piccadily. Bencherlite^Talk 21:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I trust you were thinking good thoughts. I can't even pronounce the names of these bloody churches – is there a tax on vowels in Wales? Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was composing editing restrictions for you as it happens (not being allowed to write more than 3 FAs per week, not being able to copyedit more than 1 article towards FA or GA status every minute, being subject to petty ANI reports every Thursday or twice on Friday, etc). The Welsh language "cheats" by counting more vowels (a, e, i, o, u, w and y)! Bencherlite^Talk 21:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that may explain it. I'm reminded of a comment I saw some years ago from a group representing French lorry drivers. They were protesting that it was unfair to punish them as severely as other drivers for driving while under the influence of alcohol as they were on the road for far longer and more frequently, and were therefore more likely to be caught. Typically French of course, but it does seem to me that the more you do here, especially without the protection of the admin shield of invulnerability, the more trouble you tend to find yourself in. But I can think of honourable exceptions like User:Peter I. Vardy who keeps his head down and very productively ploughs his lonely furrow. It would be a boring world if we were all the same. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I understand that "y" is pronounced like "uh" in English (?), but what does "w" sound like in Welsh? Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "y" is one of the few letters where the pronunciation varies depending on its position in the word. This site explains it slightly better than I can at this time of night (and anyway I am a mere learner, married to a native...) Your next task will be to learn to pronounce "wy" (egg)... Bencherlite^Talk 23:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake! Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Close, but not quite.... (And thanks for the two GA passes tonight, much appreciated). Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sssh! Everyone will be wanting one now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced the Welsh language was constructed to be deliberately confusing. During a pub quiz the tie breaker was how many letters are there in the Welsh alphabet. The Welshman in our group got it wrong. As he was a good friend we reminded him of it frequently. Sure, we were all a bit worse for wear by this stage but you should know your own alphabet. Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

According to some, there is no "J" in the Welsh alphabet, which must come as a shock to Mr Jones when he's putting "jam" on his "tost" (toast) in the morning. So some will tell you there are 28 letters, others 29. Some of those letters look double to the English eye (so "ch", "dd", "ll", "ph" and some others are actually 1 letter and if you are doing a crossword in Welsh you have to put "ll" in one square not two...) Remind me again why I'm learning this language? Bencherlite^Talk 00:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that the surname "Jones" was chosen by the Welsh as a sign of resistance to the English conquest of Wales? Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Haven't heard that before. Is it a fringe theory? Runs off to hide under his pillow before MF jumps through the computer screen... Bencherlite^Talk 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My personal theory is that the Welsh slaughtered more than their quota of missionaries before conversion, and the monks imposed their orthography on them as a penance. Choess (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So today's test for the Welsh language students is - how on Earth do you pronounce Eglwyswrw? Actually I just spent a week in Pembrokeshire and I was amused by how, with the recent resurgence of the Welsh language, there has to be a Welsh equivalent for every road sign, so 'bus' has become 'bws' - not very imaginative is it? As 'bus' is an abbreviation of 'omnibus' you would think they could have come up with something based on the translation of the full word. Richerman (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not charabanc? That would sound nice in a Welsh accent. Charabanc fach for a minibus. A chara banc for the friendly bus. Ning-ning (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, 'bws' is a fairly long-standing translation - Cardiff Bus have been displaying "Bws Caerdydd" in addition to the English for several decades at least. And most of Wales' buses are run by companies based in Scotland, Germany, France and Scotland again. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bradford Colliery

A Good Article indeed. I remember the remnants of it as a child, travelling between Whitefield and Clayton/Ashton. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's really J3Mrs's article, but she went AWOL during the review, so I just stepped in. I hope she'll be pleased with the result. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No it's both our article, especially as you did all the work on the review. You don't give yourself enough credit, ever. And I am pleased, for both of us.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Malleus had the same effect, and similarly downplayed his role, when he reviewed an article that I pretty much created. That review was a good learning experience for me. Would a bad article about a colliery be described as "the pits"? - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there also a coal-fired power station around there? I recall seeing a picture of it, belching out black smoke the like of which you wouldn't quite believe. And people moan about pollution! Parrot of Doom 19:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There was, Stuart Street Power Station. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, but as you'll see here not everyone agrees with you. To say that I'm seething about the events of the last week or so, and all the stupid and malicious lies that have been told, would be something of an understatement. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read that, one of the joys of being offline. These things rarely seem to do wikipedia any favours. But, changing the subject, did you know the IRA wanted to blow up the power station?--J3Mrs (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's got to be worth a mention, surely. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Who would have thought there would be a link to the Manchester Martyrs? Actually this is what I like about "local" history, making these unexpected connections.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Like you, I find the connections interesting. It's really difficult to make progress on anything that involves Irish Republicanism though, almost as difficult as getting some editors to see sense about the events and aftermath of 9/11. You would not believe the battles I had over the Manchester Martyrs, with those from both ends of the spectrum. Those who just wanted the article to be a heroic story of Fenian derring-do and those who were convinced that use of the word "martyr" implied a certain sympathy for the Fenians ... actually it sounds just like the 9/11 bollocks on reflection. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Stick to archaic forms of divorce, you'll have no such problems there. Parrot of Doom 21:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hah! Perhaps someone should compile a list of no-go areas: Ireland, Palestine, Israel, British Isles, 9/11, Scientology, anything to do with women ... Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience I'd most definately avoid anything to do with women.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The caste/varna system of India? Sigh. And I am dreading the GAR of James Tod because I fear that some people may be stoking up to deliberately create instability just at the relevant moment. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Phat ca$h

Dude, I will so pay you so much American money, devalued that it is, to leave your cranky British "fuckwits wot wot" and take on some of the more esoteric insults found in this masterpiece of absurdity. To wit:

• You have a beeper.
• You're going to give lap dances to old men.
• You look like a tired bird.
• Call me when your boobs come in.
• Nobody wants to open up yours.
• You eat your own farts.
• You look like a Swiffer.
• You look like a Who from Whoville.

And on... --Moni3 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! For a rather brutal juxtaposition take a look at a British version.[2] Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That routine just summed up every discussion, response, retort, reply, comeback, and result at ANI. Ever. On a related note, I think I shall begin telling the more clueless of my Wikipedia brethren (and sistren) that they look like random things. Maybe from random places too. You want to remove the lead and put "biography" as a subheading in a biographical article? You look like an Ehrlenmeyer flask in a Dr. Who episode. That should show 'em. --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm full of admiration for the actresses (actors?) who memorised (memorized?) all those lines. And if they made it up as they were going along then even more impressive. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am too. If they did that in one take with three or four cameras, I'm in awe. How they continued to go on that long and not break up laughing I don't know. Imagine you had to spend two days filming something like that but having to improvise the whole thing. --Moni3 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Eastcote House Gardens

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your review and extensive edits to improve Eastcote House Gardens. Harrison49 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm sure you know that without your additions this evening I would definitely have failed the article, but it's now a nice summary. Well done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

For your sins...

Geoffrey (archbishop of York) or William de Chesney? Geoffrey's probably easier... William will need some help and will probably have a bunch of questions... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I wondered who'd be up next. Geoffrey it is then. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I generally pull from the first couple of entries in the GA section on my user page. Baldwin of Forde is awaiting a few books on his writings (I'm so thrilled at the thought of dealing with theological writings...) and the ones further down will probably get shuffled once Geoffrey gets promotoed, eventually. I've also got Thomas Becket and Norman Conquest of England which I need to get back to... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Becket and the Norman Conquest? You're a glutton for punishment. One day perhaps I'll do something important, like what you're doing. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

About six months ago (maybe more, I forget) I whacked hard at Becket, cleaning up a lot of junk that was there. It's pretty much stayed at the slimmed down but accurate version I left it at since then. I started sourcing Norman Conquest a bit further back, and other than the usual annoying vandalism, it's stayed pretty clean to where I got in the article ... so neither are hotbeds of POV pushing, at least... of course, that never keeps someone from later seeing your good work and deciding to make a crusade out of some petty detail (ala wife selling) but ... one can only do so much. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling! I'm about ready to give up on that hopeless case. Have you seen some of the proposed additions to the article? And to tag a law as misogynyst is something beyond my comprehension. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Women's studies or gender studies. Heck, we even have gender history... which basically seems to consist mainly of throwing our values back on ancient societies... which isn't a wrong POV, but it's not exactly going to help you understand THAT time period if you persist in seeing it only through modern POV. Yeah, a modern POV is needed, but you need to keep the time in historical perspective also... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a child of my age I guess, I treat everyone the same. I don't care what colour you are, what you believe in, what you wear, what gender you are, all I care about is what kind of person you are. I put myself in the position of a 17th-century husband or wife locked into a loveless marriage and think, yeah, why not go for it? It's got to be better than this. That's not sexism or misogyny. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But, and here is where I put on my "keep an open mind historian hat" ... did folks of that time and that class expect a "lovefilled" marriage or were they looking for something else from marriage - like support/help/children? We don't know necesarily what they were looking for in a marriage - so you are projecting your culture back on theirs. Obviously, the custom fulfilled a need, and we should look at it through the prism of what the people of the time wrote about it. At least that article there are some sources for the custom... most medieval social customs of the lower classes are complete and total bits and pieces as far as historians are concerned. I do strongly strongly recommend Ties that Bound by Hanawalt (sp?) ... which looks at medieval English peasant communities without perverting it through our societal values ... it's an excellent book and a very easy read. I think you'd enjoy it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

PoD and I tried very hard to keep our account of this custom neutral. The facts are presented, let everyone make up their own minds. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think the article is quite well done .. don't ever think that. I was just commenting on your comment above about "I put myself in the position of a 17th-century husband or wife locked into a loveless marriage and think, yeah, why not go for it? It's got to be better than this." .. that's not how a historian approaches the issue (or at least not how they SHOULD). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different stuff. PoD and I wrote an article that I believe to be a neutral account of the custom. Others subsequently complained that it was sexist or whatever. I simply offered my opinion. I'm not a historian, or ever likely to be, but I can smell dishonesty and revisionism. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem is probably on my end, I"m high on sinus pills... no worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the misunderstanding is in thinking that I put myself in the position of those 17th-century guys and gals when writing the article. But my comments were to do with imposing our 21st-century views on a 17th-century custom. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that calling the custom misogynist/sexist is putting our values on the past. We may be okay in stating that "by modern values, the custom would be sexist" ... which is indeed true. However, baldly calling it sexist, when the time period had no real concept of sexist as we understand it, would be imposing our values on the past. And calling it misogynist, unless contemporary records state it that way, is the same. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the object on Wife Selling is simply to bore us to death. Have you read the latest tripe on the talk page? No, neither have I, I don't have a spare six months to get through it. Parrot of Doom 15:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just the same old tripe being endlessly recycled isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Arthur Rubin

I am withdrawing there, having made my point. It's always very sad when someone can't acknowledge their error as it prevents learning from taking place. However, my time is limited and I have better things to do. If he does it again I recommend initiating an RFCU and should that become necessary, which I earnestly hope it does not, I would definitely back you up. There's enough nonsense around this subject without letting mis-statements go uncorrected. --John (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Rfc's are a waste of time.MONGO 13:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For misbehaving administrators, they're an almost mandatory step on the road to ArbCom. Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a play by play for you....you guys start an Rfc, everyone shows up to throw pooh at each other...it goes to arbcom...arbcom might not even take it...and if they do, they'll look at all named parties...I'd drop it.MONGO 14:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is of no interest to me. What needs to be done will be done. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Tried to talk you out of it....I already have the diffs ready...go for it then...this is going to be fun.MONGO 14:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, you seem to be a little hard of understanding. Now please go and play somewhere else. Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus...best of luck to you. I fear this will end badly.MONGO 15:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What happens next is entirely down to Arthur Rubin. If he behaves himself in the future then this sorry episode will no doubt be forgotten. If he doesn't, then events will take their natural course. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Look!

We need to act now! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III CrazyWilly1 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)