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.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The community is invited to participate in a request for comment about my editing: WP:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh God! Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus and all you gone daddies & all you pretty mommas,

Don't get a swelled head, but that was my first and only announcement on another user's talk page. :)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to avoid these events, as they're really just an out of control vehicle for anyone you've ever upset to try and claim their pound of flesh; dishonest wouldn't even get close. I wish you luck. Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The latest addition is a discussion of the "insult"/"mocking" of miscapitalizing "DemiUrge". When did I get a choice between the blue pill and the red pill?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's only one purpose to RfC, and that's to humiliate you. Much like RfA really. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

RFarbcom is even worse though. The mind boggles at how much time and effort is spent on NYB's faux court martials.71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been impressed by the functioning of ArbCom and particularly by NYB, whether there or as a commentator. We have interacted only about twice. First, somebody named NYB made a calm comment about a DYK that did not threaten or insult anybody, which led to consensus immediately. Second, when I made an erroneous assumption, he alerted me discretely, implicitly inviting me to draw my own conclusion (and correct my erroneous statements). Recently, he seems to have run out of patience with KeepsCases; however, having avoided the apocalyptic language of the snake handlers, NYB is still a mensch in my book. Another ArbCom member is in free fall.Small text

It seems to me that RfC serves to discredit attackers more than victims, but I may be guilty of wishful thinking.

I has been helpful to learn more about pathogenic yeast the last week. We ignore them despite their being present all the time, because they have no effect. If our immune system drops, following cancer or HIV etc., then they cause opportunistic infections. With rare exceptions, when treated they go away. Nothing to get worried about.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

MediaCityUK

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#MediaCityUK. I have closed two 3RR reports as stale, but I hope you and Rangoon11 will use peaceful methods to handle any remaining differences. You should have been notified previously of the noticeboard filing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Then why wasn't I? And why was this report filed so long after the alleged event? Rangoon11 has no interest in anything other than protecting his rubbish version of the article, so I think a meeting of minds is exceedingly unlikely. Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the dispute there. If you feel like trying again to resolve this, maybe I can help you. If you didn't, I wouldn't blame you. --John (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer, but I think the problem may resolve itself and teach the kiddies a thing or two in the process when the article is promoted at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice for new Wikipedia editors

Hi, Malleus. I've worked for some time on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I'm trying to approach the subject from the viewpoint of a new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. So I: use an informal style; emphasise techniques and tools that help new editors' work to be productive and pleasant; give the basis of the main policies and how to get advice about them; but not overload new editors with loads of details on policies, etc. I hope the essay will be worth publishing in main space, and even get a link for from the main "Welcome". Could you please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. --Philcha (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a worthy goal Philcha, but not one that I particularly share. The overwhelming majority of new users are far more trouble than they're worth IMO, and until a few other things change around here that won't. Even a simple proposal like not allowing non-autoconfirmed users to create an article was blocked by the WMF, desperate to increase editor headcount at whatever cost. We don't need more editors, we need better ones. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need more editors, we need better ones. I suggest helping the good ones is not linked with suppressing the bad ones. --Philcha (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are of course preaching to the converted, but many administrators still see their role as suppressing and driving away unpopular editors, regardless of how good or bad they be. Just look at my block log. That's another thing that's got to change, the Wikipedia police state. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you on the Geometry guy's talk page. Might you have a look at some vague ideas that I have about editor's "societal rank" that might be related to what you discuss here (although it's pretty verbose)? Your opinion will be much appreciated. WillNess (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

St Fictional-Welshman, Llan-field-in-the-middle-of-nowhere

Well, it looks better than it once did... To be honest, I do think it's better overall: that's not to say that I agree with every copyedit that you've made, but hey I'm a lawyer so what do I know about plain English? OK, what do I need to do to get this through FAC? (Only half-joking - I ought to try and get at least one of these church articles through the FAC process, if only to help raise my game on the others. Any views as to which one I should pick? Perhaps my latest one, dedicated to one of the knights of King Arthur...?) Bencherlite^Talk 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a question you should address to User:Peter I. Vardy. He's the expert on church articles as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And I rudely forgot to say thank you. I suspect many GA reviewers would either have said "yeh, looks OK" and given it a quick pass, or said "What? This is far too short to be a GA". You've taken a lot of time, once again, to improve a not-very-spectacular-article by example and encouragement. Seeing your name as GA reviewer of one of my articles always makes me slightly nervous as to how much of my prose will be standing by the end of it, but the end result is good. Bencherlite^Talk 02:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I will admit that the shortness of the article did give me pause for thought. There are some editors like Ealdgyth who give me pretty much carte blanche to maul their prose as much as I like so long as I don't mess up the citations, but I recognise that not everyone may be sanguine about my fiddling. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fiddle away to your heart's content, m'dear. I don't know where to place the article in the GA listings either - seems slightly odd to have it in "architecture" when there's absolutely no architectural description of the building, but it doesn't belong anywhere on the religion subpage, so your positioning is as good as any, I think. Bencherlite^Talk 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're really concerned about any of my copyedits then just revert them. I don't take offence as easily as so many others do here. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put up the most recent GA in the series for pre-FAC peer review comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/St Edern's Church, Bodedern/archive1. I've invited Peter, per your suggestion, to drop by if he gets the chance. If you got the chance at any point in the next decade to put the prose of St Edern's Church, Bodedern into something better, or to comment at the PR, I would of course buy you the customary pint or two when next we meet.... Cheers! Bencherlite^Talk 15:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh...

Malleus, do you have an opinion laying around? "I don't feel well"--is "well" an adjective or an adverb? and why? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a trick question? I'd say that "well" was a noun. How could you feel something that doesn't exist? Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sticking in my $0.02 worth: in the normal way that sentence is used, "well" is an adjective it's describing the state-of-being of the subject. If it were an adverb, you'd be saying you have a nerve disorder. LadyofShalott 03:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no trick question, MF--and surely you're joking with your noun (nouns are not gradable--"I don't feel very well"). Drmies (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Well" acts as an adjective in this context. An easy way to see it is to think of the opposite; it would be I feel bad, not I feel badly (the adverb version of bad). Language isn't always logical, but it does follow certain rules. --John (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel well, I feel welly, I'm a member of the green welly brigade. Ning-ning (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My dictionary claims that "well" can be either an adverb or a noun, not an adjective. In this context it's clearly an adverb. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LadyofShalott is quite right - maybe we should get Malleus a new dictionary for Christmas :)

"Well"¹ is a adverb, adjective or interjection. As an adverb, the primary meaning is "in a satisfactory way" (worked well), but variants include "with some talent or distinction" (played the piano well). As an adjective, the meanings include "in good health" and "in a satisfactory state" (all is well). As an interjection, well I never! There is also a noun "well"², but that's a hole different story :) Geometry guy 20:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wat? it's an adverb. Verb is feel. How do you (not) feel? Well. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As an adverb, it would mean "I don't feel in a satisfactory way", i.e., "there is something wrong with my sense of feeling", i.e., "I have a nerve disorder". As an adjective it means "I don't feel (I am in) in a satisfactory state", i.e., "I am unwell" (note that "unwell" is only an adjective, not an adverb). Geometry guy 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You might be surprised to discover just how much the The Oxford English Dictionary has to say about "well". In short, it can bloody well be anything it wants to be. Graham Colm (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The only question is, which word is "well" modifying, if any? My rather off-the-wall noun suggestion was that it's modifying none of them, but represents a state of well-being. But more conventionally, my contention is that it's modifying "feel", yours is that it's modifying "I". I blame Drmies for all this. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a tricky one, but it is modifying "I", not "feel", in the same way as it is an adjective in the noun phrase "a well person", meaning a person in good health. Geometry guy 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite. If it were an adjective then it would make sense to say simply "I well", leaving out the "feel" altogether. But it doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"I am well", to be precise, as a sentence should contain a verb. "I feel cleverly" has a completely different meaning to "I feel clever". Geometry guy 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as "I am sad" or "I am happy". Graham Colm (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"I well and about to go to the pub" contains a verb. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Lol! :-) Geometry guy 21:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a different definition of feel. --Moni3 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Only a variant. Of course "I have a nerve disorder" is a daft interpretation of "I feel well", so there is no real ambiguity, just as there would be absolutely no ambiguity in "I feel unwell", because "unwell" can only be an adjective. Geometry guy 21:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

For more fun, I was taught in the Deep South to say "I feel well" as opposed to the more colloquial expression "I feel good" (and real-- or reeyall good if you can say it with a twang). In New England, when I ask folks how they are, they answer "I am well" if they had a boarding school education. --Moni3 (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Or as (some of us) say over here as if they had a poker up their arse. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite. When I respond to them when they ask me the same, I just say "I'm all right." --Moni3 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel good too! Saintly (adjective!), even :) Geometry guy 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Well" is an adjective in this sentence - cf. "I'm feeling hot/cold/silly/contrite/sick/sleepy/tired/exhausted/etc." - obviously. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What's your definition of obvious? --Moni3 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Obvious" is an adjective meaning "easily seen or recognized or understood; palpable, indubitable" :) An adjective modifies a noun or similar. The definition may not feel obvious to you, but it is an obvious definition. Geometry guy 21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Would seem rather not obvious that such a simple question would spawn this confusing discussion. Just like FoxNews is both fair and balanced, because of course it is. The trend among communications is to call something a name and then force it to exhibit all characteristics completely opposite of its definition. --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There are some seriously unwell people at FoxNews. Here though, all's well than ends well. Geometry guy 21:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Added to which, "I am feeling ..." is not the same construction as "I feel ...". Obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

True, it is the present continuous tense rather than the present tense. The present tense would be "I feel hot/cold/silly/contrite/sick/sleepy/tired/exhausted/etc.". "I feel sleepy" means "I feel in a sleepy state". "I feel sleepily" means "I feel in a sleepy manner". Geometry guy 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to blame the imprecision of the English language for this discussion. There really ought to be a "wellly" word, for use in cases such as this, as in "I feel wellly" ... on the other hand, perhaps not. And I think the absence of such a word gives us a clue as to what's really going on here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

PS. I just know that some smart arse is going to come along and say something like "actually, Chaucer used the word 'wellly' in an early edition of his Canterbury Tales, as did Shakespeare in one of his sonnets, but the word seems to have fallen out of fashion in recent years". Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not me, as there is a simpler explanation. Namely, there is a synonym for one of the most common uses of "well" as an adjective: "healthy", and this does have an associated adverb "healthily". Yet we do not say "I feel healthily today", but "I feel healthy today".

What is really going on here is that "feel" is being used as a "linking" or "copular" verb, to connect the subject to a predicative adjective (adjective in the predicate). There are only a few verbs that can be used this way: the most familiar is "to be (is)", but there are several others, including "appear, become, feel, get, go, keep, grow, lie, look, prove, remain, resemble, run, seem, smell, sound, stay, taste, turn". For example: "the food smells delicious", The grammar may seem complicated, but it remains precise. Geometry guy 22:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This has been an interesting and illuminating discussion. I'm not certain that I'm yet any the wiser for it, but that just goes to show that I really ought to update my simple primary school ideas of grammar. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Although I like to think my grammar is fairly solid, I had an Oxford Dictionary to hand and checked my comments against it (and some online information for the more technical stuff).

I do, however, have an observation of my own, which may reassure those whose instinct about "feel well" was declared "wrong" by grammarians. Namely, you could imagine rewriting the grammar and linguistic books to say that copular/linking verbs turn adjectives into adverbs: "the food smells delicious" really means something like "the food has a delicious way of smelling" (so "delicious" modifies "smells" not "food"). Similarly "Geometry guy has a crazy way of being" (for "Geometry guy is crazy"), "the grammar has a complicated way of seeming, but a precise way of remaining". Whether such a view is more helpful than the conventional one, I'm not so sure! Geometry guy 23:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall a rather similar observation in Fowler about "due to " versus "owing to", but he came down on the other side. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Always worth remembering that English grammar (like Wikipedia policy) tends to be descriptive, not prescriptive. I say this as a keen grammar fan, but I particularly remember a primary teacher who tried to convince me that "It's me." was grammatically wrong, in favour of "It is I.", as an answer to the question: "Who's there?" Even at 10 I had a good nose for bullshit. Although I am as apt to make mistakes as the next man, you can take my answers on grammar as being pretty much ex cathedra as I have taught English grammar for a few years now. "Well" is definitely an adjective in the context of the original question, although in other contexts it can be an adverb or even a noun. --John (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was rather persuaded by Geometry guy's copular verb argument. Grammar is far more more complicated then we were taught in school; I hope that none of us have forgotten that colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, copula (linguistics) is a fascinating explanation for what we were talking about. --John (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd feel a bit happier (adjective, adverb or noun?) if that article looked a little less less like an uncited essay. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well indeed. In my limited experience a lot of these grammar articles look like this. --John (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A few searches on google books will reveal many grammar books and usage guides discussing linking verbs. Within linguistics, there are entire books on copulas, e.g., this one. Geometry guy 23:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

For purposes of Wikipedia, I know only two rules of grammar. First, does the MOS say what you should do? If not, second, does it sound right? Any miscalculations can be removed at peer review, hopefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yikes - you need to get out more :) Seriously, I hope Wikipedia is not this insular... Geometry guy 00:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In Wehwalt's defense, we use a language which does not have a central governing body and whose grammar is therefore best regarded as descriptive rather than prescriptive. So "does it sound right" is actually rather a good guide, 90% of the time. One main way that the principle breaks down is when it encounters different dialects in which different things "sound right" or "look right" to different people. I encounter this all the time. Most recently was someone who insisted that humourous was the UK English spelling of humorous (it isn't). I've already shared with you my distaste for the American love affair with the subjunctive mood. More recently was an FA candidate which was almost entirely written in the passive voice. I don't think that last is particularly a US thing; more that there are some editors and even writers who instinctively feel that The inhabitants were attacked by rebels. is automatically more encyclopedic than Rebels attacked the inhabitants. Obviously both are correct but I usually favor the second as it is shorter and punchier. This is a lot harder to explain though, as it is into stylistics rather than grammar or spelling, and so falls outside the scope of this conversation. --John (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I am an overeducated and overread American who was taught the rules of grammar properly in my younger days. (well, let's face it, young days) However, I do not remember the terminology. I do remember how to apply the rules, and can do so close enough for government (or Wikipedia) work. I err now and then and that is usually caught by someone or over. No one edits their own work perfectly. However, I work around that by spending a good amount of time re-reading my articles, even those which have been passed. You'd be amazed what howlers have gotten through FAC, which is a reflection on me more than FAC, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I learned about the predicate adjective in 8th grade in public (American definition) school. And the predicate nominative. Granted it was FF county. But still. My high school grammar book (Harbrace, a VERY standard text) explains this topic very clearly. Plus you can Google it. Plus the normal ganglion-smashing, red Merriam Webster Collegiate dictionary has this exact usage called out as an adjective. Wikianz have a really bad tendancy to expect the MOS to describe style and usage rather than looking at just books and stuff. I'm still surprised that Dr. Mies asked rather than just doing a net search and seeing what "grammar girl" said. Unless, he knw the answer and was just looking for backup.71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again Keeper. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I had to look that dude up. Seems like a normal person. Rare here.24.131.1.132 (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Concentrate on the issues. You will never win a dash-hyphen, Pal-Jew, or Brit-Mick struggle if you get distracted by the personalities.71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I never win those battles anyway, nor many others come to think of it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't win many other battles? Or no one wins those battles? Or...and? (Actually, I kind of think it is the sweetest when you are just being nice to some young content contributor. Even in a sort of gruff John Houseman in the Paper Chase like manner.  ;) 71.246.147.40 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I treat everyone just the same. The only time I care about their age is when they go to RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody wins and everybody loses when the normal rules of civilized conduct break down, here as in the real world. --John (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a fine sentiment, but the rules here are very far from normal. Here you can even be blocked for using words like "sycophantic". Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Abuses of power fall firmly within the zone we are talking about, in my opinion. I haven't seen a credible block threat against you for a while though, have I missed something? --John (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not much, except for two ANI reports and one 3RR in what, the last month? Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed the 3RR report, huh. I was glad to see the tactical Arb report archived with no action taken. Vexatious litigation is another article in need of some improvement. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” Hang in there. --John (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that Arb thingie, but it's purpose was clear enough. If I were so foolish as to make any edit to the 9/11 article that MONGO took exception to, which is pretty much edit that might just improve it, then I would be blocked now that I've been officially warned of the sanction. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am cautiously optimistic that MONGO's star may be on the wane. I think at this stage he is an embarrassment even to his traditional allies. I certainly wouldn't be scared of him; his cluefulness has declined to a very low level at this point. --John (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell. It's rather tiresome though having to deal with that kind of editor on an almost daily basis. Just look at the acrimony over MediaCityUK for instance. Every day there seems to be a new clot on the block. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I view this as a very hopeful move.--John (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse the intrusion of an outsider, but Pal-Jew is a false dichotomy. There's either Arab-Jew, or Pal-Israeli (or a wider ArabWorld-Israeli) dichotomy. As for the original subject, isn't "I don't feel well" just a shortcut to "I am having a feeling of not being well". Shouldn't that sentence be the one being analyzed. WillNess (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Claverton Pumping Station etc

Thanks for your GA review of Claverton Pumping Station which has definitely helped to improve the article. Now I need to get back to Somerton & Dunster Castle which are both at GAN, however I'm dealing with another issue currently.— Rod ^talk 17:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just about finished Dunster Castle's review as it happens. Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's British so the beer's probably worth drinking. But probably overpriced and flat. And too warm. Don't you have refrigerators?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's German beer, obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So it is. Never mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not overpriced or flat if you buy it in a Holt's pub in the north of England - you're obviously thinking of those poncey southern pubs. And why would we need refrigerators when it never gets warm here for more than two days? Richerman (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I will say that I did find the beer good and surprisingly cheap compared to London when I was in Manchester four or five years ago and stayed at the Express by Holiday Inn in the eastern part of the city. Not at the hotel bar, there was a very nice pub across the road.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's about £2.20 in a Holt's pub as compared to around £4 in London - and it comes with a head on it :) I can still get fairly pissed for a tenner in my local. Richerman (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

£2.20, wtf? I worked part time at a Holts's pub while at college. Mild was 71p a pint, bitter 75p. Parrot of Doom 22:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about right - when I drank Thwaites in Bolton, that was about £1.20 at a time when both Holt's and Hyde's were circa 85p. I think Wilson's had just disappeared (or were about to), Boddington's and Tetley's were about £1.15 and Greenall Whitley was best avoided. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wimp! I only drink Diamond Lager when I'm in a Holt's pub, but my brother prefers the mild, which is really almost free. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

PoD showing his age again. Anyway, bitter was 1s 10d when I started drinking. Richerman (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought the Puritans banned drinking during the Interregnum? Parrot of Doom 23:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, that brings back memories. When I was at college in the mid-'70s bitter in the union bar was 10p a pint, so you could get legless for £1. Happy days! Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll get you for that PoD you young whippersnapper. I think 1s 10p works out at about 7p - trouble was I only earned £6 10s a week before stoppages. I spent most of it on beer and just frittered away the rest. And don't get me started on lager - cold fizzy stuff only fit for girls and foreigners. Richerman (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

1/10 is 9p Richerman. Tut, tut. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There you go - bitter kills more brain cells than lager :) Richerman (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the idea that alcohol kills brain cells is another of those urban myths. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done some work on Decimal Day over the years but am short on sources ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you! (2)

Thanks for helping out with fixes on GA noms. I appreciate it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha, the irony in "I believe the idea that alcohol kills brain cells is another of those urban myths." That means you can drink all the beers you like!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review

Malleus, could I prevail on you to do the GA review for my current candidate, Walking Liberty half dollar? It is the final entry (other than the overview article which I may not get to for a bit) in my series on the Great Recoinage of 1907–1921 and has at least one laugh out loud moment. You are free to make changes, I may modify for technical reasons but I won't throw anything at you. Many thanks, --Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to get to it over the weekend. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll buy you a beer once you use up all the free ones!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for a most thorough and competent review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have to say, that American Silver Eagle at the end really is quite beautiful. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it shows you what Weinman was trying to do in a way that the image of the circulation coin beautiful as it is just can't. This series has taught me quite a bit about art.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo DaVinci would dig up bodies from the graveyard and dissect them to learn how to draw

Or Michelangelo. Or one of those Yuropeens. No more time for sweet chitchat. I want to look at some GAs next. I'm going to segment this effing market. I'm going to cut it apart and see the different heads of the triceps.24.131.1.132 (talk)

I had the eff word in there. But the filter stopped me. Must be some arbs/admins moving in on me. Fookers. 24.131.1.132 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling

I am getting sick and tired of seeing these essays in my watchlist now. It's clear he's not going to get bored. I hate to say so but something might need to be done about it. Parrot of Doom 22:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See also "Digging around for extra coins in the sofa to pay for takeout pizza"? 24.131.1.132 (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's pissing me off as well. I made a suggestion at wife selling earlier this evening that he has pointedly ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

My mother told me to avoid discussing politics and religion (:-( ) in company and I think she would have cheerfully added feminists attempting to rewrite history to a skewed 21st century point of view.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My mother told me "life's too short to bugger about". I see you're in the wars again, with Elizabeth. Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Water off a duck's back.:-) She didn't take her own advice though, and I've never done as I was told.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to have babies with you

Thanks for that random FA tool. Was hoping someone would chip in with it. Could not find it listed anywhere. Actually still don't really "have it" since when I click on your link in talk I go right to a random FA, vice having a link to the tool. But still...thanks man. "He ain't heavy, he's my brotha". 24.131.1.132 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicks

I wouldn't go as far as the anon above, but thanks for the review and promotion. I'll throw it to FAC in the near future, interested to see how my first non-avian FA fares. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should do well if you integrate that "The town" section. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Hey Malleus, I hope you're well and that you enjoyed your weekend. One of the entries on WP:Requested moves is for Silver Jubilee Bridge to be renamed Runcorn Bridge--and I supposed that page (now a dab) should be renamed as a dab page. There is a bit of discussion on the talk page; please weigh in there if you have a moment and an opinion. This strikes me as one of those cases where local expertise as well as MOS expertise is appreciated. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey the Bastard

How's he looking? After this weekend, I should be back editing a bit more, hopefully... but I'm free enough to get him up at FAC if you think he looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he's good to go. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicks

Thanks for your support, I thought you might like to see my hat (ROFL) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Had a quick peek at your bastard, look forward to seeing it at FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Policy

Hi!

Having a deja vu experience all over again, I recognize that I have been transgressing Jante Law:

Jantelagen has ten rules:

1. Don't think you're anything special.
2. Don't think you're as good as us.
3. Don't think you're smarter than us.
4. Don't convince yourself that you're better than us.
5. Don't think you know more than us.
6. Don't think you are more important than us.
7. Don't think you are good at anything.
8. Don't laugh at us.
9. Don't think anyone cares about you.
10. Don't think you can teach us anything.

An eleventh rule is:

11. Don't think that there aren't [[a few things we know about you.

Those who transgress this unwritten 'law' are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against communal desire in the town to preserve harmony, social stability and uniformity.

Why not make Jante Law an official policy of Wikipedia?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Randy from Boise did not license that content.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To defy #9, I shall post that I fail #8 every damn day. --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)