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. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.

WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements

• Manchester Mark 1 promoted to FA 28 September 2010
• Manchester computers promoted to GA 23 September 2010
• Trafford Park promoted to FA 9 September 2010
• Hyde F.C. failed at GAN 5 September 2010
• Belle Vue Zoological Gardens promoted to FA 7 August 2010
• Manchester United F.C. promoted to FA 27 July 2010
• 1910 London to Manchester air race promoted to FA 1 June 2010
• 1996 Manchester bombing promoted to GA 17 March 2010
• Chadderton promoted to FA 2 February 2010
• Rochdale Town Hall promoted to GA 26 January 2010

Busy?

Hi Malleus. You're probably bogged down with work right now, but I was wondering if you could review 1916 Irondale earthquake or Mount Tehama (only one, your choice of course) sometime when you were free, say, next weekend or so? I'm in no rush to have them reviewed, but you did an excellent job with Yamsay and I would like to try and get these two to FA eventually, so... ;) Thanks and I'd understand if you were unable. ceranthor 13:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malleus, I'm available today if you are able to get to 1916 Irondale earthquake. ceranthor 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my motivation to do anything here is at an all-time low, given recent and ongoing events. My banning is still being discussed at ANI, for instance. Hardly motivating. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

River Parrett at FAC

Thanks for your previous help with River Parrett. I thought I'd let you know it is now up at FAC.— Rod ^talk 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that Rod. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is "correct" in British English northwest or north west? - 2nd line of lead in this article.— Rod ^talk 06:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Northwest" is probably preferred these days, although I think that "north-west" would be acceptable as well, as in "North-West Frontier Province". Malleus Fatuorum 12:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I will standardise on northwest.— Rod ^talk 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Eating pussy

If you're still looking for some redlinks to expand so you can refuse autoreviewer once you reach the quota, might I recommend The Cat Eaters, which I came across whilst while researching Tarrare—there look to be a number of promising furrows just waiting to be ploughed. While I don't always consider FT reliable, in this case I think it is; Bondeson's a senior lecturer in medicine and consultant rheumatologist at Cardiff, not one of the fly-by-night cranks promoting their pet "insert name was actually a Templar!" theory who infest FT. – iridescent 18:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure about Bondeson, he seems to get carried away by flights of fancy sometimes, as with his account of the Manchester Mummy, which seemed rather theatrical to me. But you're right, I must get back to turning a few red links blue, so that I can refuse autoreviewer. I've been wasting my time recently expanding this, but there's two years to go before that becomes topical. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that autoreviewer was something you could request?! I recently ran my cursor over my username and it popped up that I had been granted ar - but I have no idea by whom or why. I honestly didn't think I'd created that many pages, unless they consider FAC/FAR/GAN review pages on the same level as mainspace articles? Dana boomer (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's supposed only to be granted once someone's created 75 non-redirect articles, or per a specific request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer. Looks like someone just got overenthusiastic in your case. – iridescent 18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a challenge then...

We-ell a second (or third/fourth opinion) - I have had this GA review open for nearly four months as I have tried to help and think it is a god one to try and make a encyclopedic as possible as realistically it might be aa good model for melding a passionate work into an encyclopedic article. Initially we had a lot of discussion about the scope of Illegal logging in Madagascar, as in whether it should be broader, but I eventually decided to take it at face value to try and review it. My question is, is there still too much detail/emphasis/repetition - the detail itself sending the article into soapbox teritory. I have trimmed it quite a bit -what do you reckon? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll do you a deal. I'll take a look at your Illegal logging in Madagascar if you'll cast an eye over this one. I was hovering over a quick fail, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Done - I am going to be on and off in the net 48 hours but will have a quick squiz now. Back from Saturday Morning chores (really should be outside as first day of sunshine in two weeks but what the heck...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Remind me if I forget; I'm more than a little pissed off with this place right now, so I may not be looking in very regularly. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

sigh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It had to be done. There's a lot of good stuff, but it's all over the place. I think the topic could easily make two or three great articles, if it's properly organised. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

NB: Google books seems to indicate there's lots of material which could be added to the knife article...interesting read too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm undecided about that knife article, but on balance it still seems a bit light to me. I know it's a private company, so some information won't be available, but I'll wait until the nominator's finished. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

An interesting observation

This comment by an adminstrator goes unremarked This comment by a non-administrator results in a one-week block. Pathetic. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

You know the way. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What I know is that you're an incompetent and dishonest twat who can't see the truth. ANI is a venue for your admin mates, not for anyone seeking justice. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wanna tell you a story...

Who said that? If you know the answer you must be above or about my age. Anyway. I was at work earlier on, doing the normal mundane tasks some admins do from time to time, when I had an itch... I thought I must write an article. It soon went, too much to delete, too many to block. I got home, kissed my children, pondered the greater meaning of life. Talked about their day. They didn't ask me about mine, no need, I didn't profer. I sat in the garden in the rare English sunlight at 19:00. The nagging thought occured to write again... but what about?? I was wracking. And wrolling ^[word?] Eventually, 5 hours later, I came up with a minion of an article, but a companion to your small masterpiece. I will not defend your every action here, and hang on your every word; I will defend you when you are wronged, but I was inspired. you old git :D – B.hotep •talk• 23:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no place for me here, the vultures are circling. I'll do what I can until they think they can see a kill. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually asking you to do anything. Just realise that you, of all people, inspired. With a little stub about fucking brick tax! Heh! – B.hotep •talk• 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I just became a little fascinated by the various ways in which governments tried, and still try, to steal money, nothing deeper than that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And now, so do I. I fully intend to write the rest, like the red links here. You forgot to add brick tax there, and at window tax which even my 8 year old daughter knows about because of Horrible Histories on CBBC. Focus. ;) – B.hotep •talk• 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Window tax is a fucking mess by the way. – B.hotep •talk• 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is, and it confuses the quite separate glass tax. So much to do. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So let's do it? Can we? I'd love that. Disengage with the hoipolloi. – B.hotep •talk• 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't, even though I know it'll be my downfall, and the children will have their way. I'm a package; you can't just choose the bits you like. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Pick n' mix? Woolworths. Eating more than you can afford? And the kindly lady at the till lets you get away with it. Of course you can, Mal. – B.hotep •talk• 00:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, I can't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mal, you just inspired an admin who's been in and out of this place by choice to write a worthwhile article (other than the 202 album articles and 2 FA contributions). I'm as shocked as the rest of us. AND I'm an admin! Do you realise the dichotomy?! – B.hotep •talk• 00:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't tar all admins with the same brush, but I wouldn't ... well fill in your blanks. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but I welcomed the honesty of Tan39, for instance. We didn't always get along, but I never felt that he was waiting for a chance to club me, like I do with some other admistrators. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

←There are 1291 admins in this world. I gave mine up for 7 months. I came back with a different outlook. The majority are here to help. Count me in the majority. Above all, I am a normal editor. I may have been pissing about with mopping for the last few weeks, but believe me I am back with a thirst for ARTICLES! And pissing about with the mop. Comes with the territory, y'understand. – B.hotep •talk• 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to believe that, but I just can't. Sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What? What don't you believe? The bit about "The majority are here to help". If that's yes, I can see why that's so hard to believe. If it's anything else I've said tonight, well... – B.hotep •talk• 01:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some people look at blocks, and say "can't trust anyone who's ever been blocked". I just look to see whether they're an administrator or not, as very few of them can be trusted. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mal, that's old news. You've said it before. Nev1. Irridescent. Tan. All -sysop now, must admit. But with or without the bit, they are still valued. When you talk about us all in the same breath, you hurt us (me, them) and it makes me do irrational things, like prove you wrong and write articles. That can't be right. Stop it. ;) – B.hotep •talk• 01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not all bad then. Like Jonathan Swift, I detest all laywers, yet I like Anne or James. I hate the institution, not the individuals. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to go to bed. I have emailed you. – B.hotep •talk• 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So if I write an article on a silly tax, can I join your little club? Yworo (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a serious conversation. Some advice: let it be. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

David Lewis (politician) FAC attempt 2

Hi Malleus Fatuarum

I've nominated David Lewis (politician) for FAC again. I believe the article has overcome all the issues that caused it to fail the first time. If you have the time, and you still like the article, could you please support it? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Lewis (politician)/archive2 --Abebenjoe (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You ought not to be asking me (or anyone else) to support your nomination, only to take another look at it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can help?

User:EunSoo was blocked yesterday by User:Syrthiss for edit warring on Ayumi Hamasaki (see). EunSoo soon came back editing under an IP address and his block was extended. Today, he came back with a bunch of socks and made the same edits as he did on the previously mentioned article. Some are listed here and these are the others User:201.15.105.230, User:92.118.181.151, User:200.48.170.215 and User:222.124.223.42. He also edited under User:125.162.70.81 but this one was blocked earlier. Can you please do something about this? Maybe even protect the articles? I know there are other places I should have brought this up at but this requires immediate action. MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Malleus is;nt an admin so he cannot do really anything about this. I suggest asking someone over at ANI to do so.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't help. If this is serious. I suggest that you take it to the cesspit that is WP:ANI. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Just to let you know that I have nominated Norton Priory as a FAC here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, or at least better luck than you had with Runcorn. Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Runcorn is way in the past (and geography articles are notoriously difficult), but I did "make it" with John Douglas. I am optimistic. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Zduhać

Hi Malleus! How are you? That folkloric article is quite comprehensive regarding the subject, but its prose could probably be improved. I would appreciate if you copy-edit it, of course if you have time and will for that. Then it could be nominated for GA status (at least :)). Vladimir (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Good luck at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Vladimir (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Chromoxylography

In case you're interested, yesterday started an article to turn a redlink blue. Today I've uploaded an image from an 1896 American boy's magazine with less fine engraving and the register is off. The image allows for magnification - helpful to see the hatchings and the mismatched register. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

accidental revert, sorry. Damn smartphones. Parrot of Doom 16:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Radio 4

I just missed this, [1] so I'm going to listen to it now. I thought you might be interested. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I listened to it earlier today. It's OK, but a bit too arty-farty for me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

See what you mean, yes I prefer the article, cuts to the quick and doesn't take half an hour. It might have been a nice accompaniment to driving on the M62 though. --J3Mrs (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with a radio (or TV) programme is that they've got to fill those 30 minutes, so they sometimes have to pad the thing out. That discussion about the significance of the colour green almost sent me to sleep. Same with newspapers. How odd that they're always the same number of pages each day, no matter what happened the day before.

Something to do with Evelyn Waugh

In view of your impressively eclectic rack of FAs (do you remember this? My, how polite we were in those days!), I wonder whether you'd be prepared to advise me on a project which involves Evelyn Waugh. If you can't stand the bugger, or have more pressing concerns, that's fine, just ignore this request. Otherwise, a moment of your time would be appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember the Peterloo Massacre very well. It was a fantastic collaboration, one I still look back on fondly. What's your plan with old Evelyn? Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. In various books about Waugh I have noticed references to an early novel, called The Temple at Thatch, which Evelyn destroyed after his friend Harold Acton made rude comments about the manuscript. Commentators have speculated about the contents of this novel, and the extent to which its subject and characters may have found their way into Waugh's later fiction. I have done some research, and drafted an article which is currently in the sandbox, linked here (the refs and sources aren't properly in yet so ignore that aspect). I would value your opinion on whether the subject is substantial enough to warrant its own article, or whether I should expand it to cover Waugh's early fiction. I have the sources to do the latter, though I'm not really a lit bod (I got A-level Eng Lit, but that was aeons ago and we didn't do Waugh). Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I like that very much Brian, and I've got absolutely no doubt that it's substantial enough to warrant its own article. I'd be inclined not to expand it to cover Waugh's early fiction; I think the article already does enough to describe the possible elements of The Temple at Thatch that may have carried over into his first published work. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will continue with my pruning and fiddling (as I always do) though with a bit more confidence. Watch out for it somewhere down the line. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Periphery countries

Thank you for helping out with this article. If you are interested in the subject, note that a sister article, core countries, is also subject of the same assignment (and the third article subject to it is Great Divergence). You are more then welcome to leave your reviews on those article talk pages as well! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, it's a subject that I'm almost completely ignorant of, so your students undoubtedly know a great deal more about it than I do. All I do here is move a few commas around, and complain when a verb doesn't match its subject. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Piotrus, are your students Polish? Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, they are from this place :) Why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the writing seemed a little odd to me, that's all. Malleus Fatuorum 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks & ? more copy editing

Thanks for your help with River Parrett which has now achieved its FA star. If you had the time/motivation I'd appreciate your look at a couple of other things I'm working on. I've been developing List of museums in Somerset & working towards FL - it's not there yet, but getting close. You know how bad my prose is & any comments on the lead or summary column would be great. The other one I've started over the last couple of days as a result of Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize is Sweet Track which I'm trying (initially) to get to GA. If you are busy/lacking motivation please feel free to ignore this request.— Rod ^talk 07:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd have too much trouble with River Parrett this time around. I've been through Sweet Track, which looks pretty much at GA or thereabouts now. The citations will need to be cleaned up before it goes to FAC though; the authors' and coauthors' names are given inconsistently (lastname firstname, firstname lastname), and the formatting of ref #13, with the date in italics looks odd, for instance. I'm also left wondering why the road was built. To get from where to where? OK, it went between an island a ridge about 2,000 metres away, but what was on the island that people would have wanted to get to/away from? The article needs a few more images as well, perhaps a few of some of the artefacts? I think the lead probably needs to be a paragraph longer as well, with a bit about the track's method of construction and conservation efforts.

I probably won't get to your List of museums in Somerset until tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that's brilliant - I will look at the refs & lead, but can't find any appropriately licenced images. As for why it was built, seems to be lost in the "mists of time", however I will do a section on location etc.— Rod ^talk 14:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Very odd question

Why do you call it a Spanner while we call it a wrench? How did that happen? I have a feeling that spanner came first so why did we change the word? Is there a diffrence between the two or something? (Sorry for so many questions) Thanks.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 23:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a general question? If so, I'll give you a general answer. American English has rather quaintly hung on to words that seem archaic to us now, probably wrench meaning a spanner amongst them, although I haven't checked with the OED on that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well do you know American English? You seem to understand me pretty well...--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 23:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's different for us. Most English people have visited other parts of the world, and sometimes even conquered it, but more often these days just to lie in the sun. We see lots of American TV, so we know that you call a pavement a sidewalk, a boot a trunk, a bonnet a hood, a spanner a wrench ... it's no big deal. English is a big language, perhaps the biggest of all in terms of vocabulary (I'm guessing), so a few trans-Atlantic synonyms don't phase anyone over here. Why are you asking? Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Manchester was writen in British English and decided to find out what was the diffrence between the two. When I was in London for a day back in 04' I never noticed any diffrence other than the fact that you all had IMHO, "odd" accents.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 23:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of sites talking about the different terms. Helps to learn about it, WS, because you might want to write an article on a British ship one day.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The differences aren't so great, but some of the words and phrasings seem odd. For instance, I was completely flummoxed when I was buying a pair of shoes in California. I took them to the checkout, where the assistant said someting like "Will they do for you?" I said "Yeah, they fit fine." So then he said again "So, will they do for you?" This went on for some time, until a friendly native told me that the question was really "Is there anything else you want?" It's not so much the words, but the subtley different ways in which they're deployed. For instance, in the US you generally say "I could care less", which makes no sense at all to us Brits, who "couldn't care less". Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

PS. Whiteshadows, you're not supposed to say that our accents are "odd". What you're supposed to say is "Gee, I love your accent. Can you say that again?" :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Best used with a transatlantic of the opposite sex. Unless you prefer otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The American substition of 'already' for 'now' (if I've understood it correctly) always seems very odd, although my initial resistance to 'regular' for 'normal' seems to have broken down with the proliferation of Starbucks. That said, the more ancient 'Fall' for our newer (I believe) 'Autumn' is still my favourite Americanism. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Language is very subtle. When I lived in Scotland, if someone said "I'll do it just now" it meant that they'd do it soon, so I used to wait and wonder why they hadn't done it yet. To know what someone means, you have to know quite a bit about that person and their culture. Which is, of course, why wikipedia's childish civility policy is such a complete pile of poo. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, and in South Africa "just now" had a similar (and somewhat subjective and nebulous) meaning to manana in spanish...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: You're right. Many of my articles are supposed to be writen in British English. It would be good to know how to use that type of dialect properly. I remember once that I took a spelling test and one of the words was "center". I speled it Centre and got it marked wrong! And as for that phrase Could care less, It makes no since to me as well. That actualy means the opposite of what you're intending to say. Though I have no clue as to why you spell color Colour or armor armour. Oh and @Malleus: California is an odd state. Even us Americans can hardly understnad what the heck they are saying half of the time so I don't blame you for misunderstanding. Though just spend a day in the deep south, boy I swear the word Ain't needs to be added into the OED based off of how many times it's used down there....--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The differences aren't huge. Just have a Brit copyedit it and point things like that out to you and you'll soon get the hang of it. It sounds like you know some of the differences already. Just pick up the major things ("se" endings rather than "ze", for example), and you'll pick up the rest. And there's always the idiom you'll miss, like in one article I said "right away" and it seems it is "straight away". --Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's a pronunciation thing. I'd pronounce the "or" in "armor" as in "for", but it's really mid-way to "fur", hence the "our". BTW. why don't you call your country Amerika? Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just reali(s)zed that. And Amerika is a rude term. It's kind of like communist or nazi America.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Even within the US terms are different. "Still" and "yet" from the Midwest to the South are used to mean the same thing but they come out sounding very odd. "The dog is just a puppy yet" is Midwestern. "The dog is still a puppy" is Southern. --Moni3 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes me southern them. I don;t understnad why anyone would use the first snetence.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that strikes us Europeans, or at least this one, is that many Americans have a tendency to use 20 words, some of which might cost as much as 50 cents, where 10 free ones would do the job just as well. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I did;nt quite get that but I think I understand. We Americans like to get our point across and we want to make sure that everyone hears it. It's just our nature just as you guys like to drive on the wrong left side of the road :)--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 02:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Could care less" which Americans use for "Couldn't care less" (which the rest of us would say) I find really weird...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, some of us on this side of the pond are still fighting the good fight for grammar that makes sense! I can't tell you how many teenagers have rolled their eyes at me when I've corrected that awful phrase. Well I probably could, but I expect you couldn't care less.  ;) My Open Document gave me an interesting lesson in international spelling - somehow it got set to British spelling, and I decided to keep it that way. Forces me to pay attention to my writing since I can no longer trust the spell checker!--~TPW 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

White Shadows, this is an honest question and it's going to come out blunt, so forgive me: how do you justify saying "we Americans", particularly referring to how Americans communicate? I would never have the confidence to speak for all Americans or even attempt to describe the nature of Americans. --Moni3 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As an American (originally Irish, so I really have no excuse), my biggest language gaffe was when I innocently said to my workmates in Dublin how I had "got a ride off a priest to Kilkenny"! It took me months to live that one down! Another gaffe occurred in Brighton in 1975, when I silenced a bus full of people by innocently quoting David Bowie's lyrics "Falls wanking to the floor".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@Moni: Just as Malleus has spoken for all of the UK before. I and 99% positive that there are some exeptions to this of course.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 10:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your editor abuse

Are you still an administrator? You have just been pointlessly abusive, as well as being protective of your own work. Quote:

":If you're a "professional editor" Piano, then I'm a Chinese whore living on Mars. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been a full time, professional editor for a Fortune 500 company. I have hundreds of professionally published, peer-reviewed articles (outside of Wiki). I shouldn't have to remind you Fatuorum that a personal attack on another editor is out-of-place."[2]

Unquote. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never been an administrator Piano, and I never will be. I suggest that you refresh your memory on what constitutes a personal attack by referring to this policy page. I have merely offered my opinion that you are, at the very least, being economical with the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 12:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Per our above conversation, Malleus, what might you say on behalf of the Martian Chinese whore community? What are they trying to accomplish? What are their hopes and dreams? My pen is at the ready. --Moni3 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of all Martian Chinese whores, I'd just like to say how deeply disappointing it is to see that when someone outs themself in this way, as I foolishly did, it's considered to be a personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I have adjusted your user page accordingly. If you prefer not to partially out yourself by revealing this information on your user page (or, if you join the rest of the world in thinking I'm not funny), please revert, with my apologies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Very droll. I didn't even know that there were categories on my user page. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Halkett boat

I have listed the FA status of Halkett boat as needing review.[3] Piano non troppo (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Malleus Fatuorum 12:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You may have already spotted the speedy closure of WP:Featured article review/Halkett boat/archive1; if not, there's the (proper) link for the FAR. Bencherlite^Talk 12:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least that's out of the way for another couple of months. I have to say that this episode really does shine rather an interesting light on wikipedia's fatuous civility/personal attack policies. How many editors (including me) has Piano accused of acting dishonestly in the promotion of this article? Yet he gets all bent out of shape when I claim to be a Chinese whore living on Mars. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Devoted student of human nature that I am, I'm going to posit that Piano non Troppo was deeply stirred inside by the thought you might give sexual favors as long as your clients call you Xi Xi, and you can set your boudoir amid towering red rocks on a soft bed of red dust. I know I'm going to thinking about that for a long time. Sexual desire makes us do all kinds of funny masking when it comes upon us so suddenly. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. Well, I'm just disappointed that Malleus et al dispense their sexual favors with such alarming speed (and that they never seem to come my way, and I'm always the last to know). Five days to FAC-- ah, the shame! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer stuff

Hi Malleus - We don't often talk, and there are plenty of things we disagree about. However, you and I are on the same page when it comes to the prospect of having admins grant non-admins "permission" for autoreviewing and edit reviewing on pages that are under Flagged Protection. I think it is a horrible idea and disenfranchises the very editors who are the backbone of the project, while creating needless work to review vandalistic and useless edits that would have been rejected automatically by semi-protection software. Having said that, you and I (and those other editors who agree with my position) are in the minority here.

Malleus, when the trial starts, please allow me to activate this permission for you. (Iridescent, I know you'll be reading this, and yes, you're included too.) I fully intend to grant it to EVERY editor I can think of, and would be happy to act on lists of names if anyone wants to stick them on my page; unless there's a really obvious reason not to turn on this permission automatically (e.g., has included "poop" in 80% of their edits), they're in, and I will be very happy to defend each and every "automatic" switch-flipping.

You've added more to the quality and content of this project than 98% of editors who have ever worked here, and you shouldn't have to ask permission to edit articles that you've had access to edit since a day or two after you created your account. Risker (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not be accepting it. Accept nothing and they can take nothing away. This is going to discourage many educated people, who don't have accounts from making valuable edits. Why should they have their edits censored by a uneducated 14 year old Admin? This protection will start off on BLPs, go right through to FAs and GAs and ultimatly any page an admin wishes to declare ownership over. As an idea it stinks and it needs nipping in the bud, and it is up to the likes of us to do that nipping! Do you want some vinditive admin to be able to legitimately deprive you of being able to edit an amazing page that you wrote yourself because that is where this will end up.  Giacomo  09:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for the offer Risker, but I'm afraid that I'm unable to accept, for much the same reasons as Giacomo. It's bad enough that editors are expected to go cap in hand asking for this new "right", but, just like rollback, it will be susceptible to capricious removal by any administrator with a grudge. I gave up rollback for the same reason some time ago, and nothing's changed since then. In the short term I'll just be ignoring any articles to which flagged protection is applied, and if the trial is successful and it spreads, then I'll just be ignoring wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 12:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a douche nozzle, Malleus. Take the autoreviewer rights, do what you do, get into fights with 14-year-old and stoned admins, watch them take away your rights, and have some faith that there are a couple of admins who will step up and tell them what giant douche monsters they are for doing that...and overturn them. You have to give the rest of the community an opportunity to change. You challenge people enough and you've changed some minds. Let it be demonstrated in practice. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Moni, I love the way you contribute to my personal growth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Douche nozzle I may be, but I'm a principled douche nozzle. The system as proposed gives rights to a group 90% of whom would not qualify for them by any objective criteria, and allows them to capriciously grant or take away those rights from those who should have had them in the first place. That's morally indefensible. Malleus Fatuorum 12:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But think of the froofraws and hububs that will ensue when some assclown admin capriciously decides to remove your rights because you declared yourself to be Chinese whore on Mars. Surely you cannot resist the action. Seriously, though. You're going to come upon an edit only you can overturn or defend. You'll have to ask someone to make the edit for you, as I understand it. That's ridiculous and rather unprincipled. Or we're considering two completely different sets of principles here. Where yours deals with Wikipedia behavior, autoreviewer rights addresses content that you should have access to. This isn't some "I'm not going to ask for directions I don't care if we're driving in the desert with a bag of potato chips and half a can of Clamato and running out of gas fast" kind of mindset, is it? All dressed up to seem as if you're fighting The Man with your Malcolm X t-shirt on? --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I find the feudalism of the way in which these so-called rights are bestowed and removed to be completely intolerable. Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Feudalism isn't a very egalitarian system I know. When it phases out, though, people still have to eat. I see this as more pragmatic with the potential for a few bumps. You seem to think of it as only an enormous bump and the pragmatic part of editing content insignificant. If this is your decision today, then...it's yours. Don't do that thing where you can't ask for it in the future, though. Don't be a stubborn douche if it works out. --Moni3 (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a position I've adopted without some thought Moni3. I've known for a while, as we all have, that some form of flagged revision/protection would inevitably be rolled out; it may well be a good idea and it may well work. My objection isn't to flagged protection per se, but to the inevitably capricious way in which this (and other) rights are handed out and taken away, like pretty baubles to dazzle the peasantry. Until there's some accountability and a fair process for removing these rights, by a body competent to make that decision rather than a stoned 14 year old having a bad hair day, then I don't want them. As one who was told by one administrator I'd upset that I would no longer be allowed to review GAs, I have some personal experience of just how vindictive certain administators can be. Like Giano, if I come across an article I've worked on that's been flagged for protection I'll simply take it off my watchlist and abandon it to its fate. I certainly will not be asking anyone to make any edits to it on my behalf. Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We are, sadly, both right. You have good reasons to make your decision and you've been treated unfairly by admins who have no respect for content or human discourse. But you're also stubborn and I think you've got your feelings very hurt by this system. I'm not saying you're petty; I'm saying your hurt feelings led you to this moral principle that you will not participate in the system as it is. Were I in your position and someone came along to attempt to prove that Harvey Milk was one of Jim Jones' minions (an actual 2-month slog of arguments I had to have for that article) or that he was a pedophile, I'd go fucking apeshit. Not because I wrote the article, but because smearing the verifiable truth is offensive. There are a few forks in our roads when looking at the implementation of autoreviewer rights. The first is to participate in it or not. The second is making the decision if the work you put into articles and the verifiable truth is worth defending. It just seems to me a very poor reason to "abandon an article to its fate". It is yours, however. My parting comment is a plea that you don't refuse rights after a while because you don't know how to accept them. --Moni3 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's nothing more than the creation of yet another elite. An elite presided over by Admins with the right to expell, censor and victimise. Not a club any right thinking person would want to join. Been there, seen it all before and got the T-shirt. If any of the pages i have heavily ediited get this "protection" I shal atke them off my watchlist and hand them over to the "trusted" 14 year olds who currently love to play with them.  Giacomo  13:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the impractical thing I'm referring to. That's your choice to give up editing the pages you wrote. --Moni3 (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. It is my choice, if it's a choice between giving an Admin a stick to beat me with and boost his self esteen as a member of yet another club, then I will give up every page - if that is what has been decided is best for the encylopedia. Who are these Admins that they have the power and knowledge to censor my edits? Are they suddenly becoming experts on architecture? It is a ridiculous idea. Many of them could not write a page to save their lives. This is going to lead to nothing more than bad feeling, and a lack of good edits from IPs and new users - not to mention the 100s like me who would not ask an Admin for any favours at all.  Giacomo  14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you recognize what a ridiculous idea it is to have admins who have no concept of what the article you wrote is about deciding what edits are appropriate for it, and still be so willing to abandon the article. What does that accomplish? --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• I refuse to have to pursuade some daft little Admin the accuracy of a fact before I add it. If people feel this way, the admins have no-one to blame for it but themselves. Just look at the Richard Arthur Norton affair of only last week, what would those bullying Admins have done to him and his pages if this was in existence then? I can easily guess - they would not just have AFD'd his pages they would have banned him from them too!  Giacomo  18:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No such thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least I don't have to look up assclown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just waiting for Category:14-year-old and stoned admins to fill up... or a douche nozzle userbox. – B.hotep •talk• 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be, at least in my plan, two separate categories. Category:14-year-old admins and Category:Admins who are currently stoned. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we move the admins into that category when they inhale and remove them four or five hours later?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They will be sleeping off 7 1/2 quesadillas and a Pink Floyd marathon. --Moni3 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

←Seeing as you asked me, my 2c; while the old-style autoreviewer status, which simply stopped people who created large numbers of stubs from clogging the NewPages queue, was perfectly legitimate, this whole process looks dodgy as all hell. As I understand it you (plural) are going to give every BLP, FA and GA a status in which only pre-approved editors can edit them, and give every admin the power to remove this ability from anyone they dislike with no right-of-appeal other than by taking it to ANI (where the usual suspects will invariably chime in with the "but he's an admin, he can't have been acting inappropriately" chorus). Am I summarizing that correctly? – iridescent 15:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• That's certainly what it looks like to me, and I'm particularly concerned about how this new right will be be taken away. It's naive to believe that some admins won't remove it from whoever gets on their wrong side, just as they remove rollback today. I'm afraid that Giacomo is quite right, some will welcome this as yet another stick with which to intimidate regular editors. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I am also concerned about this real possibility. We cannot effectively implement a near-feudal system on granting and removing editing rights. There should be proper safeguards and accountability in granting and removing any user rights. By the way sorry for butting in like that on your talkpage Malleus :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • (Also apologize for interrupting) I too am concerned by this - it's the first I heard about it! I have rollback right only for the convenience, but I probably should give it up as it's so easy to accidentally click it. I don't really understand the deal with this new user-right, but I don't like the idea that it can be taken away - as it sounds like something we had anyway. Aiken ♫ 17:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Good point. It is a right we already enjoy. How can we be re-granted something we already have? Inconsistent logic. And I can only shudder at the thought of another affair like Richard Norton's as Giano aptly mentioned above. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hi Malleus,

I know you can be a copyediting machine when you're in the mood. I also know you're not much of a "joiner," but do you have any interested in participating in the copyedit backlog elimination drive in July? --~TPW 11:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the pay like? Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The usual "intangible awards," although the variety isn't bad. I won't lie; there is some paperwork if you crave the pixellated rewards.--~TPW 17:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish you luck with your drive, but it's not for me. It may well be "elitist", but I'm only really interested in helping along those articles headed for FA/GA, where it's not just the grammar and spelling that's important, but the aricle's structure, accessibility, comprehensibility, referencing, image licencing ...Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)