User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2012/March

Meetup

Hi Malleus, it was a pleasure meeting you yesterday. Hope you had a safe journey home. The next Manchester meetup is being planned for late April, hope you can make it and your thoughts on venue would be welcome. the wub "?!" 11:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It was nice to put so many faces to so many names. For me the venue was really convenient, just a very short walk from the tram station. Malleus Fatuorum 13:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not fond of the Art Cafe idea though. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Say so. I much prefer the alleged depressive aspects of beer to the nerve-jangling effects of caffeine. I am unsure why the change has been proposed. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear. Why retire to the pub after the meetup when you can have the meetup in the pub? And I'll second The wub—it was great to have a beer with you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And you. I was really, really surprised at how friendly everyone was; I thought I'd made so many enemies here! :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone here confirm my suspicion that Malleus and Iridescent look like they stepped out of 300 with pecs so hard they could hammer nails and abs that could cut glass. And finely chiseled facial features that make one think of the Brawny Man, but not so finely chiseled or lantern-jawed they travel into Tom of Finland territory. Because we have a vision of manliness that is very confined. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's pretty much spot on Moni, in my dreams anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much how they looked when I left - mind you I couldn't see straight by then. I think I'll avoid the Abbot Ale at 5% ABV next time, delicious though it was. Richerman (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I, too, had some visual problems: I attended optimistically and left misty optically. Not sure whether it was the Abbot, the Wainwright, the Ilkley Black or one of the other five. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As I'm always telling my wife - you don't go in a pub to get sober. Still I did manage to get on the the right bus home and wake up before my stop. If only I hadn't lost my balance when I got up to leave the pub I would have got away with my reputation intact. Richerman (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We caught you before you hit the floor, didn't we? You know you're in good hands with the Manchester Cabal (disclaimer: there is no cabal). --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, only my pride was hurt. And it's true, there is no cabal - but there is claque I believe. Richerman (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But you dealt with that little mishap with such aplomb. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It comes from years of practice - plenty of aplomb, just not very plumb :) Richerman (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Malleus! Nice that others are thanking you for giving them [1]. You are a mensch!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Pecs? Abs? hur, hur, hur .... or was it just the Batman body-suit you had on underneath? Wotever, I'd really like to meet you, some time. Maybe you and the Mrs. should come down this-a-way for a holiday :D But not during the tourist season, you might get shot ... Pesky (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Might get shot?? Sounds pretty much like being an editor on wikipedia. Richerman (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of our locals think the tourist season should be like the pheasant season, the grouse season, and the salmon season! Pesky (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We in Montana also have that feeling at times, frequently immortalized on a bumper sticker. Montanabw^(talk) 18:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the smarter ponies have it sussed; they operate a one-way tourist-valve at the entrance to the supermarket. Tourists are allowed in, no problem, but treats have to be provided to get back out again ... and as it's not permitted to feed the ponies (because they rapidly learn that tourists can be terrorised into offering food in self-defence), this can present something of a dilemma to tourists. However, there's often a local somewhere handy, who will walk up to the shop, say something along the lines of "Gaaaaarhhh! Gid arrdavit!" and, as if by magic, the ponies will heave a sigh, pull an evil face, and stalk off, mortally offended ... Pesky (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We've had a similar problem here, only with bears... Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, your locals are tough! "Grrr, get out of here" does not sound like the ideal response to a bear on a mission, so what do you say?

I know what you're wondering, bear: "is this supermarket trolley heavy enough to roll over me or crush me into the nearest tree?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all the excitement of shopping, I kinda lost track myself. But being as I normally buy 24 packs of beer, large quantities of sugar and doughnuts, and juice by the gallon, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, bear?

Geometry guy 23:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Coincidentally I watched Dirty Harry on TV again last night. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

*'Ranger Smith: "Bears are supposed to avoid people, not run around stealing their food."

• Yogi Bear: "I agree, sir. That's why Boo-Boo and I would never disturb family pic-a-nics." Richerman (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how different bears really are from ponies ... It doesn't matter to our local ponies whether they've actually met you or not, but they can always tell when trying it on might be a bad idea. I've had instances where an apprehensive tourist has been swinging a carrier bag towards a pony in what one would think might really be a frightening way, and the pony takes no real notice whatsoever (apart from pulling faces); yet if a pony-savvy person (preferably a semi-feral-pony-savvy person, as the SF's are a bit different in outlook to the fully domesticateds) scowls and says "Oi!" in a sufficiently authoritative tone, said pony will back off. Pesky (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days before posting it, but the effect seems to have outlasted the beer so here goes. I'd developed a kind of paranoia here, thinking that almost every hand was against me, not helped of course by the recent ArbCom case. But what the meetup showed is that although some editors, perhaps even a substantial number, believe me to be a shit of the first order, there are many others who don't. The (from my point of view) unexpected result is that I feel much more relaxed with other editors whether they agree with me or not. Strange. It'll be interesting to see if the effect survives a gritty FAC review, or a contentious GAR. I think it might. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to refer you back to a tradition that where we agree, that is (or should be, according to us!) a considerable consensus, and where we disagree, well, there are probably substantial issues to be discussed and understood. Geometry guy 00:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten that. There are some here like yourself who consistently speak with reason, and there are others like me who occasionally explode like a supernova with reason, but are otherwise pretty resistant to argument: 'cos we're right, or at least we think we are. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I still recall an encouraging comment you made on my talk page a year ago about an edit to Maggie. In the spirit that kind/generous words (such as your comment here) should not pass by without notice, thank you again. Geometry guy 23:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

So I grab the opportunity to thank you for what you just added to an AN thread: "Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not." - Ready to frame it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I framed it (on my user), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh, you went to the pub and didn't invite me. I'm only 200 miles away as well! Seriously speaking, do you think you could hve a wee look at that GAR you alerted me to a few days ago? I don't think there are serious grounds for concern, and in fact the one editor who seems to have a problem with the article has made some useful and valid points, once you get past the chip on their shoulder. I think it would beneit from your input if you feel like it. --John (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Most people are actually quite nice, once you get to know them a bit. And the more beer you both drink, the nicer you both seem to get ... Pesky (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

link??? ... ok, apologies for some really bad "American" humor (as well as some less than classical music). I am glad all you guys got to meet up and have a good time though. — Ched :  ?  19:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the delisting was a disgraceful and politically motivated act, so it's better that I take no part in the reassessment. I trust that sanity will prevail. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ageism

No making fun of the oldsters now:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU615FaODCg
• http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/list-of-the-day/the-top-25-teen-idols-of-all-time.html

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Applause*  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. A moment of silence all around. Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Tork: "Adios, to the Manchester Cowboy."[2] Doc talk 22:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't known about his passing. *Moment of silence for an artist who delighted tens of millions*  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nor me. I adored him when I was young. Pesky (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

	Have a local brew
	Thanks a lot for all the help with Chrisye and the article's FAC. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll save that until you've manoeuvred Chrisye past FAC's sometimes rocky shores. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not infrequently reminded of an ambiguous reply to a request for a reference sent to a headmaster for one of his former pupils: "if you can persuade him to work for you then you will indeed be fortunate". In fact my own headmaster wrote a rather similar reference to the polytechnic I applied to for my undergraduate course. Fortunately they were rather more switched on than he was, and simply opted that year to pick students on the basis on their IQ test results (it was a psychology course). Unfortunately for me the IQ test was after a rather liquid lunch in the students union bar, so I only just scraped through. There's a moral in that story somewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't drink alcohol, drink cendol? Interesting anecdote. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  I was at the time a member of Mensa, and I thought I had plenty of spare firepower. And as it turned out I did. Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  And cendol is exactly the kind of article that really deserves some TLC. Malleus Fatuorum 04:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• There's many under WikiProject Indonesia's purview that are need of TLC. Copyvios, poor grammar... Too many Indonesians who contribute don't care a bit about referencing and whatnot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure why you are limiting that comment to Indonesians, Crisco. It seems often to be the de facto position across the entire project. I am in the opposite situation right now: it seems that I may to have to create an article just so that I can use a source. I am quite keen to get the author mentioned in this thread listed in the refs section of something or another! - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• As evidenced by the articles I've created, I mainly work with Indonesia related articles. Of course, much of the encyclopedia is in the same sorry state... but at least American or British topics don't link to foreign language wikis to avoid red links! If you want a headache, see Trans TV or 2011 Southeast Asian Games... a big headache. I went there to link a name and found out... argh. Twaddle... hehe hope he married a Twiddle. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception

Hi again Malleus, GreatOrangePumpkin took a stab at adding a "present day" section to the article on the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow) as you suggested at the article's FAC. Does the changed version satisfy your concerns here? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that'll do for me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, glad to hear it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Discipline Global Mobile and French eroticism

As I suspected, you are a CrimHead. Having the usual developed literary intelligence of a CrimHead, you are fully qualified to vet the DYK nomination for Discipline Global Mobile.

(Do remember to note my solicitation, if you do a DYK.)

P.S. "Rhymes with Mank" department

Larks' Tongues in Aspic was used in Emmanuelle. Finally gives me a reason to see it! ;)

I wonder whether the settlement from Emmanuelle or from Kanye West's 21st Century Schizoid Man sampling was more satisfying?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you know

• ... that the music company Discipline Global Mobile (DGM) insists that its artists own all copyrights, so that even its "knotwork" corporate logo (pictured) is owned by its designer?
• ... that the music company Discipline Global Mobile (DGM) derives half of its profits from 10% of its sales? Ning-ning (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Dude, don't leave me hanging with the vagueries of a variant Pareto-principle. Do you have a source?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

source. Mail-order business to Japan- I don't know if that counts as a variant Pareto-principle or an unbalanced business model. Apologies for the late reply- was scrubbing the cooker. --Ning-ning (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That was helpful!

Nelson's page seems more compliant with WMF's and Wikipedia's copyright-schmopyright position and opposition to SOPA than with mine, but it is much more readable than my cited source, Google. (It seems that Billboard's archives don't go back so far or require payment.) It seems to be the main secondary source for information about the business of DMG, which I suppose is the major gap in the article, preventing it from being GA.

The DMG site's "About us" records some dark days around 2005, but DMG continues, happily for us.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I incorporated your DYK-worthy hook about Japanese sales and profits in the article. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• ... that the music company Discipline Global Mobile (DGM), whose artists retain their copyrights, doesn't even own the copyright for its own corporate logo (pictured)?

Geometry guy 22:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy!

Good suggestion, which should be delivered like Iditarod vaccine, hastily to DYK! (I incorporated Ning-ning's suggestion in the article, but it also is DYK worthy.) I do like that you used the artwork, which was generously donated this week to WP by the artist (CC 3.0 BY SA).

However, the "whose artists retain their copyrights" is a big pill to swallow, mid-sentence.... Hmmm....

Also, your account doesn't explain why they don't keep the copyrights: Is it a court order ...?

I'd prefer a hook emphasizing that DGM has atypical "aims" and aytypical ways, the source of DGM's notability. Let the muses aid us!

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe again

Following your advice, I submitted this for PR and the result is here. I've tried to deal with most of the points raised, but am still not satisfied with the prose. Would you be willing to give it a thorough copyedit? Thanks in hope and anticipation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course, I should be able to read through it this evening with any luck. You were fortunate that Brian did the peer review. Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all that detailed work; you are a real Wikipal! I have implemented (most of, if not all) your advice/suggestions. As a matter of interest, I have received a mailing today from John Hughes with many corrections, improvements, etc., some of which agree with yours. I am in the position of trying to please everyone all the time (rather like FAC). Having tried to do that, I will leave things to simmer for a while, and then go for it. If you want to have another look at how it now is feel free; but I guess you've done enough for the present. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at your edits earlier, and they broadly seem fine to me. The only one that stuck out was that you restored "both" in the phrase "both England and France", but obviously "and" implies "both". That's a small thing though. You're very fortunate to be in contact with John Hughes, but of course it'll be you and not him (and not me either) who has to defend the article at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

PS. I meant "defend" in the sense of defending an academic thesis of course, nothing more. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Josce de Dinan/GA2

ready for my input or did you plan on more? Sorry I dropped the ball on this one .. I've been fighting the crud/whatever still as well as dealing with the hubby's new work schedule... it has him up at 1am to get to work at 2am .. it is the suck. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That was it I think. Is it done now? Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'll get on those in a few. Was catching up with Pain and de Gray... and now must needs get mother up. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Got them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

North Pier, Blackpool

Just to let you know that I eventually passed the article. It's not as long as it could be, probably because it's mostly restricted to freely-accessible web sources at the moment, but it's not looking bad. J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to post that to the nominator, User:Worm That Turned? Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, he knows- I was just letting you know as you gave some advice and did a little copyediting. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that my advice seems to have been helpful in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be really appreciated

... over at the Civility, clear, plain and simple sandbox. Pesky (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The only good civility policy is a deleted civility policy. Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[Sigh]. And there I was, thinking that you might help word something acceptable ... (>**)> Hugz, anyway. Pesky (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The deeper problem is when people are actually unkind on purpose, harassing, baiting and otherwise being deliberately mean to others with actual malice or at least bad intent. A second problem is how to apply a cluebat with a proportionate level of force to those who are inadvertently quite unkind and say harmful things to others, but absent actual malice or bad intent. Then, of course, the "dialing back Malleus when he accidentally crosses the line from entertaining curmudgeon to just a jerk" (said with a grin and noogies) would be a guideline that would take a life's work... Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Detecting intent on the internet is a very shifty thing. IF there's going to be a policy, it needs to be VERY clear and contain detailed examples of what's NOT acceptable. Civility isn't really the issue, IMO. It's conduct (good and bad). The more I think about it, the more I become convinced (or concerned) that a loose policy that can be wielded like a club by agenda-monkeys is worse than no policy at all. Any conduct policy should be applicable to all, and worded so that said agenda-monkeys can't hide behind it and wrap themselves in the cloak of moral rectitude.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

... and I'd just ignore it anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Drowning in ad-lib beer or snufflecation-by-cleavage as the ultimate in forcibly-hugging, perhaps? "Thou shalt not snarl until thou hast drunk this gallon of Real Ale ..." Either of those could be hard to ignore ;P Pesky (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyhoo, even if you don't want to contribute, I'd really appreciate a bit of feedback from you (as it seems to be something like 90% "Pesky's civility thoughts" at the moment!) Pesky (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You've already had 100% of my thoughts on the civility policy, it ought to be scrapped. However it's worded it'll continue to be a stick (some) administrators will use to beat editors they've taken a dislike to. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you may be right. So long as any policy is not extended evenly to those who have enforcement capability it will be abused by some who do have that capability.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Would something like this, right up at the top, change the way you thought about this? Pesky (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

John de Gray

I think I got your concerns on my talk page... feel free to start dealing with my crappy prose again... I THINK I'm back for a bit. I swear adjusting my sleep schedule is sucky sucky sucky... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I on the other hand find that sunlight is best avoided; brings out such terrible blisters and burning. But now you're back in harness I'll finish off looking at John. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have garden plans for this year - tomatoes, peppers, beans, cucumbers, and lots of other fresh veggies from my garden, so I'll be seeing a bit more sun than usual. And I'll be quite happy to NOT be paying through the nose at the grocery store for my veggies too! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I just learned that in the UK if six people get together and ask their local authority for some land to grow vegetables on, the local authority is obliged to make some available. I wouldn't be growing cucumbers though, I hate the damn things. Or parsnips, or swedes, or broccoli, or turnips, or brussel sprouts .... Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

But I wonder. Can you see this? Malleus Fatuorum 05:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wot, no parsnips? But parsnips roasted in goose fat, all crispy and golden on the outside, and soft and succulent on the inside, are just lush :o) Pesky (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pedantry: egoism v. egotism

I see that in your FAC review of Roza Shanina you requested a change from "egoism" to "egotism". I have never been entirely sure of the precise difference between the two words, but my general understanding is that "egoism" is self-centeredness and "egotism" implies excessive self-importance. If that is the case, then in the context of its use in the Shanina article, "egoism" may have been correct—though I think I'd have avoided using either word. Brianboulton (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but that's the least of my issues with the article. If you think I'm being too hard on the article then just say so at the review. Who knows, you may even persuade me that I am. Doubt it though. :D Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you; I was more concerned with educating myself than with rescuing the article which, as you say, has a great deal more wrong with it at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(Sticks oar in) Although reference 3 Out of nowhere is a pretty interesting read it may not be an RS- the author in one case appears to have been spun a line by someone claiming to have shot a number of IRA members in an ambush. Ning-ning (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

or maybe ergotism....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

tee-hee, yes. Far more common than is realized, and accounts for a lot of the behaviour we see. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Witches, Shamans and Hallucinogens ?

Dear Malleus. I've recently put forward the article at Dreamtime (Duerr book) for peer review. It's an anthropological and philosophical book dealing with witches, shamans and hallucinogens, and knowing of your interest in the first of these three subjects I thought that you might be interested. If you have time, it'd be great if you could help peer review this one. All the best. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC))

I'm interested in the third of them as well. ;-) I'll try and get to the peer review later this evening, or tomorrow at the latest. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Come visit the Forest, we has Liberty Caps growing in their millions at the correct time of year. Also Fly Agaric, and a number of other little fun guys ... ;P Pesky (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have an image in my mind of you working in your home pharmacy surrounded by all sorts of herbs and roots and fungi, rather like Brother Cadfael. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just been reminded Midnightblueowl of when our paths first crossed, when you tagged Pendle witches as being out of date, so expect no mercy from me. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 06:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! to the Cadfael comparison! Fing is, though, fing is, that many of the home-brewed remedies are extremely good. The Stachys woundwort family, for example ... Pesky (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing this one for me Malleus! Hope you enjoyed reading about the wacky world of Hans Duerr! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC))

Feeling misanthropic?

Hi Malleus, if you (or any of your wonderful talk page stalkers) find yourself feeling misanthropic anytime soon, you might want to review the Human Extinction Movement. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't tempt me! Ha! Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How are you?

I realize I've been gone for a lot longer than it seems, and that I've missed a lot. Anyway, how are you? Written anything lately? I could use a good read. ceranthor 21:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You could always read this. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In cheery news, I almost got booted out of a venue today for not showing the appropriate degree of respect to some tin-pot hitler. And I didn't even swear or shout, I just raised my hands and told her to do whatever she had to. Roll on the Olympics, when her contempt feels the full force of a host broadcaster and the money behind them. Parrot of Doom 22:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was almost refused entry to a flight to the Isle of Man when I was contracting there. I turned up at Speke early one Monday morning with my bag and laptop in a separate bag as I'd done every week for ages, only to be told at checkin that I could only take one bag onto the flight. Naturally I objected, and they relented. But when I got to the boarding area I was surrounded by a melee of Manx Air staff, all prodding and poking me (metaphorically of course) into saying something that would give them an excuse to ban me from the flight. Does that remind you of anywhere? I used to enjoy flying, but my fervent hope now is that I'll never have to get on another plane. Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This was pretty funny and may appeal to you: Arcadia (The X-Files).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. I read this. I did not understand much. Lol. I am very happy to see you around more often. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice eh, ahem...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, sorry to hear. :/ ceranthor 23:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy International Women's Day

	Award for a great woman
	On the internet no one knows if you're a dog, but I am going to call you an honorary woman. Against kitchen slavery, and for women's writing: this award presented to a deserving human being. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Dammit. Thanks. I'm going to make a numbered list here, just because I can. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been accused of all sorts of gender abuse here on Wikipedia, but never in real life, because it just isn't true. I bet if you counted up the contributors to this talk page you'd find there are are just as many women as men, perhaps even more. I love women, I'm even married to one! Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You may have some interest in this

Ihde, Erin. "'So gross a violation of decency': a note on wife sales in colonial Australia." Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, v.84, no.1, June 1998: (26)-37. ISSN: 0035-8762. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments, please?

On this :D Pesky (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I over-think ...

	Also sorry
	I'm much better at doing the right things I've been shown than determining what is actually right. I will try to remember as well. My76Strat (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you and Pesky referring to? Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing. My best guess is that it is a response to your weariness at receiving frequent advice, but I could be completely wrong! Geometry guy 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know what motivated Pesky, but I seized the moment as it occurred to me and I saw a chance to reciprocate. Metaphorically acknowledging that we, (Pesky and I) arrived at the same place, (supportive of your efforts) by different paths of reason. That's the skinny on mine. My76Strat (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Do I get a pass on that MF? Or fail? Anyway; I wish tranquil wellness for you; going forward. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Geometry guy's correct; I apologise for unwanted advice which you're heartily sick of! Unfortunately, having been teacher, parent, grand-parent and parent-substitute for a long time, the dishing-out of advice just becomes a habit. Pesky (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Eight solid weeks of being told what an arse you are, and how much better Wikipedia would be if you just fucked off can have a rather wearing effect. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe being told that your "contributions at RfA" are a "sad side show" will help you reach closure..., or at least better to understand the fidelity of the committee.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that rather an extraordinary statement for an arbitrator to have made. But then they're all administrators with a vested interest in the sanctity of RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Particularly after the criticisms of the Arbs (Hawkeye and Thumperward) for making remarks liable to interpretation of put-downs of you soon after using their administrative powers.

But the character uniform behavior was revealed by the election, during which my endorsement was accepted, and after which it was spurned, conveniently. (I could not imagine e.g. WTT, whatever our past differences, accepting a bad endorsement.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, I would never call you an arse, and I can't see how you "just fucking off" could really benefit the 'pedia. Being me, though, I find it really hard not to suggest tweaks here and there! [Pesky bites thumbs in self-restraint]. It never ceases to amaze me, though, how people (some Arbs, some Admins) can fail to see that they are doing the exact same thing, in different clothing, as the thing they're criticising others for. @Kiefer wolfy-wits, I actually think that if WTT had got in, he'd have made a very thoughtful Arb. I think the added responsibility would probably have brought out the very best in him. Regardless of your previous spats and so on, I'm so sure that he has his head basically screwed on right, and his heart in the right place. I've never known him (yet) to have actual ill-intent towards someone; we're all fallible, and I really hope that you and he eventually develop a strong cameraderie. I think the results could be amazing. It would be so good if you could actually meet in Real Life, share a beer and a pie somewhere relaxing, and talk a few things out (while under the relaxing influence of said beer). I have just the pub for you ... Pesky (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's good that he's clerking. I think that I suggested that in my ArbCom Election guide, at least in draft, before I removed it to "stay on message". One hopes that he will pass on ideas to other clerks and the arbs, rather than just being a gnome. Also, he's been mentioned as a bureaucrat possibility---all good. :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Answering your question

A volunteer, screened and approved by WMF, to be a public face of WP on the campus hosting the Peirce Edition project.

His edit rate has really increased at last check, perhaps meeting the rate suggested at RfA, which I had thought was sarcasm but now I can only wish that it were sarcasm. I fear that with additional Red-Bull afterburners, the Twinklers will destroy the space-time continuum, unless Dr. Who or Captain Jack Harkness appear.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Or Kirk or Picard? Pesky (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Attack of the killer MOSmen

In the last days, I've had long discussions, tumbing from page to page, ever deeper into Hell, about

• renaming "King Crimson album covers by P J Crook" as "King Crimson album covers" and "album covers by P J Crook". (Of course, WP only has KC covers and no other art by her),
• "P J Crook" must be mispelled "P. J." because of the MOS, despite her use of "P J" professionally,
• had a vandal-template attached to my user name, which invited any administrator to "nuke" my contributions. (Elen soon explained that the nuclear option was only tactical, i.e., limited to recent contributions). (Thanks again for the support!)
• had my article on Roger J-B Wets rewritten to "explain" that his name is really "Roger Jean-Baptiste Wets", abbreviated "Roger J.-B. Wets" (which is a pet peeve of Wets, in real life, where he has had his name legally declared to be "J-B") and that he is a "programmer", etc. I'm still waiting for Demiurge1000 to share his wisdom on this page.

Forget the beers! I Wanna Be Sedated! Pesky must have a horse tranquilizer to spare....

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Forget the tranquilisers, get some of her mushrooms. Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

... and read Wikipedia in Glorious Psychedelicolour ... Pesky (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I must admit

I did have a hearty laugh at that. Anyway, if it were me I'd gate it via a grammar quiz rather than edit count; anyone wishing to click the "block" button would be given a sentence with a blank, and must correctly decide whether "your" or "you're" goes in the blank before they'd be allowed to proceed. Admin captcha, if you will. It would also help cut down on blocking while intoxicated, I'd imagine. 28bytes (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I shall grab that one for my funnies stable. Of course, with some people, there's a far better use for their tie ;P Pesky (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's my price list

• GA review £5
• Peer review £7.50
• FA review between £10 and £25, depending on the number of commas that need to be moved around.

Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As a deafy, I ask "Comma gain?" Perusing your present rates, I might have to have a word with someone in the States. It would therefore help if you could provide a link to a decent currency conversion service. Would you not settle for a pint of Holt's Mild? Push me hard enough and I might manage to supply a pint of one of their lagers, but I do regret the passing of their mega-cheap (and palindromic) Regal brew. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Never tried their Regal, and I hate mild; I always have their Diamond lager when I'm in a Holt's pub. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The brewer at The Bull, Bridge Street, Fakenham once brewed an "entire" porter (a sour dark beer). I admired his bravery in producing a beer that tasted like burnt yoghurt, and on returning a few years later, when my tongue had grown back, I said as much to the barmaid. She denied there ever had been such a thing in her pub (and she'd only had had a week's holiday over the past ten years). Unfortunately, just then, the brewer was having his decade's worth of leave, and was absent the premises, so the question wasn't settled. Ning-ning (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Bath Ales do a nice porter, and despite their name it does not have a soapy finish. At the recent Manchester Wikimeet, myself and A N Other each had a pint of Ilkley Moor Mild that had a distinct burnt taste to it. It had me reaching for my flat cap, roll-up and whippet but, alas, they were safely stashed at home. Since Malleus is a lager man, I have bottles of Trappistes Rochefort 8 & 10 lying around here. Feel free to take a virtual slurp ... and fall over. One day, I will get round to sorting out Joseph Holt's Brewery. It needs a fair bit of work but sources are available. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

MOO II

Hi, Malleus. Please improve Master of Orion II --Philcha (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What did your last slave die of? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fractured skull. He didn't do as he was told. Pesky (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been meaning to get back to this, but it that's unlikely to happen this weekend, so I'm not sure when I will next be able to fit it in. Geometry guy 23:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Altrincham

This is a note to let the main editors of Altrincham know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 23, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 23, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Altrincham is a market town within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, in Greater Manchester, England. It lies on flat ground south of the River Mersey about 8 miles (13 km) southwest of Manchester city centre, 3 miles (5 km) south-southwest of Sale and 10 miles (16 km) east of Warrington. As of the 2001 UK census, it had a population of 41,000. Historically a part of Cheshire, Altrincham was established as a market town in 1290, a time when most communities were based around agriculture rather than trade, and there is still a market in the town today. Further socioeconomic development came with the extension of the Bridgewater Canal to Altrincham in 1765 and the arrival of the railway in 1849, stimulating industrial activity in the town. Outlying villages were absorbed by Altrincham's subsequent growth, along with the grounds of Dunham Massey Hall, formerly the home of the Earl of Stamford, and now a tourist attraction with three Grade I listed buildings and a deer park. Altrincham today is an affluent commuter town, partly because of its transport links. It is also a centre for sport, home to Altrincham F.C. and an English Premier League ice hockey club, Manchester Phoenix. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh God! Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I jixed it. Nev1 (talk)

You did. I thought that the Sale thing was bad enough, but I suppose that one gets used to being metaphorically screwed here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

But I never did, which is perhaps why I got screwed more than most, and why I now contribute almost nothing. Let Newyorkbrad and his acolytes write whatever they can, I'm beyond caring. Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make the world ...

... I just try to live in it. And change stuff where it can be improved.

Yup, in your ideal world, "the only good civility policy is one conspicuous by its absence." BUT ... that ain't gonna happen here. There's always going to be one. We're having some interesting, thoughtful and productive discussion over at WT:CIV, with some big hearts and good brains involved. If I had been putting together a working team to write something decent, you would surely have been one of my first choices. We need your points of view, and your intelligence, insight and excellent language skills over there. Bearing in mind that you're going to have to live with some kind of civility policy (and this goes for many like you but less outspoken), please will you join us in an endeavour to get something bearable and sensible in place? Pretty please? Mucho hugzies, offers of free beer, directions to the mushroom fields ... ;P Pesky (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd take a look, ......but I couldn't finish. Everybody knows what it means, nobody will read it. It's too long and it will be unevenly enforced as before. I don't read anything I don't have to, I don't think many editors do. Most of it reminds me of school rules, it hardly treats editors as adults. If it can't be said in a couple of sentences it's not worth saying. I loathe this nicey-nicey stuff. It's a policy for the easily offended that's all. Sorry. J3Mrs (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not (personally) looking for yes-men (or yes-women) here. What we really need are lots of views from different angles, and your comments here show that you could be invaluable. I'm (personally) trying to get away from walls of text and more towards bullet points, do's and dont's, almost-soundbites, and getting stuff worded clearly, concisely, and simply, so that editors who have English as a second language, and younger editors, can understand it just as easily as people from Uni / college / further/higher education backgrounds can. If we can't all understand it, it's next to useless. If you can bear to have another look (lol!) with a view to more concise wording, that would be great. Pesky (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It might as well be left alone as the problem isn't what it says but how it's interpreted. Any self respecting adult is simply not going to wade through either text or bullet points. We all know what is and isn't civil, it's more about what some people get away with and what other others don't. I've got away with things and I've been subject to things. It's really a policy for the easily offended and those who like running to teacher. I can't see how it could possibly be anything else. It should say develop a thick skin or find something else to do. I don't want to go back to school rules thanks. J3Mrs (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll briefly poke my head in here to agree with J3Mrs. No normal editor will, or should be expected to, read through and memorize a list of bullet points regarding a topic as marginal to most editors' daily activity as this. Your proposal isn't aimed at typical editors, it's aimed at the half-dozen fruitloops who would actually waste their time commenting on WT:CIV. If I'm reading this correctly, you're seriously suggesting that not only should all editors be expected to memorize the personal prejudices of you and a couple of your friends, they should be subject to sanctions should they have an opinion that differs from your own, or do anything you consider "upsetting". I disagree with J3Mrs in one respect; these proposals would be laughed out of any self-respecting grade school, since teachers understand the concept that "people sometimes disagree". Your proposal is so draconian that in the very unlikely event it ever became policy, even the most hardline Defender Of The Wiki types would ignore it.

Although I haven't been following this (or anything) in any kind of detail, it seems that all your (Pesky's) comments on this topic have a distinct whiff of "cult leader explaining revealed wisdom to the masses" about them; you seem to think your particular prejudices are inalienable truth, whilst anyone who happens to disagree with you is a poor misguided fool who needs to be bombarded with patronizing nonsense until they give up in disgust and leave you to play with yourself. (Since AFAIK my sole previous interaction with you was your taking a very carefully worded post of mine based on years of experience of the interactions between Wikipedia's hardcore editing community, Wikipedia's casual users, Wikipedia's dispute-resolution processes, the WMF, Arbcom wearing its "de facto provisional government when consensus fails" hat, and the external critics of Wikipedia—and unilaterally "summarizing" it into sanctimonious, unworkable and objectionable bilge—I'm uninclined to give you much benefit of the doubt here.) – iridescent 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I apologise if I offended you; however, I find your comments here to be extremely offensive. Where did WP:AGF go, in all of that? Pesky (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I note you said "If I'm reading this correctly...". I don't think you are. I never suggested, for example, that anyone should be memorising anything. I'm also having real trouble working out what you think is draconian. Pesky (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the responders here are missing the point; first off, Pesky was curious what Malleus thought, and he has yet to weigh in. Second, the responses I am seeing here are exactly why such a policy should be developed, vicious ad hominem attacks against an editor making a good faith effort are out of line. Third, Pesky is one of the most sincere and straightforward editors I know on wikipedia, and really does not deserve to have her good faith suggestions dismissed as "sanctimonious, unworkable and objectionable bilge." Finally, having spent a LOT of years as a teacher, this sort of thing is PRECISELY what shows up in many schools -- statements by nature general, but applicable to multiple situations, thus taking away the excuse, "gee teacher, I didn't know it was against the rules, there's no rule that says I can't push Suzie into a mud puddle and call her a green zit-face." Civility is also known as acting like an adult, and targeted deliberate incivility should only be applied with common sense to those who lack a clue. Adult behavior is something in quite short supply here. Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I support Iridescent's statement, which is a clear statement of the spirit of existing policy (which is often misapplied).

An unfortunate consequence of the other proposals (and TPC's critics at WP:Civ are worse [3] [4]) is that they would strengthen the ability of administrators to block editors for incivility that does not reach the level of personal attacks or disruptive editing; such a change in policy would need an RfC to have legitimate weight.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Like Montanabw, I would have preferred an acknowledgment of Pesky's good faith from Iridescent and perhaps thanks for keeping Iridescent's suggestion "in play", but I am sure that TPC is a robust editor who is secure in her own worth and secure in the knowledge that she has earned our trust, respect, and affection, so nothing more need be said.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I did weigh in, above, to say that what I want is to see the civility policy abolished; it will never be anything other than a stick to beat other editors with. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[Pesky hugs Mf] ... that's actually one of my main goals in trying to get the damned thing sorted out, to get it fair and reasonable, and equally applied. I'm trying to get something in there which will stop the hypocrisy with which some people use the policy as a weapon. I don't know if you've looked at any of it, but the following was one of my ideas:

Rules of Enforcement

1. Be absolutely, scrupulously fair and impartial at all times

   This means never reporting any editor for something which you have either done yourself, or would tolerate in your best mate! And also never piling-on in support of sanctions when someone else makes a report for something which you have either done yourself, or would tolerate in your best mate!

   Be sure to take into account all the relevant history; never make snap judgments without acquainting yourself with the background to any situation

2. Think very hard of the possible merits of all other avenues of approach before you take action

   Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do

   Remember that sanctions may be more applicable under another heading (disruption, personal attack, tendentious editing, etc.)

3. Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case - cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via ANI or RFC/U, before any admin action is taken.

---

That third one was actually Fluffernutter's. EotR is aslo helping to rein in some of my more wacky moments. (And I don't consider either of them to be fruitloops ;P )

@KW; I'm not as "robust" as you seem to think! Sometimes things like what Iridescent said really, really hurt. Stupid, but true. It's not since December that I've felt so comprehensively misunderstood, or face-slapped for trying to make something better. Pesky (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm afraid Be absolutely, scrupulously fair and impartial at all times doesn't sit well with me at all. One person's fairness is another's injustice and so on. Our judgement is often clouded by the fact we're human. We get angry, we forget things. Brains just don't work in a way that makes that section possible...I've gotten annoyed over things I've done myself, had an argument about it and the such, only to realise later (sometimes much later) that I was being a rotten hypocrite. That's like asking people to be perfect, or God. Never going to happen. If there's a civility policy, it has to make allowance for the the fact that people are human. No amount of sensible wording is going to make us all act fairly all the time. :P ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 10:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

By bringing this to the talk page of an editor who has said he is not interested, don't you think you are rather proving Iridescent's point? I took the trouble to read it all and well....... I'd let it drop, it isn't worth it, as nothing will change, well certainly not for the better. J3Mrs (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What OohBunnies said. Your proposal as it stands is to make it sanctionable for anyone to act in a way which could upset anyone, which even the hardline Civilination types would consider unworkably draconian. There are only two ways in which a civility policy could actually function within Wikipedia's unique (and uniquely problematic) internal culture; either the 'common law solution', of abolishing the formal policy altogether and approaching each case in terms of impact on the project; or, an intentionally inflexible formal policy with as little wiggle-room as possible. Both would be so vigorously opposed by the half-dozen people who WP:OWN the civility policy (that figure isn't plucked out of thin air), that neither would ever be accepted unless the WMF imposed them from above. As Malleus and OohBunnies both say above, the proposed bullet-list of platitudes is an open invitation to gaming and abuse. (How exactly are you to judge what someone else would or wouldn't "find acceptable if someone said it to their nephew"?) FWIW, I find it vanishingly unlikely that EotR is actually supporting your proposal, given that she has Arbcom experience, and knows full well both how unworkable it would be and just how strongly "perceived incivility" correlates with "personal grudge". (As previously mentioned, when That Case opened at Arbcom I gave Malleus an accurate prediction of the voting numbers based purely on the personal attitudes towards the various parties of the arbs active on the case. What in a friend is a "strongly worded opinion", in an enemy is "gross incivility". It's been mentioned many times before, but the internal politics of Wikipedia are generally determined by who can round up the most cronies, and who can avoid upsetting anyone important.) – iridescent 11:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Iridescent: Ah, OK, I think I understood that better. (btw, Iridescent, I'm a HFA person, so Isometimes just can't get it unless it's explained differently. I do try, but I often fail.) I now see what you meant by the "draconian" thing; I obviously worded that idea very badly. Something does need to be done to make the thing workable, anc clear, and non-gameable, though. What we currently have is chaotic, and chaotically applied. Can you help with wording, re-wording, brainstorming, whatever is necessary to make this thing right?

@J3Mrs, I'm putting enough trust in Malleus to be aware that I'm really trying to make something better, not be uncivil or annoying to him. When you want a policy as clearly-written and unabiguous as an FA is, there are a few good, sound people whose input is invaluable. Malleus is one of them.

There are loads of ways of failing, but in order to make the damned thing better, how can we make it succeed, , instead of thinking of all the ways it can fail? Please help. Something needs to be done, and it seems as though most people either don't care, or don't dare, to "grab this bull by the horns and rethink the whole civility issue, because all we have right now is anarchy and chaos." Pesky (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No matter what you come up with, until it's applied evenly and fairly (read "all users" as opposed to "editors," as I can see some Admins arguing that since they aren't titled editor the rules don't apply) nothing will really work. And since I've seen no real inclination to apply rules to everyone equally, any policy (no matter how carefully crafted and worded) is doomed to failure or abuse. Sorry, Pesky. I think you're trying to do something really good here, but the existing culture really works against you on a number of very fundamental levels. So long as authority figures (real or perceived, just to avoid claims that admins aren't authority figures) ignore or flaunt rules it encourages others to do the same.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My biggest bugbear with the whole civility thing is the unequal application of it. But then I have this obsession about injustice. In my book, "all editors" means all. Without exception. Rules which are unequally enforced aren't rules; they are the oppressive tools of a tyranny. Pesky (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent}Unequal application is hard to eliminate completely, any person will tell you that the real life law always works better for some people than others, in real life there are dramatic differences in application between rich and poor and (in the USA anyway) white and non-white, etc. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't have real world law or wikipedia policy, it just means that it's a social contract that is under never-ending modification. I don't think a civility policy can ever be set in stone or applied perfectly, but that doesn't mean one should not be created. The problem, as always, is crafting something that understands the difference between Malleus' now-infamous example of calling a couple of male admins the "c-word" which was used as a trout slap and cluebat against people who probably needed such a slap, versus (just as an example) the editor who called Bishonen a variant on the "b-word" with a clear intent to bully the user and create a hostile environment. A good policy would have a mechanism to tell Malleus that he's being a flaming a--hole when he's crossed the line without banning and blocking him from doing what he does best. Yet, at the same time, the truly disruptive editors who seldom contribute anything useful at all and seem to spend all their time on the drama boards need to be blocked swiftly and efficiently instead of being allowed to feed their egos by running tendentious, endless arguments over a half-dozen policy talk pages. Montanabw^(talk) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

On a point of order, it was only one editor, not two, and I had no idea then or now whether that editor was an admin or not. What started the trouble off was my perfectly innocuous observation that some administrators were dishonest cunts, which I find it hard to believe that anyone could credibly deny. Things just spiralled out of control after that. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In any statistically significant sample of humans, some of them are going to be dishonest cunts. Ask KW. I suppose the only question remaining (for the purists) is whether that subset of humanity is a statistically significant sample. Pesky (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm pestering, but I'm doing it in a good cause, and because I care

The other reason(s) is / are what you said earlier:

* Better would be to fix the Wikipedia concept of civility and apply it consistently to all editors, which is the only possible good outcome I can see from this case. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would agree to abide by any properly written and consistently enforced civility policy, but right now we have neither. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  

• Absolutely agree with the observations made by Pesky. Someone needs to be mandated to grab this bull by the horns and rethink the whole civility issue, because all we have right now is anarchy and chaos. Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty please? Especially with the "properly written" bit? Pasting across form my talk: I'm absolutely convinced that, in all policy pages, the writing should be as simple, clear, and non-verbose as is humanly possible. Policy pages that read as though some pompous post-grad lecturer with zero charisma has written them are just plain irritating when they should be written in a way that one would describe the policy to (for example) a favourite nephew. (Or someone with ESL, etc.) Pesky (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC) [headdesk]] Oops, I did it again. I posted this before reading the comments up above :o( . No incivility was meant here, really. I just think you;d be possibly the best person to get the wording absolutely right. Pesky (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rexx treating Malleus as he would like to be treated: buy him a Stella Artois

How about considering this as a civility policy, Pesky:

• Editors ought to treat each other in the same way as they would like to be treated themselves. No sanctions are applicable for any breach of that.

It's simple, realistic and easy to "enforce". Trust me, it wouldn't produce any worse results than what we have now. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bravo, RexxS! I've been sitting here thinking that "do onto others as you would like others to do onto you" would be a pretty decent civility policy...or at least that's what my parents tried to convince my siblings and me of... :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Love it! I still like the idea, though, of someone like Jorm coding-up a computer-to-brain interface script which would automatically install BeNice™ software into the human who clicks on the link to the civility policy – it would make life so much simpler! Pesky (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Being "nice" doesn't always get the job done. I remain firmly of the conviction that the civility policy ought not to be one of the five pillars, and it ought never to have been one of the five pillars. In fact it sticks out like a sore thumb amongst them as the only one not addressing the product; the only sensible course is to delete it. Of course I know that won't happen, as nothing can be changed here, which I made the grudging comments you alluded to earlier. The bottom line is that so long as administrators such as Georgewilliamherbert are emboldened by any civility policy that gives them the scope to block other editors it will not be enforced across the board. Even Jimbo has himself not infrequently made comments to or about other editors that would likely have resulted in at least a warning had other, non-admin editors made them. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what needs to change. (By being nice, I really being being unhurtful, btw.) So – how do we go about getting the thing forcibly equally enforced? You're right; you must have some good ideas! Anyhoo, I'm off to bed now (got woken up by mother three times between 2am and 6am ... sigh.) And which one in the pic are you? Pesky (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one sitting in front of the empty Stella Artois glass, in apparently animated conversation with Iridescent. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I recently saw this on a T-shirt, and it made me think a bit:

• We are all born with hearts of gold
• But we grow old - and hearts grow cold.

• — Ched :  ?  20:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  That's completely contrary to my own experience and everything I believe in. Older people have a duty to fight to change things, as they have far less to lose than the youngsters, and often the time to do it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In theory I would agree, but in practice my experiences have been less encouraging. Sometimes people just get tired, and lack the exuberance of youth to carry on the challenges. Change can be a wonderful thing, yet it often comes with a heavy price tag. Perhaps it's just a matter of getting a second wind, and trying once more. Either way, I'll consider your views as always. (hopefully you got a refill on that empty glass :-)) — Ched :  ?  20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I did, everyone was very generous. Quite took me aback really. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you all having fun! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a disconnect sometimes that leads to many problems here. I'm quite certain for instance, to pick one example out of the blue, I'll think quite differently about Rexxs the next time I meet him online. What I'll remember is a very congenial person with whom I had a discussion about nitrogen toxicity, and who very generously bought me a Stella. How could I possibly fall out with him? Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm. That photo is timestamped 15:41. I was there at 13:00 and left ca. 19:15. I might try an orange juice next time. But then again, I might not. Anyways, the pic clearly shows civility in action and without a policy in sight. Has anyone else spotted the paper money lying next to the empty glass yet? Try doing that at the other end of the East Lancs Road! And I can assure you that MF is absolutely surrounded by admins there but there are no red cards being shown ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who may not know, Sitush is the handsome tall chap in the white shirt, standing in the background. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said to you Simon, I really was apprehensive about the reception I might receive, but I was frankly gobsmacked. I hope that others such as J3Mrs might be encouraged to come along to the next meet, but without a ready supply of alcohol .... Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The art cafe cannot fit us in. There is a suggestion (gaining support) that we might try the Abercrombie next to Bootle St cop shop. It would be good to have more bodies, and even better if we could increase the female contingent. No-one has to drink alcohol in city centre pubs nowadays: they all do coffee etc. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that's an improvement. I'm certain that J3Mrs would be amenable to a little bit of persuasion from a smooth talker such as yourself. I've already taxed my powers to the limit. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Oi, J3Mrs, get your arse over to the next Manchester WikiMeet - there's pint of mild in it for you". Will that do? Ah, I missed the "smooth" bit: Hi J3Mrs, if you fancy a gab and have the time, you will find yourself among friends and, should I actually get some work in the interval, I'll buy you a glass or cup of whatever it is that takes your fancy. If I do not get some work then I am pretty sure that someone else will do the honours. We're not a bad bunch, you know, and it will give you a chance to humanise what can be a somewhat impersonal environment. If you are bothered about walking into a strange place to meet strangers then I will email you my mobile number and you could let me know when you arrive, which would at least save you from wandering around looking for people carrying copies of a newspaper and wearing A Liverpool FC rosette/flower or whatever. I am very deaf & cannot hear on the phone, but that idea seemed to work for Malleus and Richerman. The ever-evolving details can be found here. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just look for a fat bloke with a midlands accent wearing a Wikipedia T-shirt, probably with a beer in his hand. ;) Having a phone conversation with someone who can't hear you doesn't strike as ever so productive! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Stand at the door and one-bell. I've just noticed that Malleus refers to me as "handsome". I think it was Disraeli who said something like "Flattery will get you everywhere, and when it comes to royalty it should be laid on with a trowel". In this instance, I'd simply advise that a certain person takes a trip to Specsavers. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I blame it all on Rexx, he's a bad influence. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The bit above about how there is sometimes a 'disconnect' between online and offline personas and personalities is very true. There are Wikipedians I've met at meetups who come across in person very differently to how they come across online. Sometimes you get on with someone both online and offline, sometimes it's only one and not the other. It can work both ways. Sometimes people who are really nice in person go all Jekyll and Hyde when they get back behind a keyboard, interacting with anonymous people on the internet. Sometimes people who are really easy to get along with on Wikipedia can find it more awkward to interact in person (though that is more understandable because of the differences in communication methods). To take just one example, it is much easier to block some anonymous screen persona, than to do the same to someone you've met in person (or to argue with, if you want an example that doesn't involve blocks). If you know someone, you are much more likely to warn them, or try and persuade them to do things differently, than to reach for a block button or shout at them. Seeing the other person as human and being willing to talk with them, is something that is usually lacking when civility issues (or any other issues) are raised. It is sort of a combination of AGF and common sense. But this sort of thing can only go so far, as ultimately this is an online medium, and not all the meetups in the world will change the fact that what happens here is done by messages and actions typed out (usually) through a keyboard, and not by talking around a table, so you have to have a way of dealing with the tensions that arise from online interactions. It would be interesting, though, to see if people do change their perspective in some subtle ways after having met other Wikipedians in real life. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it changed my perspective of Malleus. I've never had a problem with the guy and indeed encouraged him to turn up. However, having met him at a meet I am now aware that should I choose to start bawling him out then he has absolutely no chance of catching me up if ever our paths should cross in the real world and I choose to run. Therefore, I am reasonably safe :) But I guess that just reinforces your point in one way or another. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I gave up running many years ago, so you can say what you like. Watch out for ambushes though. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll add you to my list of prospective ambushers. That list is becoming quite long, what with death threats for stuff that I have done on the India-related articles etc. On which note, one of the more inventive diatribes aimed at me in that sphere today. Rather than the usual mother- or animal-based sexual insults (or both, in one sentence), this one told me that I would have to give my face back to the zoo because the baboons were missing their backsides. The limits of the human imagination know no bounds! - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I still have no idea why you invest so much of yourself in the India articles, and it's a shame we only got to discuss that for a minute or two. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Next meet, if you are not mobbed by admirers etc again, and if you catch me before my lipreading goes AWOL. There is no simple explanation, aside from the obvious "someone has got to try to get a grip on them". I dabble elsewhere, as you know. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two famous musicians in your presence. Spot Andres Segovia and John Lennon sitting around the table. Is the lady User:Dana boomer? She looks nice! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You all look nice. I would love to have been there. Who's everyone else (in both pics)? And when can y'all come down to my part of the world, as I can't get up to your part of the world? I can think of few things more fun than sitting around a pub table with a whole group of philosphical nerds Wikipedians; apart from maybe a WikNic in the gorgeous New Forest with a whole group of .. yes, those. btw, this is me ;P Pesky (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It is probably best not to out people, although HJ Mitchell should be easy to spot if you compare the pics with the one on his user page. I know that it seems daft, given that they attended a public event and were willingly photographed, but they should be allowed to make their own mind up. Are there no Wikimeet arrangements down in your, erm, neck of the woods? There is nothing to stop you proposing such a thing and there are plenty of people who would probably assist with advice. HJM and RexxS may have some useful things to say, since they appear to get around a few of these things. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope everyone decides to out themselves, heh! I'd like the idea of a Wikimeet really close to me (i.e. not in one of the big towns here ...); WikNic on the Forest combined with local beer at The Rising Sun(also does excellent food at sensibly low prices), would be fun. But I don;t have time / energy to organise anything; someone else would have to do it! And you guys from up there could have a weekend break down here and play on the beach ... Pesky (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The lady is nice, but all I can say is that she isn't Dana boomer. Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Must be the lady who does a lot of work with FP candidates then! I wasn't aware you lived as far north as that Malleus, I thought you were somewhere in Oxfordshire or Notthinghamshire or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm "Cheshire born and Cheshire bred, strong in the back and weak in the head" as the old saying goes, now living in Manchester. Not really Cheshire bred though, as my mother is Scottish. Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm proud to be a mongrel :o) btw, Malleus, you're pretty much exactly how I imagined you. Pesky (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to identify myself - I'm the one you can't quite see on the far left of the photo(above) with a green and white striped shirt (or maybe turquoise - don't ask me, I have a red-green colour deficiency). Obviously I was considered far too good looking to be allowed on the team photograph :) You will, of course, Have recognised Malleus and Iridescent already by the finely-chiselled features and well-honed abs. Richerman (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I saw you better in this other pic. You look nice, too! Pesky (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that one - there's my cover blown! Richerman (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I thought you must have seen that one! I like Iridescent's smile. Pesky (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

GA for Flixton, Greater Manchester

I gave the article GA. Can you let me know how you think I did with my first review? Everything seemed really straight-forward and simple with this one, but I want to make sure I did it right. INeverCry 01:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is worthy of GA status, but it's not obvious why from your GA review. You need to keep the discussion focused on the review, not on individual editor's talk pages. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to copy and paste all of that onto the review page? I'm so used to not wanting to "put someone out there" in regard to problems or issues with their articles, if you know what I mean, but as that's just part of the process, I'll be sure to follow your advice for my next review. INeverCry 02:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest linking to your various discussions in your GA promotion rationale. But it's best to keep everything together, in the review. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put a link to the POD talk page discussion on the GA review page. Btw, I've been cleaning up and adding images to some of Ottava's old articles on the works of Leigh Hunt etc. It looks like there may be quite a few that he never got a chance to polish up, so I'll continue to go through them. I'm thinking there may be some that are potential GA material with a bit of work. INeverCry 02:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me started on Ottava; in my opinion his ban was disgraceful. And the way his appeal was handled way beyond that. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. I figure that such great work deserves to be continued. Since Wikipedia is more about the contents than the people behind them (supposedly), continuing and building on his work is something of a resurrection. I'd like at some point to be able to post a new GA based on one of his old articles on his user/talk page. INeverCry 04:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about the contents at all, just ask any of the civility warriors. Malleus Fatuorum 05:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wha? Wikipedia is about content? Gee, here from my recent experiences, I apparently thought is was all about ownership and POV-pushing, augmented by repeated trips to the drama boards. Montanabw^(talk) 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What is this content of which you speak? I'm confused.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What we have here are content editors, malcontent editors, no-content editors, bad-content editors, and very few contented editors. Or something like that. Pesky (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

At least there don't seem to be many incontinent editors.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

? Pesky (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

Hi, Malleus; if you have a moment I wonder if you'd take a look at Pilgrim at Tinker Creek at FAC. In my view this is a decent article that is dying of neglect in the FAC process. Maybe an astute comment or two would kick-start the review back to life? Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look later, after I've done my chores for the day. Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: others have suddenly appeared, so no particular urgency now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Guess why "they" appeared: because they saw this :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I took your name in vain

over here. This guy has just got into a stew over at AN/I; he's a newbie, probably got a ton of good stuff to offer, and I've recommended you as a bloody good teacher for when the dust has settled a bit. He jumped head-first into a civility spat and got a load of people's backs up, but I can see his point and why it ended up like that. Adding: I've emailed him with a bit of damage-limitation advice, and given him an open invitation to my talk as well. Pesky (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Many thanks for your detailed, nay, heroic copyedit of Spanish conquest of Guatemala and for all your support and advice during the FA nomination. It was very much appreciated, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

John de Gray ... again....

Okay, I whacked again. Let me know if I disturbed any of your comma placements... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you've messed up any of my beautifully positioned commas I'll ... I'll ... I'll just put them back. :-) I'll take a final look through the whole thing this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's much more likely that I've strewn commas with willful abandon liberally throughout ... I am American, after all. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Americans do seem to have a peculiar fascination with commas. But as my English teacher used to say, "If in doubt, leave it out". I hasten to add that he was talking about punctuation in general, and commas in particular, before I get any more post-modernist feminists dragging my sorry arse to AN/I again. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think studies have shown that it is all related to WWII rationing. In England, commas were desperately needed for the war effort, and Brits learned to make do with few, or even no commas at all, for weeks at a time. Meanwhile, the U.S. has always been blessed with an abundant natural supply of commas, and did not need to ration them, even at the height of the War. Comma rationing was a socially-learned phenomenon; GI's stationed in England for any length of time, and returning to the States from Europe after the War, tended to use 34% fewer commas than those who stayed behind, or those who fought in the Pacific. These trends, once ingrained in the public consciousness, take on a life of their own, and can persist for several generations before they disappear completely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me of an analogy I used to use when I was teaching object-oriented programming, and trying to explain the difference between instances of some class, or indeed whether more than one instance was ever needed, such as rationing the integer "1", and if it wasn't, then what was the real difference between an instance and its class? Smalltalk has much to answer for. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

An abstract discussion? GFHandel ♬  21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Very good; a discussion that can't be instantiated, but still exists. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the book titled "Eats shoots and leaves." Commas matter (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I always preferred the story about the escapee from the asylum who assaulted a group of women engaged in laundry duty and then made his escape. "Nut screws washers and bolts" --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's very good. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

roflmfao! Here's where I want a cute little animated gif ... Pesky (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else remember this old primary school punctuation exercise? "John had had Jane had had had had had was the correct answer". Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yes! Personally, I like commas. Especially the Oxford Comma, with those pretty frilly edges to its wings ... Pesky (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the easy version: try "John where Jane had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval". Geometry guy 06:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

John, where Jane had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the teacher's approval. :D Adding: alternatively, "John, where Jane had had "had had", had had "had"; "had had" had had the teacher's approval". Pesky (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added this time, but I tried REALLY hard to keep the comma usage down... how's it look? Ealdgyth - Talk 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks good to go. Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ottava article

The first article I'm looking at for possible GA of his is The Tragedy of Tragedies. I've added a few details, but your opinion/advice on it would be a big help. Can you take a look? INeverCry 23:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I will, but I won't be able to get there before tomorrow evening. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that could become a good candidate for a GAN, but it still needs some work. Do you have access to any of the sources cited? Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

All I have is the Cambridge Companion to Fielding, which gives 4 pages on The Tragedy of Tragedies. If you can give me suggestions as to what's lacking, I can see what can be got out of the CC. I have 3 other CCs for the period, but they mention everything of Fielding's but Tom Thumb. INeverCry 03:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't noticed anything missing as yet, but there often things that need to be clarified during a review. It would be a good idea to enlist Ottava's help if you haven't already done so; you can find him easily at Wikipedia Review. Malleus Fatuorum 12:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of explanation needed in a couple of places. For instance, the article makes the point a couple of times that Fielding rewrote Tom Thumb to "unify the type of satire [in the play]", but how many types of satire are there anyway? The comment by Pope in the Variorum section – "the Circumstance of Tom Thumb's killing the Ghost" – is capitalised in such a way as to make it look like it might be a direct quotation, but it isn't shown or attributed as such. Another reason for needing access to at least a few of the sources is to check that the wording doesn't follow the original too closely. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Windsor Castle

Hello. The thread we've both been contributing to at VP made me take a look at the list of FAs that haven't appeared on Main Page. I noticed that Windsor Castle is one of them. You seem to be one of three main contributors. I thought it might be a good option for Main Page on the day of the Jubilee and wondered what you thought of the idea. If you like it, I'm happy to drop the other two a line. --Dweller (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The other two are probably the ones who wrote the article, as I certainly didn't. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I chipped in with the odd minor edit, but the article is Hchc2009's. Nev1 (talk)

Fair enough. I'll drop him a line. But while I'm here, do either of you think it's a good/bad idea? You're both editors whose opinions I value. --Dweller (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Some editors dislike their articles appearing on the main page because of the extra maintenance it creates. My experience of TFAs is few and far between so I don't mind too much when articles I've edited find their way onto the front page. The Tower of London was TFA on 29 September 2010. Distance may be distorting things, but I don't recall it being too stressful and there were useful suggestions on the talk page. 71,000 people visited the article that day; if Windsor is to be TFA on the jubilee I'd expect the figures, and therefore vandalism etc, to be even higher. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

To summarise: it's clearly an appropriate article, but for me Hchc2009's opinion would strongly influence whether I support Windsor Castle being TFA. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's Hchc2009's choice, I agree. Ealdgyth seems to get an inordinate number of mainpage appearances, but I don't think she's entirely sold on the idea. I don't write that much myself these days, but I don't recall TFA as being anything other than a minor nightmare. Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Hchc2009#Windsor_Castle. You two happy? I have no desire to go tramping on an FA I haven't improved! Would one of you like to raise it with Raul yourself? I have no axe to grind here - just would like to see it happen, rather than the day being marked with a [insert stereotype exemplar FA, eg hurricane/computer game/road in Nevada/Simpsons episode/sportsman etc etc]... --Dweller (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy if Hchc2009 is. There's no reason to raise it with Raul though, just nominate it at TFAR as normal. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank God!

For agreeing with me re Olivia. I was more than a little shocked to see her as a possible selection for April Fool's Day. Aside from the fact that I have no intention of seeing the page trashed on April's Fools Day, I simply cannot imagine what's foolish about the page. But then TCO thought it was a joke, so maybe that was a month of my time wasted. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't understand it either. It sounds like just a bit of fun, but believe me, being on the April 1 main page is in reality no fun at all. The number of times I've been accused of misogyny since this article appeared maybe two years ago just beggars belief. And it indirectly led to my recent ArbCom case; stay well clear. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like the tiniest bit of fun to me - probably in part because of seeing what you've gone through. And honestly with the atmosphere the way it is around here these days, the last thing I'd want is a TFA on a high profile day - and one that's not meant to be a joke. Anyway, thanks for saying something - though Pigeon photography is the clear choice. Still if Olivia is suggested on another year, I'd continue to object. I'm sure they can think of another time to run it. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're safe for this April 1, so sweet dreams princess. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe at FAC

Dunnit here --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. I've got it watchlisted, so you won't be all on your lonesome. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

While I was sleeping there was a recommendation for a further copyedit, and by the time I was awake, you had done it. Wow! Many thanks. The review seems to be going OK, apart from recommendations from Johnbod that are beyond my (very) limited abilities. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be going pretty well, so I think you can afford to feel quietly confident. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wet, wet, wet

Good day Malleus - I hope you are well and in good spirits. I wonder if I can ask another favour of you? The Suðreyjar are mostly wet (well except Sundays on Lewis) but their early history has emerged from the depths at Kingdom of the Isles. The article has a complex history, with moves hither and thither, but it seems to have settled down at last. I think the topic is deserving of recognised status, but before I trouble the GAC reviewers I'd value any comments you have on the following issue (or indeed any others you may spot).

History articles of this kind sometimes struggle to avoid paras such as "Harald son of Magus killed Magnus son of Paul, who was then succeeded by Paul son of Harald" etc. Kingdom of the Isles does suffer from this, but the presence of tables here and there does I think mitigate the problem a little. The tables also allow for further detailed comment on some of the intricacies of the succession (see e.g. Kingdom of the Isles#5.3 Kings of the South Isles). On the other hand, embedded tables of this nature add to the length of the article and (arguably) diminish the space available for further detail being added about the "kingdom" rather than its rulers. The paucity of sources mean that information on this topic is weak, but see e.g. Scandinavian Scotland#Religion, culture and economy.

Given the above my question is then - do you think that the encyclopedia is best served by the article remaining in roughly in its present form, or might it be better to split it into an article and a separate list of rulers? Ben MacDui 10:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

PS Had to laugh. I came straight here from absurd goings on here and read the "Anyone who uses humour..." comment. Sadly, still relevant.

PPS It must be tedious to keep your GA Reviews list up-to-date. Perhaps you should create your own Wikiproject template and have User:JL-Bot/Project content update it for you?

I don't do many GA reviews these days, so it's no great chore. I've been a bit busy elsewhere today, but I'll try and take a look tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - no hurry at all. Ben MacDui 08:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a great article, but I'd definitely spin the embedded tables out into a separate "list" article; they really intrude on the narrative. BTW, two of the ISBNs don't seem to be correct: Downham (2004) and Wolf (2007). But you probably knew that anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your copy edits and above comments. I fear you are right, but hopefully separating them won't be too complex. All the best. Ben MacDui 19:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins/PoTW

If you, or any other editor believes that there is a case to be made against PoTW's editing in respect of the Jim Hawkins (or any other) article, there are appropriate places to raise the issue. I agree that notable subjects should not get to dictate whether or not they have an article on Wikipedia. However, the WP:CONSENSUS in this particular case is that the notability is borderline. Whilst I see notability as a black/white issue, others see it in varying shades of grey. There are times when one has to accept that one's opionion is in the minority and bow to consensus. This is one of them.

If you would withdraw your !keep vote and allow a WP:SNOW closure, then the article can be salted, which is something I would be prepared to do myself. FWIW, I'd support a topic ban for PoTW on the subject of JH should that be requested. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I will not withdraw my vote, as I think what's going on is quite improper. Deal with the problem, which is clearly PoTW. Malleus Fatuorum 07:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Mjroots, the rest of the AfD makes it clear that MF's was not a minority view. I note also that your comment here comes twenty minutes after Pigsonthewing's unacceptable remark about MF's "monstrous ego" (not reliably sourced--an NPA as well as a BLP violation), and I wish you had said something about that as well. MF, please let me apply some balm to a wound that must undoubtedly hurt you: your ego is just the right size. I can't say that for everyone--and Mjroots, I'm not referring to you; you know I usually agree with you on just about everything, especially windmills. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That was a different Andy. 28bytes (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected--so let me rephrase: "Mj, I wish that et cetera." BTW, I find it interesting that besides John no one else saw fit to comment on Andy's talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wot, don't I get partial credit? 28bytes (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You get half a point for "crap", certainly, but I was thinking of warnings on the user's page--like a real warning. Thanks 28. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

However it resolves, that AfD is a textbook case for the need to be very careful with SNOW closures. --Dweller (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point there Dweller. It looks like the debate will just have to run its full course. MF, no offence taken re you not withdrawing, I accept your right to argue you position over this issue. PoTW is being dealt with by uninvolved editors over at WP:AN. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why on Earth did you imagine I might think that my refusal to withdraw my vote would be offensive to you? And if you truly accepted my right to argue my position then why did you come here in the first place with your improper request? If anyone should be offended it's me, not you. Clearly, as subsequent events have shown, my position is by no means a minority one. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The debate has moved on a long way since I posted here and at AN this morning. At the time, you were the only !keep following my change. As others have backed you up, and I also agree that the subject shouln't be able to dictate to Wikipedia over the existence or otherwise of the artice, it now seems that the best course of action is to allow the debate to run its course. My request above was not intended to offend you, although I don't think that such a request was improper. You were free to act on the request or ignore it, whichever you felt fit. Had my request been acceded to, then fine, but it was no big deal if you decided not to withdraw. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The other way to think about it is that I might have been the only one who was right, not as you did, the only one who was wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability might indeed be black & white, but even if it's demonstrated, it doesn't force us to have an article. We can always delete notable topics, if we consider that it's not helpful to the project to have them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds? Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for you ;P

	Wolfly hugz for you
	Just for putting up with me so good-temperedly, so consistently, despite how pestersome I can be, and how much I poke you! I really do appreciate your patience with me. Take a trip down to the Forest and I'll buy you probably the nicest real ale in the world :o) Pesky (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope that wolf used a tongue cleaner before it licked the guy's nose. Ning-ning (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely. It's a well-known fact that dogs and cats spend almost half their waking lives licking their genitals because they know that, sooner or later, they're going to get a chance to lick your face. --RexxS (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, they just do that because they can ;P

Interesting fing, though ... humans get coated, furry tongues. We may be the only animal which does. Canines, felines, equines, caprines, ovines, bovines, and every other species of animal whose tongue I've looked at all have quite remarkably clean and healthy looking tongues, pink from tip to root. (Except my boa, who has a black tongue.) Pesky (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review

Hello,

I randomly found your user page and seeing that you have reviewed a large number of articles made me feel it was fine if I asked you to review GA nominate Bloody Thursday (2011). It was nominated last January. Also, do you think it would be better if I improve it further and nominate it for FA? Is using Al-Wasat (Bahraini newspaper) as a major source problematic? Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 17:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem per se, but it is for me, as I don't read Arabic and can therefore have no idea whether the sources support what's being said, or whether they've been plagiarised. I'm not suggesting they have of course, but I'd have no way of telling. That so many of the sources are from Al-Wasat (and in Arabic) may well be a problem for other reviewers as well.

Given the length of the article I'd probably be inclined to skip GAN and head straight for FAC. Before then though I'd definitely see if I could find alternative sources in English for at least some of the material, and I'd take a long hard look at sections such as Executive and Other. Bulleted lists tend to be frowned on somewhat at FAC, and those two stick out like a sore thumb, sandwiching as they do the Legislative section, which is written as prose. You also ought to try and find a copyeditor; sentences like "Mahmoud Makki Abutaki was a 22-years old Bahraini male ..." won't cut the mustard. It should of course be "22-year-old Bahraini male". And why is his name italicised? Once you've tidied the article up I'd suggest stopping off at peer review before tackling FAC. Right now, I'm very confident the article wouldn't pass, but there's no reason why it couldn't after a little bit of elbow grease. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've now looked at this article in greater detail and made a few copyedits, but it still needs a great deal of work before it meets the GA criteria, so much in fact that if I were to undertake the review I'd fail it straight away. I'd suggest that you withdraw the GA nomination and try to enlist the help of a copyeditor whose native language is English, perhaps via the GOCE. Once it's been cleaned up I'd suggest a peer review before trying GAN again. Without wishing to sound discouraging, there's no way this is even close to reaching the FA standard at present. Sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I was asking if the source was considered a WP:RS. Verifying can be done with Google translator, but I agree that it's better to use other references where possible. What changes do you recommend for bulleted lists and the prose in Executive and Legislative sections? You don't have to be sorry, this is my first attempt and I know it should contain a lot of mistakes; that's how people learn. Your help is well appreciated ;) Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 08:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Al-Wasat would be considered a reliable source, and indeed perhaps the only source for some of this material. The BBC had quite a bit of coverage on the events in Bahrain, so there may be something useful on their web site. As for the bulleted lists, I suggest converting them to prose. Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you've got several quotes in the lead; the rule is that direct quotes must be cited wherever they appear, even in the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, it's much appreciated. I hope it's fine if I come back to you after I'm done with improving the article. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 09:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Poppy Meadow

The FA was a shame, but thank you very much for your points. I got 2 supports (minus yours), better than the first one! — M. Mario (T/C) 10:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I was too quick to support, didn't check the sources carefully enough, but we could do the work that's needed and make it third time lucky. Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

These are the kind of changes that need to be made. Are you up for it? Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this looks very good now. I went over some of what I had noted as problem areas in the past and they are resolved. It should be ready for prime-time, so to speak. --Laser brain (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, I considered it my penance. I've suggested to MayhemMario that he might reasonably consider a renomination once the mandatory two weeks are up ... and I'm still wondering how the Hell I got involved with this in the first place. I've also suggested to him that as I've never watched even a single episode of Eastenders – and God-willing I'll never have to – that he might like to check that I haven't butchered the Storylines section beyond all recognition. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Chalk it up to altruism? --Laser brain (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I really can't remember, but it's at least as likely to be sheer bloody mindedness. ;) Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ship canal

I thought you might enjoy watching this Parrot of Doom 11:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, apart from the smarmy Stuart Hall's commentary. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Stuart Hall. "Smarmy" is a polite word for it. How the heck did/do people like him get on? In certain circles it is neither what you know nor who you know, but is rather what you know about who you know. But surely that cannot be the case for someone with the journalistic incapabilities of SH? My dog has been puking today, courtesy of some fast food discarded by a **** last night, but having seen a mention of SH, well, I might join in. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I just hate Stuart Hall's false accent. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fake tan? Medallion? Belief that he is actually any good at his job? Honestly, it is a multiple choice situation, and I can never make my mind up. Plus, he completely screwed up something about me. Perhaps I bear a grudge, but in fact his screwing up was favourable rather than otherwise, so it merely confirmed that which I had suspected from around the age of ten or eleven. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise that you were sufficiently notable to be commented on by Stuart Hall, but anyone who listens to his Radio Five Live football commentaries ought to worry about his sanity. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Stuart Hall will comment on a discarded fag end if it suits his purpose. IMO. The notability requirements of TV journalism are often wildly different from those that we find here. I am neither notable here nor in the real world, as indeed is the case with most of us. Indeed, journos often make the story rather than report it, especially when local news is involved. I've never heard him on radio (which, as yet, they have not managed to subtitle) but please do add faked joviality to my list, as per It's A Knockout. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Depsite coming from a family which included far more than the normal share of journos, I couldn't agree more with you, Sitush! The liberties that modern journos take with distorting the truth beyond belief, in order to sell more papers and amuse the great unwashed, is disgusting. And if they were just "making mistakes", then they don't deserve to be paid for writing them up! </endrant> Pesky (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I thought you might remove my comment calling your buddy out on his shaky attempts to justify his incivility. I was making that comment without realising the discussion was being closed. Feel free to remove this comment too, whilst courageously telling me to fuck off in your edit summary, from the safety of your keyboard. Such a lame, indeed puerile action is to be expected, I suppose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Go take a long walk off a short pier. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just a terrifying response. Aren't you even slightly ashamed of the way you talk to people on here? I'm willing to bet you conduct yourself differently in public, or maybe you swear at people in supermarkets and suchlike. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. So be a good boy now and fuck off. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew we'd get there! This is great, it's like going to the zoo. Anyway, I'd better fuck off before I violate a guideline or something. Feel free to put me in your risible flattery box. Till the next time, Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on; you came to this talk page to pick a fight and Malleus gave as good as he got. You don't get to feign offence and indignation when he tells you to fuck off! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

+ 1 - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If people behave in a reliably amusing fashion, I reserve the right to seek amusement and be amused. Wikipedia isn't all work :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

+Alarbus (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've found it much easier to remember "toa" (the Swedish slang for "toilet") after reading comments like "banning Malleus for a week" (sic.), etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, you quite literally asked for that one! The first two sentences were just fine, but the rest ... reeeeeelly! Never mind, though. Pesky (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding: Malleus, maybe you could just become all God-like and use the lyrical language of the King James version: "Go forth and multiply." ;P Pesky (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I never could resist a freak show, especially if one comes knocking on my door. Such a display of internet bravery needed to be fully protracted, complete with sideshows. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fing is, though, fing is ... that it's called "baiting". I'm sure what God really said was "Now fuck off out of here", but of course people wrote the Bible in their own words ... Pesky (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Guilty, m'lud. There's a way to avoid it though :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're permitted to be you, and amuse yourself with bear-baiting, then Malleus is permitted to be himself, and respond as per your request. You'd probably find lots of a musing stuff on my talk page (it's quite fun over there). F'rinstance, I fell into the garden pond just yesterday ... hehe! Crazy Granny over-reached through sheer bloody-minded stubbornness! Pesky (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Check my talk for amusement also, such as the educational translations of "uneinsichtig, unbelehrbar und beratungsresistent", never to be used, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure there's a way to avoid it. Still, to abuse your supermarket analogy above, Bretonbanquet, if someone swears at you at the supermarket, do you follow him to the parking lot inquiring whether he feels shame, questioning his courage, inviting him to curse at you again with the addendum that such a puerile action was to be expected, or do you just get on with life? ---Sluzzelin talk 08:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, of course, that was the desired effect. But such bears ought to be set free to roam as they please - it's unkind to expect them to fit in with civilised society. I'll be sure to keep an eye on your talk page :) Sluzzelin, yes, I might do that. I also expect him to be banned from the supermarket, particularly if he's been thrown out a dozen times already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I could have sworn I read above that Malleus told you to fuck off. Fuck off in this instance meaning "go away". So why are you still here? Parrot of Doom 09:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Others were addressing me. In any case, someone telling me to fuck off isn't actually going to have that effect, obviously. This is the internet, where people find the intrepidity that they can only dream of in the real world, as you probably know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

@Pesky: no such phrase in the KGV KJV. Genesis 1:28: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." --Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It must have been one of the other versions; but I still love the phrase! Bretonbanquet: Malleus is kindness itself to me, despite me being a HFA and pestersome (Pesky?) soul. MF has a great heart, but (as I've said on my talk page) reminds me a bit of an old horse I once knew, who used to flatten his ears, curl his nostrils, grind his teeth, and stamp his feet at people who were twats around him ... but on whose back you could put any toddler with absolute and certain knowledge that he would look after them! Twats wanting to show off their courage used to bait old Major, too. It only showed their immaturity and want of intelligence and decency; it never demonstrated courage.

Adding: and, in response to your comment about civilised society, in most civilised societies such "sports" as badger-baiting and bear-baiting have been deemed illegal, in light of their barbaric and inhumane nature. Pesky (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only respectfully disagree with you. Toning down the way you talk to people is easy, and refusing to do so shows a lack of respect, self-awareness and decency. A horse has an excuse; there are no excuses for us. Comparing this discussion with bear-baiting is a little distasteful, both to Wikipedia and to actual bears. I am not merely having fun here, and certainly not pretending to display courage (merely highlighting a lack of it in others) - I am making a serious point, one which I feel has been made now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminder about policy under Other uncivil behaviours: "taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Jus' sayin'. Pesky (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Run along, little Bretonbanquet. Nobody cares about your blather.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ygm

Yes, YGM. And destroy immediately after reading because it will not self-destruct ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Village Pump discussion

I do not not threats and reading your talk page, you seem to agree that Civility is important. I do not know what you were so angy at me when I clearly said the discussion was not personal to any person. But your remarks to me:

You're the one who's concerned about the speed deletion template Mugginsx, not me, so why don't you re-do it?" Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I did, it was just above a few lines. You just weren't listening. Stop making this personal.Mugginsx (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Don't start down that road Mugginsx, as I can promise that you won't like the destination. You very clearly addressed this comment to me: "Then re-do the Speedy Deletion template so it does not look so harsh!" Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC) These remarks were uncalled for. I made a point to state that the remarks were not personal. Mugginsx (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Anyone reading my talk page would surely know that I consider civility as defined by Wikipedia to be at best childish. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I also don't understand why you think I'm angry with you, and I assure you I am not. But disagreement is something that very many Wikipedia editors find difficult to deal with, not just you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted to mention it because I was trying to talk to the problem with new editors and did not mean anything directed to you personally, though it may have sounded it. Enough said. Mugginsx (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Let it go.

Can you do me a favor and let the list go? I was told it was wrong and requested in good faith that it be deleted. Please STOP with this. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Listening when you were told (that your list was wrong) is a start. Declaring "I was wrong to compile an enemies' list" would be better for all.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Once you let this go then so will I Hghyux, but while you continue with your antics then I will not. Your choice. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"the fault is very clearly on one side, the side that simply won't let go of the bone". At the moment you're both holding onto the bone as if your life depends on it. It might be simpler if you just challenged each other to a duel. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be up for that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on I asked nicely! Why are you guys so unforgiving? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is surreal. Parrot of Doom 23:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so unrepentant? Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your asking me this? I just want a resolution and you seem to have it in your head that you don't want to find one. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The resolution is very clear; you admit that you fucked up, you agree never again to create hate pages, and you slow down with CSD tagging. Simple really. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't I already done this? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No. You're still blustering.[5] Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Real smooth guys, I'm proud of you. Nev1 (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to fall out with you over this Nev1 but I think you're wrong, and I'll fall out with you if I have to; I'm more than a little fed up with the kids like Hghyux. Especially when they pretend to be Harvard graduates. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The enemies list

Was there anything amusing or shocking?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, just a list of those who would be reported to some unspecified authority if they ever posted on his talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that's not a bad thought! ;) I could use one of those myself! ;D  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The very fons et origo of religion! A prayer to an omni-impotent deity, a list of infidels, a casting-out of devils… Randy from Boise (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche didn't know the half of it! We under-men are always tempted by vengeful thoughts. ;) Luckily, as John Calvin suggested, the institutions of government are present to repress our damnable natures.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

'scuse the post-op grogginess and brain-fuzz, guys ... can you hold fire on this one a little bit? I'm seeing some magic and passion and fire in this kid, and I think the stuff that's been causing him/ her to foul things up can be redirected into something potentially excellent. Sure, he's made some really gross mistakes, but I think it's lack of nouse and training, and not bad-heartedness. Let me see if we can work something good out, here (at the moment it's a smacked puppy hiding in the shed and feeling snarly, but I think it could be a good 'un if we can find the key.) Pesky (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Pesky,

I was confessing my sins---the log in my eye and the lust (for revenge) in my heart---to my brethren, just as I had urged your acolyte to do previously. A rare case of practicing what I preach. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

/Hugz! Humans are vengeful creatures! It's what animal behaviourists call "species-normal". We all have that thing, to one extent or another, and it's often very wild and out-of-control during our younger phases, when we're beginning to feel our hormones and want to go on crusades to fix the world .. hehe! I remember it well! My brain is still very out of kilter; the op was much more major than we were expecting it to be (not just a bit of drilling-out and re-boring, but the total removal of the defunct remains of two totally fucked-up discs, combined with fusing and plating the three vertebrae involved). So, I now have a four-inch long wound in the front of my neck, complete with something like 20 staples (looking very much like a zip for future use!"), and very swollen soft tissues around the oesophagus and larynx. Imagine you;d been both severely strangled and had your neck sliced open from side to side a couple of days ago, and you'll get the idea! Still – I now have more feeling and motor function in my left arm and shoulder than I;ve had for months, so it was all well worth it. I'm not allowed even to hold a horse's lead rein for the next three months, and have to remember not to push things, pull things, or lift things ... terribly hard for someone who's naturally physically active! Pesky (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I came across similar discussions of teenagers' problems when I just Googled one of ScottyWong's bon mots, written as SnottyWong.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I remember, so clearly, being a teenager! I really wish I could go back to those years, knowing what I know now! Teenage years are dreadful, and anyone who tries to tell you that school years are the best of your life must have had a bloody crappy life! Pesky (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There were some good things about being a teenager, but the acne definitely wasn't one of them. And as for school, the day I left was one of the most enjoyable of my life. I hated it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

After I had my arm pinned back together I remember asking my doctor how much I should use it, if at all. "Be guided by the pain" was the only advice he would give. Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

My school years were almost unmitigated hell. As far as I recall, the only really good times were when I was working at stables at weekends. Music stuff was on the better side of things, too. Instinct is, on the whole, a pretty good guide to what you can risk doing, with stuff like fractures; trouble is, I tend to ignore my instincts and push things a bit too fast. I will have to be very careful about that, with this one, as instinct doesn't know how to cope with solid structures where there used to be joints, and the temptation just to get right back into it is quite amazing. I was itching to do some digging in the garden today, and had to restrain myself to starting off seedlings and potting-on a few of last year's ones. And I have a farm auction to go to tomorrow, at which I must remember not to keep bending down and turning over piles of timber and gates ... hehe! I love buying stuff at auctions. It's addictive. Pesky (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Script list cleanup project

You're receiving this message because somehow I determined that you have some interest in Wikipedia's user scripts :)

Wikipedia's current list of user scripts is in bad shape, in that it is disorganized and contains many non-working or obsolete entries. It is therefore set to be deprecated, and a new draft list has been created to replace it. Perhaps you regularly use certain scripts, or have authored some yourself, that you know to be currently working and relevant. If so, you are invited to add them to the draft. Thanks! Equazcion ^(talk) 01:15, 28 Mar 2012 (UTC)

A case of mistaken identity? Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I've been stalking the vector/common.js files of whoever I come across, and if they have at least a couple scripts there I spam their asses :) I think a reliable scripts list would be pretty valuable and the current one is almost worthless. Consider adding the ones you use and know to work (especially with Vector) to the new list. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:46, 28 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Polecats in Salford?

Hi Malleus, With your interest in ferrets I thought you may be interested to know that my son was walking his dogs near the Irwell in Broughton last night and saw a small animal running about. As it didn't seem too bothered by him or his dogs he took a photo and a short video which he sent to me, and the photo very clearly shows it to be a polecat - or possibly a polecat ferret. I don't think polecats have ever been seen in this area before and I suspect that, with its lack fear of humans, it's probably an escaped pet that's gone native. I've emailed the Salford Rangers to ask if it's been spotted before. Richerman (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why I hadn't heard about any mauled sheep or dead cows but then I googled Polecat. Parrot of Doom 16:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not quite the Beast of Bodmin I'm afraid. Richerman (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if there's relevant information/news, we could include the photograph in River Irwell? Parrot of Doom 21:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If it didn't run away from your son it's almost certainly a pet ferret that's escaped or got lost. You'd be surprised how many polecats there are up here, there's even a polecat release site somewhere in Salford. It's almost impossible to tell a ferret from a polecat without genetic testing, but in general polecats tend to be very much darker than ferrets, almost black. In fact I know of at least one guy in Manchester who breeds polecats and sells them as "dark ferrets". A wild polecat isn't exactly the Beast of Bodmin, but you sure wouldn't want to tangle with one without a very strong pair of gloves, not if you value your fingers. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Polecat release site - what's that? Richerman (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it's a site where polecats are released back into the wild, along with other mustelids like stoats and weasels. Maybe a mother's been killed and someone's hand-reared her babies, or a farmer's found one living in his barn and wants it removed, or one's been found injured and been nursed back to health; when they're fit and well and able to look after themselves they're put back into the wild. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that! According to this discussion there are mink there as well. Actually, about 20 years ago we lived in Sedgely Park near Singleton Brook and one morning I saw a black mustelid dragging off one of my chickens. I thought it looked like a mink but convinced myself it must be a ferret. Maybe it was a mink after all. Richerman (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly a mink. There are lots of them around as well, as when mink-farming was made illegal some of the more unscrupulous breeders simply set their stock free. Mink tend to prefer more watery habitats than polecats - there are loads along the banks of the Mersey for instance. But it's against the law to release a mink into the wild, so if one is caught it either has to be kept in captivity or killed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the animal rights activists 'liberated ' mink too, which was one of the reasons for the disasterous decline in the population of water voles. Richerman (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be something of an urban myth; "A widespread modern misconception is that the UK’s wild population of American mink originated from mass releases of mink from fur farms by animal rights activists in the 1990s".[6] These are of course American mink, which are bigger and stronger than the European mink, and have had a devastating effect on small mammals such as water voles, as you say. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have a large national park up in the north somewhere. And fill it with wolves. No public entry without a guide and a gun, that sort of thing. Parrot of Doom 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't wolves been released back into the wild somewhere in Scotland? Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I'd also support the elimination of the Grey Squirrel in the UK. All of them, dead. Parrot of Doom 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't go along with. We have two living in our back garden, and every winter we put food out for them. I think it's another one of those urban myths that grey squirrels displaced red squirrels; the large-scale planting of conifers by the Forestry Commission had more to do with it I think. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that eliminating them would facilitate the return of the red squirrel. I know there's been a lot in the news today about pasties, just imagine a squirrel pasty. Delicious! Parrot of Doom 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Four dead in Ohio": Kent, Ohio was ground zero for a Viking raid on the Americas, in which Black (Canadian) squirrels were introduced in the 1961. These mutant-ninja rats are displacing the tamer variants, many of which are polite Midwesterners. All squirrels are just photograph-friendly rats, of course. But a town full of ratatoskrs is terrible. Wikipedia is annoying with just one!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Grey squirrels dig up my plants, they are cute to look at but a damn nuisance. When they got into a neighbour's roof they did so much damage. I'm with PoD, vermin with bushy tails. J3Mrs (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There are definitely more wild / re-released polecats about than there used to be, and some of them (the re-released ones) are quite fearless of humans, and easily mistaken for polecat-ferrets. Quite a few mink about too (and a bloody nuisance they are too, if you keep ducks or chickens, particularly!) I have to say I have a soft spot for squirrels, even the grey ones, having befriended them, as a kid). I've noticed that our grey squirrels locally are coming out with much more reddish coats then they were a few decades ago; probably pressure from the UK environment giving the redder-coated grey squirrels a bit of an advantage in camouflage over the really grey ones. Yes, bushy-tailed and photogenic rats, but hey, we all have our place, and I don't mind rats that much, either ... and I can;t see any way in which we could eliminate the greys, now. There are still strongholds in the islands where it's all reds and no greys, fortunately. Pesky (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I've noticed a lot of reddish grey squirrels up int' north. It seems we have black squirrels in Merrie England too. Richerman (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It might be interesting to watch and see whether the black squirrel leaves more or less room for the red than the grey does! They look rather cute. It's almost impossible to tell, at the beginning, how a non-native species will impact on our environment. The numbers of green parrakeets in and around south west London are huge now – roosts running into the thousands. Pesky (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Busted

"Harsh and cynical" you are Malleus. I hope indeed that not too many editors emulate your stance. This commaless message brought to you by Drmies (talk).

"Cynical" is right, but I wouldn't agree with "harsh". Perhaps "uncompromising" ... I really don't understand Americans at all. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lack of understanding has led to tragedy historically. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:10, 29 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I don't either. Just make sure you're not wearing a hoodie when you come to visit. Hey I thought about applying for a job at Bath Spa University but decided against it after perusing their website: too much puffery. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Named after a railway station; has to puff itself up to remain visible. I see the University of Budleigh Salterton is opening a new Media Studies Centre at its Mutters Moor campus. --Ning-ning (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I admire the Orwellian aspects of English life, the gardening, the civilian clothes when soldiers are on leave, etc., and I share your abhorrence of California self-esteem--obsessions. But tell me true, Malleus: How do you pronounce "schedule"?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC) (updated)

I pronounce it "itinerary". ;P Pesky (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I pronounce it man and strife. Ning-ning (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The proper way. How do you pronounce "buoy"? Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just like "boei" I suppose. Or this way. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice. In "Proper English" it's pronounced "boy". I used to do a lot of sailing, and I remember being rather puzzled on one training course by the instructor's continual reference to "booees"; he'd just come back from America, where he'd obviously picked up some bad habits. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah I didn't know that--I thought that the Am. pronunciation was the only one. Lots of Dutch words in the sailing vocabulary of course; I wonder if Melville got a kick out of "poop". Drmies (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Scatological innuendo from Drmies? Well, I never. I think that Melville's primary interest was the huge Bretonbanquet, per his title. PS: don't forget that Cambridge University, which is a proper one, is marking the demise of Dutch this (western hemisphere) summer. Get over here and save the language, Drmies! - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dumb Gurlz

John Crofton; he was knighted, and I have never paid attention to how to handle that in naming, titles, etc? Is he supposed to have some initials after his name or some such thing? We don't learn those things out my way :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll see it done both ways, but I'd never include titles and letters after the name in an article title. Take a look at Arthur Conan Doyle for instance, who is almost universally referred to as "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle". Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We do usually put Sir before the name in the lead though, which I've done. "Sir John Crofton, Kt" as opposed to "Sir John Crofton, Bt" is super-extra-formal & never done here. We do rightly have Lord Byron & some others, including some knights I'm sure, but that goes by commonname, and oh yes, Sir John Donne to avoid confusion. Are you following the god-king in taking an interest in our island nobility? You might do a redirect from "Sir ..." anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We do, yes. I should have said that as well. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnbod. Found MOS:BIO and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (people)#Titles and styles. Am a wee bit less stupid today, but I'm sure I'll make up for that somewhere somehow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Something over at ANI sounds familiar...

...wouldn't you agree? 208.57.254.62 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Familiar in what way? Seems like a normal AN/I bun fight to me, nothing special. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It reminded me of this. Just replace YRC with Malleus, "queer" with "cunt", and "homophobic" with "sexist". 208.57.254.62 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see, but YRC/Off2riorob and I have rather little in common. Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. Malleus's "cunts" comment was not directed at any specific user, nor could it be construed as attacking any group of people unless you use a rather impressive amount of imagination (which, unfortunately, someone did). The "queer agenda" is a term usually used by anti-LGBT folks referring to LGBT people trying to fight discrimination and trying to gain acceptance in society etc etc. Totally, totally different kettles of fish. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 20:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotta agree with that; very different things. Pesky (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed that some remain convinced that I've got some kind of misogynistic agenda. If I really had, I doubt there would be so many female editors posting here. Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that you're so obviously not misogynistic is abundantly clear to anyone of even moderate intelligence. Provided that they can be bothered to stop and think, of course. Pesky (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The accusation, and the WMF's escalating attempts to drive me away, seem to have started with the wife selling article, which I thought at the time, and still do, was nothing more than an interesting historical backwater. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clear difference between that ANI and Malleus. Malleus pisses off everyone, he's an equal opportunity pisser-offer! (LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You got that right. My target isn't gender, religion, race ... whatever. It's quite simply stupidity. And so far as I'm aware that's not gender, religion, race, related. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I consider myself pretty sharp on USA politically correct lingo, but once caused a minor internal fuss at a place I worked when I explained that assholes are not a protected class. They aren't. I'm quite sure of it. They think they are, though. Sad, as often they don't realize they are assholes, they just think they're special. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So let's have a count here. I make it three female editors out of the four who've commented. Given that the received wisdom is that only about 13% of editors are female I must be some kind of babe magnet. (I know, in my dreams, but let me dream.) Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You are Wikipedia's rock star and we are your groupies. Or something. I like your assumption that we are all babes. We are, of course. :) ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 00:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course you're all babes, don't do yourselves down. And in my experience the higher up the quality tree you go the more females you find. Go figure. And I'm just about as far from being a misogynist as a human being could possibly be. In fact I ... no, no, that's probably enough. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You are ... just yourself! When faced with anatomy-related-descriptor people, or willful stupidity, you can be a grouchy old thing, but I feel a tremendous, generous-hearted warmth from you, and a straightness and openness that I have a profound respect for. Besides, you just called me a babe! Pesky (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You are a babe, and I'm what I am. I'll try and help anyone with anything, but I have absolutely no patience for stupidity or dishonesty. None. Incompetence I can help with, we've all been there. Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's an interesting thing though. I'd be very cautious about calling Moni3 a babe, even though I'm sure she is, and I've not infrequently made reference to SandyG's bum, which I've never seen. But I've never meant any of that in anything other than fun. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I can cope with what I think of as "panic-dishonesty" in youngsters; I think most of us have resorted to that kind of stuff, as kids. It's good to snap them out of it sooner rather than later, but I still cringe at some of the crazy stuff I did as a teenager (hadn't been diagnosed with either EDS or Autism at that point, so got called a lot of bad things, which only made matters worse, of course!) I'm chuffed to bits that you think I'm a babe! I'm just a crazy British Eccentric Granny (who still likes to climb trees, lol!) I would so like to meet you – you'll have to find a good excuse to come down this way some time. We have a wonderful local brewery ... Pesky (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Be scared....

Be very very scared... this has been my latest project. Wanna check it over for GA ommisions? I did it for the Wikipedia:The Core Contest, but in all honesty, it badly needed it. I could tell some Hungarian nationalist had been at it, since it had a LOT of undue weight on Hungary ... I like to kid myself that it's a lot more balanced now. It's no where near FA status, but it's close to GA, I'm thinking. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Blimey, that's a mega-article! Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Having a core contest actually motivates some of us to slog our guts out just that bit more and produce whopping articles. We should really introduce it every month in my opinion and it would get some of our important articles up to scratch quicker. I proposed this ages ao. It seems Sue Gardner is showing an interest as a judge but is the new one Casibler says about funded by the foundation? It needs to be a monthly competition financed by the foundation I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The text on the image of Richard of Wallingford says he is "making (I changed that from doing) measurements with a pair of compasses". I don't know about then, but now you measure with dividers not a compass (I don't think a "pair of compasses" is right either) and they do look more like dividers to me. Richerman (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only go with the description of the image on Commons - it says compasses. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If in doubt, just leave it at "making measurements"? Nev1 (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. At this point, I am sooooo sick of the article ... I need a day or two off from it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I got brave ... diff Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

With something on this scale I'd have been inclined to skip GAN in favour of the PR -> FAC route. But anyway, I just spotted this: "Popes called for crusaders to take place other than the Holy Land ...". Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

... you've done one Hell of a job with that Ealdgyth, much respect. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that and thanks for the copyedits. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some great articles there – I've just seen Truthkeeper's as well. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like Richard of W. is scribing out the chapter ring for his astronomical cock. The object hanging in the cupboard might be a weight for it. Ning-ning (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I pray to god that's a typo. 188.29.99.214 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone help?

I just received an email from someone on Wikimedia, but I can't even tell what language it's written in. Here's the header:

"വിക്കിപീഡിയ സംരംഭത്തിലെ ഉപയോക്താവിന്റെ സംവാദം"

Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's Malayalam. Part of it means Laugh Out Loud, not sure the rest yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:31, 30 Mar 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I got one too. It's from ml.wiki; you must have visited there whilst logged in (SUL says some time in Feb 2009) and it auto created an account. Some bot is going round posting messages - and that is a "You have a message" mail in Malayalam. No idea what the notice is... --Errant ^(chat!) 13:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It might be advertising Wiki Conference India, two of those words are in this page title: [7] Equazcion ^(talk) 13:36, 30 Mar 2012 (UTC)

It alleges it's VsBot, but that doesn't appear to have edited in years (and won't now 'cos I've blocked it). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

At the request of the subject, I read over the deletion debate on his article. I found several of your comments there to be unnecessary and unkind. I just now went through the current article word by word and found it now to be 100% true, and I agree that he passes notability. He continues to complain that it is inaccurate, but refuses to tell me just what is wrong with it. So while I can understand how you might be frustrated, I wanted to suggest that in the future, you try not to say things that will upset someone who is already complaining of feeling hurt. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less how Hawkins feels. Nor how you feel come to that. I think he's a pratt and that's that. Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading his complaints on Facebook, I'm forced to agree. His attitude seems to be "everything about me is copyright Jim Hawkins, how dare Wikipedia publish information I've already released!" Parrot of Doom 16:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Malleus - this is a rare thing for me to say, but the truth is where it is, so - "I agree with Jimbo Wales". If two people with widely differing perspectives come to the same conclusion about something, while it's not an infallible indicator, would you at least give serious consideration to the idea that you might be in error? Again, I'm not saying you should automatically believe either of us, heaven forbid. But perhaps go over your reasoning with a bit of charity towards the guy? I haven't seen anything like what Parrot of Doom says, though I haven't checked Facebook. What admittedly little I've seen just strikes me as someone very upset and really frustrated at Wikipedia, an experience for which I have a lot of sympathy. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Seth, if Malleus couldn't give a damn what Jimbo or Hawkins think, do you think he is even remotely blinking an eye because you also disagree with him? Why bother letting him know? Seriously, coming to Malleus's talk page and trying to change his view on something or expecting "redemption" would be like requesting him to become director of the Chamber of Wiki Admins and given the challenge of giving a badge and pat on the back to every admin whoever blocked anybody for their "exemplary, honourable work" for the website.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, to lay out my reasoning, I thought that he might be slightly more willing to think about a nonthreatening comment from me, given my lack of power over him and my long work criticizing Wikipedia's problems, than from someone in a quasi-authority relationship like Jimbo. Granted, I know it likely wasn't a big chance. But I'm feeling a lot of sympathy for Hawkins at the moment, and on a risk/reward basis, it seemed worth a shot. That is, if it didn't work, likely nobody would suffer, if it did work, great. Now, I've been spectacularly wrong on such calculations before, and maybe I should be more cautious. But, regardless of whether my comment was wise (and you provide evidence it wasn't! :-(), can you see the reasoning that led to it? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an unnatural concentration of progressive logicians who would inevitably find Malleus a compelling conundrum that simply must be solved, even though they're aware it probably can't be. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:04, 30 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely open to reasoned arguments, but I'm completely closed to emotional appeals, hand-wringing, and childish tickings off. Hawkins has no special rights just because he thinks he does or ought to have; he's a pratt pure and simple, a real-life Alan Partridge. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't the contention, at least not as far as this section goes. It has to do with the manner of your reaction rather than the substance. Wikipedia is an overwhelmingly progressive place, whose patrons couldn't possibly comprehend your conservative perpetual certainty in the face of overwhelming criticism. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:03, 30 Mar 2012 (UTC)

This counterposing of conservative and progressive reminds me of Communist Parties around 1948.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Communists also ate and slept. Are you a Communist? The point being that broad parallels can usually be drawn to unpopular groups in history from both sides of any debate, and usually end up more of a distraction than a revelation. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:33, 30 Mar 2012 (UTC)

To move past the distraction, I'm not making any judgments. I'm just saying the distinction exists, and the two often fail to understand each other. And my use of "progressive" has nothing to do with any particular political stance, but rather a belief system of open-mindedness (being open to progressing one's beliefs rather than remaining steadfast in conserving them). Malleus is instead proud to be absolutely unwilling to re-examine his convictions. That's conservative (again not referring to the traditional "conservative agenda"). Some might even find it admirable. Few people possess such a degree of assuredness. Either way it explains the perpetual conflict. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:07, 30 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Using the term "progressive" sadly does bring the political stance into the discussion, as the term has really been co-opted into politics. And it's worth noting that being progressive does not automatically make one open-minded. In fact, it can in some people simply replace one set of firm beliefs with another set of equally-firm ones. I don't know that we can say that Malleus is unwilling to re-examine his convictions (a rather sweeping statement) any more than we can say that his opponents are open-minded progressives (which is also a very sweeping statement and one that seems to be inaccurate based on what I've seen). Progressive, sadly, also has overtones of being smugly certain that one is correct. I'm not saying that you're using it in that sense, mind, just observing that it does have a certain weight and meaning beyond stark definitions.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd think it would be enough to expressly note that I wasn't using those definitions, as I did, but anyway. As I also noted, this isn't a judgment call but something Malleus has all but said himself, if he hasn't actually said it. Though if I'm wrong, then all the better -- I'd be interested in hearing Malleus' take on whether or not he is open to constructive input that might conflict with his long-held views. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:22, 30 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Equazcion, you must surely have got the idea by now that I believe you to be a pretentious twat without any real understanding of what you're talking about. So I don't think there's anything further for us to discuss is there? There's absolutely nothing progressive about Wikipedia or its denizens, quite the reverse in fact. It's a repressive totalitarian regime in my book, with a complete blind spot where its self-evident failings are concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't presume to know what anyone believes prior to their saying so. Since I just asked a question of you above (and you haven't actually answered it), I obviously think there is more to discuss. It was just a curiosity though. You're under no obligation. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:37, 30 Mar 2012 (UTC)

The "logicians" caboose from the "progressive logicians" trainwreck should also be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Facebook moan. Here he complains about errors in the article but refuses to identify them. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And here's a blog posting which mentions Malleus. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting comment about "Internet handles" there, given that "Jim Hawkins" isn't his real name any more than Malleus is mine. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps his father is Jack Sparrow.. Malleus there's a photo of Wigan town hall here which is useable in terms of license. I didn't upload it because the bus seems to be the focus of attention!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If I can't find one without a bloody great bus in the foreground it might have to do. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL that's what I thought you'd say! I could crop the bus out if you want, it still features the door and at least part of the facade..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC) The commons folk will delete the image you uploaded unfortunately because its "no deriratives". I think its time we accepted such images. In fact I lost out on a photo very recently because the flickr user wouldn't change the license to attribution only.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I did wonder about that, but if/when they do I'll upload it to Wikipedia instead. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

... but actually I think it's wrong building anyway. This looks more like it. That one must be the "new" town hall. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this help? J3Mrs (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly that's not the same town hall; Wigan's had at least three. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There's usually some hyper paranoid busybody though who would find it and delete it even if uploaded to wikipedia. That's all some people do on here is go through images drilling people warnings. Observation though is that the situation is better than in 2007-2009, although it might be because I've been drilled warnings for every image I ever uploaded and have mostly all been fixed to "adhere to standards" now!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

RE hyper paranoid busybodies deleting images, my self portrait (morphing Jack Carl Kiefer and Jacob Wolfowitz) has been nominated for deletion.... :(  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As I'm now convinced that's a picture of the wrong building it doesn't matter anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)