User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2009/February

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Arley Hall and Rowland Egerton-Warburton

I've decided to put Arley Hall on hold as a GAC for the time being because of the website change, so instead I've switched my attention to its builder, Rowland Egerton-Warburton. I didn't think he was much of a subject for an article until someone else started one - and then I discovered he is much more interesting than I had appreciated. So I think I'll go for GAC with what it's become. May I have your comments, suggestions for improvement, and of course the usual copy editing. Many thanks in advance. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's another nice little article. I've made a few minor tweaks, and it looks good to go to GAN so far as I can tell. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've already stated that it looks GA standard to me and should go to GAN. Nev1 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but you're often sometimes a bit more bullish about going straight to GAN/FAC than I am. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the work you've done and for your opinion. Now, more advice please - into which subsection does it fall? There's no section for biography (or for wealthy Cheshire landowners); is there enough art/architecture for that section or should we settle for miscellaneous? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
World history seems the best match. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Scout Moor Wind Farm

I am curious why the wikilink to England was removed with the comment "shouldn't wikilink common terms". Let's suppose a user in China sees the wind farm article and wonders "Where is it located? Oh, it's in England. Where is that?" Isn't it a good usage of information to give Wikipedia readers an easy link to the information they seek? After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to make information available to its readers, is it not. As a regular wiki patroller, I find that the vast number of geographic articles identify the country with a wikilink in the intro, so there is ample precedent for such wikilinks. To paraphrase your earlier edit summary "one man's common term ..." Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather a stretch to be asked to believe that someone who speaks English has no idea about England. But wikipedia articles ought not to include wikilinks just because they can, but because they add value to the article. I take it that you are familiar with the Manual of Style on the subject of linking, and the recent discussions that have taken place around the linking of common words and major geographical features? I quote: "It is generally not appropriate to link ... items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations ...". I submit that "England" can be considered a "major geographical feature". For the few to whom the word "England" remains a mystery, there is always the search box. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of WP:MOS and have been involved in several discussions there. The cited text goes on to say "except if they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article", which applies in this case; it's relevant that the wind farm is in England. I guess I also subscribe to the earlier MOS quote "Think carefully before you remove a link altogether—what may seem like an irrelevant link to you may be useful to other readers." Let's just say we disagree on this topic and leave it there. Happy February. Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
We most certainly do disagree on this point. The article is about wind farms, not the well-known country known as England. I thank you for your warning, but I will continue to remove such irrelevant links wherever I find them, whether that's agreeable to you or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion request

I am about to pass Outliers (book) as GA, although I think the review is overly long and repetitious. See Talk:Outliers (book)/GA1. For example, do you think seven times is too many to mention the simplistic "10,000 hour rule"? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the article meets the GA criteria, although its subject is a staggeringly trite book. Specifically, no, I don't particularly think that the "10,000 hour Rule" is mentioned too frequently. It just seems that way because it's bleedin' obvious, I think. Looks like the review's been a bit of a marathon though. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I passed it as GA. However, I think mentioning the "10,000 hour Rule" seven times is at least five times too many. Wikipedia will take a step up when it starts discouraging selfindulgent (and opinionated) writing. The POV of the article is the type that occurs when an editor is over invested in the subject matter and cannot, for whatever reason, maintain distance. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You may be right, but if you are, then you ought not to have passed the article, as failing criterion 4 of the good article criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I know better now than to go against your opinion. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop this nonsense. You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. If you don't like it, then don't ask again. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Sir. I will not. I will comment and dewatch. I apologize deeply for the posting of a request for your opinion. Let us forget it ever happened. I will not post here again. Forgive me, please. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The apology which is required is for your continuing petulant and vindictive behaviour, not for requesting an opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay okay you two, get a room. :P But seriously, the way I read the above is that Malleus was stating that Mattise, if you have doubts about passing something then you should have confidence in your intuition and not pass it. You shouldn't have to feel like you must pass something that you honestly don't think should pass, even if its only a small doubt. So, lets stop the whole aggressive retorts and continue helping the GA process. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse does great work at GA, and I try to help out there when I can as well, but I have no idea what has caused this animosity, and no interest in it in any event. Wikipedia's a big place; it's very easy to avoid those who (probably inadvertently) rub you up the wrong way, for whatever reason. But asking for advice on their talk pages and then getting all huffy when you get it most likely isn't an optimal strategy. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1)

I have nominated List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1), the list you copyedited, for FLC again. Just wanted to let you know as you requested! NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck! I'll keep a watch on it and help out if I can. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your help! NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my

This gave me a laugh. I don't know if it will display properly. Seems like they just translated all of our work into some kind of mysterious language of squiggles. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, its Malayalam. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems quite a bit shorter than our version. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I assume they will go after the whole thing based on their copy and pasting of the reference section. :) Its nice to see that Johnson will now have an impact on India. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Blyth Power Station

Thanks for working so hard on getting the article to GA! Great to see it get there after only about a week as well. And you're a bloody good and thorough copyeditor too. I don't know if you'd be interested, but I asked a copyeditor to give the Stella Power Station article a going over way back in November, and it'd be nice if you could give it a similar treatment to the Blyth article one day if you could. Best wishes Fintan264 (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very kind, it was a pleasure. I love to see articles this at GAN, on subjects that would otherwise be lost and forgotten if editors like you didn't take the trouble to care. I'll be happy to take a look at Stella. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been through and made (what I think are) a few improvements to Stella Power Station. I have to say that I'm astonished it was listed as a GA, but I think it's worthy of the label now. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the version [1] of Stella Power Station that I award GA-status back in October 2008. It bares little similarity to the version to which you commented: "I'm astonished it was listed as a GA". These changes, between the award of GA and your series of improvements, can also be verified from the article's history page.Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That explains it then. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


I'll make a start on the history stuff tomorrow (I can also throw in a bit about governance history as well). Things have been "interesting" IRL today, and so I need to sleep now.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, Agh, Ooh


:) Pedro :  Chat  11:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I came upon your (un)official 'insider-guide' on Wikipedia, when it was casually mentioned by a distinguished guest speaker during a public talk on Web 2.0 development which I attended recently. I had a good laugh reading it, and have reccomended it as a 'must read' to others too. I've some queries in mind and would greatly appreciate if you could satisfy my curiousity on the following:

  • What motivated you in the first place in starting WikiSpeak?
  • Are there any future plans in store for WikiSpeak, like WikiSpeak 2.0 or any similar undertaking in the near future?
  • Is there a way to get auto updates on WikiSpeak?
  • Are you from the academia? (or formerly?)

Thank you -- Kulikah (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • My motivation was to relieve the frustration caused by the pompous inflation of language here on wikipidia by self-important, self-appointed authorities. Where else are you likely to come across the word "redact", for instance? Also to poke fun at Americanisms like "my bad", when used by English schoolboys in a misguided attempt to sound "cool".
  • I've got no plans for any similar undertaking, but then neither did I have any plans for wikispeak. It was simply born from a moment of frustration. My hope for wikispeak is that others will build on my small beginning.
  • You can subscribe to an RSS feed for changes to the page here.
  • No, I have never worked in academia.

--Malleus Fatuorum 12:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. In case you may ask, the speaker I mentioned above is someone whom you may have known in Wikipedia all these while. He was invited by a tertiary institution as one of the panel of speakers to give a public talk on the security, economical and social issues that are associated with Web 2.0 technology. Due to privacy reason and his affiliation to a certain govt body, I'm not at a liberty to divulge who he is, but I believe you could be able to second guess who the person I'm referring to should you try to recall carefully. On a final note, do keep up your good work and take care minding your steps here. -- Kulikah (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I believe I know who it is you're referring to. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
That's great, you are strong with the Force too. As the Japanese used to say: "One should be mindful not to disturb (or tempt) a sleeping dog or its owner too". Bye. -- Kulikah (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Believe me, I have the utmost respect for the person of whom I think you are speaking, and would never dream of awakening that old staffie. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder though, have I done something wrong, and upset the old dog? If I have, it certainly wasn't deliberate. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on your past discussions above, it seem like you have stepped on the toes of almost everyone here except for the person I was referring to earlier - It's your past good karma I think ;-) He did not make any negative comments about you, except in referring you as "an English gentleman" who initiated the WikiSpeak project when someone asked for his view on Wikipedia during the Q & A session. On a serious note, looking at his well researched presentation, it isn't hard to imagine the level of his technical skills and insight, the influence and official links he has (like access to govt statistics/officials) even though he has always keep a low profile in the public eye. I think we should end this thread now as it wouldn't be nice should any of the 'watchers' informed him that we are discussing about him here. Adieu! -- Kulikah (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Based on your past discussions above, it seem like you have stepped on the toes of almost everyone here ...". Yep, I think you got that right. More like a bull in a china shop than an English gentleman. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Myth busters tested that old saying and discovered that Bull's in china shops are actually pretty safe, they walked around the china and didn't break a thing... perhaps the most anti-climatic moment in the shows history!---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 19:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


I admit that trusting in your offer to ventilate on you page was a big mistake, as well as asking you for an opinion, and in trusting that I actually had a relationship with you that I could openly express to you my deep feeling of hurt to you in an email. (I falsely though that you were my true friend.) I humbly apologize for those huge mistakes. I openly published my email to you for everyone to see. I hope that is of satisfaction to you. I am very sorry. In the future we will have no contact what so every, so these sorts of horrible transgressions on my part will not occur again. Purhaps with these assurances, you would be will to drop you vindicative statements in the future. I profoundly regret each and every interaction I engaged in with you. Please, let me go on with my life with out your continuing to demaind your pound of of my flesh and blood. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just stop with all this nonsense Mattisse. You're going the right way for your RfC to be escalated to ArbCom, and nobody wants to see that. Give it up, get back to doing something productive and enjoyable, and stop hounding me with all this lost trust and faith maudlin nonsense.
PS. I don't expect to see you on this talk page again, at least not until your attitude has improved substantially. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


It's that time again... Ealdred (archbishop) could use your attention over the next few weeks. I think he's all assembled. There are still a few minor points I'm trying to chase down, but nothing major. I've made a few CE passes, but... well.. I just finished off the last of the red links. Anything context wise that's missing, I'm more than happy to add, I just need to know what's left out. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I asked David Fuchs to look it over also, so he'll be fidding with it some. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Many hands make light work. I'll be happy to take a look. When are you looking to take it to FAC? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
When it's ready? (laughs) You know I don't care about front page exposure, so they go to FAC when they are ready, not before. The actual research is mostly done (the chances of me acquring the last couple of missing works I'd like is slim and none) so he's as comprehensive as I can make him. Johnbod's weighed in on any missing art/architectural items, so I don't really see anything that is missing. Of course, that's what you and David are for, to find glaring ommissions of background! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That's just about the nicest way anyone's ever called me an ignoramus. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I prefer to think of it as you don't spend your time worrying about obscure oddments of historical trivia. How's that? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Better, but not entirely accurate. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Burdon Stoker

Hi Malleus! I've started to add material to this article, following your contribution. Have added a reference section, notes and bibliography, but cannot sort out a conflict with the previous layout. Please could you look at it and rescue the position, so that I can add further material and references? Regards RuthAS (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. There were two of the {{Reflist}} templates, so I removed the last one. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus - perhaps I'd tried to remove the wrong Reflist template! RuthAS (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, there's a link on the MSC article to a video on Youtube. There is a sequence in this which shows ML vessels and R.B.Stoker (the second) relating a couple of stories about the line. I don't know how to link the video to the ML article. Please could you help? Regards RuthAS (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just a matter of copying over the external link, which I've done. Very interesting video that. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Malleus - but I just don't know how to 'copy over ...' anything! (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops - forgot to check if I was still logged in! RuthAS (talk)
It's just normal Ctrl C Ctrl V stuff, nothing clever sadly. :-)

Saxbe fix

Would you please take the time to say whether your concerns have been addressed. Four editors have gotten involved in cleaning up the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the article again, and my oppose stands. It still needs some serious work IMO, not just fixing up of the few examples I gave. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Waigeo Island
Upton, Cheshire
Scottish Crop Research Institute
List of places in Greater Manchester
Graham Sandercock
Salford (hundred)
Association of Greater Manchester Local Authorities
River Roch
Plant Sciences at Wageningen University
Pankhurst Centre
The Institute for Genomic Research
Vale Royal
Marketing Manchester
Bridgewater Hall
Mersey Ferry
Quality Street gang
University of Hull
Differential Manchester encoding
Add Sources
Newton Heath
Samuel Bamford
Mick Jones (footballer)
Cheadle, Greater Manchester
Abram, Greater Manchester

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Plant Sciences at Wageningen University??? – iridescent 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm kinda puzzled by that as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Waigeo? Man that bot must be broken, or someone is playing silly games.... Quick - get editing. Pedro :  Chat  23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I often tend to do quite a few copy edits to articles I'm reviewing, not because I'm interested in the subject, but just to get the article up to spec. Probably SuggestBot isn't really meant for editors like for me. (Are there any other editors like me? :lol:) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting requested

Dabcomb87 wanted me to specifically ask you about going over a copyedit for List of Popotan episodes since he believes it's still not up to stuff.じんない 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help, but probably not until after the weekend. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No serious rush. The FLC was just put up 2 days ago. It'll be there for atleast 8 more days.じんない 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I rephrased the last part of episode 11 because I do not think it was clear enough that none of the girls could get the courage to say their farewells face-to-face, so that sentence probably needs work.じんない 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I've never seen the series, so whatever you think is best. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alder Coppice Primary School (2nd nomination)

Quick note: Don't forget to sign your closing comment when you close an AFD. Also, since you're not an admin, you should also make it clear it's a non-admin closure in the same statement. I've altered the closure comment for you this time. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to remember next time, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
PS. Perhaps non admins ought to be forced to add some special symbol to their signatures, so that administrators know it's quite safe to patronize them? What do you think? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tax inspectors

No, conviction is not a prerequisite. They want people with a demonstrated talent for doing such acts and not get caught. Now that I've told you this I'm going to have to kill you and everyone who reads this, bwuhahahaha!!! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I wrote it I had exactly the same thought. The most successful sociopaths are those who get away with it, aka politicians. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought they also had to have skills in the cruor ex lapis style negotiation.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean ignoring all questions, saying what it is that you were told to say regardless of the question, and then feigning indignation when your scripted monomaniacal ramblings are interrupted? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I always thought that was the sensitive interviewing techniques used by UK immigration officers (and they really weren't pleased when they discovered I was going to "sit in" on an interview they conducted with my brother-in-law so that I could complain about their incompetence in losing his Chinese passport, which was why he hadn't left the UK at that time thus overstaying his visa by 2 years) No, it is much more mundane: "ex" = "from out of", "lapis" = "stone", "cruor" = "blood".  DDStretch  (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

5th Test

Thanks for that MF. I've responded on the page. With regards to efficiency, I guess if you reviewed some of the other Tests, it might be efficient, since there isn't a need to get familiarised with a new topic; they're all related, baasically. Thanks again, YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but I'm sure you'll understand that I have a few projects of my own that I'd also like to spend time on. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Septimus Heap

I'm glad my edits led to such good copyedits as this. In times of argument about how to improve articles on fiction, it is heartening to see such improvements being made. Geometry guy 23:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very kind. But you did the hard work by converting the lists to prose; I just came along behind and tidied up a bit. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
And you've been tidying up very nicely. Actually the real hard work was the novels section and we need the article's content expert (who probably wakes up in about 3-4 hours) to verify that it remains accurate and balanced. Geometry guy 00:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm optimistic that he or she will wake up to a pleasant surprise when (s)he sees how the article's been developed. Time will tell, of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ordsall Hall

I recently uploaded some new images of the hall to commons that I thought you might like to take a look at. There isn't room for all of them, and since you're familiar with the article I'll leave it up to you which (if any) to add. There are a couple of the Star Chamber, a couple of the Great Hall, and some exterior shots. The hall closes to the public this month (the 20th I think). Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have to admit that I've never been inside the hall. Is it closing for good? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it'll be back. It secured the lottery funding (about £4 million I think) and is about to be refurbished. It'll reopen in 2011; they've planned it so it won't have to compete with the opening of mediacity:uk (2010) or the Olympics. The museum's a nice place, there are usually lots of kids having fun, which is nice to see as sometimes museums can be so dull and feel stuffy. Nev1 (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Speyer - Thanks

Thanks for the comments and support for Edgar Speyer which has now been promoted. Phew, that was hard work! --DavidCane (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Worth it in the end though, eh? Well done. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Mark 1

Thanks for your message. I agree that we're both fallible and that others' input is needed. It's a shame we had to get it this way, and I wish your attempt to get input at WT:GAN had been more successful. WP seems unable to do anything without a drama :-(   Philcha (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It only becomes drama if we allow it to become drama. There's nothing personal here, and whatever the outcome of this GAR I will continue to have the greatest respect for the thoroughness of your reviews. It's just that in this particular case we're at an impasse: I think you've got it wrong, and you think that I've got it wrong, so we need some third-party views. Who knows, perhaps we've both got it wrong! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, i am (hopefully reliably) informed that you are one of the toughest editors to convince during an RfA. I was wondering if you could check out my contribs and give an informal opinion about my suitability, or lack thereof, and likelyhood of success.

Quick info -

  • edited about a year, averaging about 500 edits a month.
  • Some good article and featured lists, mostly editing science fiction and LGBT related articles.
  • I contribute intermittently to AfD, other XfDs (with both delete & keep votes, and occasional article rescues), GA reveiws and reassessments and featured list reviews, proeject assemssents (i do almost all for 2 projects) and WP:FEED).
  • Only involved in one edit war ever reported (by me), after much attempts at talk page. I only reported after 3RR was violated, but it became moot after admins blocked the other party independant of my report (mostly for civility i think). Also a past argument at Sexism in India, which i saved from deletion by renaming and expanding - one editor though sexism against men was a big deal, and another though it non-notable - so i found refs for what could be sourced, and removed what couldn't be, and after the comprimise the whole thing died down.
  • I don't send much to AfD, as i think merging/redirect solves most problems, and i generally don't read biography articles. I occasionally clean out science fiction cats by prodding things, any they either get deleted, or we find sources.

I've thought of adminship after realising how difficult it was to find an admin to get involved in edit disputes, even when one party is clearly going against consensus and breaking policy. I guess other normal users must have this problem more often than i (as i mostly edit niche articles with little controversy). This would mean i will be contributing to WP:ANI for example, which i usually don't do as there is little an non-admin can achieve there. I'd also like to extend my participation at AfD, mostly so i can detirmine if there is merge consensus, so i can close merges and do the merge directly (after being asked to respond on a second AfD on an article that had a consensus to merge but it wasn't done.)) Working at WP:feed also means i see quite a few Speedy deletion candidates that would be better userfied, so i could do that. I don't go out of my way to fight vandalism, just revert it when i see it, leave a warning if i think it will help, and check the contribs of the vandal for anything else needing reverting.

Anyway, if you are too busy, that's fine, i just think it is better than 50-odd editors doing check if i am clearly not going to pass. Thanks in advance!Yobmod (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and I'd have to say I don't feel strongly either way. I like the fact that about 55% of your contributions are in article space, showing that you're here for the right reasons. You also seem to have done some nice resuscitation work at AfD, which is also good. On the other hand Steampunk, the article to which you have the second highest number of edits, has had five {{citation}} tags in it since last December. Why haven't you tried to address those? I think before I supported at RfA you'd need to persuade me about what it is that you want to do with the admin tools that you can't do now, and that you have some understanding of what you need to understand before you start doing whatever that is. I wouldn't be inclined to oppose though from what I've seen. Whether you decide to put yourself forward at RfA or not, please bear in mind that it can be a very ego-bruising business. Many go into it fooling themselves that they don't care whether it succeeds or fails, but you have to be very hard-nosed indeed to simply shrug off the knocks that can be delivered in what can only be seen as the community's rejection of your offer to help. If you were to make a good case in your nomination statement for why it is that you need the tools, and you can demonstrate knowledge in whatever new tasks you're proposing to undertake, then I'd say you have a fair chance of passing RfA, but it's a fickle arena. That's barring the discovery of any undislosed skeletons in your cupboard, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm the one who added those tags: the sentences have been in the article for years, so i'd prefer to wait to remove them. My 2 main sources do not support them, so i cannot cite them. I think i added most citations to Steampunk, many of which are now moved to List of Steampunk works, which i essentially completely cited (formatting in pogress). The remaining article would need a complete overhaul imo - some of those sentences wouldn't be there after a rewrite, as i don't think they are important, and i'm not sure they even are citable. I wrote hardly any of it, i've mostly just done adding citations and removing the almost daily uncited additions.
Thanks for the advice! Probably see you around at GAR soon.Yobmod (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There you are you see, there's my reason to oppose!</joke> I just hate tags in articles, they're like a red rag to a bull as far as I'm concerned. But each to his own. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IARC "Good Article"

Per your comments at: Talk:International Aerial Robotics Competition... would you take a look at the article now and advise if there is adequate documentation (references)? Thanks.Firewall (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that hasn't been picked up for review yet, I'll take a look, perhaps not until tomorrow though. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


I have done some signifigant reediting and expanding. Do you think that it is ready to be re-submitted for GA status? It covers all the points you noted it missed, and more. Resident Mario (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've made some good improvements. On a quick look through the main thing that strikes me is that there are two sections without citations, Dispute and Initial conflict, which would be a problem in a GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think as well you need to expand the lead a little bit, to cover recent activity. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting; there is still work to be done and I needed a bit of peer review. Resident Mario (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article could also do with a good copyedit before you take it to GAN, for example this sentence "In August 1831 the volcano had risen to above sea level, although still only some couple of rock ..." doesn't make sense. Let me know when you think you've finished and I'll take a final look pre-GAN look through if you like. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As I was the one who delisted the article I wouldn't be doing the review anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Working on it Resident Mario (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw you made several COPYEDIT contributions to the article. Thanx! Resident Mario (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's the least I could do. I don't enjoy having to delist articles, so I'll do what I can to help you regain its GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Léon M'ba

How many User Talk pages are you stawatching? :-)

Eddy's articles and the one Mattisse asked me to look at in return illustrate a problem (see her talk page) that we might need to discuss at WT:GAN. These "foreign" editors need huge amounts of help if they are to acheve anything on en.WP, but their contributions may help to counter systemic bias. --Philcha (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I watch every talk page I post on, else I wouldn't see the reply. While I agree about the problems that "foreign" editors face, I'm not altogether convinced that's the problem here. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I have such frequent conversations with some editors that I no longer unwatch them unless there's a month's break.
I think "foreign" editors is part of the problem at Léon M'ba (see Mattissse's Talk page), and most of the problem at Stargate (production team), which Mattisse asked me to look at as a quid pro quo. It's an issue en.WP will have to resolve before much of Indian comes online - Indians think of themselves as half-British, but the great majority are a lot more than 6 degrees of separation from a native user of English. --Philcha (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There are some non-native English speaking parts of the world that actually have quite good coverage. Singapore for instance. Working on those articles is nothing like working on, say, Hubert Maga, where no issues raised, even the simplest, could be adequately addressed. The problem is not one of language alone. The language can fairly easily be fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
"The language can fairly easily be fixed" - when it's neary half the sentences, as in Léon M'ba? --Philcha (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You shoild take a look at Hubert Maga as it was when it was submitted to GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I wish I hadn't - that's the last time I take your advice :-) 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of encyclopedias

In the /* GA Reassessment */ on the talk page of the Afghanistan article you said, Other encyclopedias, such as Britannica, cannot be considered as suitable sources. Please, could you point me to where this principle is discussed? I had previously understood that “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.” Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. And “Our policy: Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others.” Wikipedia:No original research# Primary, secondary and tertiary sources Also I am not sure how the principle that you enunciated and those above square with topical encyclopedias, like the Encyclopaedia of Islam or the Encyclopedia of Fairy Tales where there is a great deal of detail. I do understand that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources, emphasis added. --Bejnar (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica gives its sources. It is those sources that should be used. Specialist encyclopedias are quite different from a general one like Britannica. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources.[3] Britannica is used in seven citations, that's too many. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm also unhappy about the use of as a reliable source. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ealdred (archbishop)

How's the old boy coming? I've been so buried into Bede and various other projects, I've lost track of where he is. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the old fella's about ready to go. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
PS. What's you view on using Brittanica as a source for GAs (see above topic)? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It depends on how it's used. If it's used to source something like a date or something tangential to the subject (like say a date William the Conqueror took the throne in Ealdred's article) it's probably okay. Specialist encyclopedias (like the ODNB or a chemical handbook) are a different story, but generally, you shouldn't cite a generalist encyclopedia more than once or twice for general overview information. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

SR Leader Class

Hello Malleus Fatuorum, it's been a while! Thanks for looking over the LSWR S15 article, there are always some mistakes that escape even the most rigorous re-reads! I was just wondering if you would like to check over the above article. There is an issue regarding the Background section which I am slowly working on, but as the content is generally complete, I am working on preparing it for submission to FA in the near future. Any help given to improve the prose of this article will be met with gratitude. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically you addressed all of the reasons for delisting the LSWR S15 aticle anyway. I was just trying to make you go the extra mile. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take a look at the Leader Class article. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, its good that you do. Really, I believe there should be at least two editors per article, with one or the other doing research, and one or the other checking prose. Ideally both editors should have a go at doing both tasks, but in this case, how many railway enthusiasts are there who actively do this sort of thing? Not many, and for a while, it was just me, EdJogg and John of Paris. As this little triumvirate has gone quiet somewhat of late, it's quite difficult to get a friendly outside perspective when you are on your own.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick with it, I think you're doing a great job. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Charles White (physician)

Updated DYK query On February 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles White (physician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay! My first DYK! --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(runs off in a forlorn attempt to find something interesting from Noel Park) – iridescent 22:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, if you can now annoy Sandy with one of those crown things, I want one too – iridescent 23:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm brave, but I'm not that brave. I've never really understood the fascination with those crown thingies anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are the proud winner of the Wikipedia Crow Award. (I may have misunderstood something.) – iridescent 23:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel like I'm in the episode of Star Trek I watched yesterday. Riker was sent on an away mission and became incarcerated in a psychiatric facility, mirroring a play that he was rehearsing on board the Enterprise ... I'm not boring you am I? Anyway, it turned out that ... oh, so hard to stay awake ... it turned out that ...... --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA comments

No this isn't about your rationale, I actually understood what you meant when you said "no" ;-). It's you labelling discussion of your oppose as "badgering". Rfa is a discussion, if you comment there you should expect that people will reespond to your comments. Also your point about not supporting anyone who had less than 35% of contribs to article space; that's much more than me. I've spent more three or four making a single edit to the mainspace (example), it takes ages to research edits, and edits to the mainspace usually have much more content in them than edits anywhere elsewhere.--Pattont/c 17:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't waste your time in trying to bullshit me. "Never bullshit a bullshitter". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
35%? Holy crap. I'd fail (23%). It would shift a bit once I start moving things out of my user subspace or off the article talk pages, but still. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a multivariate analysis, not just looking at one number in isolation. You'd be OK. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Haha. Well, seeing as how 50% of my "Wikipedia" entries are from DYK or FAC processes or defending my actions at those, I guess there is some leeway. :D My problem is that I tend to post on average 5k worth of text at a time, instead of adding entries line by line. I have not even hit 8,000 edits yet. Oh dear oh dear. I need to invest in huggle. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's of only hypothetical interest in your case anyway Ottava. No offence, but you and I have got about the same chance of ever passing an RfA. None. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
At least I haven't attempted one to find out. Oh! :P I'm still running for Wiki Satan 2010 so I can solidify it three years in a row. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
RfA is a great way to out all those users who hate you. You'd probably be amazed at who crawled out of the woodwork. I'd be in the support column though, mainly because with you I feel I know what I'd be getting. None of the flesh-creepingly embarrassing sycophancy most candidates seem to feel is mandatory for a three-month period before the appointed day, just to revert to type with a big sigh once they've conned their way to becoming an administrator. Mind you, I'm not recommending you try it, because I'd probably be feeling a bit lonely in that support column. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
(cough cough cough). Yes, I know it was a kinder, gentler time back then. – iridescent 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh you mean a time when candidates were evaluated on their merits, and not on their edit counts, or grudges or revenge votes? I remember it well. Majorly talk 20:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh - I've never opposed someone on editcount grounds aside from a couple of obvious snow-close newcomers. (FWIW I have more than 20,000 talk edits.) My oppose on the RFA in question was "recent history of bad calls at UAA which I think indicates too bitey a mentality towards good-faith newcomers". – iridescent 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I expect Majorly was referring to my recent oppose, which wasn't for number of edits per se but the areas those edits were in. Which I find particularly comical considering that so many failed RfA candidates are advised to spend more time at XfD. Another double standard on display. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Only 10k edits, most of them with AWB, and only one rather dubious oppose? Kinder indeed.
BTW, both of your nominators seemed to be in agreement that you're a "he" Iridescent. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that I have no use for the tools. I don't block people (except when I -have- to block an IP and then I talk with others). I wouldn't delete pages. I may look at deleted pages or use those moving features, but even then. Sure, put me on a committee that can decide administrative actions. That's fine. However, it already seems obvious that I am capable of pissing off a lot of people and also swaying consensus when needed without the tools, so it is already like I have the power at my hand. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Trust me Ottava, I'd very strongly recommend that you didn't put yourself forwards at RfA. I once thought I could help there, but looking back now I can see, like you, that I have very little need for any additional tools, particularly ones like the block button that I'm almost genetically programmed never to use anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm still adding my name on 1 April and hoping that I don't get blocked for WP:POINT XD. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Breaching WP:POINT isn't a blocking offence, blocks are there to ... oh what's the point, hardly any admins understand the blocking policy anyway, so you're probably right to be concerned. You'll have to go some to beat Kurt Webberr's effort last April 1 though. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
My reasons for applying: "I don't want the tools. I probably would suck with the tools. Chances are, I will delete the main page multiple times by accident just trying to log onto my account. I am petty, vindictive and mean. Over 9,000 people hate me around here regardless if they realize it or not. I probably will oppose your RfA or opposed it. I probably will oppose your FAC. Chances are, I will piss you off if you support me and will make you regret even thinking about it. I also eat babies." Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me guess, you kill kittens too? :) Majorly talk 21:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No, like Grimalkin's brood in Beware the Cat, I am more akin to the kittens that kill people. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Last I checked opposing FAcs was a good thing; the more opposes one gets the better it gets...or at least that's what I've found when I've taken stuff to FAC--Pattont/c 23:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right, up to a point anyway, but did you ever take part in any of the Roman Catholic Church's FACs? Don't worry if you didn't, it should be coming around for what I think will be its sixth nomination in the not too distant future. See if that changes your mind about opposes always being good in improving an article. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, RCC is in mediation, over the "official" name issue. I'm pretty sure that it won't hit FAC until it's out of mediation. Then we shall see what we shall see. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about the ongoing furore about the name. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thankfully, my CoI prohibits me from even caring about it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, there's one thing bothering me. Why haven't you and I ever fallen out? Are you one of my many socks, one that I operate in my sleep? Has anyone ever seen us logged in at the same time? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, there was a time that you were really bothered by me. However, I am too egotistical to really pay attention to name calling on a serious level, so, I think you blew some steam and we moved on. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I find that very hard to believe. I am by nature the most forgiving and easy-going of people. Until someone gets on my tits of course, when the red mist sometimes descends. It's a strange thing I've observed though. There are many, not just here but in real life, who would say that I'd fallen out with them, when I didn't even notice. The world was definitely spared the day I decided to give up on my intention to become a clinical psychologist. I know how people work in general, but I have no interest at all in the behaviour of individuals. "Pull yourself together, for God's sake" was my refrain. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) If more clinical psychologists were to say "Pull yourself together, for God's sake", there would be two changes in the world: more people would be happy, independent, and well-adjusted, and more clinical psychologists would be out of work. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 01:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatrists cause far more problems than clinical psychologists ever could, not to mention general practitioners. You're feeling depressed? Here's a sick note for six weeks and some pills which might help you to pass the time. And as for those Freudian psychotherapist charlatans ... --Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I always more-than-semi imagined you as a clergyman of some kind, I have to say. I could imagine you giving some great sermons. – iridescent 02:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm no clergyman. I've been a professional IT instructor for more years than I care to remember, so I could stand up and give you a great account of the advantages of object-oriented analysis and design, and why so few of the current generation of script-kiddies understand that they've been hoodwinked by Microsoft into believing they understand what any of it actually means. To say nothing of my specialist subject, aspect-oriented programming ... on reflection I see what you mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(Imagines a 4 year old boy instructing at a computer course) Really, for more years than you can remember :P?--Pattont/c 14:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, that was a slight exaggeration. For 17 years. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Which, by cosmic coincidence (or is it conspiracy...?), is also the mean age of the admins on Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 15:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As high as that? I'm surprised, I'd have guessed at about 13. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh great wondrous magnificent copyeditor (and better speller than I am...)

Next up Hilary of Chichester. He's short! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
What he said... Pattont/c 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, bribery! I love a good bribe! Thanks Patton. BTW, Ealdgyth is a she, at least I hope that someone whose first name is Victoria is a she anyway, for their sake. ;-)

Noel Park

If you get the chance, would you be in a position to have a look at my rewrite of Noel Park? What started out as a quick rewrite to correct some inaccuracies has, much to my surprise, ballooned into the longest article I've ever written; I also deliberately wrote it to be MOS-compliant throughout as an exercise to see how hard it was (although some of the more dedicated MOS-team might look askance at the collapsible table and the 600px forced image width). Once the dust has settled on it, I'm semi-tempted to send it off to FAC, if only to gain a greater audience for "Austin was an illiterate who had begun his working life on a farm as a scarecrow paid 1d per day, and had worked his way up to become a drainage contractor", which IMO ranks close behind "he donated his penis to the museum, presumably posthumously" in the "great lines on boring articles" stakes.

If you or anyone else watching this (Ealdgyth, there is an archbishop in there if that's any temptation) have any ideas for cleaning it up, they'd be most gratefully received. (Incidentally, when I talk about "a single mainspace edit can take longer than hundreds of talk edits", this is the kind of thing I have in mind.) – iridescent 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always had a fascination for your articles Iridescent, and your talent for turning sow's ears into silk purses. I think that's how we first bumped into each other. Of course I'll take a look. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; just to warn you that this one makes Serpentine (lake) look interesting. Hell, this one makes National Police Memorial look interesting. Incidentally, before anyone says anything, yes I know the left-right sequence on the images is broken; it's deliberate to stop them overspilling into the section headers. And no, the Welch book really doesn't have an ISBN despite being published in 2006 – I'm not sure how that works either. – iridescent 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hellingly Hospital Railway wasn't exactly an obvious candidate for the front page either, but these things deserve not to be forgotten, so we should do the best we can for them. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm still debating whether to put HHR up for TFA. On the onehand, 50th anniversaries don't come round that often – on the other hand, it is awesomely dull (and I think may be our current shortest FA – at least, on a dip-sample I can't see one shorter). – iridescent 23:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother with TFA. If Raul likes it, he'll choose it. I didn't nominate this, for instance, but it popped up on the main page nevertheless. Compared to this, whose TFA was a nightmare. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't bother, but the unique combination of circumstances (the 50th anniversary of closure, and the fact there hasn't been a train TFA for over 6 months) means that on 25 March and 4th April HHR will score seven points on Raul's scale (according to TonyTheTiger, who generally knows these things, the record is Edgar Allan Poe with nine) giving it a unique opportunity to be thrown to the world's children to vandalise, since I can't imagine Raul picking it under normal circumstances. (If I had to pick one of mine to go on the front page, either of the two council estates would be a better choice IMO, but one still has to jump through the FAC hoop and the other never will.) – iridescent 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Then go for it! I have to admit that I've never really got to grips with the way that the TFA nomination process works though, so I intend to continue steadfastly ignoring it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

← I've only just taken a look at Noel Park. What a tour de force! It needs a good polish (do you know a good copyeditor?), but once that's done you might even have a second FA on your hands. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it – if I do say so myself, I think it's probably the best silk purse/sows ear job I've ever done (especially given that this is considerably less interesting a topic than A Certain Other Council Estate). What started out as a boring-architectural-study somehow became an entire commentary on Victorian class attitudes, the ideological difference between Liberalism and Socialism, and the role of industrial progress in the growth of cities.
"Looking for a copyeditor" is the point at which I start regretting having pissed off almost every one of the FA crowd at one point or another. I very deliberately asked DavidCane to be the first to give it the once-over; as someone who's (a) shepherded three articles through FAC and hence understands what I've tried to do in pushing the boundaries of the MOS whilst staying within the letter of it, (b) is a chartered surveyor IRL so can spot any howlers I've made in architectural terminology (without the potential baggage another obvious "architectural" copyeditor would bring) and (c) is the author of Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway so understands the whole "impact of infrastructure" theme. (After "Noel Park", "Wood Green" and "London", the most frequently occurring words of four or more characters in the article are "railway", "road" and "house". In that order.) I ideally want someone who neither knows nor cares anything about the topic to go over it at some point to weed out any jargon which may have crept in, too.
Once it's been in mainspace for a couple of weeks and the glitches have been ironed out, I think I might send this one to FAC; I very much doubt it would fail miserably even if it were submitted in its current state, and I've certainly seen worse pass. Hell, I've written worse that's passed. – iridescent 21:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it would get a mauling at FAC over the prose, but I'm sure we can fix that fairly easily. I'm not one of the "FAC crowd", but I'll do what I can neverthless. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it would get Strong Words Of Advice – and probably fail – but not a miserable flame-out, were it to be submitted in its current state. I certainly don't propose doing it until at least two people have give it a thorough working-over, though. Incidentally, do you (or anyone else reading who follows the MOS) know what the correct format for four-digit numbers is? WP:MOSNUM seems to clearly say comma-separation for numbers of five or more digits, but since everyone passing through is comma-separating the four-digit numbers as well, maybe I'm missing something. Heaven forbid I'd breach the MOS, after all. (Oddly, no-one's even mentioned the lime-green collapsible table or the 600px forced-width image.) – iridescent 21:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yet. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the MoS's biggest problems is that it is not entirely consistent. I tend to take the view that WP:MOS trumps any of its subpages, so it's a comma after every three characters.[4] --Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks


Just a thanks on your position and help at the Banker horse article. Montanabw(talk) 05:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And they say FAC is picky on MOS...

Talk:Wilfrid/GA1. Heh. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Make nice to Wilfrid, he'll be at FAC as soon as a few more sources come in... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, GAN is no walk in the park, especially if you get a reviewer like majoreditor.
Sandy, I've thought that I might try an RfA on the same day every year, just to make sure that I never get too big for my boots. Can't beat a reminder about how many people dislike you for a refreshing dose of reality. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
So, would that be May or November? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It'll be never. Twice bitten, three times shy. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Allrighty then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, as I mentioned today at WT:RFA, RFA has changed for the better, and if you're interested in running, I'll do what I can to help, Malleus. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your very kind offer Dank55, I really do appreciate it. But I won't be making another appearance at RfA. I could probably write you a list of all the editors who would pop up to oppose in the first 30 minutes, and I know which administrator would be right at the top of that list. Too discouraging. Besides, I enjoy what I'm doing here now, and I only infrequently come across anything I need the extra buttons for anyway. Neither do I particularly want to become an adminstrator; I only requested in the past in an offer to help out. I'm quite relaxed that my offers weren't taken up, and in a way almost relieved. Besides, two RfA trainwrecks ought to be quite enough for anyone. Certainly it's enough for me anyway, I can take a hint. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
think of the company you're keeping, Malleus. Sandy and I (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
... and don't forget Tony1. I'm quite happy to be in such exalted company; where else would I choose to be? I understand that some people want to be an administrator because they see it as some kind of promotion. I'm not one of them. I also understand that some see admin duties as a light relief from article work. I'm not one of them either; if I need a bit of light relief I just click on the Random article link and take it from there. I seem to remember Tony saying somewhere that if he stood at RfA a second time he'd end up with so many holes in his back that he'd never be able to float again, and I feel much the same. Just don't need it and just don't want it. I'm perfectly content where I am, at the bottom of the pile. I admit that I was at one time hurt by some of the reactions expressed during my two RfAs, but that's history now. I've moved on and I won't be going back. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Tell me what you think of Ælfheah of Canterbury and whether I can take him to FAC. That's pretty much it for him, unless i turn up something interesting art history wise. Too short? Granted, it'll take a bunch to beat the ditch.. but... Ealdgyth - Talk 04:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I think a word or two about who Lanfranc was in the final section would be helpful as we're not yet all fully up to speed on medieval history.
BTW, it's not a ditch, it's a "linear earthwork". Much grander than a ditch. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
PS. "The account of Ælfheah's death appears in E verison ...". Is "E verison" right? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep. ASC is divided into "versions" which are lettered. Read the article, it's pretty good. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It was the spelling of verison I was questioning. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
LOL, I can't spell. spell it however it should be spelled. There isn't any special "historian" spelling for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so now the dilema... Hilary or Ælfheah. Hilary is an article I actually started myself, but Ælfheah has attraction because he'd be so short... decisions... decisions... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
They're both strong candidates, obviously. If it were me, I'd go with Ælfheah first. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


For my comments on RFA talk the other day... they were over the top and not needed. Best wishes, Majorly talk 16:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries Majorly, I'd already forgotten about it. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

IARC GA reflections

Thank you for working with me to make the IARC article "good". I learned a lot by going through the process and will, over time, improve my other articles to conform to similar criteria. I surmise that you are in the UK and it has been convenient to copy-edit during "my day" and wake up to your copy-edits which occurred during "my night". As an administrator, you have been the easiest with which to work. I have had a number of very bad experiences with administrators who use their super powers to promulgate their POV. There is no place for that, but editors who create articles are powerless to fight their arrogance. While the IARC subject matter is not controversial, I never sensed that you had any agenda other than to make the article the best it could be within the formatting and content standards set forth by Wikipedia. I hope to work with you again in the future. Cheers. Firewall (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words; I'm very glad you found the GA experience to be a positive one. You're right, I'm in the UK, but I'm famously not an administrator, nor ever likely to be one. There are a great many of them I too have very little time or respect for. By no means all though to be fair, there are some good ones. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Sorry about that, I was flicking through my watchlist and accidentally undid the edit to your talk page. I hate touch pad mice, they're too twitchy. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No harm done. I was probably talking rubbish anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Shades of gray vs. "Aux barricades!"

Hi Malleus. Re: the 1f debate. Your comment regarding black/white and shades of gray is extremely reasonable, at least when regarded in a decontextualized manner. But therein lies the dead skunk: in this particular case, the context is the most important factor. The context is this: the folks who don't give a damn about quality and lovez theyz bronzems starzems (not putting you in that category) outnumber the folks who do care by a large margin. We have discussed this before; it is the Kiddie Factor. These same folks, once they twig on (like the Britishism? I added that just for you :-) ) to the fact that they can get away with the bare minumum of sourcing standards, will do so. The evil contests will encourage them to do so. The MMORPG environment of bronze star collecting (shall I name names? Better not, too much dramaz) will encourage them to do so. And your eminently reasonable response will permit them to do so. It won't be an obvious and immediate deluge, but over time they will chip away at standards. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right. Thanks for the Britishism btw; I often feel that I don't entirely understand what I'm told by American editors. "I could care less", which I now understand to mean "I couldn't care less" when written by a citizen of the good old US of A being a case in point. I remember being completely flummoxed by a shop assistant in California who kept asking me if the pair of shoes I wanted to buy "would do me", and his reluctance to accept my reply that I thought they'd be fine. But I digress.
I have no context, I was making a general comment. If there's a problem with the quality of sourcing in certain kinds of articles then that obviously needs to be dealt with. I'm quite prepared to stand beside you on the barricades if that ever becomes necessary to defend against the bronze star collectors (of which I am most definitely not one), but at the same time I see your current proposal as being unnecessarily elitist. It may be a desireable goal and easily applied to a relatively narrow field of study such as 19th-century novels, but I'm less convinced of its applicability to historic computers, arcade games ... not saying that those kinds of articles shouldn't be reliably sourced—they obviously should be—just that it's sometimes a bit too soon to judge what the "best" sources actually are. So long as the sources are sufficiently reliable for the material being attributed to them I really don't see the problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The proposal contains the word "available"; articles on video games don't need JSTOR sources
  • I have a mildly amusing anecdote about British accents. I.. consider myself reasonably sensitive to various regional accents etc. I can understand non-native speakers when other native speakers are flummoxed (comes from my job). But once in Taipei I met a lad from Liverpool. And I swear to whatever saint you wish... I was sitting in a table next to his; he and i were back-to-back. At first I thought he was speaking something other than English, and i was kinda straining to guess what language it was. Then an acquaintance of mine who was at the table with him and was introducing him around introduced him to me, saying he was from Liverpool. Then the Liverpudlian spoke to me directly. Out of two or three utterances, I swear, I did not understand a single complete phrase or clause. He sounded nothing like my erstwhile idols. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 03:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I live about 40 miles from Liverpool, but I almost feel like a foreigner when I visit, even though I've lived in England all my life. If you've never heard this radio broadcast before then you're in for a treat. I end up in tears of laughter every time I listen to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll listen to it... did you see the comment above, "The proposal contains the word "available"; articles on video games don't need JSTOR sources"? Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 04:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I did see your comment about JSTOR sources, and I broadly agree with it. I still stick with my basic position though; sources which are good enough are good enough. You've given the example of children's books in the context of sourcing an article about Lincoln's assassin. I haven't read that article, but if those sources are used as examples of how the assassination is explained to children that seems fine to me. If on the other hand they're used as serious historical sources of the circumstances surrounding the assassination then that's clearly ridiculous. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Going for GAN

Ferdinandea sent for GAN. At least, it would tell me what else there is to improve. Considering it was me, you, and Black Tusk that worked that article in principle, if it passes, you can put another GA star on your register! Cheers, ResMar 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, and I hope you get a co-operative and sympathetic reviewer. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To be, or not to be

Mixed metaphors aside, I loved this - to see a tone! You, kind sir, rival the Bard. Intentional or un-intentional that was a genius comment. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of us are blessed with the gift of synesthesia. Have you never tasted a smell? Seen a sound? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, indeed - to the blind man red is the heat of the oven and green is the smell of closely cut grass. You see - you are the re-incarnation of Shakespeare..... or Marlowe :) Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It brings back a vivid memory I have of one occasion when I came across some workmen chopping down some gigantic (I could only have been about 7 or 8) weeds. I watched them for a few minutes before saying "Ugh, they taste awful!" which threw them into an absolute panic, because the weeds were apparently poisonous. Luckily(?) I survived the smell and lived to tell the tale. Where creativity comes from is a fascinating subject though. In a wikipedia context it has to come from diversity along with a tolerance, even a welcome, for that diversity. Which is at the heart of why I'm so critical of much that happens here on wikipedia. To return to the cultural topic, I'm absolutely convinced that there is a divide between the English and American attitudes towards wikipedia's governance due largely to our different experiences of democracy. If you'd like a signed copy of my forthcoming book Wikipedia and the Semiotics of Democracy, please send as much money as you can afford to ... --Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I offer you a publishing deal instead? As it happens I have a few close relatives who are, shall we say, reasonably well connected in the educational works market (although only one has their own WP article and COI prevents me..). I'd love to find the time to write a good book on the WP cultural phenomenon, and more importantly how the WP society impacts the readership of WP - of which at least one chapter would be devoted to the "great cultural divide" between the UK, Australia and the US on this project. Who was it that wrote about Britian and America being divided by a common language (or similar comment)? Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It was George Bernard Shaw. Sadly I haven't actually writen that book, I was just joshing, but it's something to think about. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah - Shaw - thankyou sir. Well, maybe we need to colaborate and flog it. Post the "credit crunch".

Sell out, make millions v. honest integrity and noble project

........ yep I'm happy to sacrifice the end goal of Wikipedia for a big fat royalty cheque. Pedro :  Chat  23:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The two aims are not necessarily incompatible; some authors have presumably made money by writing books on how eBay works, for instance. Personally, I wouldn't need the royalty cheque to be all that fat, just fat enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Recent comments by user show lack of insight. How can people learn unless they see "oppose" in big bold letters? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Grammar query...

I"m reveiwing Diocletianic Persecution which has a LOT of sentences like this: "Christians had no such excuse: Their faith was new and unfamiliar, and was not typically identified with Judaism." Am I wrong to think that the "Their" should be 'their" and that this sort of sentence is not used much any more? I find it jarring ... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Their" should certainly be "their" in your example, and the colon should be a semicolon. I'd be fairly happy with "Christians had no such excuse; their faith was new and unfamiliar, and was not typically identified with Judaism" seems fine to me, not jarring." --Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I meant the colon instead of the semi-colon was jarring (grins). thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


The title Malleus Fatuorum/Manchester computers was not in your userspace but user:Malleus Fatuorum/Manchester computers would have been. I have dumped your draft at User:Malleus Fatuorum/sandbox.

"Move" in Wikipedia is a defined term. When you created Manchester computers you did not move it, you copy & pasted it. Use of copy&paste rather than move is usually strongly condemned because it hides edit history. Creating Manchester computers by copy&paste was OK because only you had worked on the draft. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been more careful. Thanks for sorting it out. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The onward march of tedium strikes another blow

If you (or any assorted talk page watchers) feel the urge, can you have a look over Tunnel Railway? I'm somewhat surprised we didn't already have this one as it's a veritable mine of "WTF?" moments. (Did You Know… that as it ran entirely underground, the tunnel of the Tunnel Railway contained illuminated tableaux of Switzerland, Canada, The Netherlands, Japan and Egypt to entertain passengers? … that while Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff etc still don't have underground railway systems, Ramsgate built one in 1936? … that someone thought 1936 would be a good time to start a major infrastructure project immediately under the flightpath from Germany to London?) Those who remember Hellingly Hospital Railway will find those old favourites trolley pole and island platform make welcome guest reappearances, too, as does an EL to one of my favourite weird organisations, Subterranea Britannica ("The site for people who take pictures of holes").

I know it's a bit choppy and reads rather like someone emptied a bucket of turgid prose onto the page, but I've pretty much reached the "sod it, that'll do, nobody will ever read the thing" stage on this one. – iridescent 18:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent is... making content? wtf :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Iridescent has an FA. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
…and a fair few bloody long ones, too – iridescent 19:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Julian has multiple FAs, but you can't really consider that content. Ha! I'm just kidding. Everyone knows that transportation and weather related pages suck, so I don't need to point it out. :P!!!!! Go literature! Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm keeping out of this Ottava, you're on your own. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance

You know, I'd be willing on working that article into a GA with you if you'd like. I worked with this one prof in college who loved it because he was Aronson's grad student, so he hammered it on us. Let me know. JoeSmack Talk 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why stop there? Why not get it to FA?--Pattont/c 19:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd be interested in that. Are there any psychology FAs? I mean mainstream ones rather than topics like parapsychology (which seems well on the path to losing its FA listing anyway). --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless you count Free will, no. – iridescent 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
As an unreformed behaviorist with distinct cognitive leanings I'd count that as a philosophy article, a bit of imaginative light relief, a word-game. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, uh, major depressive disorder was sorta one :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No it wasn't There's a world of difference between psychiatric quackery and empirical psychology. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well here's a nice candidate - oodles of references, secondary soruces and consensus statements available etc. piece of cake :) I'd prefer to do Psychodynamic psychotherapy....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been thrown into a state of deep depression after following a few links from Kohlberg's stages of moral development. If I ever recover I may consider having a go at cognitive dissonance, but in the meantime I'll probably restrict myself to historic computers and witch trials --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 23 February 2009


Hi, I've responded to your comments. - Francis Tyers · 10:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded to the comments on the talk page, and I'm happy to continue on the current track, although please see my suggestions. - Francis Tyers · 14:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It seems like we'll be able to produce something that'll satisfy both of us then. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Keith Bostic (American football)

I have a quandry on this GAN. At the end, there is a section on his nephew's football career. I'd asked that the information be cut, instead it got expanded. I get a feel that it's very WP:COATRACKy, but would appreciate a second opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'd agree with you that there's too much info on Nigel Bostic, who's only a nephew after all. And the final sentence—"After a long series off arrests he was given a gun trafficking sentence"—just makes my ears bleed. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I present to you...

Yet another utterly obscure article on a subject no one's ever heard of... Jersey Act. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This message brought to you by someone who spent the day listening to the carpet layers hammer things... so she's a little stir-crazy. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I've had a run through, and I've got a couple of questions:
  • Where did the name come from? Presumably it's something to do with New Jersey?
  • The article initially talks about UK breeders, but then switches to English breeders, and discusses English racing. English is of course specific to England, whereas UK includes Scotland, Wales, and in 1913 the whole of Ireland as well.
--Malleus Fatuorum 12:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, presumably it was from the "Lord Jersey" who was chairman of the British Jockey Club. As for the UK/English thing, it's a relection of my sources, which tend to be a bit muddled on the subject. British would work fine if you want to be consistent. The GSB covers Britain (and Ireland at that point). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I've changed a couple of "English" to "British", and it looks fine to me now. I also added a mention of Lord Jersey, as it answers the question of where the name came from.
I'm not sure if you'll be able to read this without a library subscription, but it's interesting to compare your article with Britannica's offering if you can. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I can read most of it. I'm still not totally unpacked on books, so the research is still ongoing on that article. I'm pretty sure I have a couple of magazine articles on the "Act" also. The funny thing is... the folks who passed the act were right, American TB bloodlines are lacking a lot of documentation and there are numerous "oopsies" in there. Lots of misregistrations, but in the end, I think they did the right thing by repealing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
One link I followed suggested that, based on mitochondrial DNA evidence, the records for every single American TB are incorrect. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Quite possible. When you remember that the Revolutionary War (What DO Brits call that, anyway?) and the American Civil War destroyed a lot of records, plus just plain human "let's fudge this record" plus the fact that back then there was no bloodtyping or DNA... it'd be amazing if they were correct. Of course, the same goes for British records, French records, etc. It's quite likely that any records (including human pedigrees) are incorrect. I've seen genealogy sites that say you should figure that by the middle ages, at least half your traced lines are incorrect (grins). No human record keeping is perfect. Can you tell that I used to research/write about horses and their bloodlines? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We call it the American War of Independence. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
"I've seen genealogy sites that say you should figure that by the middle ages, at least half your traced lines are incorrect." I wish someone would tell our bloody Royal Family that. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Change of subject...

I think after Hilary, the next one on the FAC chopping block is Gregorian mission. I'm going to post it to PR later today, but any help is of course appreciated (I really didn't mean for you to copyedit Jersey Act, I just thought you'd find the article a change of pace from my normal bishops...). I'm trying to work up a Featured Topic on the Gregorian mission. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it diffucult to look at any article without fiddling with it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I had noticed that (laughs). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Beady eye

Thanks Malleus. Fainites barleyscribs 12:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your re-assessment and help on the BDI article, much appreciated. --PaulWicks (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can be so slow sometimes ... I was scratching my head over "beady eye" ... :lol:
It's great when an editor steps in to help save an article. Without Fainites' it would very likely have lost its GA listing, but now instead it fully deserves it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Manchester computers

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Manchester computers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've made an alternative suggestion. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan Kotok

Hi, Malleus Fatuorum. You are one of two people who were recommended to copyedit Alan Kotok. Does that interest you? Thanks either way. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Took about two years to go to GA, so another two to FA, in other words this is not an urgent request. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm always happy to help where I can, but let me first of all be brutally frank; I wouldn't have passed this article as a GA. It's pretty strong on citation, which will be a great help in going forward, but it needs more than just a bit of copyediting in my opinion. How far are you hoping to take this article? Some of the technical detail is just plain wrong: "... he wrote some of the first software". The first computer program in the sense we would understand it today was written in 1948, when Kotoc was still a child, and many other programs were subsequently written before Kotoc entered MIT. I say this only as a warning that if I helped with the article it would not just be to move a few commas around, or to fix a runon sentence or two. I think more radical surgery is required, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It's fine to step on toes. I was hoping to go to FA (in two years). Yes I agree-last GAN I hesitated saying "first video game" except that it is "sometimes called" as much. Got to be very careful with first in anything. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, you've got yourself a deal. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, really .. close it

I was in the middle of typing my reply when you closed the WQA. I was in the middle of removing my comments when you re-opened it. I would recommend that you remove my comments ("this is a subject at ANI now") and close the danged thing. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion; I didn't close the WQA. In fact I have never closed a WQA. If you want to remove your comments go right ahead, but please don't try to stifle honest debate. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Manchester computers

Dear Malleus Fatuorum, thanks for Manchester computers. It is a very informative article, and here's a cookie for your article!

Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That'll go nicely with the glass of cold beer I've just poured myself. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC revisit

Do you have time for a new look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sunderland A.F.C. before the day is out? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look shortly. I'd be very disinclined to oppose even if my comments weren't addressed though. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC revisit

Do you have time for a new look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sunderland A.F.C. before the day is out? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look shortly. I'd be very disinclined to oppose even if my comments weren't addressed though. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)