User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2010/June

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


Question about article size

I've been working on Edmund Evans - a 19th century printer (about which I know nothing) - and quite like the way the article is shaping up, but it's quite short, and I've sucked all I can from the sources. Is it worth trying to bring an article of this size to FA quality or not? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may but in, the length seems fine to me, but the article is currently deficient on the printing technology side - there are no links to the many (almost too many) articles we have on this. On a quick look some of the terminology does not seem correct; he was not at all an engraver but a wood engraver. The article verges on claiming originality for his printing technique, but the Japanese had been doing it for years in ukiyo-e, and the West had the chiaroscuro woodcut too. The combination of a wood-engraved lineblock and colour blocks may have been new. Also it must use Engvar - "colour" etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's a nice looking article, and at 1,801 words of readable prose easily long enough for FAC. There's no strict length limit anyway, it just comes down to convincing reviewers that the article is comprehensive, and no major sources have been overlooked. In fact, there's a substantially shorter article at FAC right now with 1,437 words. My Manchester Mummy was even shorter, at 1,366 words. Malleus Fatuorum 14:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can fix the Engvar, and planned to ping you (Johnbod) next for a specialist view. Am happy to have you add or advise regarding the techniques and terminology. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Not my period, but I may have stuff & am happy to advise as I can. I'll suggest some books on the article talk. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That would be helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick thanks to Malleus for letting me co-opt his talkpage with the question above - the article is progessing nicely. Posting to a widely watched page has advantages which are all good for the encyclopedia and those of us working on articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


I'll be away for a while from the middle of this week so won't be able to do much with this for a bit. Can you keep your eye on it and make sure nobody reverts what material I've added? Its a mess right now but I've got a few days until I go away, hopefully I'll at least have filled in the blanks by then. Parrot of Doom 23:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I hate the infobox image on this article. In fact I hate it so much I may lose sleep tonight. What do you think, should be begone? Parrot of Doom 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's absolutely dreadful. BTW, congratulation on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1910 London to Manchester air race/archive1. just about as painless an FAC as I've ever seen. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You sounded like Hyacinth Bucket then! I really enjoyed writing that article, I may do another. It reinvigorated me a little, I think, I'm getting distraught at not being able to find any more rabbit ladies or cock ghosts. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Bouquet, please! I've lost much of my motivation for wikipedia over the last few months, not helped by having to argue with the civility police at WQA again today. Let them guard their piece of unfinished shit if it makes them happy. The image I always have in my mind is the dusty old knight, guarding the wooden Holy Grail. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah bollocks to them. Just imagine them opening the Ark of the Covenant, while you're there with your eyes closed. Parrot of Doom 22:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is so much bollocks in the world that sometimes it just make me want to scream out "You're all talking fucking bollocks!" The Ark is a good example. One church claims to have it (Russian Orthodox? can't remember, don't much care) in a purpose-built church that nobody is allowed to go near. Yeah, right. Actually, the Ark is in my garage, but it's taking up way too much space for a piece of fictional nonsense, so I may try and sell it on eBay. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way the ODNB article for Catesby mentions his head on a spike at the end, so it seems they were probably all displayed after all. Pity nobody kept his skull like Cromwell, otherwise we'd have had a reconstructed face by now. Parrot of Doom 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm absolutely certain that they were displayed on spikes, Fawkes's head at Micklegate, for instance. It was the custom, but irritatingly, no reliable source gives the details. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Whats that all about ?! That is all about our neighbourhood... can you say such ? Do you know Northenden ? It appears peculiar to mention several places of worship and yet omit the oldest such and withold information about the largest such ! Wythywise (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake, I've had just about enough of your "Saint Wilfrids church (CofE) be the oldest such place / building in the area ...". Why can't you write properly, using the vernacular of the 21st century? Do people living in Northenden really say stuff like "There be a pub in the town centre"? Jeez! Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. Just in case you hadn't already guessed: he be a sock of ROBERT TAGGART (talk · contribs) who's gone on yet another spree. Another one hit your talk page recently with a rather more unpleasant attack. Favonian (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible contender for next year's 1 April?

Cotswold Olimpick Games. I found it while looking for Shin kicking, which unfortunately already exists. Parrot of Doom 10:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was a spoof until I checked, so potentially a good candidate, I agree. Chunks of the present article have been copy-pasted from that Times article of course. There seems to be only one major source, Celia Haddon's book, but I'm sure we could find plenty on the social and cultural background. There are loads of second-hand copies of Haddon's book going for 1p plus postage on Amazon, so I've just ordered one. Looks promising, but as we had an English article last it's probably going to be an American one again next year.
I thought I'd come across the perfect candidate a few days ago, when I was browsing through Glynis Cooper's Manchester Suburbs. She had a bit about the Foxtrot Phantom of Alderly Street, in Hulme. Apparently, in 1963, a ghost began banging on the walls of one of the houses in a foxtrot rhythm. The commotion went on for six months, and it was so violent that cracks appeared in the street. Unfortunately the online MEN archive doesn't go back to 1963, and I've not been able to find out anything else about it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Malleus - have you tried ringing the MEN library? If you are certain of the year of the ghost's appearance, they may well have the story on file and will hopefully fax/email/print you a copy. They were extremely helpful when I contacted them last year.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, that's certainly worth a shot. Malleus Fatuorum 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There's also this book. I don't think it'll be particularly difficult to work on this. It'll have to wait until I'm back from the IoM TT, however. Parrot of Doom 14:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If you get stuck with the Foxtrot phantom, you could always try the Naked Wizard of Alderley Edge! [1]-- Myosotis Scorpioides 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably worth checking with Granada as well; I can't imagine the local news letting the Foxtrot Phantom slip by. – iridescent 16:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


I have removed the ability of non admins, or even admins casually, of seeing the contents posted by some trolls to this page. You will see where there are struck out lines in the edit history. I have done this to reduce the visibility that the trolls crave. However, if you are not bothered by what they have said or other people seeing their rubbish I will undelete those posts (as being disregarded is as effective as being discarded). Just let me or another admin know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hard for me to know, as obviously I can't see it, but if you're talking about that paedophilia stuff posted earlier, then thanks for getting rid of it. I don't think I was the only one who had similar postings on their talk pages today though. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You know damn well

...that I do not think there's anything wrong with telling people they should grow up. Nothing wrong with it at all. You know that. Money where mouth is. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if I see anyone call you a pedophile, I'll block them immediately for it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me try and state it simply. I couldn't give a monkey's arse about anything anyone says about me on wikipedia; they've got no idea who I am anyway. What I find disgusting is that prissy objections to comments made on a talk page are clearly designed to drive away editors like me, those that the civility police have decided to target. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I support your telling people they need to grow up. I think your telling people to "fuck off" is childishly stupid, precisely because any rational person could have easily predicted the fallout, although you failed to predict it.

That guy was very foolish to give you a "civility warning", and you were 10 times more foolish to respond to him the way you did, by saying "fuck off troll".

I will now fuck off, and I wish you a good night. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be interesting to see if any of User:JimmyButler's students complained about my "grooming" them. If they did, I would be mortified. The more I think about this the more disgusted I become. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, if you're referring to the incident earlier - my userpage was vandalized in an identical way. It's nothing personal, just some troll. Aiken 00:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I know that, and I also know that shit sticks. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what does your edit summary, "rahef a short list" even mean? Are you drunk? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If I'd said to you, "Are you drunk?", I'd be looking down the barrel of a block threat. You, on the other hand can be as abusive as you like, because you're wearing the administrator's cloak of invulnerability. Are you really the dishonest clown that you appear to be, or are you just an idiot? Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
GT, my guess is it's probably a typo. Aiken 14:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Just a note to let you know I have emailed you direct. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nutshell ?

What all did I miss (besides a certain admin showing up on articles I edit)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Malleus and I made sweet, sweet normal heterosexual love that made birds sing and deer come into clearings dappled with sunlight. --Moni3 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and the earth totally moved, or something. --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Please expand on the or something part; inquiring minds want to know how you and Malleus get it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Jesus, Sandy. You've got to help me out here. I've only read about this sort of thing in V. C. Andrews books passed around in middle school. --Moni3 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You asked for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Crap. I starting fooling around and got in over my head with this line of fantasy. Must...resist....visuals...--Moni3 (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said, you asked for it. Keep it up and I'll send you some real visuals (and you know I can!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember it well Moni3, we should try it again some time, maybe I'll be able to convert you for good next time. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I was going to say I could convert you as well, but I have no idea to what. --Moni3 (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Make it something worth the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've got loads of ideas, but it's probably best I keep them to myself. Did you ever see the TV series Men Behaving Badly in the US? Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a redundant series? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Long story: this guy showed up at the top of this thread chastising MF for "incivility". Naturally the thread progressed. Same guy started this wikiquette thread which went on and on. Somebody vandalized MF's page. The wikiquette contributors went elsewhere to discuss MF's fate. That's all. (Although I like Moni3's answer better!) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Then what's all that business on Ceoil's talk-- is it related? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it started there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gees... a woman goes to England and the world goes strange! Moni and Malleus? Will wonders never cease! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Once I tried to gross out Mrs. Moni by acting like I was going to drink an entire pan of chicken grease. I ended up gagging. Epic fail. This is kind of like that. Not that Malleus is like chicken grease, but that I got a little too carried away with my evil plans and they backfired. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not like you have much other use for a gag reflex... unlike us heteros...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought there was a cure for a gag reflex? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, FOR THE WIN! Never would I have thought such a dirty thing could have been put to me by the queen of medieval bishops, quarterhorses, and "what makes you think this is a good source?" You are filthy. Come sit by me and let's have a chat. --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And you've obviously not been reading those articles.. nothing is more "earthy" than most medieval bishops (most were NOT saints..) nor horses (the discussions in most barns are very down to earth... we can discuss castration techniques without blinking an eye...) and come on.. I get along with Sandy and Malleus! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Moni, Moni, Moni, just what is dirty about a gag reflex? It must be time for a FAC women Wiki meetup. No cameras. No tape recorders!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I may have a great gold star on my invisible lesbian chart, but the well-spent time I've shared with gay men over disco, floral arrangements, leather chaps, and righteous political indignation have lent me a wealth of knowledge about blowjobs that I can share with you fine folks. If I wouldn't feel as awkward as delivering the Best Cinematography Award at the next Oscars in a coconut bra and grass skirt with Enya, Julie Andrews, Kate Winslet, and all my exes sitting in the first row, I might be inclined to say I almost may be able to figure out how to give one. Thanks, gay community! And harlot. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If you keep calling me names, I may send a video. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Moni, this should be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I would get out of it. When's Glee! on? --Moni3 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this one will be more helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ha, Moni, I owe you ... this guy's great on the Madonna complex! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Here on Earth, sexuality is very complex and very confusing." Thus saith Ted Haggard. Actually, that pretty much sums up Savage Love as well. MastCell Talk 05:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, another GA

Thank you very much, Astley is now a GA. Pyrotec reviewed it this evening. Will you please put it on the map for me? Oh and you put little stickers on the others too, I noticed, I thought it was a wikifairy(?) and then I saw it was you :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I didn't think you'd have much trouble with Astley. I've added it to the map. Malleus Fatuorum
I will spare you the details of the grief it took to get that little green dot on GAs. Suffice it to say that the battle now having been won, I want to see more and more of them. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Gascoigne again

Hey there. With thanks particularly to User:Iridia, the article has changed a bit since last you passed by. Of course, one of the consequences of me being involved is that the prose will probably be complete crap again. So. Would you be prepared to take another pass at it? Should be every bit as rewarding as a pass at Moni3. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

River Parrett at FAC

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

Good luck with that Rod. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Which is "correct" in British English northwest or north west? - 2nd line of lead in this article.— Rod talk 06:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"Northwest" is probably preferred these days, although I think that "north-west" would be acceptable as well, as in "North-West Frontier Province". Malleus Fatuorum 12:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I will standardise on northwest.— Rod talk 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Eating pussy

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

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure about Bondeson, he seems to get carried away by flights of fancy sometimes, as with his account of the Manchester Mummy, which seemed rather theatrical to me. But you're right, I must get back to turning a few red links blue, so that I can refuse autoreviewer. I've been wasting my time recently expanding this, but there's two years to go before that becomes topical. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize that autoreviewer was something you could request?! I recently ran my cursor over my username and it popped up that I had been granted ar - but I have no idea by whom or why. I honestly didn't think I'd created that many pages, unless they consider FAC/FAR/GAN review pages on the same level as mainspace articles? Dana boomer (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It's supposed only to be granted once someone's created 75 non-redirect articles, or per a specific request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer. Looks like someone just got overenthusiastic in your case. – iridescent 18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

An interesting observation

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


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

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

I wanna tell you a story...

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

There's no place for me here, the vultures are circling. I'll do what I can until they think they can see a kill. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not actually asking you to do anything. Just realise that you, of all people, inspired. With a little stub about fucking brick tax! Heh! – B.hoteptalk• 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I just became a little fascinated by the various ways in which governments tried, and still try, to steal money, nothing deeper than that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
And now, so do I. I fully intend to write the rest, like the red links here. You forgot to add brick tax there, and at window tax which even my 8 year old daughter knows about because of Horrible Histories on CBBC. Focus. ;) – B.hoteptalk• 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Window tax is a fucking mess by the way. – B.hoteptalk• 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It is, and it confuses the quite separate glass tax. So much to do. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
So let's do it? Can we? I'd love that. Disengage with the hoipolloi. – B.hoteptalk• 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't, even though I know it'll be my downfall, and the children will have their way. I'm a package; you can't just choose the bits you like. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Pick n' mix? Woolworths. Eating more than you can afford? And the kindly lady at the till lets you get away with it. Of course you can, Mal. – B.hoteptalk• 00:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Trust me, I can't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Mal, you just inspired an admin who's been in and out of this place by choice to write a worthwhile article (other than the 202 album articles and 2 FA contributions). I'm as shocked as the rest of us. AND I'm an admin! Do you realise the dichotomy?! – B.hoteptalk• 00:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't tar all admins with the same brush, but I wouldn't ... well fill in your blanks. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but I welcomed the honesty of Tan39, for instance. We didn't always get along, but I never felt that he was waiting for a chance to club me, like I do with some other admistrators. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I'd really like to believe that, but I just can't. Sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
What? What don't you believe? The bit about "The majority are here to help". If that's yes, I can see why that's so hard to believe. If it's anything else I've said tonight, well... – B.hoteptalk• 01:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Some people look at blocks, and say "can't trust anyone who's ever been blocked". I just look to see whether they're an administrator or not, as very few of them can be trusted. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Mal, that's old news. You've said it before. Nev1. Irridescent. Tan. All -sysop now, must admit. But with or without the bit, they are still valued. When you talk about us all in the same breath, you hurt us (me, them) and it makes me do irrational things, like prove you wrong and write articles. That can't be right. Stop it. ;) – B.hoteptalk• 01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not all bad then. Like Jonathan Swift, I detest all laywers, yet I like Anne or James. I hate the institution, not the individuals. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to go to bed. I have emailed you. – B.hoteptalk• 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

Sure, I'll take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, I'm available today if you are able to get to 1916 Irondale earthquake. ceranthor 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that my motivation to do anything here is at an all-time low, given recent and ongoing events. My banning is still being discussed at ANI, for instance. Hardly motivating. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

David Lewis (politician) FAC attempt 2

Hi Malleus Fatuarum

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

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

Maybe you can help?

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

Malleus is;nt an admin so he cannot do really anything about this. I suggest asking someone over at ANI to do so.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't help. If this is serious. I suggest that you take it to the cesspit that is WP:ANI. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


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

Good luck, or at least better luck than you had with Runcorn. Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Runcorn is way in the past (and geography articles are notoriously difficult), but I did "make it" with John Douglas. I am optimistic. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


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

Done. Good luck at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Vladimir (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Radio 4

I just missed this, [2] so I'm going to listen to it now. I thought you might be interested. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I listened to it earlier today. It's OK, but a bit too arty-farty for me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
See what you mean, yes I prefer the article, cuts to the quick and doesn't take half an hour. It might have been a nice accompaniment to driving on the M62 though. --J3Mrs (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The trouble with a radio (or TV) programme is that they've got to fill those 30 minutes, so they sometimes have to pad the thing out. That discussion about the significance of the colour green almost sent me to sleep. Same with newspapers. How odd that they're always the same number of pages each day, no matter what happened the day before.

Periphery countries

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

To be honest, it's a subject that I'm almost completely ignorant of, so your students undoubtedly know a great deal more about it than I do. All I do here is move a few commas around, and complain when a verb doesn't match its subject. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Piotrus, are your students Polish? Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, they are from this place :) Why? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of the writing seemed a little odd to me, that's all. Malleus Fatuorum 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks & ? more copy editing

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

I didn't think you'd have too much trouble with River Parrett this time around. I've been through Sweet Track, which looks pretty much at GA or thereabouts now. The citations will need to be cleaned up before it goes to FAC though; the authors' and coauthors' names are given inconsistently (lastname firstname, firstname lastname), and the formatting of ref #13, with the date in italics looks odd, for instance. I'm also left wondering why the road was built. To get from where to where? OK, it went between an island a ridge about 2,000 metres away, but what was on the island that people would have wanted to get to/away from? The article needs a few more images as well, perhaps a few of some of the artefacts? I think the lead probably needs to be a paragraph longer as well, with a bit about the track's method of construction and conservation efforts.
I probably won't get to your List of museums in Somerset until tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - that's brilliant - I will look at the refs & lead, but can't find any appropriately licenced images. As for why it was built, seems to be lost in the "mists of time", however I will do a section on location etc.— Rod talk 14:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a challenge then...

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

I'll do you a deal. I'll take a look at your Illegal logging in Madagascar if you'll cast an eye over this one. I was hovering over a quick fail, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Done - I am going to be on and off in the net 48 hours but will have a quick squiz now. Back from Saturday Morning chores (really should be outside as first day of sunshine in two weeks but what the heck...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Remind me if I forget; I'm more than a little pissed off with this place right now, so I may not be looking in very regularly. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
sigh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It had to be done. There's a lot of good stuff, but it's all over the place. I think the topic could easily make two or three great articles, if it's properly organised. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
NB: Google books seems to indicate there's lots of material which could be added to the knife article...interesting read too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm undecided about that knife article, but on balance it still seems a bit light to me. I know it's a private company, so some information won't be available, but I'll wait until the nominator's finished. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Radio 4

I just missed this, [3] so I'm going to listen to it now. I thought you might be interested. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I listened to it earlier today. It's OK, but a bit too arty-farty for me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
See what you mean, yes I prefer the article, cuts to the quick and doesn't take half an hour. It might have been a nice accompaniment to driving on the M62 though. --J3Mrs (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The trouble with a radio (or TV) programme is that they've got to fill those 30 minutes, so they sometimes have to pad the thing out. That discussion about the significance of the colour green almost sent me to sleep. Same with newspapers. How odd that they're always the same number of pages each day, no matter what happened the day before.

Something to do with Evelyn Waugh

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

I remember the Peterloo Massacre very well. It was a fantastic collaboration, one I still look back on fondly. What's your plan with old Evelyn? Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. In various books about Waugh I have noticed references to an early novel, called The Temple at Thatch, which Evelyn destroyed after his friend Harold Acton made rude comments about the manuscript. Commentators have speculated about the contents of this novel, and the extent to which its subject and characters may have found their way into Waugh's later fiction. I have done some research, and drafted an article which is currently in the sandbox, linked here (the refs and sources aren't properly in yet so ignore that aspect). I would value your opinion on whether the subject is substantial enough to warrant its own article, or whether I should expand it to cover Waugh's early fiction. I have the sources to do the latter, though I'm not really a lit bod (I got A-level Eng Lit, but that was aeons ago and we didn't do Waugh). Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I like that very much Brian, and I've got absolutely no doubt that it's substantial enough to warrant its own article. I'd be inclined not to expand it to cover Waugh's early fiction; I think the article already does enough to describe the possible elements of The Temple at Thatch that may have carried over into his first published work. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will continue with my pruning and fiddling (as I always do) though with a bit more confidence. Watch out for it somewhere down the line. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Periphery countries

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

To be honest, it's a subject that I'm almost completely ignorant of, so your students undoubtedly know a great deal more about it than I do. All I do here is move a few commas around, and complain when a verb doesn't match its subject. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Piotrus, are your students Polish? Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, they are from this place :) Why? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of the writing seemed a little odd to me, that's all. Malleus Fatuorum 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks & ? more copy editing

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

I didn't think you'd have too much trouble with River Parrett this time around. I've been through Sweet Track, which looks pretty much at GA or thereabouts now. The citations will need to be cleaned up before it goes to FAC though; the authors' and coauthors' names are given inconsistently (lastname firstname, firstname lastname), and the formatting of ref #13, with the date in italics looks odd, for instance. I'm also left wondering why the road was built. To get from where to where? OK, it went between an island a ridge about 2,000 metres away, but what was on the island that people would have wanted to get to/away from? The article needs a few more images as well, perhaps a few of some of the artefacts? I think the lead probably needs to be a paragraph longer as well, with a bit about the track's method of construction and conservation efforts.
I probably won't get to your List of museums in Somerset until tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - that's brilliant - I will look at the refs & lead, but can't find any appropriately licenced images. As for why it was built, seems to be lost in the "mists of time", however I will do a section on location etc.— Rod talk 14:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Very odd question

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

Is this a general question? If so, I'll give you a general answer. American English has rather quaintly hung on to words that seem archaic to us now, probably wrench meaning a spanner amongst them, although I haven't checked with the OED on that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Well do you know American English? You seem to understand me pretty well...--White Shadows stood on the edge 23:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's different for us. Most English people have visited other parts of the world, and sometimes even conquered it, but more often these days just to lie in the sun. We see lots of American TV, so we know that you call a pavement a sidewalk, a boot a trunk, a bonnet a hood, a spanner a wrench ... it's no big deal. English is a big language, perhaps the biggest of all in terms of vocabulary (I'm guessing), so a few trans-Atlantic synonyms don't phase anyone over here. Why are you asking? Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that Manchester was writen in British English and decided to find out what was the diffrence between the two. When I was in London for a day back in 04' I never noticed any diffrence other than the fact that you all had IMHO, "odd" accents.--White Shadows stood on the edge 23:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of sites talking about the different terms. Helps to learn about it, WS, because you might want to write an article on a British ship one day.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The differences aren't so great, but some of the words and phrasings seem odd. For instance, I was completely flummoxed when I was buying a pair of shoes in California. I took them to the checkout, where the assistant said someting like "Will they do for you?" I said "Yeah, they fit fine." So then he said again "So, will they do for you?" This went on for some time, until a friendly native told me that the question was really "Is there anything else you want?" It's not so much the words, but the subtley different ways in which they're deployed. For instance, in the US you generally say "I could care less", which makes no sense at all to us Brits, who "couldn't care less". Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. Whiteshadows, you're not supposed to say that our accents are "odd". What you're supposed to say is "Gee, I love your accent. Can you say that again?" :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Best used with a transatlantic of the opposite sex. Unless you prefer otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The American substition of 'already' for 'now' (if I've understood it correctly) always seems very odd, although my initial resistance to 'regular' for 'normal' seems to have broken down with the proliferation of Starbucks. That said, the more ancient 'Fall' for our newer (I believe) 'Autumn' is still my favourite Americanism. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Language is very subtle. When I lived in Scotland, if someone said "I'll do it just now" it meant that they'd do it soon, so I used to wait and wonder why they hadn't done it yet. To know what someone means, you have to know quite a bit about that person and their culture. Which is, of course, why wikipedia's childish civility policy is such a complete pile of poo. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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

@Wehwalt: You're right. Many of my articles are supposed to be writen in British English. It would be good to know how to use that type of dialect properly. I remember once that I took a spelling test and one of the words was "center". I speled it Centre and got it marked wrong! And as for that phrase Could care less, It makes no since to me as well. That actualy means the opposite of what you're intending to say. Though I have no clue as to why you spell color Colour or armor armour. Oh and @Malleus: California is an odd state. Even us Americans can hardly understnad what the heck they are saying half of the time so I don't blame you for misunderstanding. Though just spend a day in the deep south, boy I swear the word Ain't needs to be added into the OED based off of how many times it's used down there....--White Shadows stood on the edge 01:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The differences aren't huge. Just have a Brit copyedit it and point things like that out to you and you'll soon get the hang of it. It sounds like you know some of the differences already. Just pick up the major things ("se" endings rather than "ze", for example), and you'll pick up the rest. And there's always the idiom you'll miss, like in one article I said "right away" and it seems it is "straight away". --Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it's a pronunciation thing. I'd pronounce the "or" in "armor" as in "for", but it's really mid-way to "fur", hence the "our". BTW. why don't you call your country Amerika? Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I just reali(s)zed that. And Amerika is a rude term. It's kind of like communist or nazi America.--White Shadows stood on the edge 01:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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

That makes me southern them. I don;t understnad why anyone would use the first snetence.--White Shadows stood on the edge 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
One of the things that strikes us Europeans, or at least this one, is that many Americans have a tendency to use 20 words, some of which might cost as much as 50 cents, where 10 free ones would do the job just as well. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I did;nt quite get that but I think I understand. We Americans like to get our point across and we want to make sure that everyone hears it. It's just our nature just as you guys like to drive on the wrong left side of the road :)--White Shadows stood on the edge 02:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"Could care less" which Americans use for "Couldn't care less" (which the rest of us would say) I find really weird...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Now, now, some of us on this side of the pond are still fighting the good fight for grammar that makes sense! I can't tell you how many teenagers have rolled their eyes at me when I've corrected that awful phrase. Well I probably could, but I expect you couldn't care less.  ;) My Open Document gave me an interesting lesson in international spelling - somehow it got set to British spelling, and I decided to keep it that way. Forces me to pay attention to my writing since I can no longer trust the spell checker!--~TPW 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
White Shadows, this is an honest question and it's going to come out blunt, so forgive me: how do you justify saying "we Americans", particularly referring to how Americans communicate? I would never have the confidence to speak for all Americans or even attempt to describe the nature of Americans. --Moni3 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As an American (originally Irish, so I really have no excuse), my biggest language gaffe was when I innocently said to my workmates in Dublin how I had "got a ride off a priest to Kilkenny"! It took me months to live that one down! Another gaffe occurred in Brighton in 1975, when I silenced a bus full of people by innocently quoting David Bowie's lyrics "Falls wanking to the floor".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
@Moni: Just as Malleus has spoken for all of the UK before. I and 99% positive that there are some exeptions to this of course.--White Shadows stood on the edge 10:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your editor abuse

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

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

I have been a full time, professional editor for a Fortune 500 company. I have hundreds of professionally published, peer-reviewed articles (outside of Wiki). I shouldn't have to remind you Fatuorum that a personal attack on another editor is out-of-place."[4]

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

I have never been an administrator Piano, and I never will be. I suggest that you refresh your memory on what constitutes a personal attack by referring to this policy page. I have merely offered my opinion that you are, at the very least, being economical with the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 12:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Per our above conversation, Malleus, what might you say on behalf of the Martian Chinese whore community? What are they trying to accomplish? What are their hopes and dreams? My pen is at the ready. --Moni3 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of all Martian Chinese whores, I'd just like to say how deeply disappointing it is to see that when someone outs themself in this way, as I foolishly did, it's considered to be a personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I have adjusted your user page accordingly. If you prefer not to partially out yourself by revealing this information on your user page (or, if you join the rest of the world in thinking I'm not funny), please revert, with my apologies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Very droll. I didn't even know that there were categories on my user page. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Halkett boat

I have listed the FA status of Halkett boat as needing review.[5] Piano non troppo (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Malleus Fatuorum 12:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You may have already spotted the speedy closure of WP:Featured article review/Halkett boat/archive1; if not, there's the (proper) link for the FAR. BencherliteTalk 12:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least that's out of the way for another couple of months. I have to say that this episode really does shine rather an interesting light on wikipedia's fatuous civility/personal attack policies. How many editors (including me) has Piano accused of acting dishonestly in the promotion of this article? Yet he gets all bent out of shape when I claim to be a Chinese whore living on Mars. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Devoted student of human nature that I am, I'm going to posit that Piano non Troppo was deeply stirred inside by the thought you might give sexual favors as long as your clients call you Xi Xi, and you can set your boudoir amid towering red rocks on a soft bed of red dust. I know I'm going to thinking about that for a long time. Sexual desire makes us do all kinds of funny masking when it comes upon us so suddenly. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Right. Well, I'm just disappointed that Malleus et al dispense their sexual favors with such alarming speed (and that they never seem to come my way, and I'm always the last to know). Five days to FAC-- ah, the shame! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Malleus,

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

What's the pay like? Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The usual "intangible awards," although the variety isn't bad. I won't lie; there is some paperwork if you crave the pixellated rewards.--~TPW 17:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I wish you luck with your drive, but it's not for me. It may well be "elitist", but I'm only really interested in helping along those articles headed for FA/GA, where it's not just the grammar and spelling that's important, but the aricle's structure, accessibility, comprehensibility, referencing, image licencing ...Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. This kind of thing is either a joke, or you need to up your game. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm a new joiner so I'm not going to comment on anyone else's work, at least until I see how I do myself. I respect your priorities, and I'm glad there are editors doing that kind of work because I know I can't until I have lots more free time (something about being able to think uninterrupted for a couple of hours straight is sooooo intoxicating, and exceedingly rare). Feel free to haunt my contributions and offer constructive criticism if you wish - I know I can learn from it.--~TPW 01:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I won't be haunting yours or anyone else's contributions TPW. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I dunno, mebbe there'll be a DYK or GA somewhere in there...or just summat interesting to read. I got the same invitation and I recall seeing some CE requests on some tiny articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: Err, just starting looking...umm..this may be interesting when faced with articles like this...(oh dear, where does one start...)Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
And doesn't one just love the abundance of inline refs! Aaroncrick TALK 04:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this new hobby of mine is not for the faint of heart! Casliber, I think yours is one of the great questions of Wikipedia.--~TPW 13:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Randall Made Knives

Thanks for the help on this article. You really helped guide this to a much better article & I appreciate the comments & support. Semper Fi, FieldMarine (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Textile manufacture

Hi Malleus; I know that you have a strong tie to a large city which owes its importance to textile manufacture, so I'm hoping that you can help here. There are a number of articles related to textile manufacture which are not in any wikiproject. Those which are, tend to be in something that covers only part of the subject, such as WP:MILLS or WP:TA, or a geographic one like WP:GM or WP:L&C. Is there no general wikiproject that is suitable for (say) cotton gin, spinning mule, ring spinning (which doesn't even have a talk page, let alone a wikiproject), dye and many others? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know much about textile manufacturing. ClemRutter might be a better person to ask. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It would fall under WP:WPTA. Don't know how active they are, though. – iridescent 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Some sort of Wiki bot has been doing the rounds, changing the &ndash symbols you painstakingly stuck in the articles I worked on a year or so ago in favour of just a normal dash - . Is this the new Wikipedia policy? Cheers. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 10:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about DASHBot, that's replacing the &emdash; and &endash; markup with the emdash (—) and endash (–) characters to reduce clutter in the edit window. It doesn't affect how the pages display. – iridescent 10:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheers Iridescent - that was exactly what I was talking about!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 19:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral

I'm not sure if you have this on your watchlist; if you have, you will have noticed a move towards FAC. There have been significant changes since we worked on it to get it to GA. I have carried out a few minor tweaks, but I think it is going to need rather more serious TLC if it is to succeed. Do you fancy giving it a look? It would be good to get such an important (to us) article to FA. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, no. It's certainly a very worthy subject that deserves to be at FA level, but I wasn't terribly happy about the way the article was developed post-GA, and I'm not all sure about this new gallery idea (linked to a new version of the plan?). Nevertheless, I wish those pushing for FAC with it well. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
May I ask what the issue is regarding post GA development? I'd rather fix it now than see major structural changes during the FAC process. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
There may be no issue at all, as I stopped watching the article some time ago. Maybe the developments I didn't like have been fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you remember what got your goat? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall, it was a while ago, and I've pretty much ignored the article since then. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Power loom

Do you have an instant solution for a couple of malicious bots, that are determined to reintroduce an incorrect interwiki link? I have left the details in the edit comments. It really is not that important- but the research gives an interesting twist to the day.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

One solution is to use code like {{bots|allow=ClueBot}} so that you'd keep the page-blanking reverting benefits of ClueBot, but turn off all the interwiki bots from making the same mistake. Courcelles (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I've had this problem elsewhere, on Southern Railway (Great Britain) (see edits to that page on 26-27 March 2010 and also WP:BON archive). The only solution which am sure works (without denying legitimate bot work) is to go to each of the relevant foreign-language pages, and remove the incorrect link from every single one, remembering to do both directions. So long as just one incorrect link remains, the whole incorrect structure will be rebuilt by the various bots. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford

The editing you did on Little Thetford (diff) is very much appreciated. I am very new to Wikipedia. I am still keen to learn. I understand such changes as the grammar, the wiki-links, too many mdash's, and number style. However:

  • Why change and how do you type "—" in {{mdash}} --> "—"?
  • Why change and how do you type "–" in (| page = 86-89) --> (| page = 86–89)?

Would you spare a moment to briefly explain these edits so I can learn from them? Also, not to be picky, but I think you missed one. You changed (c.972) --> (c. 972) in the Lead but not in the History section. Senra (talk) smiles sweetly --Senra (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MOS, specifically the section relating to dashes (WP:DASH). In Wikipedia, numbers are connected by the ndash. Pauses for thought—such as this one—are created with the mdash. Phrases like best-selling are joined by the hyphen. Parrot of Doom 10:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Words and numbers (like 6 June) should use nbsp, to keep the number and word from being separated by a line break. Parrot of Doom 10:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
In the first case I had used the template mdash so how is "—". In the second case, I had incorrectly used hyphen. In other places, I used the template ndash. So my question remains, how do you type mdash and ndash in the editor? I use wikEd.
--Senra (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If you're using a PC, the emdash character is alt-0151, and the emdash character is alt-0150. – iridescent 10:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
There should also be a box under the save and preview buttons which have commonly used symbols and characters with both these in. – B.hoteptalk• 10:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You could also type in – or — but this can look messy in the edit box. – B.hoteptalk• 11:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer stuff

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

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

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

I will not be accepting it. Accept nothing and they can take nothing away. This is going to discourage many educated people, who don't have accounts from making valuable edits. Why should they have their edits censored by a uneducated 14 year old Admin? This protection will start off on BLPs, go right through to FAs and GAs and ultimatly any page an admin wishes to declare ownership over. As an idea it stinks and it needs nipping in the bud, and it is up to the likes of us to do that nipping! Do you want some vinditive admin to be able to legitimately deprive you of being able to edit an amazing page that you wrote yourself because that is where this will end up.  Giacomo  09:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I thank you for the offer Risker, but I'm afraid that I'm unable to accept, for much the same reasons as Giacomo. It's bad enough that editors are expected to go cap in hand asking for this new "right", but, just like rollback, it will be susceptible to capricious removal by any administrator with a grudge. I gave up rollback for the same reason some time ago, and nothing's changed since then. In the short term I'll just be ignoring any articles to which flagged protection is applied, and if the trial is successful and it spreads, then I'll just be ignoring wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 12:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't be a douche nozzle, Malleus. Take the autoreviewer rights, do what you do, get into fights with 14-year-old and stoned admins, watch them take away your rights, and have some faith that there are a couple of admins who will step up and tell them what giant douche monsters they are for doing that...and overturn them. You have to give the rest of the community an opportunity to change. You challenge people enough and you've changed some minds. Let it be demonstrated in practice. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Moni, I love the way you contribute to my personal growth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Douche nozzle I may be, but I'm a principled douche nozzle. The system as proposed gives rights to a group 90% of whom would not qualify for them by any objective criteria, and allows them to capriciously grant or take away those rights from those who should have had them in the first place. That's morally indefensible. Malleus Fatuorum 12:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
But think of the froofraws and hububs that will ensue when some assclown admin capriciously decides to remove your rights because you declared yourself to be Chinese whore on Mars. Surely you cannot resist the action. Seriously, though. You're going to come upon an edit only you can overturn or defend. You'll have to ask someone to make the edit for you, as I understand it. That's ridiculous and rather unprincipled. Or we're considering two completely different sets of principles here. Where yours deals with Wikipedia behavior, autoreviewer rights addresses content that you should have access to. This isn't some "I'm not going to ask for directions I don't care if we're driving in the desert with a bag of potato chips and half a can of Clamato and running out of gas fast" kind of mindset, is it? All dressed up to seem as if you're fighting The Man with your Malcolm X t-shirt on? --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I find the feudalism of the way in which these so-called rights are bestowed and removed to be completely intolerable. Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Feudalism isn't a very egalitarian system I know. When it phases out, though, people still have to eat. I see this as more pragmatic with the potential for a few bumps. You seem to think of it as only an enormous bump and the pragmatic part of editing content insignificant. If this is your decision today,'s yours. Don't do that thing where you can't ask for it in the future, though. Don't be a stubborn douche if it works out. --Moni3 (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a position I've adopted without some thought Moni3. I've known for a while, as we all have, that some form of flagged revision/protection would inevitably be rolled out; it may well be a good idea and it may well work. My objection isn't to flagged protection per se, but to the inevitably capricious way in which this (and other) rights are handed out and taken away, like pretty baubles to dazzle the peasantry. Until there's some accountability and a fair process for removing these rights, by a body competent to make that decision rather than a stoned 14 year old having a bad hair day, then I don't want them. As one who was told by one administrator I'd upset that I would no longer be allowed to review GAs, I have some personal experience of just how vindictive certain administators can be. Like Giano, if I come across an article I've worked on that's been flagged for protection I'll simply take it off my watchlist and abandon it to its fate. I certainly will not be asking anyone to make any edits to it on my behalf. Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
We are, sadly, both right. You have good reasons to make your decision and you've been treated unfairly by admins who have no respect for content or human discourse. But you're also stubborn and I think you've got your feelings very hurt by this system. I'm not saying you're petty; I'm saying your hurt feelings led you to this moral principle that you will not participate in the system as it is. Were I in your position and someone came along to attempt to prove that Harvey Milk was one of Jim Jones' minions (an actual 2-month slog of arguments I had to have for that article) or that he was a pedophile, I'd go fucking apeshit. Not because I wrote the article, but because smearing the verifiable truth is offensive. There are a few forks in our roads when looking at the implementation of autoreviewer rights. The first is to participate in it or not. The second is making the decision if the work you put into articles and the verifiable truth is worth defending. It just seems to me a very poor reason to "abandon an article to its fate". It is yours, however. My parting comment is a plea that you don't refuse rights after a while because you don't know how to accept them. --Moni3 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It's nothing more than the creation of yet another elite. An elite presided over by Admins with the right to expell, censor and victimise. Not a club any right thinking person would want to join. Been there, seen it all before and got the T-shirt. If any of the pages i have heavily ediited get this "protection" I shal atke them off my watchlist and hand them over to the "trusted" 14 year olds who currently love to play with them.  Giacomo  13:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This is the impractical thing I'm referring to. That's your choice to give up editing the pages you wrote. --Moni3 (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You are correct. It is my choice, if it's a choice between giving an Admin a stick to beat me with and boost his self esteen as a member of yet another club, then I will give up every page - if that is what has been decided is best for the encylopedia. Who are these Admins that they have the power and knowledge to censor my edits? Are they suddenly becoming experts on architecture? It is a ridiculous idea. Many of them could not write a page to save their lives. This is going to lead to nothing more than bad feeling, and a lack of good edits from IPs and new users - not to mention the 100s like me who would not ask an Admin for any favours at all.  Giacomo  14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how you recognize what a ridiculous idea it is to have admins who have no concept of what the article you wrote is about deciding what edits are appropriate for it, and still be so willing to abandon the article. What does that accomplish? --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I refuse to have to pursuade some daft little Admin the accuracy of a fact before I add it. If people feel this way, the admins have no-one to blame for it but themselves. Just look at the Richard Arthur Norton affair of only last week, what would those bullying Admins have done to him and his pages if this was in existence then? I can easily guess - they would not just have AFD'd his pages they would have banned him from them too!  Giacomo  18:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No such thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least I don't have to look up assclown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Just waiting for Category:14-year-old and stoned admins to fill up... or a douche nozzle userbox. – B.hoteptalk• 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That would be, at least in my plan, two separate categories. Category:14-year-old admins and Category:Admins who are currently stoned. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we move the admins into that category when they inhale and remove them four or five hours later?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. They will be sleeping off 7 1/2 quesadillas and a Pink Floyd marathon. --Moni3 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

  • That's certainly what it looks like to me, and I'm particularly concerned about how this new right will be be taken away. It's naive to believe that some admins won't remove it from whoever gets on their wrong side, just as they remove rollback today. I'm afraid that Giacomo is quite right, some will welcome this as yet another stick with which to intimidate regular editors. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I am also concerned about this real possibility. We cannot effectively implement a near-feudal system on granting and removing editing rights. There should be proper safeguards and accountability in granting and removing any user rights. By the way sorry for butting in like that on your talkpage Malleus :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • (Also apologize for interrupting) I too am concerned by this - it's the first I heard about it! I have rollback right only for the convenience, but I probably should give it up as it's so easy to accidentally click it. I don't really understand the deal with this new user-right, but I don't like the idea that it can be taken away - as it sounds like something we had anyway. Aiken 17:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Good point. It is a right we already enjoy. How can we be re-granted something we already have? Inconsistent logic. And I can only shudder at the thought of another affair like Richard Norton's as Giano aptly mentioned above. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I've been trying to avoid drama, but I have to agree with Iridescent et al: this implementation just reeks. I've seen a lot of scattered opposition to it at various places, but no-one seems to be organising a campaign -- any thoughts? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought abandoning articles was going to be the campaign. Vive la guerre! --Moni3 (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
That's just the path that Giano and I have chosen to follow; I'm quite certain that the overwhelming majority of sheep will be falling over themselves to be awarded this new bauble, naively believing it to be some kind of a reward, instead of the removal of a right that they already had. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Given your strong feelings on the subject I thought you should know that an admin has granted you reviewer status.--~TPW 19:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange. Perhaps some kindly passing admin will please remove it. I don't want it, not until removal is taken out of the hands of indivdual administrators, and that goes for all of these so-called "rights". Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, I've removed it then. Should you ever change your mind, just let me know... (Or Moni can press the buttons herself.) Courcelles (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I just might, you cheese-eating surrender monkey. --Moni3 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Courcelles. I won't be changing my mind though, not until the removal of this right is no longer in the hands of an individual administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It won't be as long as sufficiently many administrators are willing to oppose that position. Geometry guy 20:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) With my blessing Moni. The reviewer flag is not a "right" or a "reward", but a basic set up that any regular contributor should have whether they ask for it or not. It is a pity that some are promoting it as another gadget like rollbacker, as it is essential to have the flag set in order to maintain the function that editors currently have under the proposed "pending changes". I will be happy to restore any removed flags, and will not consider it wheel warring, as it is not administrator business to be removing such an essential function from regular contributors. Geometry guy 20:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)X3 Hey... I resemble Moni's remark- or at least I do if you pronounce my user name right. Until Giano mentioned it on AN, I'd not considered using it as some form of "admin control"... I've been passing it out like candy, actually. Any admin that removes this without clear evidence of misuse- which is approving clear vandalism- should be prepared to go to ArbCom- Special:UserRights is not a political tool. (Of course, Wikipolitics bores me to death.) Courcelles (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Things don't work like that around here though. Administrators supposedly have the trust of this mythical community, even though most of them quite properly recognise that they'd never pass another RfA. The presumption is that the admin is right, and the peon editor is wrong, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The opportunity for the administrative abuse of this new "right" is far too great to simply ignore. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Where'd this thing even spring up from? Flagged protection...? ceranthor 21:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It is flagged protection, by another name. Geometry guy 21:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I repeat: as long as sufficiently many admins consider reviewing to be an essential thing for established contributors to retain, then any capricious behaviour by some administrators will be overturned immediately. WP:IAR trumps WP:WHEEL every time. Geometry guy 21:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Giano and I have chosen our battle ground, for better or for worse, but it doesn't seem healthy to me that this issue of principle remains unresolved. If we're wrong, then just get rid of us; God knows, there are many who would applaud that decision. If we're right, then address our concerns. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Get rid of you? Did you both just turn into my 8th grade class of 12-year-old girls I had a few years ago? How about if you're wrong you use autoreviewer and count this demonstration as a chuckle in your Wikipedia career. --Moni3 (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It may be a man thing Moni, I don't know, but once I've planted my standard I ain't budging from it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be admirable? It makes absolutely no sense and at this point seems indefensible. Are you trying to leave, like a bad relationship where you stop showering and act surly so she'll throw your ass out? To make it easier on yourself? You're starting to scale the Reichstag, Peter Parker. --Moni3 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me try and state it as simply as I can. Wikipedia's governance is corrupt enough already. This proposal adds yet another level of corruption. Time to make a stand. Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It may be, but you aren't making a stand at all. You are just putting your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand. Oh I love mixed metaphors :) Geometry guy 21:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You may well be right, but I am nevertheless not prepared to sacrifice my principles for the sake of being able to edit wikipedia. I have no "rights" here, not even rollbacker, because I do not believe in or trust the system by which they are granted and taken away. This new reviewer right is just one step too far for me. I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone else, I'm simply stating my view, and I can promise you that it won't change, no matter how times Moni3 or anyone else call me a cheese-eating surrender monkey, which I thought was quite good actually. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to test pages is here. In my view a test run isn't a bad idea. Posting here because there are too many active threads on this. Hopefully the links will be spread around to other threads. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The reviewer flag is not a "right", Malleus, and I'm surprised you are joining with those who promote it as such. Deciding which revisions the public can see is instead a responsibility. Geometry guy 22:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Until this "right", or whatever you prefer to call it can't be take be taken away by one vindictive administrator then I don't want it. You may recall, for instance, that I was once threatened by an administrator who said he would make sure I would no longer be allowed to review at GAN. The inescapable fact, no matter how it's dressed up, is that this "right" disenfranchises regular editors, who are now supposed to be beholden to the goodwill of their "betters". That's completely unacceptable to me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If I recall rightly, that administrator disengaged almost entirely from GA, while you remain very active there - so your point is what?
You are deluded if you believe one vindictive administrator can disenfranchise, when there are scores of others who would oppose it. But keep your fingers in your ears. You didn't hear me. I am not here. Stick to you rhetoric of "beholden" and "betters". Make believe that all admins are as bad as the worst, tarred by the same brush. I never posted on this thread. Close your eyes for long enough and I will cease to exist. Geometry guy 22:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
That administrator is just one of a score of bullying administrators I could name, were it not for the fact that your colleagues would block me for telling the truth, aka "personal attack". Things have to change here, and this may be a tipping point, but your eyes seem closed to that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not regard other administrators as colleagues any more than other editors, and you know that. You also surely know the types of editors I most admire and most respect as colleagues. That you say otherwise suggests to me the extent to which you have become wrapped up in your own rhetoric.
Actually my eyes are not closed at all to your concerns, because they are quite tangible. Things do need to change, but alas the passive response not to participate will not tip the balance in any right direction. Geometry guy 22:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess that time will tell, but my mind is made up nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Let us consider it a two pronged response, then Malleus! :) I wish you well. Geometry guy 22:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
We eagerly await your contribution to the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing#Removal_of_rights then Geometry - make this acceptible, make it not a single 'trust me, I'm an admin' decision making process to remove my rights. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. I was mistakenly focussed on the RfC, and missed this thread. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
To be fair to Geometry guy, he is one the few admins I do trust, as is Moni3, so I don't doubt that his opinion is honestly held. I just don't agree with it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree - I don't share the opinion (not saying you have it) that all admins are feckless, unthinking automata - simply saying that it might be a good idea if the thoughtful ones, who care more about content than application of 'civility', might lend a voice to such discussions when the apparent 'lack of consensus' is being used as a substitution for substantive argument, then it might be a good thing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll spare you my opinion on many administrators (even I wouldn't say most) until you're safely behind a flame-proof barrier. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just proposed a delay in implementing the trial till the various issues including how the rights should be removed is sorted out. Please weigh in. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've said all I have to say on this ridiculous and corrupt implementation; I'll simply be ignoring it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you got that right

[6] -Template:User wikipedia/Reviewer. Sigh..... Pedro :  Chat  09:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Gascoigne, if you can stand it

Iridia and I have both tweaked the quotes in this article. You were one of a couple of eds who weren't convinced about the way they had been used. Can you stand to take another look and comment (again) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ben Gascoigne/archive1? Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll to remember and get over there later today. Remind me again if I don't show. Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Roy of the Rovers

Thanks for all your hard work on this article. I didn't know how in bad shape it was (as an FA) until I reqeuested it for TFA, and other people pointed out its many flaws (in fact, someone at the TFA request even thought about putting it up at FAR right away)! I mentioned a few times on the comics wikiproject that it needed work, but like myself it seemed there was no one who knew how to fix it, or was willing to put in the work. Good show - if you can actually get it kept as an FA, I will nominate it for TFA again sooner or later! :) BOZ (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not put it in the non-specific date slot on TFA/R? It would probably get used rather quickly, during the present world cup.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I've already got an article at TFA/R.  :) I'd be happy to list it at the non-specific date spot as soon as I can, but shouldn't I wait to make sure it passes its current FAR first? BOZ (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you should wait, yes. Right now I think Roy's a marginal FAR candidate, but we'll have to see what the panel thinks. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It was fairly straightforward to fix the article's structure, by separating the comic strip from the comic, but finding good sources for what remained, or rewriting it to fit what sources I've been able to find, has proved to be much more difficult. I don't think it would be flagged as an automatic candidate for FAR in its present state, but it's there now, so we'll just have to see what happens. A bit disappointing that nobody from the comics wikiproject has felt able to lend a hand, but still. Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The Official Roy of the Rovers Website looks SPS, and there probably other SPS here. A lot of the citations are books, but I've had decent luck with extracts from Google Books. I've help with that if you like. --Philcha (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
All help gratefully received Philcha. One of the criticisms at the FAR was that the article relied too heavily on the official Roy of the Rovers site, so I've been trying to find alternative sources where possible. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No luck with "Golden Boys and Golden Memories: Fiction, Ideology, and Reality" (Tomlinson, Alan; Young, Christopher (2000))
  • No luck with "Roy of the Rovers: The Unauthorised Biography" (Collins, Mick (2008))
  • No luck with "Encyclopedia of British Football" (Rennick, Tony (2002)) ("Comic Characters", in Cox; Russell, Dave; Vamplew, Wray)
It seems most difficult to get info about the most "popular" topics, where presumably the publishers expect book sales. --Philcha (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I've got a copy of The Unauthorised Biography, and I've been plundering that over the last few days. I've also been through the Tomlinson & Young and got what I can from that. The Encyclopedia of British Football is available online, so I've been through that as well. It's been much harder than I expected to find reliable sources for any of this, perhaps especially the Merchandising and spin offs. I know that The Old Fashioned Football Shirt Company makes replica Melchester Rovers shirts, because I've seen their web site, where they're for sale; same with the Subbuteo World stuff. It's very frustrating. Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Not really about Roy of the Rovers:
May not be available for long:
  • "Roy of the Rovers ready for another kick off" (Scotland on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007) seems only available in Findarticles and Highbeam.
I give up - you've outresearched as well. --Philcha (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for looking. Remind me though, what does "SPS" mean? Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Self-published sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wotton railway station

Hi Malleus, I'm glad to see that you have had a go at this article. Despite awarding it GA on techical merit, yesterday, I've been saying "rude things" about the prose. I've one review to complete for Rod before Glastonbury, then I was going to have a go at it (or perhaps a copy of it). Pyrotec (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on Roy

No particular order to these, just as they occur to me:

  • Is "In October 2007, Setanta bought the original strips, which are now featured on their web site" still accurate? IIRC, Setanta disintegrated rather spectacularly last year, blasting a good-size chunk out of the lower leagues in the process;
    • You're right. Setanta GB went into administration last year, although Setanta still broadcasts in Ireland, the US, and some other parts of the world. Can't find Roy on the present web site though, so I've changed the tense. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If we're going to suspend disbelief, you may as well replace "Roy won a number of trophies during his career with Rovers" with the actual stats from Melchester Rovers#Honours (nine league titles, one second division title, eight FA Cups including one Double, three League Cups, three European Cups, a solitary UEFA Cup and four Cup-winners' Cups);
  • A lot of the plot section is unsourced, but you knew that…
  • "Just as implausibly, the players on the pitch could hear comments made by individual members of the crowd" doesn't seem in the least implausible to me. I can think of plenty of occasions when a player's heard and reacted to a comment made by an individual member of the crowd. You may recall a certain M. Cantona had no trouble at all responding to a comment made by a member of the crowd?
  • "Roy was kidnapped five times" is almost immediately followed by "[during pre-season tours] they would invariably be kidnapped and held to ransom". He had a 40-year career with Melchester, it can't have been that invariable;
    • Roy was kidnapped 5 times in the first 10 years of his playing career, so it was a pretty regular occurrence. Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I know it's true, but expect a torrent of abuse for describing Blackburn as "unfashionable";

While there's something niggling about it that seems unbalanced, I can't quite put my finger on what it is. I do think that it its current state it ought to survive FAR, and hopefully won't deteriorate between now and July 11, which is all that's really needed. – iridescent 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over. My immediate aim is to do enough to survive FAR, obviously, but I'm interested in your "unbalanced" observation. I feel pretty much the same, but I'm not sure why either. I've looked at the (very few) other FA/GA comic strip articles, and they're not much help really. After looking at TinTin I thought about maybe adding a Characters section, but it would be enormous, so I decided against it. BTW. "unfashionable" is what the source called Blackburn, so I'll make that clear. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've started working on a new shiny version of The Eagle, but while doing so I came across Dummy, the Witch of Sible Hedingham. I thought that might be something you'd find interesting, Malleus. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Poor chap, he deserves better than that. Are you working on the Eagle comic? I hope so, because the present article is pretty dire. I've been quite astonished at how poor almost all of these comic articles are. The one I used to read, Wizard (DC Thomson), is even still a red link. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, its the comic I'm working on. I'm not bothering with the article as it is, I'm doing it in my sandbox where I'm free to write whatever I like. The Eagle is one of Britain's more important comics, and its a comic I have a strong love for (I have a few of the originals, a few annuals also). I even have an original Dan Dare badge! I read the "modern" comic while I was at primary school, I still remember the heartache I felt when someone spilled a bowl of chicken soup over issue no.1 :( Parrot of Doom 22:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at the Blackburn badge, and then my username... --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I was just quoting from the source Redrose, not saying that I think Blackburn are "unfashionable". :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I expected to look at concerns about MF's and Iridescent's "unbalanced" observation, but saw no obvious gaps. --Philcha (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
IMO "A survey carried out in 1982 revealed that 88 percent of Roy of the Rovers' readers were male. Of the overall readership, the majority (57 percent) were aged 11–14. Readers dropped out as they got older; only 10 percent were aged 17–19, and none were older than 19" is irrelevant and should be scrapped. --Philcha (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You might be right; I may move that to the comic's article. I was really trying to make a point about the role of females in the comic strip, which could probably be made better. Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
OTOH I'd keep "For instance, during the first ten years of his playing career, Roy was kidnapped at least five times", "If they went ahead, they didn't try to extend their lead, like proper footballers, but defended, like blackguards and cowards. It was, Roy always believed, something of a character defect, probably caused by the pencil-thin moustaches they wore, in order to distinguish themselves as foreign" and "The portrayal of Rovers' successive victories [against foreign teams] mirrors British postwar views on other nations: they are unfit, tactically unaware, lacking in nerve, and only approach victory by playing under blazing sunshine, or fielding physical mutants" as WP:NOTPAPER and I think many readers will like the jokes. --Philcha (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I saw lacking of citations, especially at ends of paragraphs. --Philcha (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That's something I'm still trying to address; it's rather difficult though, trying to find citations for something someone else wrote. Malleus Fatuorum 16:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead is a mess, and looks ambiguous to me. I suggest MF has a look at this. --Philcha (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead is still pretty much as it was when this was an article about the comic strip and the comic, so I'm sure it'll need to be reworked when I've cited everything, or rewritten to what I can cite. Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about Iridescent's comment above, the niggling feeling that the article's "unbalanced", which I share. The reason for my niggling feeling struck me as I was tidying up part of the Recurring characteristics section, in which it says that the Sheik of Basran, an oil-rich Middle-Eastern state, offered Roy £1 million to coach the national team. That was in 1978, shortly after Don Revie had accepted an offer to leave the England manager's job to coach the United Arab Emirates. Similarly, the Italian side Batori offered £85,000 for Roy, not long after John Charles had joined Juventus and Dennis Law Torino. It's that correspondence with real footballing developments that's missing, I think. Of course, I could be completely wrong. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I was pondering today on what was giving me that feeling, and I've realised what it is—the bad news is it's something that can't be easily fixed, and the good news is that it's not relevant. To all extents and purposes this follows the conventions of a football biography; the only difference is that the subject didn't exist. However, the sections I'd expect to find in a biography aren't there—there's nothing about his childhood, nothing about his family, nothing about his interests outside football. And that's why it looks unbalanced; real football bios always have some kind of "before football" and "outside football" section, even the reclusive ones like Paul Scholes. – iridescent 20:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, Roy Race has his own article. Maybe the tilt is wrong, in focusing on Roy rather than the comic strip? Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If it were me, I'd keep the comic separate and redirect Roy Race to Roy of the Rovers. Realistically, we can't supply the back story if it was never considered important enough to describe. If you can hold back the disdain for a few minutes, Jabba the Hutt (probably Roy's closest equivalent that's a current FA) manages to avoid the cognitive dissonance inherent in a biography of a fictional character quite well. – iridescent 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The first thing I did was to separate the comic strip from the comic, so I've no intention of reverting to that mess. The difficult thing with Roy is that he was in many ways portrayed as a real character; for instance, the writers sometimes wrote to the newspapers in his name. It's that misty boundary between fact and fantasy I think is missing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't suppose in your travels you've seen much mention of Eagle, have you? I'm confident I can eventually make it a GA, but most of the source I've used thus far don't focus specifically on the comic, rather the genre, and the history of comics. Its therefore a bit of an alphabet spaghetti article, if that makes sense. Parrot of Doom 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't, no, and I've been amazed how hard it is to find reliable sources for these comic articles. I think that very few could get further than GA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a book I have on preorder that should be a big help (Dan Dare, Pilot of the Future: A Biography), no idea when it'll be released however. I might consult some of my Dan Dare annuals. Oh and I haven't forgotten about Catesby, I'll move back to him when I get stuck on this... Parrot of Doom 22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Nope, just a bit busy with work lately. Getting as much cash in as I can, while I can. Its been a shit year for work. Parrot of Doom 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Tell me about it. It's been a shit year. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Need a favour

I may get blocked for 3RR. If so, would you (or your tps) please look after Ernest Hemingway for me? The discussion is here. This information has to be verified and use the best sources. I'm trying to verify, but will take some time, so if I do get blocked won't be able to fix. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You may well be blocked for a 3RR violation, as it's one of those "bright line" offences that so please the child admins. I hope you don't though. Just goes to show the stupidity of 3RR, as it takes two to tango. Wear your block with pride. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Been reported. Not enough editors tending that article. Oh well ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Not all admins are children or exhibit child-like responses at the 3RR noticeboard, however (although as a lawyer and an admin I know I'm in MF's bad books twice over!). Regards, etc etc BencherliteTalk 20:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Too many are children, and you know what I think about lawyers. Nothing against you personally though. Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. Thank God a sensible admin turned up at that 3RR report. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I know that, don't worry! Hopefully Truthkeeper88 can relax now that the 3RR's been declined and everyone can carry on improving the encyclopaedia in our own, small ways (For the avoidance of doubt, although I went to the 3RR board because I saw the message here, I did so only because I know that 3RR reports are meant to be dealt with promptly so any blocks aren't stale - I certainly don't want it to be thought that I went there determined to decline a block just because Truthkeeper88 had left a message for you; as far as I can recall, I've never interacted with Truthkeeper88 or the other protagonist.) BencherliteTalk 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I've recorded that comment for posterity, particularly because I don't think I've seen you ever be quite so complementary to an admin, let alone a lawyer-admin! Are you mellowing in your old age?! BencherliteTalk 20:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
By no means. As I've said many times before, like Jonathan Swift, I despise lawyers, but I like Bencherlite; I despise admins, but I like Karanacs. It's not a personal thing, it's just me being me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
For some strange reason, I like you too :) I wonder if that means I'll suddenly find my admin bit turned off? Karanacs (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. The editor has requested a comment. I didn't want to be blocked. Btw - for the record, haven't a clue who Bencherlite is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A good result then. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You know you've achieved your purpose on Wikipedia when…

your accuracy is being questioned by a cartoon dinosaur. Is this how internet memes start?. – iridescent 20:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just amazing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure Britannica didn't have the "cartoon dinosaur critic" problem when they first published an article on exactly the same topic. In 1824. (I'm looking forward to throwing that link at the first person to complain that it's "unencyclopedic".) – iridescent 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
As someone who wasted far too much time writing a silly little article on an 18th-century woman with a fear of being buried alive, I'll be chucking no stones. For me, wikipedia's amazingness is in those little articles, and I think for you as well. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I blocked the cartoon dinosaur a couple of weeks ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if it were one of Bishzilla's cousins, myself. – iridescent 22:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I come here to look at a shiny barnstar and then read the article I tried to avoid so hard after all, via a comic! It's a cold world and this is ice. Hekerui (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hekerui, what a beautifully poetic and The Cure-like statement. --Moni3 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For coming back to that article... twice

Magellanic Clouds ― Irregular Dwarf Galaxies.jpg The Local Group Barnstar
For your assistance at Ben Gascoigne's FAC, here are two of his favourite things: the Magellanic Clouds.
Thank you for your help. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see that Ben's an FA now. Well done for sticking with it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eaton Hall, Cheshire

I've been working this article towards GAN and should be pleased, if you have the inclination, for your comments, advice, and any TLC you would wish to give it. I've opened a section on the talk page for comments. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and get to it later, or if not, tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt and helpful copy editing and comments. That's more than can be said about the other comments that have appeared on the talk page; well they were prompt, but they are unhelpful, show that the authors have not looked properly at the article, and fall IMO into the category of silly. Perhaps I should not have opened up the debate to the world, but just invited trusted editors to comment. I will sleep on it, and respond in due course. (Any replies I am tempted to make tonight might get me into the sort of trouble with which you are familiar!) Cheers, and sleep well. Peter.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a cross we have to bear Peter, maintaining the fiction that all editors are equal. Well, it's a cross that you have to bear, because I don't bother to hide what I think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard

Hello Malleus, I nominated the above for GA and added some little tweaks, and I was wondering if you could give it a little skim for me? Regards, OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request

I just want to let you know that your actions on ARTICLE NAME were very childish, rude, and just plain evil. You will risk being bloc—okay, just kidding, I just wanted to feel a part of the group that always starts these new discussions on your page. I was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look at Raid at Cabanatuan for me. I'd like to go to FAC, but would prefer to have you take a look. It's an inspiring story of American troops going behind Japanese lines to rescue over 500 POWs, only to leave a British guy behind in the bathroom. I figure you may be interested in such a touching story. If you're too busy/uninterested, no worries. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I read your first sentence and I could feel my blood beginning to boil. Luckily for your monitor though, I read on. :lol: I'll be happy to take a look tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look through and made a few (fairly minor) changes. Good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought it would be interesting to try that out, I figure I may be one of the few admins that can safely post here. Thank you for the copyedit. I appreciate you dividing up the edits, it makes it easier to track the individual changes that were made (although you may now be considered the main editor, since the majority of my edits were done in a sandbox...). I see that I'm still making some of the same mistakes I always do, and there were definitely a lot of those I could have spotted myself. I guess I get too eager after spending so much time on it and just want somebody else to look at it. Anyway, thanks for your assistance, it'll probably head off to FAC in the coming weeks as I wait for a few more sources, a new image, and maybe a few more copyedits. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 21:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't even realise that you were an admin Nehrams, so you're the best sort. Despite appearances, many admins call here, and not always to deliver childish "civility" warnings. Whether someone's an admin or not makes no difference to me, I treat everyone just the same. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:John

I'm not remotely familiar with the history between you and John (talk · contribs), but this comment you made on his talk page is not even remotely appropriate. Please try to keep the attacks on other users from making it through the keyboard. --auburnpilot talk 04:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think then you should make yourself aware of that history, as you might just find that such comments pale in comparison to the attacks that john has made, attacks which seem to pass without comment by other admins. Parrot of Doom 07:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If you'd address the problem, then I wouldn't feel it necessary to be so blunt. John fucked up again. Have you told him that? Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Incorrectly blocking another editor and then laughing it off because it was only for three hours is an abuse of power, but of course you and your kind turn a blind eye to that. When John starts to apply the same standards of behaviour to himself that he does to others, then I might begin to think that there's perhaps more to him than the fucking joker that I see now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Seen this?

Have you seen this - honestly one could not make it up....  Giacomo  20:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The insanity level in this project has reached critical. Where do all the loonies come from? The last thing anyone ought to be contemplating is to give administrators yet another tool to threaten regular editors with. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but we are getting back to - the ethos of "accept nothing and be free."  Giacomo  20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if this insane idea gets a consensus from amongst the handful of people who take part in RfCs, there's almost zero chance that the developers would make whatever software changes would be necessary to implement. In the exceedingly unlikely that they did, however, I would insist that the autoconfirmed "right" was removed from my account as well as all the other pretty little baubles used to dazzle the gullible. Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Tower of London

Hi Malleus, I finally got round to launching that rewrite of the Tower of London article and was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look. Your thoughts would be welcome before I invite Historic Royal Palaces (the charity that manages the Tower) to take a look. Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I'll certainly take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. I waste my time with comic book characters, while you invest your effort in important articles like the Tower. What's wrong with me? :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Careful, it's a slippery slope. Today you're writing about Roy of the Rovers, tomorrow you'll be wanting to add popular culture sections to every article you see ;-) Nev1 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
That'll be the day. I'm on a covert operation to get rid of all that shit. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Castle is a superb article, I look forward to reading this one. Not now though, I'm off to bed. Parrot of Doom 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a very impressive piece of work Nev1. Only one comment so far: The caption underneath the image of Guy Fawkes's signature says that he was tortured for 10 days, but he made his third and final confession on 9 November, only 4 days after his arrest. Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I could have made an error in transcribing; I'll try to find the book later to check what went wrong, but in the meantime I'll change it using sources from the Guy Fawkes article. Nev1 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A gem for you

This is too precious not to share. Talk:1928_Okeechobee_hurricane#Requested_move. This is one of those situations where I'm about to lose my shit and I just don't fucking understand ... anything... like going to that page sucks people into a zone of not making any goddamn sense. If you can make it to the bottom, you're a strong man. I've been involved in this discussion from the start and I can't read it all the way through. --Moni3 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to read it, but I felt the will to live ebbing away after a few pages, so I thought it prudent to stop. Malleus Fatuorum 11:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well. I feel better then for not being able to tolerate that discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Compromise is always fun - recently the IOC tried compromise - the iconic bird known as the Common Loon in the US, and the Great Northern Diver in the now the Great Northern Loon, a name by which it has never been known anywhere...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to accept some authority for the compromise. I get that stuff changes, birds, planets, etc. I just don't think that's what Wikipedia should be doing: acting as a compromising entity to appease editors. --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
IOC is a page that supports the author's book - WP:SPS? I'm sure the our bird enthusiasts can find enough citations for Common Loon in the US Great and Northern Diver in the UK - jimfbleak and Casliber would be a strong start. --Philcha (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
In the Unsatisfactory Compromise hall of fame, I doubt anything will ever beat Airplane Aeroplane Fixed-wing aircraft. – iridescent 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
That's very funny :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There's an amusing compromise to be seen in every sig here. The Anglophones wanted Coordinated Universal Time (CUT) while the Francophones would have Temps Universel Coordonné (TUC). So, to please neither side, we have UTC. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford

A bit outside my normal geography but would you have the time/inclination to take a look at Little Thetford. A new user (User:Senra) has been doing great things to the article about this little village & I have been contributing to the peer review. I think it is almost GA level, but you know what my prose is like. I'm sure any comments/edits would be appreciated.— Rod talk 10:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much of a one for PR, but that merger discussion needs to be brought to a sensible conclusion and resolved before the article's got any chance at GA, I think. Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've had a quick run through, but there's still quite a bit to do yet before this is ready for GAN, in my view anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again.— Rod talk 20:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Sir. I thought you had finished. I had put it up for GA. Please forgive me. Shows you how new I am. When I get home later I will remove the GA nomination and let you finish what you are doing. Also, a few days ago I created another Little Thetford on your talk page. Sorry.
No, don't withdraw the nomination. It's a nice article, just needs a few rough edges knocked off, which can easily be done during the review. If it's not been picked up for review in a few days then let me know, and I'll do it myself. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I was more concerned that I had started GAN when you had not finished the copy edit. Thank you for the offer. I will let you know if no one picks it up. --Senra (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Awarded GA status today. Thank you so much for your input. Your support has been very much appreciated. --Senra (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. The first of many I hope. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Would you pop over to Ownership of Little Thetford and venture an opinion please? I knew this might happen. I did not want this whilst preparing for FAC, so trying to tread carefully. Also trying not to be defensive, but I guess that is bound to happen. At the same time, how do I handle wikilinks to new pages? --Senra (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It's always difficult when you have reliable sources conflicting. My approach is to go with the most plausible, but add a note to explain that there are other opinions, or to elide over the differences with an attached note, as with the surname of Guy Fawkes's mother. I'm not sure what you're asking about wikilinks to new pages. If the links are valuable, then fine; if they're not, then get rid. Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Malleus - I don't know if you have any interest in taking a run through FAR, but there are a few that could use your attention:

Thanks in advance if you have the time and interest, and thanks also for all of your work on Roy of the Rovers - it's always nice to see an article picked up by an experienced editor and quickly fixed up :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit of an FAR virgin, but I don't know why Roy's FAR is still open, or what now needs to be done. The nominator has agreed that all of his concerns have been addressed; others have agreed that the article now meets the FA criteria. What else do I have to do? Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Nudge Dana Boomer, with a reminder that ideally it needs to be clear asap if it's to go through WP:TFAR in time for the Final. I'd suggest not posting it at TFAR until closer to the date; if it knocks something else off, it'll just annoy people. Given the unusual circumstances (Roy, after all, never won the World Cup) it may be hard to calculate mainpage points; it might be easier all round if you bent the rules and just pestered Raul to run it, rather than send it past the chorus at TFAR. – iridescent 23:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
PS; if you want a sporting article that looks right up your street, might I draw your attention to the ancient and noble sport of Fox tossing? – iridescent 23:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Am I going to be the only one who reads that article's "See also" section and expects someone to say "Pepsi" at the end? --BencherliteTalk 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I am keeping an eye on the FAR discussion, as well as having this page on my watchlist, so no need to "nudge" me :) The main reasons it's still open are two: 1) The bot archives on Wednesdays and Saturdays, so we usually close on Tuesdays and Fridays, which I will be doing later after a stint in the garden (the lettuce must be picked, you know!). 2) I was hoping to get some more solid comments on closing the FAR without FARC from some more of the commentors, but that doesn't really look like it's going to happen in a timely fashion. Both Tony and Archiveangel commented before major work was finished on the article, so I was hoping to get an update on their comments. However, if those do not appear before I go through tonight, I think I will take the comments of Grondemar and Giants2008 (as well as the fact that Malleus is an experienced FA writer) as proof that a FARC is not needed and close as-is. This is probably way more information than you needed, though... Iridescent, that is an article that I would love to see at FAC - just think of all the fun you could have writing up an April Fools Day mainpage blurb... Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
If you'd be happier to wait until Tony and Archiveangel commented again I've got no problem with that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec, re Dana) At the moment I'm trying to alternate "disused stations" and "weird stuff", in a probably vain hope that I don't bore everyone senseless with the stations. I have very high hopes for this one (currently only about 1/4 complete and a very rough draft, so don't judge it too harshly yet); I'm also hoping I can pester one of the horsey people into knocking up a stub for Tarrare (horse) as it would have a superb hatnote. I suspect most of the sources for Fox tossing will be in German, or I'd be at it like a shot. – iridescent 23:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
As the nearest horsey person, your wish is my command: Tarrare (horse). I leave the hatnotes in your capable hands. And yes, I know it's a sucky stub. But I really have little interest in Thoroughbreds in general and 19th century racehorses in particular, so I'm not inclined to spend hours searching through sporting magazines on Google books to find more mentions of him :) Dana boomer (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent; now, that is what a hatnote ought to look like. – iridescent 09:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom and I have got the ancient and noble sport of shin kicking to sort out yet. Bizarre though it may seem, I've got no intention of nominating Roy at TFAR, although I've equally got no objections if anyone else wants to. I just didn't want to see one of the very few British comic strip FAs languishing unloved, particularly Roy during the World Cup. Raul can make his own mind up about what to run on the day of the final without my help. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Malleus, another one for you to look at if you'd like: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Krill/archive1. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


FYI, in case it passed you by. My gut instinct is that it has no chance; if the tiny lead hadn't lost me, "The club crest is derived from that of the city of Manchester" would have. (That'll be the crest of the City of Manchester which includes a pitchfork-wielding devil and two footballs, I assume.) But what do I know? – iridescent 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave up on that article ages ago; it's crap. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company

Do you think this section is appropriate? Richerman (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Move it up into the infobox and that way it gets to stay without being obtrusive in the article. See how I've handled the name changes and changes of operator on Waddesdon Road railway station for the kind of thing I mean. – iridescent 00:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I hate it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As the Tramway company went into liquidation in 1903 I don't think anything after the first three lines is relevant, so that's all I'd want to see in the infobox. I've suggested on the talk page that a separate article should be created. Richerman (talk)


Sorry for the whole thing that was going on before. I want to personally apologize because I am an admin and feel like I share the blame for other admins' mistakes. Anyway, if at all possible, would you be interested in copyediting 1916 Irondale earthquake? I know you were unable to complete the GA review - don't worry, Wizardman took care of it, without me even asking :) - and so I was wondering if you could maybe copyedit it for me? It's a tiny thing that needs some tuning up before I ship it off to FAC. I'm trying now to add in some information to beef it up but it's proving difficult to find... if you're bogged down with other work, feel free to say no. Thanks either way, ceranthor 16:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No need for you to take responsibility for the sins of the entire admin caste; let the poor ones try and stand on their own two feet for as long as they can. It's the system that's corrupt, not the individuals. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright; I guess I see what you mean. ceranthor 20:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This article needs an awful lot of work before you take it to FAC. I don't think the GA review did you any favours, and I certainly wouldn't have passed it. It's not a copyedit you need. But you're one of these new reviewers, so presumably you already knew that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd have probably grudgingly passed it at GAN, but I concur with Malleus; don't even think of submitting it to FAC as it stands, as it would be ripped to shreds. ("Up to three people would be killed"? "An assistant professor in geological sciences at The University of Alabama stated…"? "The earthquake caused a sensation of panic"? Mattisse would have a field day.) – iridescent 22:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm aware. Thanks though. ceranthor 22:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You're aware of what? You asked me to copyedit an article that is a million miles away from being an FAC. Why? Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if you take offense, but it needed a stronger foundation before I tried to add in some other details. If you'd prefer to stop, feel free - I apologize if it's insulting in any way. Sorry for any inconvenience; I didn't think it was that far away from FAC in all honesty.

I think it's starting to shape up. ceranthor 16:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm struggling to rewrite this article. If you could find some time to recommend a copyeditor or maybe help a bit more yourself, that would be amazing. I apologize again. ceranthor 19:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You could always flag it up for the League of Copyeditors to take a look at. They might even get around to it during your lifetime. Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
God, has LOCE resurfaced again? I thought that particular horse was put out to pasture years ago. – iridescent 19:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
See WP:GOCE. Big plans to revamp and work through the backlog of tagged articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope they do a better job than their predecessors, in that case. Cleaning up the mess left after an article had been "improved" by LOCE was always one of the more irritating wastes of time when they were active. – iridescent 19:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the sarcasm I was trying to project made it's way through the computer screen. I spot checked some of the articles during May's copyedit drive, and well, as you say, the result is messy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Inevitable really, when you have barely literate kids competing for prizes. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope that I'm not included in that category; anyway, I think I've found the problem with the article. I'm going to take a break with the article; thanks. ceranthor 23:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I wish you luck with it, but try and look at it from my point of view. I don't give a rat's arse about this 1916 earthquake. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C.

Just thought I'd let you know that I've nominated this article for FA again. Best wishes, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, seems I was beaten to the punch. Tomlock01 (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, I think I probably know the answer to this (and maybe I shouldn't be asking) but I've opened a new PR on Manchester United and as someone who was critical at FAC, I'd appreciate it if you took a look. Best, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
As I've said before, I'm giving this article a wide berth after my earlier experiences with it. It can't be improved as things stand. Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Re User:AllieLGray

As I stated at the ANI thread I would like to apologise for the bad judgement call I made. I have no excuse, and all I can do is hold my hands up and apologise. I will strive not to make the same mistakes in future when analysing the scenario and facts, especially as I remember considering good faith editing at the time, but made such a monumentally incorrect assumption. It is always easier to look back in hindsight and say "I won't do that again", but I hope I can reassure you that I will keep this mistake in mind and be much more careful in the future when making assumptions. Again, I apologise for the negativity I contributed to the project with that error, and thank you for your contribution to the scenario/discussion to help resolve the issue I created. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a rather short attention span where wikipedia is concerned, so I haven't got the faintest idea what you're referring to. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have included a link. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editing_to_drive_business.3F. You commented in the discussion thus I felt I should reply to you. Happy editing, --Taelus (Talk) 22:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC suggestion

Can you take a look at The Political Cesspool? It's an interesting article about an apparently specific radio program I'd never heard about. I think the article has potential, but it's hitting a flat note somewhere. It's near the bottom of the FAC list. I've opposed it (mainly because I couldn't support it), but I think it can get to where it's trying to go with a little assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I find that programme just about as incomprehensible as I find the Klu Klux Klan, but I think the article does a reasonable job of trying to explain it. The American south is a strange place. Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your FAC feedback. And I agree with you ;-) Stonemason89 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Just found this, which is somewhat related to this commentary. I don't quite know what to make of it. It kind of blew my mind. --Moni3 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ashokan Edicts in Delhi

I have complied to your GA review observations.--Nvvchar 23:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll take another look tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy edits done so far. The book at reference 11 gives it as "major rock edict I". I have corrected it now. I hope you would oblige if I request you to continue with the copy edit to GA status. Thanks.--Nvvchar 02:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for all the reviews-- makes my "job" a bit more enjoyable. Much appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't make me many friends, though. But still, who cares? :-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If we're known by the company we keep, you're in good shape ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again-- I didn't recognize any of the reviewers at School Rumble, and didn't know if it had independent review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I know squit about this kind of article, but I did look at this one at its last FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Cotswold Olimpick Games

Before I dive into this, what remains in that article that is uncited? Or is everything there as it should be? Can I start to bung new information in? Parrot of Doom 20:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The second half of the "Revival" section. – iridescent 20:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Right so the history section is all cited? Parrot of Doom 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I've cited the History section OK now, so bung away. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


I'm sure that if you look at the nom [7] you can figure it out. It's true that articles should be ready though it's also understandable that a few minor things may need to be fixed (which were). That's not the problem (recommendation to submit it to FA was made at the GA review).radek (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

GA and FA are quite different beasts. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Obviously. Still, the GA recommendation indicates that at least 1 other person thought it ready.radek (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"Let me know when you nominate it for FA" doesn't mean the GA reviewer thought it was ready, and if s/he did, one GA reviewer can be wrong. Radek, the best thing you can do for FAC and to prepare yourself better to understand FAC standards is to begin following some FACs, and eventually reviewing some yourself. That will help the backlog as well as help you understand standards better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
... and the FA review clearly demonstrated that person was wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Not because of the comments I'm referring to it didn't.radek (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at the article; it's not an FA. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've read the article and have been following the nom page. Malleus is correct; it's not an FA. It's unfortunate your GA reviewer misled you, but the article needs work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If you think so, that's fine. Can you suggest improvements which could be made to bring it up to FA level (both of youse)? Just don't insist that include sources which you yourself haven't bothered to read and which are irrelevant to the article's subject.radek (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind reading the article and posting suggestions to the talk page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.radek (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
What a gracious invitation! Sort it out your fucking self! Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Then don't. No suggestions is better than stupid suggestions.radek (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Helping a GA/FA neophyte....

Abyssal plain is the first audited effort of DiverDave (talk · contribs). I passed it as GA - he'd be grateful of some input on what else to do with it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I saw it while reading over GAN to see if anything interesting was up... and it looked very neat. ceranthor 14:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Lambert

I know I said I was holding off on pestering anyone for second opinions until Brill Tramway was done, but if you get the chance could you have a skim over Daniel Lambert? (Moni, PoD etc, that goes for you too.) This one has (somewhat appropriately) grown to about three times the size I envisaged it, and I'm quite pleased with the way it's turned out; to me, this is the kind of thing Wikipedia should be about. (I can find out about Presidents of the United States and the like anywhere; AFAIK there's now nowhere else with as comprehensive a coverage of notable 18th-century sufferers from eating disorders as Wikipedia.) – iridescent 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, he was a big unit wasn't he? Parrot of Doom 15:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The unhealthiest thing to come out of Leicester not to be advertised by Gary Lineker… – iridescent 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that looks great. Just one comment: I think a couple of section titles – After the death of Daniel Lambert and Daniel Lambert today – probably fall foul of WP:MOS#Section_headings though. "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article ... unless doing so is shorter or clearer". Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not particularly happy with those headings to be honest. I was trying to avoid the dreaded "In popular culture" and "Legacy", and these were the best I could come up with. Feel free to change them if you can think of anything appropriate. – iridescent 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be a curious mixture of fact and 19th-century "fact" in the article. How many of the sources are parroting (ahem) what 19th-century literature said about the man? By the way, I'm upset that I didn't find this article first, its right up my street. Parrot of Doom 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hard to say. I've tried to use Wilson's two books—the first edition of which was published in Lambert's lifetime, and much of which is based on Lambert's own testimony—as much as possible for details of his life, and Bondeson (an endocrinologist in real life) as much as possible for speculation on his medical condition. Lambert was such a high profile figure that his life is unlikely to have been embellished at the time, and enough of it tallies with verifiable primary sources that I'm satisfied in Wilson as a source. (His clothes still exist and confirm that the portraits aren't exaggerating, Tattersalls has records of animals bred by him selling for high sums so the "noted animal breeder" side tallies, and so on.) Some of the later sources are dubious (this article is as big a crock of bullshit as I've ever seen, and I've only mentioned it at all as a pre-emptive strike against someone demanding it be added), but I'm satisfied that there's nothing likely reasonably to be disputed in there. – iridescent 15:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. If you want a similar one, there's a lot that could be done with Józef Boruwłaski. Bondeson & Leroi (both in Daniel's bibliography) each have a chapter on him, and there are literally hundreds of nineteenth century sources. (He has the same "unofficial symbol" status in Durham that Lambert has in Leicester; Durham Town Hall still has a lifesize statue of the man in the lobby.) – iridescent 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh I already have one lined up. I reckon next year's April Fool's article selection might be a bunfight between that, and the Olimpick Games :) There's also an article I've come across quite a few times, George Salamanzar or something, that I keep meaning to look at more closely. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Book question - How does one get an article to italicise its title, such as Peter Rabbit's Painting Book? Parrot of Doom 19:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • You probably shouldn't do it for books, but here's how it's done. Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I'm not sure if it should be done for books or not, but a lot of the comic articles seem to use {{italic title}}. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC))
      • That's what I was thinking. I'm not sure why there's a distinction, if it's in italics in the prose, why not in the title? Parrot of Doom 19:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
        • It's done for plays too, like Hamlet. Seems like a strange inconsistency. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fat finger slipped on watchlist

sorry ---Sluzzelin talk 12:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No harm done. Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Gliding FA Review

Thanks for the comments so far. I would appreciate your help. I have read and re-read the article many times and it is therefore difficult for me to spot the problems. The fact that you came up with a list of valid points shows that your opinion is valuable. As you might have guessed I want to ensure my sport is understood by more people and drawing the line between information and promotion is a fine one. I have tried to reduce the promotional aspect by removing the sentence about national associations providing addresses of local clubs. I hope that suffices. Thanks again. JMcC (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look through it again and make a few more suggestions if you like, but my feeling at the moment is that that the article's organisation isn't quite right. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes please. I have had another look through before disappearing on vacation (gliding). All suggestions gratefully received. JMcC (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


What's this? It's been days since this talkpage has made an appearance in my watchlist accompanied by customary snarky edit summaries. Are you...staying out of trouble? Anyway, this is a belated thank you for your edits on Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, I am mucho grateful. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 15:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Me staying out of trouble? A case of mistaken identity I think. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


Looking around here, and yonder, I'm convinced you're right when you suggest that British comics are almost completely overlooked by reputable publishers. I must have trawled through dozens of books, articles, scholarly publications, etc, and can't find any kind of biblical source you'd normally expect to find on any other subject.

Its strange. I don't know if comics now retain the popularity they had when I was growing up (Beano, Dandy, [new] Eagle), but I'm beginning to wonder if a very important part of our children's culture is being completely overlooked. I have nothing but extremely fond memories of the comics I read while growing up, and I suspect that applies to just about everyone who ever read a comic regularly.

I've ordered a couple of books to allow me to get somewhere with Eagle, but even then it'll only be the original version of the comic - good sources on the newer version are almost non-existent. I can only sympathise with you on Roy of the Rovers, I've kept my eyes open but there's very little to be had. Parrot of Doom 21:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right I think. It really has been an uphill battle with Roy, despite the recent Unauthorised Biography and a few mentions elsewhere. I think tackling something like my favourite comic, the Wizard, would be close to impossible. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I went to an excellent, illustrated, entertaining-yet-fairly-scholarly talk at Runcorn's Brindley Theatre a few months ago on the the history of comics, given by someone who has illustrated the Beano etc. and is still working in the genre. I don't know if he has published anything, (other than drawings in comics) and I cannot remember his name, so what I am saying is not much use (!). But there may be something out there; if not there is a gap waiting to be filled.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
What's pretty frustrating is that there are plenty of reasonable quality sources on these comics - I've found plenty on Eagle that are almost certainly completely reliable. And yet they'd fall at the first hurdle here, because Wikipedia frowns on amateur but reliable source material like this, for instance. Fortunately I spotted a copy of the original on Ebay, and have snapped it up cheap. Parrot of Doom 21:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
PS - to get you started Parrot of Doom 22:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Auntie Beeb didn't neglect them. although, unfortunately, its not available to listen to any more. I did enjoy the programme at the time though. Richerman (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't even know that there was a new Wizard. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I can get a few episodes of that series Richerman, but not that one I'm afraid. :( Parrot of Doom 21:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Any thoughts on the direction that Eagle is taking? I'm really struggling to find good sources on the relaunched version. Parrot of Doom 12:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    • By the way you may find page 177 onward of interest to Roy of the Rovers - book here Parrot of Doom 14:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I've milked that one dry already; looking forwards to taking a look at your Eagle article later though. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'll let you know if I find 'owt else. I think I've covered a good portion of the basics with Eagle, but there's still a fair bit remaining. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Now copied across. I've asked the Eagle society to take a look at it also. Plenty of the sources I looked at differed on some fairly significant facts. Parrot of Doom 14:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
            • You've done a great job with that PoD. If that's not a GA then I don't know what is. What a week eh? Roy of the Rovers and Dan Dare sorted out. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
              • lol have you seen Dan Dare? Bargepole springs to mind, right now. Although oddly enough that has far more chance of being an FA, if sorted. Maybe later... Parrot of Doom 15:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
                • Ah, I see what you mean. Don't know about you, but I always find trying to source stuff someone else has written way harder than writing the whole damn thing myself. Roy, for instance, was a lot more work than I'd bargained for. Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
                  • Yeah, much better to begin with a clean slate. Parrot of Doom 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's a lot of nonsense talked on wikipedia about "vital" articles, by which they mean gravity and such, but vital for who? What's more vital than recording a generation's culture? One day I may get around to doing something with this. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I can pull four "Scuttler" documents from Jstor and email them to you, if you like? [8], [9], [10], [11] Parrot of Doom 20:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That would be great! Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok I'll email you a Wikipedia message now. Just reply, then I've got your email address, and can attach the documents to it. Parrot of Doom 20:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have email enabled on the machine I'm using right now, but I'll send you my email address. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If its the @redmap one I found it buried deep in my inbox. I've emailed them to that. Nearly 10megs worth! Parrot of Doom 20:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way did you get those documents? Parrot of Doom 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of power

I am inded a prophet, [12]. It did not take our petty little Admins long to start abusing their newly and wrongly grasped powers.  Giacomo  20:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's easier to follow the links from here, as things seem to be being moved about. In this case, all now seems solved.  Giacomo  21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's taken as long as it has, almost two weeks. it's just a short step from refusing an editor the autoreviewer right for a block one month ago to removing it as a punishment for being blocked, which will happen soon as sure as eggs is eggs. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
it's probably the only one we have noticed - that's why it has "taken" so long.  Giacomo  21:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank Heaven for admins like Moni3, who do what's right, without worrying about whether it's in accordance with wikipedia's rather bendable protocols. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Are all adnins "petty" Giano, or just the ones you don't like? I for one - as a vocal supporter of you and Malleus - am getting a little pissed off with the stereotype. You and Malleus (and many others) spend a great deal of time generalising about admin abuse/contempt/ineptitude etc. yet when the result goes your way (c.f Malleus above} it's all suddenly fine..... Play fair please gents - or at least stick the shoe on the other foot and think about it once in a while before lumping together in one boat everyone with a screen name... in a particular user group... on some website... Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've made it clear on innumerable occasions that I don't believe that all admins are the scum of the Earth, or indeed most of them, but enough certainly are. Until the problem of dealing with the bad ones is addressed, then I'm afraid that some degree of generalisation is inevitable. One bad apple and all that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure which version of "one bad apple" you refer to. I was always taught that one rotten apple does not spoil the batch. Nevertheless, your overly dramatic "scum of the Earth" comment does not indicate that this conversation is likely to be valuable so I shall withdraw. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
A rotten apple might not, but a rotten beetroot will. Parrot of Doom 22:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
As you wish Pedro. For the record, I spend a great deal of time trying to ignore administrators. I rarely even bother to check whether another editor is an administrator or not. Some just stand out though, as eye-watering examples of unchecked single-minded incompetence and malice. Deal with that, not those who complain about it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
GiacomoReturned, you seem to inflame other editors, and I hope Malleus avoids being inflamed.
Malleus, IMO you are one of the most skillful, generous and humorous editors on en.WP. I hope you can ignore GiacomoReturned's comments.
To Malleus's many friends, including Pedro, please advise Malleus. --Philcha (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not at all inflamed Philcha, I've got much bigger fish to fry. I wish we could all remember why we're here. For some, sadly, it's to exert authority over others, and they're the administrators I rail against. And I dare say Giano feels similarly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Giano does indeed feel the same way, and as for you Pilcha, we have met before, but I cannot remember where - were you not defending Mattisse or some such person? It maters not, if you want to reply, on my page please, I'm sure Malleus has more worthy matters to ponder.  Giacomo  21:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Philcha was one of Mattisse's mentors, as was I for a time. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That must have been a rewarding experience.  Giacomo  21:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It was instructive. I didn't last long. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)