User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2011/October

St Somewhere, Llansomewhere

Go ahead, punk, make my day... Funnily enough, I was thinking about you this morning as I walked from King Street West through to Manchester Piccadily. Bencherlite^Talk 21:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I trust you were thinking good thoughts. I can't even pronounce the names of these bloody churches – is there a tax on vowels in Wales? Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was composing editing restrictions for you as it happens (not being allowed to write more than 3 FAs per week, not being able to copyedit more than 1 article towards FA or GA status every minute, being subject to petty ANI reports every Thursday or twice on Friday, etc). The Welsh language "cheats" by counting more vowels (a, e, i, o, u, w and y)! Bencherlite^Talk 21:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that may explain it. I'm reminded of a comment I saw some years ago from a group representing French lorry drivers. They were protesting that it was unfair to punish them as severely as other drivers for driving while under the influence of alcohol as they were on the road for far longer and more frequently, and were therefore more likely to be caught. Typically French of course, but it does seem to me that the more you do here, especially without the protection of the admin shield of invulnerability, the more trouble you tend to find yourself in. But I can think of honourable exceptions like User:Peter I. Vardy who keeps his head down and very productively ploughs his lonely furrow. It would be a boring world if we were all the same. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I understand that "y" is pronounced like "uh" in English (?), but what does "w" sound like in Welsh? Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "y" is one of the few letters where the pronunciation varies depending on its position in the word. This site explains it slightly better than I can at this time of night (and anyway I am a mere learner, married to a native...) Your next task will be to learn to pronounce "wy" (egg)... Bencherlite^Talk 23:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake! Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Close, but not quite.... (And thanks for the two GA passes tonight, much appreciated). Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sssh! Everyone will be wanting one now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced the Welsh language was constructed to be deliberately confusing. During a pub quiz the tie breaker was how many letters are there in the Welsh alphabet. The Welshman in our group got it wrong. As he was a good friend we reminded him of it frequently. Sure, we were all a bit worse for wear by this stage but you should know your own alphabet. Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

According to some, there is no "J" in the Welsh alphabet, which must come as a shock to Mr Jones when he's putting "jam" on his "tost" (toast) in the morning. So some will tell you there are 28 letters, others 29. Some of those letters look double to the English eye (so "ch", "dd", "ll", "ph" and some others are actually 1 letter and if you are doing a crossword in Welsh you have to put "ll" in one square not two...) Remind me again why I'm learning this language? Bencherlite^Talk 00:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that the surname "Jones" was chosen by the Welsh as a sign of resistance to the English conquest of Wales? Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Haven't heard that before. Is it a fringe theory? Runs off to hide under his pillow before MF jumps through the computer screen... Bencherlite^Talk 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My personal theory is that the Welsh slaughtered more than their quota of missionaries before conversion, and the monks imposed their orthography on them as a penance. Choess (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So today's test for the Welsh language students is - how on Earth do you pronounce Eglwyswrw? Actually I just spent a week in Pembrokeshire and I was amused by how, with the recent resurgence of the Welsh language, there has to be a Welsh equivalent for every road sign, so 'bus' has become 'bws' - not very imaginative is it? As 'bus' is an abbreviation of 'omnibus' you would think they could have come up with something based on the translation of the full word. Richerman (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not charabanc? That would sound nice in a Welsh accent. Charabanc fach for a minibus. A chara banc for the friendly bus. Ning-ning (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, 'bws' is a fairly long-standing translation - Cardiff Bus have been displaying "Bws Caerdydd" in addition to the English for several decades at least. And most of Wales' buses are run by companies based in Scotland, Germany, France and Scotland again. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Robert Plant, taking a brake from Welsh incantations

I finally accepted the rumors that Led Zepplin's members were adepts in the Black Arts after hearing an interview by singer Robert Plant, where he described his pre-Sudoko mental gymnastics during the 30-minute solos by Jimmy Page or John Bonham. Whereas the other members of Spinal Tap would visit a French restaurant with 2 Michelin stars or check into a spa for a "facial"---not that kind of "facial"--- during the "guitar pyrotechnics" of Nigel Tufnel, Zeppelin's Plant would conjugate Welsh verbs.

Looking at a Welsh dictionary gave me nightmares for a week .... And, having been teased as a Hobbit" because of my hirsute toe-knuckles, I'm half Welsh!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For your sins...

Geoffrey (archbishop of York) or William de Chesney? Geoffrey's probably easier... William will need some help and will probably have a bunch of questions... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I wondered who'd be up next. Geoffrey it is then. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I generally pull from the first couple of entries in the GA section on my user page. Baldwin of Forde is awaiting a few books on his writings (I'm so thrilled at the thought of dealing with theological writings...) and the ones further down will probably get shuffled once Geoffrey gets promotoed, eventually. I've also got Thomas Becket and Norman Conquest of England which I need to get back to... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Becket and the Norman Conquest? You're a glutton for punishment. One day perhaps I'll do something important, like what you're doing. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

About six months ago (maybe more, I forget) I whacked hard at Becket, cleaning up a lot of junk that was there. It's pretty much stayed at the slimmed down but accurate version I left it at since then. I started sourcing Norman Conquest a bit further back, and other than the usual annoying vandalism, it's stayed pretty clean to where I got in the article ... so neither are hotbeds of POV pushing, at least... of course, that never keeps someone from later seeing your good work and deciding to make a crusade out of some petty detail (ala wife selling) but ... one can only do so much. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling! I'm about ready to give up on that hopeless case. Have you seen some of the proposed additions to the article? And to tag a law as misogynyst is something beyond my comprehension. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Women's studies or gender studies. Heck, we even have gender history... which basically seems to consist mainly of throwing our values back on ancient societies... which isn't a wrong POV, but it's not exactly going to help you understand THAT time period if you persist in seeing it only through modern POV. Yeah, a modern POV is needed, but you need to keep the time in historical perspective also... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a child of my age I guess, I treat everyone the same. I don't care what colour you are, what you believe in, what you wear, what gender you are, all I care about is what kind of person you are. I put myself in the position of a 17th-century husband or wife locked into a loveless marriage and think, yeah, why not go for it? It's got to be better than this. That's not sexism or misogyny. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But, and here is where I put on my "keep an open mind historian hat" ... did folks of that time and that class expect a "lovefilled" marriage or were they looking for something else from marriage - like support/help/children? We don't know necesarily what they were looking for in a marriage - so you are projecting your culture back on theirs. Obviously, the custom fulfilled a need, and we should look at it through the prism of what the people of the time wrote about it. At least that article there are some sources for the custom... most medieval social customs of the lower classes are complete and total bits and pieces as far as historians are concerned. I do strongly strongly recommend Ties that Bound by Hanawalt (sp?) ... which looks at medieval English peasant communities without perverting it through our societal values ... it's an excellent book and a very easy read. I think you'd enjoy it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

PoD and I tried very hard to keep our account of this custom neutral. The facts are presented, let everyone make up their own minds. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think the article is quite well done .. don't ever think that. I was just commenting on your comment above about "I put myself in the position of a 17th-century husband or wife locked into a loveless marriage and think, yeah, why not go for it? It's got to be better than this." .. that's not how a historian approaches the issue (or at least not how they SHOULD). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different stuff. PoD and I wrote an article that I believe to be a neutral account of the custom. Others subsequently complained that it was sexist or whatever. I simply offered my opinion. I'm not a historian, or ever likely to be, but I can smell dishonesty and revisionism. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem is probably on my end, I"m high on sinus pills... no worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the misunderstanding is in thinking that I put myself in the position of those 17th-century guys and gals when writing the article. But my comments were to do with imposing our 21st-century views on a 17th-century custom. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that calling the custom misogynist/sexist is putting our values on the past. We may be okay in stating that "by modern values, the custom would be sexist" ... which is indeed true. However, baldly calling it sexist, when the time period had no real concept of sexist as we understand it, would be imposing our values on the past. And calling it misogynist, unless contemporary records state it that way, is the same. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the object on Wife Selling is simply to bore us to death. Have you read the latest tripe on the talk page? No, neither have I, I don't have a spare six months to get through it. Parrot of Doom 15:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just the same old tripe being endlessly recycled isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, the user in question states that "English is the only language in which I am fluent". I beg to differ. His posts are almost hilariously incoherent, verbose and impenetrable. (Why not simply, "I am only fluent in English", anyway?) Geometry guy 21:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC) PS. He has also now decided that Marriage is sexist after all

Adding that category falls neatly under WP:BRD; specifically I've exercised points 2 and 3 of that process. Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

English Wikipedia may be approaching the intellectual standards of the Swedish humanities and social-studies, where gender studies (including history/herstory) are/is pursued with the heartfelt zeal and rectitude of "Apocalypse studies" at Liberty University (sic) or a Jehovah's Witnesses think tank.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: The Author's Farce

This is a note to let the main editors of The Author's Farce know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 5, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Author's Farce is a play by the English playwright and novelist Henry Fielding, first performed on 30 March 1730 at the Little Theatre, Haymarket. Written in response to the Theatre Royal's rejection of his earlier plays, The Author's Farce was Fielding's first theatrical success. The first and second acts deal with the attempts of the central character, Harry Luckless, to woo his landlady's daughter, and his efforts to make money by writing plays. In the second act, he finishes a puppet theatre play titled The Pleasures of the Town, about the Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband from allegorical representatives of theatre and other literary genres. After its rejection by one theatre, Luckless's play is staged at another. The third act becomes a play within a play, in which the characters in the puppet play are portrayed by humans. The Author's Farce ends with a merging of the play's and the puppet show's realities. The play established Fielding as a popular London playwright, and the press reported that seats were in great demand. Although largely ignored by critics until the 20th century, most agree that the play is primarily a commentary on events in Fielding's life, signalling his transition from older forms of comedy to the new satire of his contemporaries. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wanted your advice

...on a usage about which I have a question.

"It is the people of this country who have defined this nation..."

"Those are the people of this country who have defined this nation..."

As your command over English is quite credible in my opinion, I wished your inputs on which statement of the above may be (more) appropriate... Thanks and kind regards. Wifione ^Message 15:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't they mean different things? The first one says that all people of this country have defined this nation, the second refers to a specific group of people from this country who have defined this nation. Ucucha (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. And for the first meaning, why not simply say "The people of this country have defined this nation". Or even (assuming "country" and "nation" are synonymous here): "This nation is defined by its people". Geometry guy 17:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite sensible suggestions. Thanks Ucucha, Geometry guy. Wifione ^Message 17:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Somerton, GAN & prose

Another editor nominated Somerton at GAN (which I didn't think was quite ready), but the reviewer has now put it on hold. I can address many of the issues but a specific comment from the reviewer was "The prose of the article is on the edge of meeting GA criteria; it conveys information, though it is fairly limited, and not a pleasure to read. It is dry and dull - simply stating lists of facts, with little detail, and going from one fact to another. It reads like a series of bare, disjointed notes gathered with the intention of writing up an article - but the article has not yet been written. As part of ongoing development the facts could be fleshed out, and an attempt made to put details in context, so that the information is conveyed in a pleasant manner that encourages the reader to engage with the text." If you could offer any help/expert eye it would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 15:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

have or has?

"The couple have two homes" is, to my mind, the correct use. Only another editor (who I suspect is from the US) insists that "The couple has two homes" is correct. The sentence is about two people in a relationship. Parrot of Doom 20:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) First, I'm from the US, and it's have. I, personally, would suggest switching it to own. Buggie111 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who owns the properties. Parrot of Doom 20:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As Buggie says, "have" is correct. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, just as I thought. Parrot of Doom 20:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's an Engvar issue. In UK English collective nouns are more often treated as plurals (eg "Pink Floyd are a band", "Liverpool FC are a football team") while American users would more commonly default to singular. There is a broad gray area and it is not a hard and fast rule though. --John (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John. In England I'd use have; in America I'd use has or people would look at me sideways. It's one of those issues that I always have trouble with because I mix up my Englishes not being entirely an AmEng or BrEng speaker, but some weird amalgamation of both. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense, as "have" is singular, as is "couple". Just look at what TK wrote above: "I always have trouble, not "I always has trouble". Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but have is the singular in the first person and we are talking third person here, where the singular is has and the plural is have, for example he has versus they have. I would argue that a couple has would be more typical of educated US use, whereas a British speaker would more likely say a couple have. No wonder English is such a horrible language to learn. Two other foibles I've noticed since living here are the greater use of the subjunctive mood and the far greater prevalence of "whom" than in any region in Britain. In the context of article use, I would as always argue for a paraphrase to avoid any infelicity. --John (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The American love affair with the subjunctive is, I think, is a symptom of the American love of three words when two would do (who would later vs. who later). A bit like "in order to" vs. "to". But neither of those foibles irritate me as much as the daft "I could care less", when actually what's meant is the exact opposite. But getting back to "the couple have", the logic behind that is that each of the couple has. The implication of the singular would be that the individuals in the couple would no longer have the properties if they were no longer a couple. There a similar distinction in "the family has" vs. "the family have": the question us, are we talking about the collective noun or about the individuals who are members of the collective? Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"American love affair with the subjunctive"? Next, you shall be talking about the American "I will" for future action (rather than volition) or the "American terror of the present tense"!

Had I not studied Spanish and French, I should have not embraced the proposition that English have a subjunctive mode.

About the "couple" ("beast with 2 backs"). If the couple is a legally fictitious person with (joint) ownership of 2 houses, then "has" would be correct. If the couple's elements have several ownership of the houses, then "have" would be correct.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context:

• The [recently married] couple has returned from their honeymoon.
• A couple [of my friends] have decided to come along.

LadyofShalott 01:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice points, LoS and Malleus. Ultimately the best guide is to have a native speaker look at it and see if it makes sense and if it looks daft. The first is easier than the second, and the second is very dependent on dialect. There is also no prejudice in US English against the split infinitive, and it's heading that way in Br Eng as well. One that I always silently correct and haven't yet been brought to Arbcom for is Smith joined the Dongles April 11, 1985 where I really prefer to add "on". It's as Churchill said, two nations divided by a common language. I despair sometimes though at how unaware most users are about these huge stylistic differences between the two variants of the language. --John (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that you correct these. I prefer to split infinitives but our grammar books tell us not to. I hadn't realised that was an AmEng/BrEng issue as well. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to spice things up, try adding Canadian English into the mix, eh? Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Or Australian, or South African, or West Indian, Scottish, Irish... --John (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone happen to notice this? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In re to "Just look at what TK wrote above...": Well you can't quite look at it that way. "I" is a curious pronoun (i.e. "I am", not "I is"), so you can't make the comparison between "I" and "couple". I actually think that "has" would be correct in Parrot of Doom's example. William Chauncey Fowler says in his 1858 English grammar: The English language in its elements and forms that "Collective nouns in the singular form indicate plurality when they refer to the individuals; as 'The committee were divided.'"

Alfred Slater West says in his 1895 English grammar for beginners, "Collective nouns in the singular may be followed by a verb in the singular or plural, according as we are thinking of the aggregate, or of the individuals composing it. We may say, 'The Committee were divided in opinion,' or 'The Committee was unanimous.'" I don't reckon you would trust these ancient publications, but they do shed light on this plurality-vs-singularity issue. In "The couple have two homes", "the couple" refers to the two people not as individuals but as a single unit. Together they own the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.93.29 (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The couple has spoken. Ning-ning (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pier

Thanks very much for reviewing St Anne's Pier‎, and for your copyediting work. :) --BelovedFreak 15:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice little article, congratulations. Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Manchester Ship Canal a Featured Article! Please accept this barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations to you and PoD for this. A real triumph for a not-very-easy subject to conquer. Superb work! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's long been an embarrassment that we didn't have something decent on the ship canal. Now it's on to workhouses. Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• .. and it's also nice to do a bit for the Cheshire project along the way. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed; much appreciated out here. And there were lots of workhouses in Cheshire (My three children were born in what I think was originally a workhouse — Chester City Hospital (since demolished)). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Vicar of Bullhampton

Again, many thanks for doing the GA review of The Vicar of Bullhampton. I'm still following up one of your points (the one about the post-Barsetshire works), and will try to clarify that a bit. I assumed too much familiarity with Trollope on the part of the general reader. Ammodramus (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You've written a very nice article, one that Wikipedia can be proud of and one I enjoyed reading. But you have to consider your average reader to be a spotty 14-year-old kid who's never heard of Trollope. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Workhouse

What else do you need for this article? I enjoyed digging up more info on the Ship Canal, so would be happy to help out here as well. Parrot of Doom 16:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Great! The things I know still need doing are to make some mention and explanation in the architecture section of the "paupers' palaces" view expressed by some in the 19th century, the work section needs to be expanded and tied in with the spike mentioned in the lead, the lead probably needs to be rewritten, or at least substantially expanded, the diet section still looks a bit frugal, I'm not at all happy about the last paragraph of the living conditions section, which is largely uncited anyway ... in short I'm fairly comfortable about the first few sections and the final later developments section, but I think there are still some gaps in the sections in between. You'll probably see loads of other gaps as well as you look through. I was thinking of just doing enough to stand a chance at GAN, but if you're on board we might as well go the whole hog, with perhaps a stop-off at peer review, which really was quite helpful with the ship canal. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And as with our wife selling magnum opus I'm very keen not to get pulled into having to deal with workhouses in Holland, workhouses in Germany, workhouses in France, workhouses in ScratchMyArse ... I don't even know if there were any in those countries, apart from Holland, but you get the point. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'm full up this weekend but will try to read the article during my lunch tomorrow. Will get thinking next week. Parrot of Doom 19:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll post here so the article's talk page doesn't get confusing. I read it at dinnertime (lunch, pah), my first thought is that it's very compartmentalised, to the point where there seems to be little to no connection between the workhouses' staff, inmates, and work. My second thought was that there isn't nearly enough detail on workhouses themselves. For instance, I want to know what peoples' rooms were like, if they shared beds (day/night shift sharing), if there were bathrooms, privies, was there any entertainment, the usual stuff. I want to get a sense that I've walked in and around a typical workhouse, and know its layout and function. I don't think the article does that right now. I'm sure there must be a few workhouse buildings left, working museums perhaps. Parrot of Doom 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There's at least one workhouse museum, The Workhouse, Southwell. But one problem is that there is no "typical workhouse". Southwell is an early one, but after the New Poor Law they were based on a panopticon design, then later a pavilion style based on Crimean War military hospitals. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I get that. IIRC there was a workhouse in Radcliffe, and a tiny thing it was too. I haven't had time to look at any online sources so I've no idea yet what's out there, but I think we should certainly add more on the buildings, rather than the institutions (which are adequately covered IMO) Parrot of Doom 20:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, that was my thinking in starting off that Architecture section. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I will get around to this, it's just that Sunday was absolutely bloody exhausting, one of the longest more tiring working days I've had in ages. Parrot of Doom 23:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it paid well. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok-ish, not brilliant, but the company do pay within a few days, which is rare. Parrot of Doom 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I see what you mean about this subject. Lots of strings in a tapestry, pull one and the whole thing comes apart. Sorry if my edits appear ham-fisted, I'm not removing text from citations. I've been looking at some of the books online, there are some good ideas for structure in there. I think the article really needs much, much more focus on the bricks, mortar and people. The legal background is, for me, secondary. Please feel free to revert me if you don't feel I'm improving things. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What you've done looks fine to me. I think the legal and social background is important, so I wouldn't want to see it reduced further. What ideas do you have for an alternative structure? Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's where I think the fundamental difficulty lies; there is absolutely nothing you can say about workhouses that would be true of all of them at all times during their 200 or 300-hundred year existence. Therefore the social and regulatory frameworks within which they operated over the years is the only structure we have. Of course that problem gets even worse if we have to consider workhouses in Scotland, for instance, to say nothing of other European countries. When I started this rewrite I had a very clear image in my mind of a typical Dickensian workhouse, as I suppose many of us do, but I quickly realised that story was just a snapshot of the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • The structure I have in mind is to get readers to the nitty gritty asap. So, start with the legal and social framework, and then bang - into the buildings. What was it like, living in a workhouse? What kind of work might you do? How long were the days? Was it like a prison, or like a boarding school? What about the food, disease, etc? Were you "paid" money, and could you eventually leave with something in your pocket?
    • I know that's a naive view, but the Dickensian aspect (if it existed) will, I think, be what most people will come to read. If we can demonstrate that that's a load of rubbish (like the myth that Dick Turpin was a loveable rogue), we've done everyone a favour. If, however, Oliver Twist had a ring of truth about it, then even better. Parrot of Doom 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• That all sounds fine to me. The Dickensian aspect certainly did exist, but my problem remains that entering a workhouse in 1780 was quite different from entering a workhouse in 1845, which was quite different from entering a workhouse in 1900. Not only were the people, regimes and buildings quite different, but as the 19th century wore on workhouses had very little to do with work, if they really ever did; they were morphing into hospitals and old folks homes. That's the story I think it's important to tell, the evolution of the workhouse, without dwelling too much on its less salubrious aspects. It'll be interesting to see how our slightly different takes on this come together. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think if enough source material exists we can do that. How much research have you done thus far, online sources mostly, or a trip to the library? Parrot of Doom 22:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Many trips to the library. All the books I've used are in the Bibliography. I think the only significant online source I've used is Higginbotham's Workhouse Web Site, which I trust because he's written some great books on the subject. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• I've currently got out on loan Fowler's Workhouse: The People, the Places, the Life Behind Doors, and Trevor May's An Economic and Social History of Britain 1760–1970. Malleus Fatuorum
• Thinking about this a little more, it makes the article seem more and more complicated, but I'm convinced we can't just present a mid-Victorian view of the workhouse. And I'm beginning to wonder why I ever had the temerity to embark on this project ... but on the other hand I can see a potential structure emerging. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Largely as a result of all the reorganisation you've done I'm starting to feel much happier with the way the article's structured now; it seems easier to see what's still missing and where it ought to go. I want to write something on the admissions procedure (hopefully later this evening), which I think will give a slightly more human face to our account, but all in all I'm beginning to believe that it may just be possible to "finish" this article. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That's great, it's a complicated subject which demands a lot of work so I'm not surprised you got a bit fed up with it, I'd have given up long ago. I've been looking around for images, scholarly sources and the like. An interesting link I found is at London Lives, which contains page scans of a workhouse census from 1785. It also contains some links to extra reading. So far I've tried to find Keith D. M. Snell, Settlement, Poor Law and the Rural Historian, but haven't been successful. I'll see what else I can drag up. I'm also not quite satisfied with the images the article uses, especially the Ripon image. I'll see if I can source some better ones. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think I inherited those images, so I'm not wedded to any of them. It would be nice though to get a better image of Ripon, as it's a good example of the post-1860 architectural changes. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't go up that way much, but there's a workhouse in Northwhich. Provided there's another sunny day, I'll ride down there and shoot it. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
        • One of my (very) long-term aims is to write an article on every workhouse, a bit like Peter with his churches. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
          • I was born in Fairfield Hospital in Bury - that was once the Bury Union Workhouse. My auntie has traced our family history back centuries, and found a few ancestors who went into the workhouses. I bet many people are unaware that their distant relatives once ate gruel. Parrot of Doom 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
            • The workhouse was part of everyday life for many of our ancestors, which is partly why this has become such a labour of love for me. Added to which I'd guess that what many people know about workhouses comes from watching Oliver Twist, but the real story is much more complicated. And in a way, the story of its evolution from an institution to punish the able-bodied poor to a place of care for the sick and elderly as the 19th century progressed is quite inspiring I think. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm beginning to think that the main image should be workhouse inmates, rather than a building. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Fine by me. As I said, I just inherited the images, I haven't really given them much thought at all. I'm happy to leave all the decisions about images to you. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• The work section is getting a bit muddled now. I think we've covered the kids, but we've hardly addressed the adults at all. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You know when you've got two browsers open (split left and right on Windows 7), and about 30 tabs? Gah, my head. Rain or not I'm off out for a nighttime bike ride to clear it. Parrot of Doom 19:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I haven't used Windows for ages, and with reasonable luck I'll never have to use it again, so Windows 7 is an unknown to me. Tell a lie, I do have a desktop machine somewhere that's still running Windows 2000, and a server running NT4. Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Sod it, I've just noticed its still windy. Wind + rain + dark = wet leaves hiding in corners. Add slick 110psi tyres to that and I might never post again. BTW Windows 7 is actually pretty good, although I use Ubuntu on my laptop. Parrot of Doom 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The workhouse system evolved in the 17th century as a way for parishes to reduce the cost to ratepayers of providing poor relief." - I think there's merit in moving that sentence right to the start of the article, with something like "which developed from the Black Death etc etc" appended to it. I'm not certain though what it's cited to. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure, I think it's probably in the right place where it is. The impact of the Black Death was to reduce the mobility of labour, the Old Poor Laws had nothing to do with reducing any costs to taxpayers except to keep wages low. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The introduction just doesn't seem right to me, although that might change once everything's in, and the lead is sorted. Another thing, what about that "working hours" table - I think that would be better as prose, there's so little information in there. Parrot of Doom 21:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I think that when there's a proper lead it'll be easier to see where thing fit best. As for the table, I'm quite attached to it. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry to butt in on the dramahaz below, but I found a source which refers to Fowler's book, which I believe you have/had. I made a few additions, could you double check them? I believe Fowler estimates 18th century numbers of workhouses. I reckon his "most very small" [paraphrased] might be very useful to expand the intro to the "Early Victorian Workhouses" section, which desperately needs a "Before the 1834 Act, most workhouses were small parochial buildings, with x inmates" - that kind of thing. Parrot of Doom 21:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
          • I do have the book yes, I'll take a look. Why is everything so fucking difficult here? (No reflection on you, just on incidents elsewhere.) Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
            • You'd never make a politician :P Neither would I, though. Too honest. Parrot of Doom 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
              • I think I'd make a very good dictator, but as you say, a rather poor politician. I really, really, have no patience at all for stupidity; I didn't choose this username randomly. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
                • The inability to suffer fools is a perfectly good trait, which I hope I share.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
                  • Incidentally, anecdotal evidence from my colleagues suggests that the studio design at MediaCity is one huge, thundering cockup. Galleries in completely separate areas, that kind of thing. Parrot of Doom 22:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
                    • I wouldn't be surprised. Actually MF mightn't be so bad as a politician, but diplomat... that's another matter. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
                      • I think you may be right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

RfA

You've shown your true colours tonight Malleus. If you do not self-revert, they you are very clearly endorsing the "childish", "stupid" behavior that you take every opportunity to personally attack others for. —WFC— 19:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus seems to be right on with this one, WFC. Perhaps instead of going after him you should stop and explain on the talk page what you're doing, rather than edit warring over it. Right on, Malleus. Dayewalker (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My "true colours" are honesty, self-awareness, and openness. What exactly are your true colours? Censorship and priggishness? You may rest assured that I will not be reverting just because you don't like it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd have been flabbergasted if you had. But you leave me in no doubt that you are endorsing the content. —WFC— 19:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "content", simply a question that the candidate is quite at liberty to either answer or ignore. How hard is that to understand? Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do remember though that reverting someone multiple times, even if you disagree with their edits, is still edit-warring and might be sanctioned accordingly even if WP:3RR is not breached. Regards SoWhy 19:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Paupers

Is this site of any interest to you for the workhouse article? workhouses. Eddaido (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Manchester United season review

Merci beaucoup for an outstanding job you did on 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season; godsend like. I've been meaning to move the takeover below (passed me by), which I have corrected. — Lemonade51 (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a labour of love. Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The challenges of innovation?

The Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011 moves forward at a slow steady pace. We hit our first snag. Step 6 ... students were requested to make one edit of content with reference to a topic of their choosing. The stand-out edit Erotic asphyxiation. Now think public school - tax dollars - rural community - dancing with snakes and drinking poison. Really raises the issue of censorship and the extent of my control and responsibility as a teacher for their efforts. Note, I did not direct them to the topic; however, in front of the Board of Education it translates to "Teacher project has students contributing to sex related content...". The final irony - I corrected the citation format; although the contribution needs to be moved from the history section ... chalk boards were so much safer!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no end to the stupidity here at Wikipedia. And I can't even begin to understand the American obsession with religion. Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to help? Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Butting in - hi Jimmy, so happy to see you're still at it. I fully understand the problems. You need someone to revdel the edits. Do you know any admins to do this for you? If not I might have someone in mind. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That might be the wisest course TK. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't fall under the Revdel guidelines. I'd suggest AN/I...which may make it a higher-profile issue than intended. I would certainly not count this as part of their grade/effort...don't know if that makes it more palatable or not in terms of CYA. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI is a nightmare! Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No this can't and shouldn't go to ANI. Let's think of something better. I haven't checked the source, but if it's copyvio, then we could revdel. The username is ironic to say the least. Chalkboards rock! Truthkeeper (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quickly running of patience with Wikipedia, so make of it what you can. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, I would seek to sanitize the edit and all history; however, it raises the question of my authority to make such a request and the student's rights to edit as they see fit. Besides ... the word is out! It was my self-destructive approach in not foreseeing this problem, which has required me to take this blow. I stated ... "be bold" and failed to provided boundaries; thus I have no defense. I was humble and grovelled appropriately so other than frustration - no personal harm . Now in the works... what steps are necessary to limit student access to the internet. Ironic, since I am scheduled to speak to the Dept. of Public Instruction about this project while key elements in the community propose limited access to Wikipedia. This too will fade away; meanwhile, I have a church praying for my spiritual guidance... hallelujah! What I could use help with is generating a list of potential biology topics that have room for improvement and sufficient references to make such a thing happen. The topic selection stage is next, the step which so many students go astray! Cheers--JimmyButler (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll never understand Americans, particularly Bible-belt Americans. There was a very well-reported case of erotic asphyxiation all over the national press here in the UK about 15 years ago, as it involved a serving MP. Any kid walking into a newsagents couldn't have failed to spot it on the front pages, or on the national TV news. Your students are old enough that they don't need to be wrapped in cotton wool I'd have thought. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang those hanging hyphens high

What do you think? (Look towards the bottom of the diff.) Actually, I'd be pleased if you have the time to look at this article and even comment at FAR if you can be bothered. Cheers! --John (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done. I was going to say I rarely comment on anything at FAR, but then I noticed you meant FAC. I've got a couple of other articles to finish looking through first, but I'll perhaps be able to get to this one later today. Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry, yes, I meant FAC. --John (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Explication de texte: Hang 'Em High was a Chef Boyardee western, featuring Clint Eastwood's "gaze blank and pitiless as the sun".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for your review and upgrading of Louise Nevelson to Good Article! I appreciate it all! SarahStierch (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yum, yum. She's a worthy subject, and it's well-deserved. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

PS. So now you know that all those stories about me being a male chauvinist pig are completely without foundation. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Malleus for helping to promote 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. Sp33dyphil © • © 08:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Or would the Copyeditor's Barnstar be more suitable? Either way, you deserve a barnstar :D Sp33dyphil © • © 09:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice for new Wikipedia editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claverton Pumping Station etc

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

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

MediaCityUK

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

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

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

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

A beer for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A beer for you! (2)

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

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

Eh...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to have babies with you

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

Wife selling

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

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

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

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

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

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

St Nicks

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

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

Requested move

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

Geoffrey the Bastard

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

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

GA review

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

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

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

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

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

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

St Nicks

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

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

New Wikipedia Policy

Hi!

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

Jantelagen has ten rules:

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

An eleventh rule is:

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

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

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

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

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

Incentive, or something...

Look at Geoffrey then in 2007, before I started work on him, and compare that to now. And it's YOUR copyediting/prose tweaking that makes my research readable. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What an extraordinary transformation! I'll get on to those two clunky sentences when I've finished my tea; "Everything stops for tea" don't cha know. Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I gotta say, I did really like England for it's in hotel room teapots. And the general civilized approach to tea... us teadrinkers in the states are very much third-class citizens. If you don't want an "herbal" tea while dining out, you're in deep trouble. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't drink coffee and I take my own tea to the US. My Louisiana friend can now make a great cup of Yorkshire tea. I doubt if my coffee will come up to scatch when they visit next year. Tea is not good everywhere, especially with little cartons of UHT milk. I'm not sure Malleus is referring to a cuppa though, tea time in Greater Manchester involves eating.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yorkshire tea is my favourite as well. PoD and I disagree over things like lunchtime, teatime and so on. For me lunch is what you have at midday, teatime you have about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, perhaps with a light snack, to tide you over to dinner at about 8 in the evening. PoD on the other hand, uncouth fellow that he is, thinks that dinnertime is at lunchtime and that teatime is at dinnertime. Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously a southern softie masquerading as a northerner. People up here eat dinner and then tea, followed by pudding (not supper). And we drink pop, not Coke. BTW I haven't been around much for Workhouse I know, I'm just letting you fidget with it for a bit more before I look at it again. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've spent much of my life in the soft south, that's true. And until my wife and I moved up to Manchester in the '90s she'd never been further north than Birmingham. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Workhouse, I'm still struggling with the religious aspects that some seem so keen on and I completely fail to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh well I'll have to sit with PoD and the uncouth yobs :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

An issue with which you've been involved is under discussion at Talk:Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil#Italics. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there, but I'm afraid that my experiences with User:Lecen have led me to believe that he is impervious to all reason. Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for editing my article on the Quoll Our teacher consistently talks about what a great asset you are to the AP Biology project. Thanks!

Savetheoceans (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your teacher is very wise Grasshopper. ;-) I'm generally quite happy to shuffle commas around for anyone, so don't be afraid to call on me again if you feel you need help, particularly as you get closer to GA. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The content and the research will always be yours, not mine; my only role is to help you to write it better, mainly by example I hope. Your teacher is helping you with the science, and I'll help with the English. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Science/Outline

Dear Malleus, I'd appreciate your eyes on Talk:Science/Outline which is attempting to scope appropriate coverage of Science. As this is a mixture of summary, following high quality sources at the field review level (across 4+ fields), and meeting encyclopaedic needs; it would benefit from editor eyes who've previously conducted some study at this level even if they're not presently reading out of a hqrs at field review level. I'm having particular trouble with structuring the presentation of the day-to-day practice of science without it becoming a discipline soup. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I'm afraid I'm not optimistic that this recent push is going to lead to anything other than a horrible article. As I've said on the talk page, it seems to me that pretty much all science articles have the same fundamental problem: reliance on primary sources rather than reviews, and this one seems little different. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, I value your opinion. I will be trying to concentrate largely on the history subsection where I can gain access to, and comprehend, the field review literature—and so potentially ensure one section is less than sucky. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought of trying to tackle it bottom up, starting with something like Occam's razor, but that would take an eternity. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Golden Domes

Thanks for doing the GA review of Golden Domes and for the copy editing. I'll work through your list and ask for a peer review before relisting it. However I disagree with your final remark. While the article reports some remarkable claims, it does so using the neutral point of view. It does not, I believe, endorse any of them.   Will Beback  talk  03:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In many ways I think it's a nice article, and I enjoyed reading it, but I just don't think it's a neutral account of the Golden Domes. Of course I may well be wrong, so a peer review might be helpful. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Granted, in my effort to be neutral I may have made it too sympathetic. Adding more attribution and critical material might make it more balanced. Thanks again for your time and help.   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

[1] Why are you edit-warring to restore a relative link? And failing to provide an edit summary when doing so? It should be an absolute link. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Because you are completely mistaken. The link should be a relative link, as the article may be renamed. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Civility warning - watch your edit summaries. It is precisely because the article may be renamed that it must be an absolute link. You cannot trust that subpages will be renamed. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is of course impeccably flawed. An absolute link won't work if what should be done is done, i.e., the talk page and its subpages are moved with the article page. Anyway, don't you have anything better to do than come here bothering me about this kind of trivial nonsense? Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that for whatever reasons, subpages are often not moved, which causes relative links like /GA1 to become redlinks. If an absolute link is used, even If the subpage is moved, a redirect is left by default. It's true that someone could delete the redirect, but I don't recall ever seeing an absolute link redlink because of a move. I have seen plenty of /GAx redlinks following moves. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You do it your way and I'll do it my way. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We should both do what's best for maintenance. Are you going to revert any changes I make to talk pages of articles you have GA-reviewed? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That slum of an article was nominated for GA? Ning-ning (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For the fourth time, apparently without any notice having been taken of what the first three reviewers said. I notice you've been copyediting it a bit this evening though, so that's good. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I want to thank you for taking time to review The Time of Angels. Doctor Who is a British show after all, so I thought I might give you a virtual cup of tea. Glimmer721 talk 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a Doctor Who fan (and British) myself, and I well remember the episode. I think you've done a pretty decent job with it, just a few rough edges to knock off before GA. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm a new fan and thought the episode articles especially needed improvement. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm an old fan, right from the very first series with William Hartnell, perhaps the scariest Doctor of them all. If you've got any more episode articles in the pipeline don't be afraid to give me a call if you need a review. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments

Noting here what I said on that article talk page about your comments here, here, here, and here. The reason I'm coming here to raise it as well is that even if I and others are wrong about such things, it is important to be able to raise the possibility of such matters, and to engage in discussion, without making a personal issue of it. Otherwise people will just ignore the issues. I realise that you don't think my concerns were valid, but can I ask if you think you had valid concerns, how would you raise them? It is possible for people to disagree on such matters. There is a current example at WT:DYK right now - see here (please look at the actual substance of the arguments there, rather than making generalisations about DYK). The point there is not who is "right", but that it needs to be possible to discuss such matters by focusing on the actual concerns raised (as Ealdgyth did) without making personal comments (like you did). Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What I think it is, the ONDB author has built a story using lapidary and powerful language. It's difficult to know how far they've twisted whatever actuality is recoverable; secondly, like the old pork-pie muncher says, the language forms a pair of spectacles which we find difficult to remove. For example, the ONDB's "undignified fracas during vespers" is, in the article, a "dispute". What was it- a heated argument or a brandishing of the bollock daggers? How could anyone feasibly rewrite ONDB's description of such a scene to avoid plagiarism? "Whilst the priest was giving it large, several homeys had at it in a well messy scene, which did no credit to the cool of the occasion". Ning-ning (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What has happened to standard written English while Wehwalt slept?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are rather confused Carcharoth. Which is worse in your opinion, "You are a plagiarist" or "You are taking the piss" (which you were and still are)? I'm simply not interested in your wrong-headed playground notions of civility. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a very subtle point here that I'm obviously missing. It would appear from the example of good practice given above that it is ok to say that SandyG is disrupting wikipedia to make a point and pissing in the wind but it's not ok for you to suggest that someone is behaving like an ass and taking the piss. Richerman (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is not so subtle, but is just yet another demonstration of how those who perceive themselves to be in positions of authority believe that the rules they apply to others do not apply to themselves. It's reached epidemic proportions here at Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

<sigh> My point was that it is OK to disagree about paraphrasing from sources. It is not a black-and-white issue, and it's not a yes/no situation. It should be possible to say "this paraphrasing looks borderline to me, can we discuss it" without the aggravation that often results. For the record, I disagree with the approach Sandy took in that DYK discussion, but is not forbidden to raise issues of that nature. But typically, Malleus, instead of responding to what I said, has gone off on one again about authority figures on Wikipedia and civility - two perennial obsessions of his (see, I can be forthright as well). I see Malleus also failed to respond to the "if you think you had valid concerns, how would you raise them?" point. Probably because he realised he couldn't answer without conceding the point (which is that there has to be a way to raise such concerns without the discussion becoming an argument). Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Still here? Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Strange question. Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so strange as your continuing harassment. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if I reply to that, you will cry harrassment? My responses to what you have said is not harassment. If you tell me that I'm taking the piss, or that I'm talking shit, or that I'm behaving like an ass, then I'm perfectly entitled to post to your talk page and object to that. Though I think in future I won't bother as you are clearly just trying to wind me up (maybe I'm learning something after all). Carcharoth (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather you just went away. If you want to see how I've dealt with suspected plagiarism in articles that I've reviewed then why not look at some articles I've reviewed in which I've dealt with it, sans all the fancy footwork and Nancy-boy words that you habitually deploy? Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, you are behaving like an arse. Geometry guy 20:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My fake dick collection is bigger than all of yours combined. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I will behave as I please. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I have your attention lets backtrack a bit... Carcharoth is not confused, but has raised questions about the article to which Ealdgyth has responded. He might be criticized instead for some insensitivity and tactlessness, but he hasn't been throwing around the weight of authority, only trying to be a good reviewer and seek discussion.

The real problem here is the irrational and paranoid obsession with plagiarism which has infested Wikipedia ever since the RLevse affair. Normally intelligent editors seem unable to distinguish between what is appropriate in an academic journal or monograph, and what is appropriate in an encyclopedia. The stigma of plagiarism in academia infects discussion about paraphrasing in articles. But hang on a minute, folks, we are writing a tertiary source here: combining and paraphrasing secondary sources is what we do.

And it is difficult: avoiding original research by synthesis, yet also avoiding following sources too closely can be like walking on a knife edge sometimes. So we need to work together to achieve this delicate balance. A review comment which suggests distancing prose from the source material should be made and taken no differently from a review comment which suggests making the article more faithful to the source material.

The fault here is on all sides: no one who follows this talk page should be surprised that reviewers have become as nervous about the plagiarism issue as article editors. In my view, this nervous attitude towards close paraphrasing is completely wrong-headed.

At the very least, could we all try to be a little bit less precious about it? Geometry guy 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty with protecting against plagiarism is that very often, the editor of the source being summarised has already used the best possible combination of words to construct the most meaningful sentence possible. A Wikipedia editor can deal with this by changing the wording, removing information, combining sentences, etc, but that still leaves the problem of a good copyeditor who hasn't seen the source doing exactly what the source's editor did. Inadvertently, what was once quite different can suddenly become quite similar.

My view is that so long as its obvious that the sentence hasn't been copied and pasted (with a word or two changed), there isn't a problem. The whole thing does make me a bit paranoid though, that one day someone will accuse me of plagiarism, just because I couldn't find a better combination of words to use than already existed. Parrot of Doom 21:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to deal with this paranoia because it is undermining collegiality. As you quite rightly say, when there is only one reliable secondary source for a segment of an article, it is impossible to distance the article from the source without engaging in original research. However, as long as it is made clear that the article is following the source (a few "according to..."'s might help), then no accusation of plagiarism can possibly stand, because by definition plagiarism involves copying another work without acknowledgement. In this context, suggestions for rewording sentences and paragraphs should be made and received just like any other suggestions for article improvement. Geometry guy 21:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to deal with it, certainly, but to consider accusations of plagiarism the same as any other suggestions for article improvement is ... well, unrealistic. How can a suggestion to improve the grammar be considered equivalent to an accusation of laziness at best and dishonesty at worst? Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Such suggestions should neither be written, nor read, nor interpreted as "accusations of plagiarism". The whole attitude is wrong-headed. Geometry guy 22:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

But they are accusations of plagiarism, so why pretend otherwise? And to pick up PoD's point, Ealdgyth has occasionally pointed out to me that in copyediting her bishop articles I've moved the text closer to the source: sometimes there's only one good way to say something. What's fairly obvious is that Wikipedia's requirement that every statement of fact be cited inevitably leads to sentences that may look rather similar to the source. How many different ways can fifteen or so words be re-arranged or re-written? Personally I'm not so concerned about individual sentences, I'm concerned about blocks of text. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No they aren't, because the source is acknowledged. I agree though that PoD's point is an important one: copyediting can bring a text closer to the source. All the more reason to be clear which source is being followed, and to be less precious about the whole "plagiarism" issue. Geometry guy 22:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As a totally unrelated point, can someone define "precious" for the Yank? I'm pretty sure you don't mean "valuable" here... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming it means special like a snowflake. So special one requires different treatment. --Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. My dictionary says "very fastidious or affected". Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone asked if they might copy edit your work you may say "Carry on - I'm not precious about it" meaning "the present wording is not so important to me that I'll be upset if you change it" Oddly, I can't find a definition in the dictionary or online that really covers that usage. "Very fastidious or affected" really refers to someone who is acting in a very camp manner. Richerman (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Yes "special" is probably close to the intended (affectionate) meaning; my thesaurus gives "precise, overrefined, artificial, affected, overdone, euphuistic, twee", which does not entirely represent what I wanted to say, because reactions to "accusations of plagiarism" are entirely genuine. The term is used in acting circles where it is fashionable to overreact to the mundane. The responses here have been honest rather than theatrical: the theatrical element is the backdrop, the community's overreaction to all things related to paraphrasing of sources. Geometry guy 22:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus and I had a discussion some weeks ago, where we agreed that most good writers just write off the top of their heads, and then add the footnotes. Now, I think that problems arise when editors, without much knowledge, try to write an article and use only one source. They may make a lot of factual mistakes, or fall into close paraphrasing.

"Such Were The Days": When I was in 5th grade ( at a U.S. public school), we wrote our first reports, and we were told that we had to "put things in our own words", not just rephrasing others' ideas.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Summarising is a skill that seems to have been lost. When I was at primary school we had lessons in what was then called English comprehension, which basically consisted of either listening to or reading a piece of text and summarising it in your own words. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting. My mother, who taught nursing, said that often persons with photographic memories have arrested development of reasoning, because they use their memory rather than abstracting. On the other hand, John von Neumann had a near photographic memory, and his reasoning abilities were superhuman.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your mother may have been right, as von Neumann was not the first to come up with the idea of the computer architecture that has come to bear his name. Plagiarism? Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Watch it, bub! ;)

The von Neumann & Burks report abstracted the engineers' design, and this mathematical abstraction facilitated reasoning about its properties. It is hard to imagine how smart he is. I have seen internationally prominent mathematicians humble themselves before Fields Medalists, and almost none of these have launched whole fields, like Garrett Birkhoff or Saunders Mac Lane. Then there is another gap before you reach von Neumann and Kolmogorov. Human abilities have such a long right-tail.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Arthur W. Burks is a personal hero of mine, in that he not only helped von Neumann but he also edited the scientific papers of Charles Sanders Peirce!

The original idea is the hard thing, not its subsequent misattribution. The truth is, I think, that ideas have their time, and their attribution is largely down to accidents of history, which after all is left to the winners to write. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Von Neumann wrote a similar statement about the importance of original ideas, when he discussed Emile Borel's notes on game theory, which had mixed strategies but conjectured that non-symmetric 2-person zero-sum games need not have a saddle-point, falsely. It's called "On the Borel notes", and it was published in Econometrica (JSTOR).

Von Neumann was working around the clock on regular rings, pointless geometry, game theory, numerical analysis, atomic weapons, defense strategy, etc. I think that he or Burks have acknowledged that they wish they had written some reports more carefully, with more careful attribution of ideas to the Penn people. I haven't looked at the question of Turing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus,

The New York Times reports on a Waldorf school that avoids computers until the children are teenagers. Many of the parents are computer professionals.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling

How the hell was that construed as a consensus to keep, if "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements"? This seems to have been a mere vote count, since those voting to keep (10, by my count)) couldn't offer even one clear example or one solid source in support of their vote, while those voting to convert to dab (6) actually had grounds. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No matter the empty rhetoric, the much vaunted "consensus" is simply a vote, as you have just seen. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems the closer has some prior history with contentious closures. See User talk:Sandstein. Sandstein considered the Wife selling closure correct, but undid another by the same non-admin editor. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein is not one you ever ought to trust to be consistent or honest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with the feeling that "junk SYNT article but it's there so cannot be deleted" is a problem. Fully qualified, LOL. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Spotted Eagle Ray

Thank you for your contributions on my spotted eagle ray article! Your help is appreciated! --Marissa927 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC) WOW! I just looked at even more corrections from you. I really do appreciate your help and I'm working on remembering all of your corrections. I'll try to improve my writing.

P.S. Next semester I have English and the writing test, maybe that will help (: Marissa927 (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll probably be able to walk it by then. ;-) Learning how to write (and I'm no expert, believe me), is almost as important as knowing what to write. But with your teacher's project you're in the perfect position to learn both, hopefully as painlessly as possible. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully painlessly. There is definitely a learning curve, as Mr. Butler warned, but it is hard to understand until we get out and start. But, hopefully we will improve with time. Marissa927 (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think learning by example is often the best. I guarantee, when you've finished your article and you look back on it in years to come you'll think "Wow, did I write that?" Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I most likely will. I wanted to let you know, I am running out of resources on my spotted eagle ray article. I really love the animal, but I can't seem to find enough (reliable) information. I will continue to work on it, however to ensure a good grade, I am going to put more effort into another article my group has chosen. I will most likely be on the Diamondback Terrapin or Sand tiger shark. Marissa927 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Check for sourced => using google scholar. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RAF Uxbridge

Thanks very much, and for your edits to the article, as well as Ickenham. Hopefully they will both make it through. Harrison49 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to pop up everywhere. But not always welcome, I have to admit. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, how did you manage to get two FACs up simultaneously? Has User:SandyGeorgia given you a dispensation? Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest pulling Ickenham, which I don't think has much chance, and concentrating on RFA Uxbridge. Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I seem to have followed your suggestions without having read this first, so hopefully the Ickenham nomination can be closed in favour of the RAF Uxbridge one. Harrison49 (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left SandyGeorgia a message. Harrison49 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It will all come out in the wash, I'm sure. SandyG isn't an unreasonable person, despite any reports to the contrary. Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've revisited an old friend...

William de Braose, 2nd Baron Braose and would like to see if you can get access to Salzman (1923) Chartulary of the Priory of St Peter at Sele. The relevant portions appear to be pp. xii-xiv, 47-49. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Where would I start looking for that? Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No idea. U of I didn't have a copy... I'm hoping that the libraries in England have a better chance of having it... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a scout around. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wake Forest has it. I would check your inner-library loan to see if any schools in your state have it. I might check maryland for kicks.... --Guerillero | My Talk 23:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Me and the local librarian do not get along. No, it's not that I've abused the inter-library loan procedures nor have I any outstanding books from my local library, it's that I've very publically supported some opponents of hers. She's an idiot and wouldn't know scholarship if it hit her in the head. (You may take it to mean that my own personal library in terms of history far outshines our local city library.... even in subjects I'm not that interested in.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats understandable. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Ealdgyth, it's available at a university library in my state - could probably get it through ILL in a week or so... (Luckily, the local librarians and I get along quite well, and although they look at the breadth of topics in my ILL requests very oddly, they happily go along). If Malleus doesn't have easy access to it, I could request it and scan/e-mail you the proper pages, as I think we've done once before. Let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I certainly don't have easy access to it, so your suggestion looks good. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm betting that' it's not a lot of use, but in the interests of running down everything... I was also thinking of reviving Malleus' interest in the William Cragh Featured Topic... I'm getting bored with bishops so it's time to touch some other subject for a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A featured topic on old Bill? Is this a Thomas de Cantilupe thing? Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I can be very ponderous sometimes: I've just clocked the de Braose connection. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in hunting down my Magna Carta Ancestry book, I remembered that I am indeed descended from good ole Billy and his father through Joan, who married Richard Foliot (not a relative of Gilbert Foliot, as far as I know...) As far as the featured topic, I suspect we could get by with Cragh, the two Braoses, and Cantilupe. I'd think the main topic would be Cragh, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But as you know, there's really hardly anything known about Cragh. I only dug in because of my morbid fascination with weird stuff. As for my own ancestry, least said soonest mended, but my wife's family have traced themselves back to the Anglo-Saxons, and even have a nursery rhyme named after them: "Bye, baby Bunting". Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And there is more known about some of my bishops? Look at Mellitus. You've already got William Cragh to FA, we'd just need to work up the two Braose's (and one of them is already GA) and Cantilupe and we'd be good. I think the elder Braose would probably be stuck at GA, but Cantilupe, the younger Braose, and Cragh would all be FA. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlike you I don't have access to a university library. Well I do, but it's 200 hundred miles away, so pretty useless really. I guess like many others here I tend only to write about what I can find sources for in public libraries, but if you're up for it then so am I. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the Braose's have an ODNB entry, and my Magna Carta Ancestry has a very extensive bibliography of works relating to them. The younger is essentially complete except for some more minor points that would need to be brought out and some background material inserted. The elder is going to need some more work, but it's not impossible, Magna Carta Ancestry does list a few things I'd want to look up and there are some other things that can be consulted for him. Cragh's in good shape. Cantilupe's ... honestly, I don't have the desire to work on his article, but it would be possible for me to get the research up and have you do more of the polish and stuff. I've already gathered most of the sources I'd need for Cantilupe. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Cragh's in brilliant shape, and surely Cantilupe can't be so hard? Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(interjecting!) I was already planning to stop at the library on Friday when I'm in town, so will put in the request at that point, unless I hear differently from anyone in the meantime. I'll let you know when it appears. Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dana. I'll do some digging here for some stuff, but may need to have someone look up an article or two in The American Genealogist magazine. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Manchester United F.C.

This is a note to let the main editors of Manchester United F.C. know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 30, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 30, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Manchester United Football Club is an English professional football club, based in Old Trafford, Greater Manchester, that plays in the Premier League. Founded as Newton Heath LYR Football Club in 1878, the club earned its first FA Cup victory on 30 October 1886. The club changed its name to Manchester United in 1902 and moved to Old Trafford (pictured) in 1910. In 1968, under the management of Matt Busby, Manchester United was the first English football club to win the European Cup, ten years after the Munich air disaster that claimed the lives of eight players. The current manager, Sir Alex Ferguson has won 37 major honours since he took over in November 1986. Manchester United has won the most titles in English football, with 53 domestic trophies, comprising a record 19 league titles, a record 11 FA Cups, four League Cups and 19 FA Charity/Community Shields. The club has also been successful globally, winning seven international titles: three European Cups, one UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, one UEFA Super Cup, one Intercontinental Cup and one FIFA Club World Cup. In 1998–99, the club won a "Treble" of the Premier League, the FA Cup and the European Cup. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to the no doubt interminable arguments as to whether Manchester United is singular or plural. Not. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The timing seems a little provocative, given the derby scoreline at the weekend. I can see the casual City supporters piling on already. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

About this; I think we edit-conflicted. It's not my way to censor another user's posts. Nevertheless, I have to ask; why is this apparently such an emotive area? --John (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever been to a football match? Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. Never been to MUFC but started at Partick Thistle F.C. as a boy, then Greenock Morton F.C. and Queen of the South F.C. as we moved around Scotland. As an adult living in Edinburgh I used to go to see Heart of Midlothian F.C. and Hibernian F.C. especially the latter as it was near my house. I have only been to a couple of English grounds; St James Park, Newcastle and the Stadium of Light in Sunderland. Are you an MUFC fan? --John (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And on that shivering topic I'm really excited for League Two Aldershot to draw MUFC in the Carling Cup. Obviously Fergie will play his reserve side, but what a game that'll be for the home crowd.

You lucky so and so. They're an amazing club. Gordon McQueen, Joe Jordan, Brian McClair... back in the day when Scotland had decent players, a lot of them seemed to be at Old Trafford or Anfield. Those days are long gone, sadly. --John (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was at Old Trafford for pretty much every game in the late '60s early '70s, but I then I went off to that London. When I came back I was amazed at how the stadium had changed. You can even buy a pint of beer to go with your pie now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In that era you would have been privileged to see God. I missed the chance to see him in the twilight of his career at Easter Road, but he must have been amazing in his prime. --John (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

George Best was a presence, not just a footballer, but it all went wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Have fun in your playground. Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Came over to see what you were upset about. A party at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What, no Auto-da-fé? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Have I been blocked yet? Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No, and I don't think you will be. I would still be very happy to figure out why this was such an emotive subject for you both. Answer in your own time or not at all. --John (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If I had to venture a guess, it's been quite a week of little brushups with people with a less than firm grasp of the English language for Malleus. There was the issue on the Aphonso page, then we have the long running sore that is the wife-selling article, then the FAC for Geoffrey the Bastard, and the usual stuff on Guy Fawkes. It's probably not this particular issue so much as straw on a camel's back. I know I've been ultra-cranky this week myself... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to be cheery because after being out of the loop for so long, one forgets what "business as usual" was like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the memory comes back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And I see another member of the corps de admin decided to block you even though the ANI thread was against it. How lovely --Guerillero | My Talk 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no honesty here. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's some honesty here, and a fair amount of competence, but sadly not always enough of either. --John (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the end for me. I will never forget or forgive this. Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd miss you. Not that you know me or should care. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing time: Last call!

"Oh, you've been a lovely audience but the time does pass. Don't you all be lettin' the door hit you in the ass. You've been a lovely audience but enough is enough."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that Wikipedia's anthem? Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking of a closing song with a few naughty words, to amuse you and yours.

However, now that I think of it, the RfC does seem to have a bimodal distribution.

• The cluster of "Wikipedia users" may be singing "Bugg off! You bastard, bugger off!" to me.
• I appreciate the support from the Wikipedia editors/writers (no quotes).

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Imprimatur

Some progress has been made. However, the draft-closing has gag order:

• DRAFT: "It is recommended that Kiefer.Wolfowitz discusses future issues with a neutral third party he trusts before they escalate, especially in areas he holds strong opinions."

The suggestion that I should consult with somebody before writing on anything strongly believed is utterly unacceptable. Should I ask for permission before farting?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Language difficulty. I'm convinced this comes down to it - same as with User:Tenmei who had the exact same prolix habit - I think he learned his English by reading Gormenghast or something. Communication with simple words was impossible with Tenmei, because he could never catch the significance of single words and simple sentences. And no, that's not a personal attack (before Kiefer says it is) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

*Silence*  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, bear with me. I have a theory here. It may be a crap theory, but it's mine. A student friend (many years ago) was a brilliant linguist, and said that the most difficult thing was to think in another language, rather than assembling one's thoughts in English and translating them. He once wrote me a letter using English words with german grammar, syntax and colloquies to show the difference. Malleus says somewhere else on this page about summarising being a skill that has to be learned. I didn't figure it out with Tenmei for ages, but what he was doing was trying to show all the information, because he couldn't (to his own satisfaction I suppose) compress his thoughts into short form English. So he'd fill a page with stuff from Harvard about conflict resolution to make sure he got his point over. His first language was Japanese, so I'm guessing that's quite different. Now, of course, English might be your first language. The only thing that makes me think it might not be so is that I've noticed you have a few difficulties where words have developed differently in Swedish and English ('makeless' and 'court' for example). So I'm wondering if you, like Tenmei, are putting quotes and lengthy discourse in to make sure you have got your point over in situations where someone who uses English "in the street" every day would use a few pithy phrases to convey what they meant. Well, that's the theory anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The flipside then, of course, is that Tenmei had difficulty understanding when someone used a colloquial phrase. He kept a collection of them on his userpage, and took great delight in getting to the bottom of what they meant, but he sometimes went of track because he started from the bottom up, as it were, and didn't always immediately catch the current usage. You've done that with 'Planet Janet'. In fact, the show is so obscure I've never heard of it, let alone seen it. 'On Planet Janet' is used in a situation where a person is expounding theories or making responses that seem not to relate to the matter at hand but are somewhat bizarre. You may still consider that a personal attack. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah. A classic case of dysfunctional prolixity would be the writings of Mick McManus. If KW is Swedish, I'm a small green object. Ning-ning (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean the columnist, not Mick McManus (wrestler). Ah! the Saturday afternoons of my youth!. I've no idea if he is Swedish, but you're not looking too much like Mr Bumpy either way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As an exercise in non-paraconsistent logic, this display is superior to the inference about Lihaas's politics, where contradictory user-boxes allow anybody to concluding anything about his politics---even were WP:NPA non-existent, with the same justification: None.

In my case, evidence for the contrary may require some digging, but is there to be had: I have identified myself as an U.S. citizen repeatedly. (BTW, at Swedish universities, researchers typically speak with better English grammar and word choice than the man on the street in the US or the UK, certainly better than President 43.) In general, e-mails and WP postings lack the inflections of spoken English, so that it is useful to signal irony and humor with liberal smiles and winks. (I warn that Swedish winks are more flirty than Americans.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, it was worth a try. It's not about speaking good or bad english, but being able to think about a concept and transfer it from one vessel to another as it were. Having met students from across Europe, I can confirm that most of them spoke English with more vocabulary than half the members of my daughters' classes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant MickMcNee not Mick McManus… I find KW's writing pretty clear. The other I never got to the bottom of. I wonder if Kief's interest in yeast has led them to discover a gobbet o'pus? Ning-ning (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you, Ning-ning! Your compliment is greatly appreciated.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

From Areopagitica by John Milton

Areopagitica "To fill up the measure of encroachment, their last invention was to ordain that no book, pamphlet, or paper should be printed (as if St. Peter had bequeathed them the keys of the press also out of Paradise) unless it were approved and licensed under the hands of two or three glutton friars. For example: Let the Chancellor Cini be pleased to see if in this present work be contained aught that may withstand the printing. VINCENT RABBATTA, Vicar of Florence. I have seen this present work, and find nothing athwart the Catholic faith and good manners: in witness whereof I have given, etc. NICOLO GINI, Chancellor of Florence. Attending the precedent relation, it is allowed that this present work of Davanzati may be printed. VINCENT RABBATTA, etc. It may be printed, July 15. FRIAR SIMON MOMPEI D'AMELIA, Chancellor of the Holy Office in Florence. Sure they have a conceit, if he of the bottomless pit had not long since broke prison, that this quadruple exorcism would bar him down. I fear their next design will be to get into their custody the licensing of that which they say Claudius intended, but went not through with. Vouchsafe to see another of their forms, the Roman stamp: Imprimatur, If it seem good to the reverend Master of the Holy Palace. BELCASTRO, Vicegerent. Imprimatur, Friar Nicolo Rodolphi, Master of the Holy Palace. Sometimes five Imprimaturs are seen together dialogue-wise in the piazza of one title-page, complimenting and ducking each to other with their shaven reverences, whether the author, who stands by in perplexity at the foot of his epistle, shall to the press or to the sponge. These are the pretty responsories, these are the dear antiphonies, that so bewitched of late our prelates and their chaplains with the goodly echo they made; and besotted us to the gay imitation of a lordly Imprimatur, one from Lambeth House, another from the west end of Paul's; so apishly Romanizing, that the word of command still was set down in Latin; as if the learned grammatical pen that wrote it would cast no ink without Latin; or perhaps, as they thought, because no vulgar tongue was worthy to express the pure conceit of an Imprimatur, but rather, as I hope, for that our English, the language of men ever famous and foremost in the achievements of liberty, will not easily find servile letters enow to spell such a dictatory presumption English." John Milton

RfAs: Banning discussions of minors

I was asked to agree just to briefly state my conclusion, without elaboration, when opposing minors at RfAs.

Now, the example of an "issue that I feel strongly about" is of course minors at RfAs. I am supposed to consult with an impartial third party before posting about issues that "might escalate".

It would have been honest first to change the policy that currently states that editors are free to oppose minors at RfAs, before raising this issue, which had been ignored in the outside views, in the closing statement.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I quote for convenience, emboldening and adding italics for emphasis:

QUOTATION of bans on discussions at RfAs

Demiurge1000 suggested this, which I quickly rejected:

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz agrees to limit himself to a simple statement about his views, rather than engaging in an prolonged argument, when someone under the age of minority applies to be a Wikipedia administrator.

WormThatTurned suggested this:

• DRAFT: "It is recommended that Kiefer.Wolfowitz discusses future issues with a neutral third party he trusts before they escalate, especially in areas he holds strong opinions."

• Thank you for the clarification. Under the circumstances, that seems rather weak to me... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I feel strongly that 1+1=2, but I shall not consult with anybody. Also the sentence's syntax is convoluted, I'm sorry to say, and "neutral" is redundant. I suggested the following  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Before he strongly criticizes sources or edits, Kiefer.Wolfowitz should reflect on past experiences and consider discussing such criticism with any competent third-party.

• KW, there's a large difference between feeling strongly that 1+1=2 - which is a fact (for the majority of situations, I'm sure we can come up with a few where it isn't) - and you feeling strongly that say, that minors shouldn't be admins. All the above is recommending (and you don't have to follow the recommendation, but it is good practice), is you keep an eye on a situation and discuss it with someone you trust before letting things get too far. I'd not be happy with comments like "competent third party", as it is hard to quantify... I know there are people you'd regard as incompetent who I wouldn't. Also it's not just criticizing sources or edits, it's also commenting on editors. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

After QUOTATION discussion

• I do wish you'd learn to use diffs and stop copying everyone's comments including signatures all around the wiki. It's very confusing, and is generally frowned upon. Worm never posted here - you're making it look as if he did. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. WTT suggested using a different template than block-quoting, which I shall use until senility hits harder.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And, in other news...

(Looks above) Gosh, the eyebrow-raising drama that goes on when I'm asleep sometimes. You were blocked for that comment in response to that other comment? Really? Aaaaaaaanyway... Before your time with us was so rudely interrupted (and I hope "interrupted" not "terminated") you were kindly reviewing one of my articles for that coveted GA green bauble at Talk:St Mary's Church, Llanfair-yng-Nghornwy/GA1. If you should return at some point, you will find that the Church of St Mary is ready for your further attention, but of course there is no rush. After all, it's been there for the best part of a thousand years, so a further pause before its article reaches is neither here nor there. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 13:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've finished the review, seems only fair. Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kaldari (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

While petty tyrants like you strut around this project I will not continue to contribute. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata has unblocked you, and I would've done if I'd seen it first. That was a ridiculous block. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Too late. And Kaldari is still an administrator. That's unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari is entitled to make mistakes as we all are. I am sorry you were blocked; I too thought it was ridiculous and have left the blocking admin a message inviting him to learn from the episode. --John (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to offer my mediation services ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya know, Kiefer, the time that Malleus block parties were funny is long past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll offer a bottle of single malt scotch for mediation. You'll need to come to Kansas to get it, though! :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy,

My offer was sincere & serious, although I was aware that some may have viewed it as a jest. A "serious jest" was Goethe's definition of art, if I remember Mann correctly. I have great respect for Kaldari and for Malleus.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There really has to be some way that one can participate in this project while completely ignoring people like Kaldari and the rest of the petty admin tyrants. Just ignore these dumb-ass blocks and act as if these people didn't exist at all. I assume you're not here to be appreciated and loved. Then just shrug this bullshit off and keep going, keep saying what you think and keep in mind that the people who actually are doing something useful - even if they don't agree with you - appreciate and respect your input here. If enough reasonable people start doing this - ignoring people like that - then maybe at some point, they really will cease to matter. Volunteer Marek  04:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Respect. ("the people who actually are doing something useful - even if they don't agree with you - appreciate and respect your input here.", 04:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than enabling and encouraging this, better advice would be to conduct oneself with the civility and dignity needed to work together productively on a collaborative project like this, rather than raising hackles by insulting others, then imagining oneself the victim of perceived enemies who have reacted to one's own rude ways. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC) BTW, I just looked at the recent edit history... very impressive in productivity and thoughtfulness. That does deserve respect. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon you are one of the editors I hate to argue with, because I know you and respect you. But can you not see at least the irony if not the tragedy of this incident where one of the premier editors of Wikipedia, and a native speaker of English at that, gets assertively confronted over grammar, of all things, by a hard-working and earnest editor but who nevertheless professes his inability to speak proper English on their own signature? This incident has many of the ingredients of a great comedy, if it were not so serious. I know, theoretically civility should be above all, but at least it should be accompanied by logic. In this episode logic was abandoned by many at an early stage, leaving civility vulnerable. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was holding back but I find the iron of this all (as you highlighted) extremely funny in a twisted sort of way --Guerillero | My Talk 05:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I have said it before and I will repeat it here. The real, live comedy you find in this place is one of the great attractions of being here. You simply cannot invent this stuff on your own. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd think it was funny, except that I've encountered Tbhotch's temper before, and I'll be darned if I can find the diffs or remember where. I seem to recall (could be wrong) trying to reach out to him in Spanish in case it was an issue of him not understanding English. He is a very very hard working and good faith editor, but ... yea ... English is a problem. And I'm a bit put off by the excuse that he didn't consider "narrow-minded" an insult, when he says he speaks Spanish, the Spanish language is considerably more polite than British or American English, and that he continued goading me with the "Sandra" bit even as the whole thing unfolded-- he seems to have a talent for pushing buttons. Anyway, losing our best content editors to this kind of silliness is pretty much inevitable-- there is no governance on Wikipedia, one tires of spending all day defending content from those who don't know policy and can't write a sentence or want to push a point of view, and children predominate on the playground now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oy, I don't know what kind of Spanish you been larnin' but that isn't the case at all (I'm a bit confused as to whether that was his excuse or your impression of Spanish). It ain't the language, it's the editors. Volunteer Marek  05:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean-- if you're disagreeing that in general politness in Spanish is to the extreme, perhaps you've spent too much time around, ummmm ... uncultured segments of the Spanish-speaking population. Yes, Tbhotch's claim that he didn't know "narrow-minded" was an insult defies logic. I be larnin' the kind of Spanish that comes from living it for 35 years-- really not following your comment, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're disagreeing that in general politness in Spanish is to the extreme, perhaps you've spent too much time around, ummmm ... uncultured segments of the Spanish-speaking population. - If I was one of these useless AN/I groupies I'd report you for personal attacks like these cuz you're talking about my momma-in-law here, calling her an uncultured segment of the Spanish-speaking population and all. Most cultures are just as rough-and-tumble as any other, British, American and Spanish-speaking included (hell, if "x" is the number of ways to call a person something vulgar in English, there's easily x^2 ways of doing the same in Spanish. Something like exp(x) in Russian or Polish and don't even get me started on Arabic).

(responding to Dr. K from way back)[2] I see your point. MF has a history of epic put-downs, then he gets blocked for a minor discourtesy. There were at least two other long time editors taking heat simultaneously at AN/I over long-term repeated complaints that are arguably overreactions by the community - Beta and his bots, and Scjessey routinely calling bad edits made by newbies to the Obama article "vandalism". Whether you think these are sanctionable or not, the point is that they're not necessary unless an editor actually derives something the comedy-drama. There are other ways to do it that don't bring all the trouble. I'm not sure if the community has the right (whatever that means) to insist MF stop the insults, but on MF's end, if he does tone it down he can avoid the confrontations, which going back to my point is better for both MF and the rabble. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There might be a class dimension here thing too, but I for one am quite fine with the uncultured segments of the Spanish-speaking population, or the uncultured segments of any other speaking-population, taking part in Wikipedia discussions and bringing their insight as well as "culture" to the table. I... think you have a slightly skewed view of "general politeness in Spanish", though I can't speak to why that is.

Anyway, the point is that both sides of should've just shrugged it off. Volunteer Marek  05:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I 'spose our "mommas-in-law" may have been related. Anyway, my housekeepers were just as polite in their spoken expression as the "upper crust" and the middle class, so yea, I stand by my assertion, with variability allowances depending on the country (some more formal and polite than others), and of course, the recent degradation of the level of discourse in Venezuela ala Chavez. That's my 40-year experience, anyway, in South America, Spain, and with all classes (I've only been to Mexico once, and never Peru). My point is, his excuse didn't hold water for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't get me wrong Sandy. I was talking about the comedy-related details of the incident. I did not want to imply that all of the incident was funny. Only that some aspects of it were so. There is of course the darker side of the incident, which unfortunately coexists with the funnier parts. This side has to be properly addressed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read you wrong-- you expressed the irony well and clearly, and with senstitivity (to the fact that the loss of Malleus' editing stopped being a funny prospect long ago), but the general demise of Wikipedia-- and the extent to which competent capable writers are gone and children rule-- makes it even worse now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy. Hopefully this problem you are referring to can be addressed somehow, although it looks like a difficult case. BTW anyone calling you "Sandra", against your preference, is completely uncalled for and unacceptable. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was more intrigued by how much "lack of clue" it showed, since Tbhotch and I cross paths all the time, and I clearly said I wasn't "Sandra" once (heck, how can I be "sandra" when I'm not even "sandy" LOL ?!?!?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Completely true. I always thought that the "Sandy" part of your username was an adjective implying that Georgia, I assumed the US state, was full of sandy beaches. :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know-- but I have been to the Atlanta airport many times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked over that? And a one-sided block? Epic admin fail. Parrot of Doom 08:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• This usage of arse is comparatively recent — see Geoffrey Hughes (2006), "Anatomical Insults", An encyclopedia of swearing. MF seems to have an antiquarian bent and this suggests a remedy. When he feels the need for some bdelygmia, he might avoid such modern idioms and use older forms. A tool such as a Shakespearean insulter will readily supply such:

"A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are toss'd with." (Henry IV, part I)

"[You] speak an infinite deal of nothing." (The Merchant of Venice)

"Thou crusty botch of nature!" (Troilus and Cressida)

When chosen well, these will tend to amuse or perplex rather than outrage. And we might as well learn something while we engage in such banter. Warden (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Good sentences and well pronounced." The Merchant of Venice Act I, Scene ii, line 7

"As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods/They kill us for their sport." King Lear Act IV, Scene i, lines 44-45

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon! Where got'st thou that goose look?" (Macbeth - oops...no... I meant the Scottish play!) has always stood me in good stead :) Richerman (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that was stupid. Sorry I was in my bed when it happened, or I'd have intervened. While the sight of two editors going at it like Kilkenny cats may not be edifying, you either block both of 'em, or leave 'em to it if they're not bothering anyone else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that I hope everyone is happy with driving away a good contributor. Always amazes me that we're supposed to look out for other cultures and respect them until those other cultures do something we don't like and then suddenly it's awful. Respecting other people means knowing their culture and not imposing your culture on them. For that matter, I'm not sure I'm that interested in contributing much any more here, where "civility" is so much more important than the purpose of the encyclopedia - you know, writing articles and making them better. It's amazing to me that we can reward someone who's grasp on the English language is shaky by blocking someone else who pointed that fact out. We're not an "English as second language" instruction project - plain content editors shouldn't have to deal with substandard English so much, but apparantly actually supporting the content editors isn't what admins are for - it's to block good content contributors instead. Wonderful. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I note that the admin who performed this particularly stupid block which may have led to one of our best content editors leaving is actually a WMF employee. The irony is palpable. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
      • @Ealdgyth; this was a silly block, with a crappy outcome. With that said - we do need to find a way to discourage the sort of immature communication (i.e. from both of the parties) such as led to this block. While one culture (to pick an example) may not worry about being called an "arse" (which to an Brit like me generally means "you're being awkward") others may take heated offense... which is the reason civility is such a minefield... Perhaps it is time to hash out what we do about civility (my preference; get everyone to ignore incivility & not respond..) so that idiotic situations like this don't happen again. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Personally I find the "Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!" message extremely arrogant. To put it another way "I'll go around leaving a mess everywhere and others can clean up after me". Why is it that people who can't write proper English feel they can contribute to an English encyclopaedia? Richerman (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Given that Tbhotch was trying to argue with Malleus about English usage when he's clearly not competent in English himself, I'd suggest he goes and reads WP:CIR. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• As I've said before 'civility' is completely cultural, and therefore impossible to define to everyone's satisfaction. There is an extreme end (completely random abuse, racism, threats of violence etc) that you'll probably get most people agreeing with, but beyond that one man's rugby forward is another man's maiden aunt. I prefer to look at situations. Two editors going at each other is not edifying, but you either block both or leave 'em to it. Of far more concern to me is persistent bullying behaviour that discourages other editors. I have to say, I've never seen Malleus persistently go after another editor in that manner - he could hardly be said to be bullying Tbhotch! Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The "situation" as I saw it was Malleus repeatedly attacking 3 different editors in the past month. I certainly don't want to drive away Malleus from contributing to the project, but I also have concern for the large number of valuable editors that Malleus is driving away himself. Kaldari (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • So you blocked him for something that happened over the last month? Who are these "valuable" editors Malleus is driving away? Malleus is a joy to work with, he is fair, generous and helpful. He is constantly hounded by the "know better" brigade who like to use history to try him in the kangaroo court that is civility.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Kaldari, should I really place a CN tag after this last and wholly unsubstantiated comment? Please stop digging. You made a silly and one-sided block, which did no one any good. Sorry, but that's how the cookie crumbles. Which reminds me: Sandy, you made some comment about wannabe-big-dick admins. I hope you weren't including me, since I have a huge dick. Two, as a matter of fact. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm happy to have provided you with this opportunity to share :) Kaldari, I cannot recall ever knowing of Malleus driving away any valuable editor. In fact, he's more like my "turkey test"-- when someone can't get on with Malleus, that usually tells us something about their personality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Drmies, whenever I see Pompeian art, I shall think of you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Whether correct or not it was not a silly, stupid or arbitrary block, nor is there any irony or hypocrisy in its being made by someone employed by the website owner. Civility is extremely important for the functioning of any group, particularly online. Wikipedia is already having enough trouble attracting new editors, retaining serious mature dedicated ones, and encouraging a diverse participation from women and others. The point is obvious and universal enough that it does not need an evidentiary argument every time it is made that a hostile and abusive environment is divisive and it drives people away. Of course there's an attraction in founding-of-the Internet style anarchy, but when sites degenerate to who is the bigger bully, sensitive people run for cover and serious people who can take it but have better things to do will also leave. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Putting aside the rest of your comments, which are completely unrelated to the matter at hand, why was Tbhotch not blocked? Parrot of Doom 22:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Wikidemon, your points have little to do with what is driving content contributors away from Wikipedia (I know some folks will never get that, but it still needs to be said)-- it's the constant and exhausting trying to defend well-written content sourced and added according to policy against nimwits, POV pushers, folks with little understanding of Wikipedia policy or how to write, folks who speak little English, children playing on the internet, advocates, and so on. Civility is the least of our worries (and it always intrigues me when people play the "female" card, as if we're some shrinking violets). If we had less focus on someone's individual definition of civility, and more on getting rid of useless disruptive editors, we might retain and attract those who know how to write and care about quality articles. Instead, we lose the latter, and keep the former. Wikipedia has trouble attracting and retaining good editors because 98% of its content is shit, and those who can fix that are given little help from the admin corp, which is most often more concerned with civility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
              • *Swoons*, then *Kow tows*  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
                • • • Regarding "Care about quality articles". I made the mistake of stating a consequence of the principle of explosion, that of two contradictory statements at most one can be correct. This triviality has now been said to be incompatible with WP:NPOV, and a call for more drastic measures has been made. (In Norway, all the students begin university with a semester of logic, usually based on a great textbook by Dag Foegelsal, B, and Jon Elster. We should all learn Norwegian!)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
                • Sorry to be the wet blanket in the love fest echo chamber, but to address Doom Parrot I am directly disputing statements made in the discussion immediately preceding: that the block was bad or hypocritical, that incivility is harmless and that allowing it improves productivity. If you can trouble yourself to follow the trail back to WP:AN/I where this arose, your question was answered more than once by the blocking administrator. Blocks are to avoid future disruption, not to achieve parity or justice. Whereas MF had been recently warned on civility and has a recalcitrant history there, there was no reason to think Tbhotch would continue after a warning. SandyGeorgia, even accepting for the sake of argument that 98% of the content here is shit, and that the problem is children, nitwits, etc. (an elitism seemingly antithetical to the premise of Wikipedia), you're not going to sort out the valuable 2% and keep the others at bay by holding an insult contest. Neither of us speaks for all the women online so you don't hold the woman card either. It's a fact that aggressively uncivil environments dominated by a single group chance people away, and that a culture of civility and tolerance keeps diverse groups from degenerating and splintering. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
                  • • • Wikidemon, what you, and everyone else, has missed, is that a significant question of grammar was at issue regarding a page to be featured as TFA in a few days. Has the question been answered? No. Has a signficant amount of drama been generated? Yes. Which is better for the encyclopedia - making a page as good as we can before it lands on the main page, or trying to guess what a woman might think about a dirty word. I can tell you how this woman would answer that question. Furthermore, I'm saddened to see that because of this mess, John, who is a good wiki-gnome, has decided to take a break. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
                        • Yeah, I noticed that too, sad. John is a lot more than a wiki-gnome, as I learned when we worked together on Margaret Thatcher. Hopefully he'll be back soon. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
                    • If you're suggesting that Malleus is a disruptive editor then you really don't have the first clue what you're on about. He is a forthright editor responsible for a great deal of high-quality work here. He isn't afraid to voice his opinions and doesn't suffer fools gladly, which is probably why so many of them go running to ANI. What they should do, is grow up and accept that their version of "civility" is not universal. They should perhaps also note that most of the "love fest echo chamber" are concerned with what this project most needs - decent quality articles. Parrot of Doom 23:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
                  • Begone Wikidemon, or I'll have to find a Wikiexorcist! The truth is very plain for those with eyes to see it, which obviously excludes you. Kaldari spotted what he thought was a heaven-sent opportunity to get his own back on me because I have been less than complimentary about his pathetic efforts here. Were that not so, he would not have acted as precipitously and unilaterally as he did, and his absurd posturing above only serves to make him look ridiculous as well as dishonest. I'd be interested to know who these "valuable editors" are he claims I've driven away, and I very much hope that he doesn't include himself in that category. Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
                    • Does that mean Kaldari acted as an involved admin? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
                      • I believe so; the dispute surrounding the wife selling article, in which Kaldari is a significant participant, has been rumbling on for weeks now, if not months. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
                        • I'd quite forgotten that Kaldari had accused others of whitewashing. How uncivil. Nev1 (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
                        • Ummm, well that's a troubling new development-- why has this taken so long to come to light? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
                          • Because Kaldari and his supporters have been less than honest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
                        • That talk page history is, shall we say, interesting ... though my cynical side says that the chances of anything useful happening by publicising the fact, as mathematicians say, approaches zero. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
                          • I don't expect anything useful to happen either, but I thought the truth ought to be told. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Self absorption of Kiefer-Wolfowitz

With one foot on a banana peel and the other plugging my mouth—with good-willed help from MF, Fetchcomms, and numerous friends urging me in e-mails to augment the foot with socks and shoes if necessary—I caution that references to auto-da-fe and exorcism have recently been considered violations of WP:Civility.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What isn't? The only thing that matters here is who says it; you must surely have noticed the endemic abuse spewing from the admin corps, but how often do you see any of them warned for it, much less blocked? Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

*Restrains himself with great difficulty* Malleus, I don't need any help getting myself indef'ed, thank you very much.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I specifically said that I did not regard your attempts to exorcise me as incivil LOL! In fact, as a member of a religion that predates Christianity by three millenia, I took it as something of a compliment. Are you sure you're not secretly Japanese??;D;D --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC) (NB - this statement intended as a joke. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)_

Alas, the good humour was short lived. :(

As always (!), the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic is interesting. Our discussion there mentions "personal attacks", when one article-writer has a discussion with two administrators, a topic discussed below.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC is not what it appears to be, it's just a necessary precursor on the road to ArbCom. Forget about and go do something useful instead. It won't make the slightest difference what you say there anyway, and it certainly won't improve anything. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall cease from Mental Fight

And my sword shall sleep in my hand

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

MF, are you sure you're not being paranoid? As an experiment, perhaps you could avoid insulting people next month, and see if that gets rid of the fools and administrators any faster than your baseline this month. Anyway, you're welcome to your crowd of supporters. We'll have a common cause someday likely. Sorry for intruding, I won't harangue them further. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what, I will if you will. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, fool. I'll start next month. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did you just call me "fool"? Because you think your mate Kaldari will protect you? What is it that encourages you to believe that you can be abusive but nobody else can be? Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say. Given that my main objective is not to become embroiled in a lengthy conversation I will just have to say that I am really disappointed and did not expect this comment from Wikidemon. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I did. It's a clear and persistent pattern here; the civility warriors are consistently the most uncivil. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You have dragged me down to your level. Next thing you know I might make a content edit. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A pity I have been unable to drag you up to my level, but there you go. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As yet another example of what's really going on here, I wonder if any administrator is going to warn User:Tarage for this? Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon, what possessed you to say these things? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. [3] And, for the record, I would like to sincerely request that those others engaging in the little tete-a-tete here walk away from Malleus for a few days. Regardless of the incident that led to the block and the ANI stuff, poking here is uncool and not helpful.

Malleus, you calming down some would be helpful. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that just ain't gonna happen George. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Pigs sometimes fly, computers sometimes don't crash, etc. And you do edit calmly and constructively by far a majority of the time. So I figured it didn't hurt to ask. But asking was all it was. Your right to disagree remains entirely intact.

However, whether you feel like agreeing with my suggestion or not, I leave you alone in peace for the evening, and happy editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone should read this apropos article and take heed of the advice presented therein. Maybe order a copy of Saving Civility: 52 Ways to Tame Rude, Crude and Attitude for a Polite Planet for additional self-reform as well. </sarcasm> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.151.251 (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Contributor above. Thanks for the petrol-I am sure we can return the favour one day --ClemRutter (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Kaldari- why don't you admit that what you did was pretty dumb. You have been around almost as long as I have- but our paths has never crossed - you simply are editing in an entirely different area of WP. I am afraid you miserable lack any understanding of what we refer to a civility- and outr cultural references. When I say you have found your self in a 6-1 moment, I doubt if you even understand the reference. Years in the classroom, teaches you not to get involved in playground scraps on one side unless you know the complete story. You have just joined in a despicable concerted bullying campaign whether you realised it or not and were duped into misusing your administrator powers. You should come to this page to learn best practice- and discuss taking diverse articles to FA- anything else wastes my time not just Johns or Malleus's. However apologies sincerely given are graciously accepted but in a distinct Mancunian way. 5-2. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

RFAR in the making

And now Georgewilliamherbert is beleaguering Mkativerata for the purportedly unjust unblock, with an RFAR in the making. Mkativerata has advanced a compelling argument, one that is albeit unnecessary considering the absurdity of the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.151.251 (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that Mkativerata may now be involved in the dispiriting time-sink that an ArbCom case would almost certainly become. George is an interesting case: he thinks he's part of the solution to what's wrong here, whereas in reality he and his ilk are a major part of the problem. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what might happen if GWH would just go write an article sometime instead of ... whatever it is he does instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What he does instead is to abuse me, as in "I also have a profound objection both in theory and practice to his usual style of abusing other users", and follow me around looking for excuses to whack me with his big stick: "I have been watching what he's doing lately, and it's not making me happy". I find him a rather ridiculous anachronism. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wife-selling

I see there has been grief over certain wife-selling articles. I can't be arsed to find out what and why but I do recall you had some interest here, so if they are of any use, I have full descriptions of three separate examples of this practice occurring in Cornwall in the mid-19th century, and well-referenced too. All as reported at the time by the West Briton newspaper. I found them in a volume I possess of "Life In Cornwall in the mid-nineteenth century -Being extracts from the West Briton newspaper".

Here's one (quoted as written):

A WIFE SOLD IN ST AUSTELL

On Friday last the people assembled at St Austell were surprised by the appearance of a man of advanced age leading a woman of about thirty, by a halter which was tied round her waist. The fellow is named George Trethewey, a labourer residing in the parish of St Stephens, in Branwell, and having become tired of his wife, he adopted this mode of leading her into the market, in order to dispose of her to the best bidder....Amongst those assembled were two itinerant tinkers, who travel in company; one of them offered two-pence for the woman, and after some time his companion doubled the sum, stating they were acting in partnership. The husband agreed to accept the last offer, when four-pence was handed to him, and the woman delivered to her purchaser with whom she proceeded to a pot-house, where they regaled themselves with a jug of ale. Meanwhile the collector of the market-tolls applied to the husband for a penny; the sum usually demanded for selling a pic, &c. This was at once paid... 27 March 1835

[Trethewey then proceeded to select a replacement for his wife, and after a violent struggle with a man who laid prior claim to the woman chosen, made off with his new acquisition.]

Life In Cornwall In The Mid-Nineteenth Century - Being extracts from the West Briton Newspaper In The Two Decades From 1835 to 1854 - Selected And Edited By R.M. Barton. D Bradford Barton. Truro. 1971. Got no ISBN, sorry.

___________________

If these are of any use to articles(s) I'd be grateful if you would help me out or direct me to the editor most keen to get this sort of stuff in there, as I'm sorry to say I'll need help to know where it should go and written up in a proper reference format: I'm not really adequately mentally engaged at the mo and would only fuck it up myself. Likewise advice as to the historical significance of another example in the same collection which is from 1853 and was bought before the Superintendent Registrar at Bodmin as a claim of a bill of sale for a wife (a couple wishing to marry using said bill as some kind of a legal divorce doc). The third example of wife-selling in the volume is from the other end of the county at Callington, where a man sold the missus for 2s, 6d outside the market boozer at 9pm on 5 January 1846.

Best, Plutonium27 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples already in the article so I think we're ok there, but it may be beneficial if you could add that publication to the further reading section, prefixed by something like "For three examples of wife selling in x, y and z, see..." Parrot of Doom 19:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see there are no shortage of examples but I really liked this one. What stands out for me is the droll approach taken by the newspaper which is somewhat unusual for the era, given the moral outrage usually engendered when the peasants persisted in conducting their business in a manner that accords with the Old Testament. So I'll try it in there (fortunately there are lots of book refs there for me to use as a guide for this one). Plutonium27 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW -Malleus, I am sorry to see that grief is being bought down upon you yet again. I don't really follow what this spasm of fuckery is all about but I hope it passes - I hope it ends once and for all and you can just get on with your thing here. Best, Plutonium27 (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The House in Paris

I saw that you reviewed The Vicar of Bullhampton, which I nominated for GA status, and that you have alot of experience with GA, so I hope you don't mind my asking you the following. I came across another article that seems very impressive, and I was hoping you could take a quick look at it. The article is The House in Paris by Elizabeth Bowen. It doesn't look like this long and detailed article is getting the attention it deserves (it was rated stub class at 24KB until I found it earlier today!). I don't know whether the article is GA worthy but it looks atleast A class.

Thanks for your time.--INeverCry 21:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that recent events have made it extremely unlikely that I'll be able to help, but good luck with the article anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats ok. I decided to just nominate it for GA and see where it goes.--INeverCry 21:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

<--Hey MF, this is really an interesting book. And it is structured in three parts, as all good books are. I reckon the children in it, from what I've read from and about the book, have extraordinarily unrealistic thoughts and conversations, but it's about nice and somewhat traumatized children nonetheless and that's always good. I'm working on it, I got a bunch of journal articles and will pick up the book itself on my way out, and maybe, in a couple of days or weeks, I'll come knocking on your door for some pointers--if you have interest, and if you're not blocked for calling a spade a spade. Take care, and INeverCry, thanks for bringing this to my attention, albeit inadvertently. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in a couple of days I might feel a little differently, who knows, but right now I have no appetite for writing or looking at anything here. Nice reminder about The Green Child though. I think that's probably one I'm most pleased with. But of course it's not a "vital topic", so worth nothing in the grand scheme of things. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

But writing it was another one of those teaching experiences. Although I'd been fascinated by the book for years, it wasn't until I tried to unpick it for others that I finally got close to understanding it myself. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't look at the article or anything else here, read the book! It is odd. I read the first couple of chapters last night, and it reminded me of being fourteen, fifteen, and reading novels in a small, stuffy country not unlike the stuffy salon in which some of the action takes place. The writing is very sharp though again, a bit odd, for my taste--perhaps I never acquired the taste for modernism; I may have jumped from realism to New Objectivity (actually, the setting reminded me of a Bordewijk novel, Rood paleis). And I should reread Read's book--haven't read it in six months. Malleus, all the best. I hope you stick around. Later, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Worcester Castle

On behalf of the editor whose name is an expectoration followed by a number, thanks very much for your hard work on the review. Ning-ning (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, many thanks for the recent reviewing (and associated copyediting). Hchc2009 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)