User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

"It was reading the ultimate paragraph of this post: [1] that finally convinced me it was time to go, yes, Hans is quite right, I am stuck in a vicious circle and there was no likelihood of things improving."

— Extract from Giano's retirement statement

Archives

2007 April May June July August September October November December 2008 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2009 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2010 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2011 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 January February March April May June July August

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

	forum
	Thank you for content such as today's Chadderton, for adding quality to the articles of others, for speaking up to the point with "amore e studio elucidandae", and for running your talk as a fascinating forum of ideas and beers, - and yes, to quote you, "we need some perspective", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Deserved! PumpkinSky talk 00:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"we need some perspective".One of the most intelligent comments I've heard in a long time on here. If only most of the ANI wiki gods had a good perspective of what is important.. Lack of perspective that we are actually an encyclopedia not a law court is probably one of the biggest site problems in my experience. If they cut their crap and started actually contributing to articles we'd be many times richer as a resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The perspective that I find is most missing is that the editor behind the online avatar is a real person with feelings and human frailties. It was a real joy to meet Malleus a few months ago, and to experience what a jovial and interesting character he is. How badly this project is let down by those who can't see past their screen and appreciate the other human beings they are interacting with. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The missing perspective seems familiar, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are well.PumpkinSky talk 22:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Get back to work, Mally; you're welcome in Our House ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our House ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... good sense every now and then (see below) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We hope for good constellations for you, personally, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• May we quote you "The TFA people seem to have given up ..."? - Happy river navigation! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our house is building, perspective: quality, it's open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are you and your family, Mal? PumpkinSky talk 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things are looking much better now I'm glad to say. Thanks for asking. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. Family is number one. This is just a web site, which too many forget too often.PumpkinSky talk 21:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bet your wife liked you adding to wildflowers on this Poppy Meadow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't discussed it with her, but she's a great Eastenders fan, never misses an episode. I on the other hand hate it, and I run screaming from the room whenever the theme tune strikes up. Malleus Fatuorum 05:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I try to imagine you running screaming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have not been here, i have been rather busy! I will fix the 2 issues yet to be fixed. — M.Mario (T/C) 12:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to get past reviewers of the past FA nominations to have a look at the article. Some reviewers passed it on the second go, so I think I should get them involved, allowing us to get more "Supports". Once again, I cant begin to thank you on your edits to Poppy. — M.Mario (T/C) 12:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're not a fan of the Guild of Copy Editors, but I thought you'd be interested to hear about a new event I've set up for the project. It's located here, and it's basically the opposite of the monthly copy editing drives, in that it focuses on quality over quantity. Hopefully, it will encourage people to share their knowledge and improve their skills, by allowing for a back and forth discussion of the copy editing process. Perhaps you would be interested in submitting some of your excellent work there as a way to help educate other editors. Cheers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not a fan of competitions in general, unless there's something real to be won. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would be willing to comment on or critique others' submissions, in that case. It's really just an excuse for people to share copy editing efforts and get feedback. But if you're not interested, I understand; I know you have a lot on your plate. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I could give you a very good example of the kind of article that no copyeditor should ever get involved in. Wikipedia is 99.999% crap, but those of us who try to improve it by even 0.001% are treated like shit. So it's not for me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll only say this: I would never question your ability to write top quality articles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malleus Fatuorum. I am wondering if you wouldn't mind copyediting the Clitoris article, which is currently nominated for WP:GA status. GA reviewer SilkTork has been clear that the copyediting of this article "will need to be subtle and careful," and has recommended you. The article has been put on hold for the standard initial seven days, but will be extended beyond that if needed, to allow time for the copyediting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and take a look through over the next few days, but tell me, what does this mean? "The clitoris is present in most mammiferous female animals, and is especially developed in apes, rabbits, spider monkeys, etc., and other carnivorous female animals besides the spotted hyena." Does it mean "except for the spotted hyena" or "as well as the spotted hyena", as it was specifically mentioned in the preceding sentence? And does that mean especially well developed, as "especially developed could mean absolutely anything? Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see that you've already gotten started. If you are asking what "mammiferous" means, it means "having breasts or mammae." Saying "female" in this case may seem redundant, but breasts are not only a female feature. "Especially developed" means "larger," sometimes including a scrotum-like aspect. "Besides" means "as well as." The previous sentence used to touch on the fact that the clitoris is more developed in the spotted hyena than in other animals, if we consider "more developed" to mean "acting more like a penis," but SilkTork changed that (although he is unsure about the change in that edit summary). Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know what "mammiferous" means, but in the context of the sentence I quoted "besides" could reasonably have been interpreted to mean either "except for" or "as well as". But if it means "as well as" in this instance, then why mention the spotted hyena again anyway? And the word "especially" carries no implication of "larger" as far as I'm concerned; it could alternatively mean that the complexity of the clitoral structures had increased, or they had become more enervated.

Anyway, the main problem with the lead as it stands, as I mentioned in one of my edit summaries, is that it needs to be a paragraph longer, summarising the development and structure sections. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was going by one of the sources when I added "especially" and the sources are speaking of "large" and "larger" or, also in the case of the spotted hyena, having a "false scrotum." As the article currently says, "Detailed studies of the anatomy of the clitoris in non-human animals are significantly rare." So, aside from the spotted hyena, researchers don't know if there are more complex clitoral structures in other animals than in humans. But I understand what you mean about the vagueness of "especially developed." The same goes for "well-developed," but you did add "particularly" in front of it when adding it, and sicking with "particularly well-developed" seems better than sticking with "especially developed."

Regarding the "Whether or not the clitoris is vestigial or serves a reproductive function has also been the subject of debate." line you added to the lead, I consider it covered by the following line: "The debates have primarily focused on anatomical accuracy, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-Spot, as well as their possible biological function." But I guess it's not as clear as I considered since you added a line to specifically address it.

You're right about the lead needing that extra paragraph, which should no doubt come second in the lead. Do you want to add it or would you rather I do it? Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm easy. You obviously know the material better than me, but I'll happily have a go at it if you'd rather. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment about the need for any copyediting to be "subtle and careful", are you happy with the kind of changes I've made so far? Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you give it a go, especially since you're copyediting the article, LOL. I'll correct any mistakes that appear with the addition, but you should be fine by just lifting something from the article text -- what you feel needs summarizing.

Yes, your changes have been fine (I would have brought up any objections), although I do question needing specific mention of the vestigiality topic in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me to be an interesting point that wasn't covered in the lead, even though there's a subsection on vestigiality in the article. It's just about making the lead a better summary of the article as well of the topic, but if you're convinced that it's unnecessary I probably wouldn't fight you over it, although I certainly don't think that vestigiality is implied by anything in the previous sentence. As a general rule of thumb I try to include at least a snippet from each significant section/subsection. As a matter of interest, why are there so many citations in the lead? Is that material not properly cited in the body of the article? (I haven't read the whole article yet, so I don't know.) Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new section on the article's talk page to raise any more issues. Having now read through the whole article I have to say that I do share SilkTork's concern about the use of overly technical language and accessibility though. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned that the vestigiality topic is covered by the previous line; this is because the vestigiality discussion is about whether or not the clitoris is just for sexual pleasure or whether or not it has, or used to have, a biological function -- "biological" as in "reproductive." But perhaps it should be worked into that line by mentioning "vestigiality" somewhere. As for including a "snippet from each significant section/subsection," I take it that you mean a summary of the most important/major aspects of the article? That's what I've done, aside from including a paragraph of the clitoris's structure in the lead (which you will be incorporating). But I only stick to the most important/major aspects...per WP:LEAD. As for citations in the lead, I am also following WP:LEAD. Whether or not to include citations in the lead is a case-by-case matter, usually a personal choice, and I feel that such a contentious topic as this should have a well-sourced lead. For years on this site, I've seen enough editors add citation tags for things that are clearly cited lower in the article, and I'd rather not have to worry about that with this article or any article I have heavily edited.

As you may have seen already, although the terms are often used interchangeably, I changed this back to "sex" because "sex" is more about biological/anatomical aspects, while "gender" is more about social aspects. Both articles showcase this. Furthermore, most sources on this topic use "sex"...including the ones backing this text in the article.

As for the technical language, I don't know what more to state on that other than what I've already stated on it. The technical language is only used where it needs to be, and many other medical and/or anatomical articles, such as HIV/AIDS, use technical language (more than this article in the case of HIV/AIDS). SilkTork took care of a bit of the technical wording, either by having me change things or changing things himself, but most of it cannot be reworded to where we are discarding the technical terms (which, as I stated, have Wikipedia links to explain what they are). Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree with that, as I don't see an unexplained or wikilinked term such as "bipotential gonadal anlage" as being either necessary or helpful to a general reader. As for "sex" vs "gender", we'll simply have to agree to differ. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. And I understand about explaining terms that are not readily and/or easily understood; like I told SilkTork, I'm okay with that, especially if briefly explained in parentheses, as long as we aren't excessive with it, the article remains professional-sounding and the text's meaning isn't changed. As for "sex vs. gender," which has been extensively debated on the Gender talk page, my view on that comes from the reading of a lot of scholarly texts, including transgender topics. It was also recently echoed by a prominent editor from WP:MED (Jmh649) when speaking to an IP. But I have acknowledged that the terms are often used interchangeably; I was only pointing out that "gender" is more of a social term. But I understand "agree to disagree," and will shut up about it now, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title "tits and clits" of an essay by Stephen Jay Gould was vetoed by his publisher, I'm sorry to say. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody have any estimates of how many men have been made a Sir in British history? Would be interesting to see a full list since 1100 or whenever. I wonder if it would be possible. Might uncover many missing notable medieval personalities.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I keep on forgetting to mention Baggrave Hall to you; a small untouched country house until Asil Nadir bought it. Ning-ning (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it an ultra dumb question or something?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete, but maybe a start--Ning-ning (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only a Cunt would have classed my edit as vandalism. MyTuppence (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Presumably you haven't yet read the note I left for you on your talk page? You now have two choices: either revert yourself, or be blocked for breaching the 1RR restriction on 1996 Manchester bombing. As for your "Cunt" comment, I will treat that with the contempt it deserves. Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't is strange how tolerant administrators are of editors calling me a cunt, but how quick they are to block me for suggesting that someone is a sycophant? Clearly MyTuppence is a far more popular editor than me, but then who isn't? Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malleus. Perhaps to your surprise, here's one administrator who has blocked MyTuppence for edit warring and personal attack, despite his/her popularity. Despite the fact that you are, by your own account, so unpopular, I am not blocking you, but I had to think hard about it. You have been edit warring, and if you continue to do so you are likely to be blocked, but you have at least conducted your side of the debate in an adult manner, without resorting to childish name calling and personal attacks. I also take issue with your use of the word "vandalism", as I think the edits were made in good faith, even if they were misguided. However, whatever the appropriate form of words, the deed is done. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another sign of progress. Look on the bright side, all! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have that one spot-on, Kiefer (what's the world coming to?). Thanks are due to JamesBWatson for displaying massive common sense rather than a simplistic procedure-bound attitude; and if more admins were able to emulate that trick, there'd be a much improved chance of avoiding Wikipedia going to hell in a handcart in the near future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not edit warring, simply trying to maintain the integrity of a GA, but I understand that's not anything considered to be important here. Much more important to encourage new editors to vandalise articles by removing sourced information they take exception to. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a strange editing pattern---removing an academic history and replacing it with two (non-leading) newspaper articles. (Also, the claim that the UK later established control over Ireland does not negate a c. 1600 or Cromwellian conquest.) Has he edited that way before? Malleus, you left a clear, informative, and polite note on his page, which was especially restrained given the edit warring. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given Wikipedia's attitude towards new editors as opposed to established ones, I consider myself fortunate not to have been blocked for trying to prevent the replacement of reliably sourced material with crap. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the new kinder, gentler Wikipedia I keep telling you about. Some days are bad, but most days are a little better than the one before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that time may tell. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that admins are expected to do is to behave as though they were too stupid to tell the difference between an editor editing constructively, but not sticking quite within the rules, and an editor editing stupidly and obstructively. Any admin who uses intelligence is in danger of being hauled before the mob at ANI or some such place, with howls of "desysop" in the air. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Common sense in an admin. ... who woulda thought that would ever happen? Anyway: Malleus .. I noticed some work on Clitoris, as I understood the discussion on the talk page: Even if I find information via "Google books" .. I should cite the info as a {{cite book}} rather than citing a URL .. is that correct? Also: Congrats. on the wedding, and I hope the Mrs. is doing well. Sorry I haven't been around - but I kind of quit watching my watchlist so I could re-learn how to actually "edit articles". Hope all is well with you. Best. Chedzilla (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

should the url be given anywhere? Chedzilla (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Malleus and stalkers! I'm kinda mulling over the idea (following on from various conversations) of a possible WikiProject: Plain English for Policies. It strikes me that our PolicyWonks are not necessarily our best writers, and that there's room (and need) for much improvement in the wording of policy pages, not to change policies, but to aim for "clarity, brevity, and the avoidance of technical language. The goal is to write in a way that is easily understood by the target audience: clear and straightforward, appropriate to their reading skills and knowledge, free of wordiness, cliché, and needless jargon." Also free of obfuscation and idiom. I think that possibly the best contributors to such a (hypothetical, at the moment) WikiProject would include some of the good regulars at FAC/FAR. Thoughts? Pesky (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wonderful. But I suspect, as the recent nonsense over the inclusion of the word "truth" in the lead of WP:V shows, that actually being able to improve policies via simplification or clarity of language is a steep hill to climb. (p.s. I feel you scuppered your option 12 in that verifiability RFC - which makes much the same point as you are talking about here - with the intrisic linkage to WP:AUTIE. It threw me, which is why I didn't comment). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The heartening thing about the RfC is that, despite the responses to View 12, Teh Community appears actually to have !voted with its feet on the actual Options, and wholeheartedly supported Option D (which was the one written in Plain English, lol! ... and used "true" rather than "truth". "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.") It said, totally clearly, the thing which the VnT Fans said could only be done with VnT.

I scoured through the civility policy a short while back and made some changes which appear to have stuck well, so I'm not altogether put off the idea that this can be done. It seems to blindingly obvious to me (and I've been saying it for ages) that our policies must be totally and easily clear to the target audience, which is primarily newbies unfamiliar with WikiJargon and also not necessarily speaking Collegiate American as their first language. Of course anything worth explaining can be explained in plain English. I've been teaching for decades, and never yet been unable to find the right words for anyone who wants to learn. (Of course there are always those who are totally closed to learning, but that's another issue.) I think a recognised WikiProject might have enough "clout" to be acceptable in cleaning up our policies, where individuals may fail. Numbers, too, of course ... ;P Pesky (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might find this video of interest, particularly from about 19 minutes in. Parrot of Doom 21:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, thanks. I wish I could find more material on gong farmers. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Why on Earth wasn't he just throwing it straight into the cart, instead of barrowing it up ... the guy's clearly never mucked out a deep-litter barn! Adding: I prefer the part where he's stripping off for a bath. Hur, hur, hur ;P Pesky (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was only horse shit anyway, not ... well you know. So the answer to your question is that human shit isn't usually so conveniently mixed with straw. Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a Nexpert in the relocation of shite, it's quite possible to chuck semi-liquid slurry up into a cart! There's a knack to it. And, anyway, wasn't the debris generally mixed with vegetable matter; the carcasses of doomed dogs, cats, and rats; "at least one boot, Three treadless tyres, A half-eaten pork pie, Some oil drums, An old felt hat, A lorry load of tarblocks And a broken bedstead ...!"^[ref] Pesky (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original Tudor gong farmers weren't street cleaners; their job was to get into cess pits and dig them out. Malleus Fatuorum 08:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Poppy Meadow know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 1, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 1, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Poppy Meadow is a fictional character from the BBC soap opera EastEnders, played by Rachel Bright. She was introduced by executive producer Bryan Kirkwood on 11 January 2011 as the best friend of established character Jodie Gold (Kylie Babbington) in scenes filling in for those cut from a controversial baby-swap storyline. Poppy returned to the series in June 2011 as a supporting character and comedy element, in a move that was generally welcomed by the tabloid press; her storylines focused on her friendship with Jodie and their intertwined love lives. Both Jodie and Poppy left the series on 14 November 2011, but the possibility was left open for Poppy to return in the future. In June 2012 Bright reprised her role as Poppy, quickly moving into Walford and resuming her employment at the local beauty salon. Poppy was introduced into the series in what critics described as "bizarre and utterly irrelevant" and "pointless" scenes, which substituted for cut scenes of the dead baby's parents at the graveside. Guardian critic Stuart Heritage considered Poppy to be "perhaps the greatest television bit-part character of the modern age" and several Daily Mirror writers gave Poppy positive reviews upon both of her returns. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm off so no need to call your pal and his mother. Haldraper (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice, although I've got no idea who my "pal and his mother" might be. Malleus Fatuorum 08:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Draper was a fine librarian and an internationally recognized meticulous scholar and translator. A name like "Haldraper" should only be associated with edits of the highest quality.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy playing poker with dog; "You seem to win a lot, pal!", "Yes, it's my pedigree, chum." (attributed to Robert Thompson). Ning-ning (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for helping with Poppy, I cant believe it got on the main page so quickly! Your comment at Poppy's talk made me laugh too, so this is for that too; as well as your amazing edits to Poppy, and really sticking with the article throughout the FA reviews! Thank you so much! — M.Mario (T/C) 16:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. A couple years ago you really helped me out with copyediting Supernatural (TV series) articles for FAC, and greatly improved them. After a two year break, I'm back to creating articles and am now finishing up Supernatural (season 3). Whenever you get the chance (it's not submitted for FAC, so no rush), would you mind copyediting the article? I should be finishing with the episodes section tonight or tomorrow, so if you want to copyedit it and start before then, you can begin with the Writing section. Thanks! Ωphois 23:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you've finished and I'll take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes are done. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your help! Ωphois 01:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the initial troubles. It's now ready. Thanks. Ωphois 02:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a minute there I thought I'd snook that link past you. I should have known better! :) Would you object to me putting the name of his company back, minus the link? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me to be bordering on spam. What does it inform us about Alice Nutter? Does David Palmer not have an article, where the name of his company could be included? Malleus Fatuorum

He doesn't have a bio article yet. I'd create one, but there won't be enough source material and he could do with winning an award. I can't argue that not trying to offer the guy a little bit of promotion (times are hard don't you know), but if I was being really pedantic, does it matter who unveiled it? At the same time I wouldn't want to damage my only local GA. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we're talking about the statue, not the sculptor's employer, and Bobby Elliott is clearly notable, then I think that who unveiled it is relevant.

PS. The witches are an FA, not a GA. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically your previous comment should read "the structual engineer's (a lot cheaper than a notable artist) company" as apposed to "sculptor's employer". But it's fine, for now I'm going to suggest that he updates his website with a bio and some detail on the "making of" --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also (and totally unrelated), do we know if it was this Westby Hall? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

It might well be, as by then Gisburn was in Lancashire. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I'm fairly sure that Gisburn only moved into Lancashire in 1974. A google search for Westby Hall also led me to Westby-with-Plumptons nr Preston. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gisburn was definitely in the West Riding of Yorkshire until 1974 along with most of the towns and villages that side of Nelson and Colne. BigDom 22:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that may well have been the Westby. I'll have to check Porter (1978). Laycock seems to have spent most of his time on the Fylde, at one time at Mowbreck Hall, Wesham. But that's quite a way from Gisburn (even though not far as the broomstick flies,of course). Maybe Lister was on his travels. Else there may have been a Westby Hall nearer to Gisburn. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm sure of is that Thomas Lister's Westby Hall was somewhere around Gisburn, but it's quite possible that it no longer exists. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Westby Hall Farm is still there. It's at BB7 4LL - if you use Google Street view you can see the farm track with sign on the A628 Burnley Road - it's on a lane called Long Causeway! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooop's I should of mentioned that there is a Westby Hall Farm about a mile SW of Gisburn, off the road to Blacko, just not the one in the Haydock article IMO --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed that Google maps incorrectly labels it as Shuttleworth Hall, and people say we're full of errors!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet again restored my comment inappropriately. Do not do it again. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]