User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2011/January

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Only the date has changed. I found working with you last year to be a nightmare, and neither of us has changed just because the calendar did. Malleus Fatuorum 05:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry you feel that way and I apologize for any offense I have caused you. If there is anything I can do for you in the future, don't hesitate to ask, even if it is just continuing to keep out of your road as far as possible. I don't share your pessimism about people changing; I have seen people change. Such beliefs can be self-limiting perhaps, though you must continue to call it as you see it, as must we all. Anyway, all the best, and sorry for any disturbance I have caused you with my message. --John (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all pessimistic about people changing, but not in synchrony with the Gregorian calendar. Malleus Fatuorum 06:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. Folks change at their own pace. Let me know if you need anything else; at least it was a proper Scottish measure I sent, and not the tiny ones I remember from my visits to England! Happy New Year (mine comes in about 25 minutes and I am about to drink the glass I photographed). Cheers! Slainthe! --John (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy your drink. A friend gave me a bottle of Jack Daniels for Christmas, which I haven't opened yet. If I suddenly go off the air later after a series of increasingly bad typos that'll be the reason. Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If this was a forum, I'd definitely sig that.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Somewhere warm sounds like a very attractive option right now, hope you're having a good time there. Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Gracias for the en dash fixes.

1. (do you think) there is anywhere we need to look for the en dashes manually (places that your script does not put them)? Will the ones from the convert templates be OK?

2. How about nbsp work? What kind of go through do we need to do, to make sure that is all in order?

TCO (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The dashes will be OK now. So far as nbsps are concerned, the main thing to look for is a number at the end of a sentence, separated by a newline from whatever its units are. I tend to stick an nbsp between every number and its units just to be on the safe side, but that's not really necessary. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Malleus, I hope you had a good new years. I was thinking of taking the Elegy page to FAC and because you also worked on it during the good article review I thought I would run it past you first and see if you wanted in on the nom. Regards, ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I didn't do enough to warrant being one of the nominators. Good luck with the FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus,

If you could spare the time, I need a fresh pair of a gifted editor's eyes on this. I hope that you don't find it as dull as the title might suggest. My major theme is the impact viruses have had on human history. I have still to write the sections on polio and measles in the 20th century, but would appreciate your help in improving my brummie prose. Best wishes, and a happy new year. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing the precursor to this at FAC fairly recently. I thought it was quite interesting, so I'll be happy to take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I respect you and don't respect you in variously equal measures based on the contribs of yours that I see. I'll try to expand on that later if you wish. For now though, please stop posting on GTBacchus' talk page. It's not productive and it's looking pretty disruptive at this point. If you could make one cohesive post outlining your issue, maybe, but this badgering needs to stop. Drop it for three days and revisit then. Bear-poking is great sport on Wikipedia, but this is going nowhere so please stop now. Yes, you can take that as a warning. Franamax (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, I think you might have missed a step here-- they had a long talk on my talk page, and it doesn't look to me like MF's recent post after that to GTB was poking ... ??? He just said he was asking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this holiday-season wiki-insanity is tiresome as it happens year after year. I'll review, but Malleus was asked to stop posting at GTB's talk and I haven't seen a re-invitation (though I will search for it). The latest post does not seem to me to especially further a meeting of minds, it looks like continuance of previous behaviour. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What's tiresome is petty tyrants marching around issuing orders without the faintest idea of what they're doing. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GTBacchus on his talk page called me a dishonest liar (and a load of other things as well) and said that he would provide the evidence to anyone who asked. I'm asking. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you (Franamax) issued a warning to GTBacchus about his continuing personal attacks? No? I wonder why not. Instead you come here and try throwing your weight around. Well, it just doesn't cut any ice with me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, if they're trying to resolve the dispute, it's not fair to ask MF to refrain from talking to GTB-- it really looked only like talking to me, in the realm of DR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, one of the reasons I respect you is that you're generally willing to stand up and throw and receive punches and not go into wounded-bird-flopping-on-the-lawn mode. I saw you calling Gwen Gale a liar just a few days ago. I've seen you using "you're either lying or deluded or both" at WT:RFA in times past. You shouldn't be getting all huffed at accusation-slinging. GTB seems aware they crossed a line, but right now they've got their back up over it. Just let it sit for now. Sandy, yes if there is a real discussion happening, I'm OK with it. I just don't want to see more of this back-and-forth, which seems to have gained absolutely zero yardage so far. Franamax (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, please review the discussion on my talk; I think MF's post was in the spirit of dispute resolution, and I thought it was going well. Let's not complicate matters, huh? Let them sort it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in the slightest huffed, I'm simply determined that the differential treatment of administrators and non-administrators when it comes to dealing with civility issues needs to be addressed. Whether or not GTBacchus is the appropriate test case for that I've not yet fully decided, but some administrator will be. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I've read that thread and other than your and Moni's great attempts at conciliation, I see two editors talking past each other. Malleus, I'm aware of your "whole corrupt mess" thesis on adminship and I just don't buy it. If anything, I'm more scared about what I say on this wiki having the bit. I do though recognize when people briefly lose it from time to time and try to forgive those lapses. This is not a rogue admin gone nuts and I don't think your approach is going to yield any benefits. Do you really think you're going to "fix" the problem you perceive? You and GTB are not communicating in anyway productively just now, you're just trading barbs. (And Sandy, yes I think Nyttend was wrong, but you were a little pointy in that situation too, so it's not totally clear-cut) Franamax (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what you're buying or selling, my mind is made up. Now are you going to sort out GTBacchus or not? Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, your intentions are good, but your timing is off; they had just finally started talking when you intervened, and now it's cranked up again, to another level. Let it go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, I suggest that you instruct your colleague not to address me on a page where I am not allowed to respond.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 times that you posted to my talk page, after I asked you to go away. After that, you sit here and claim to feel some compunction about posting where you're "not allowed to respond"? That's awesome. -198.83.152.5 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)(GTBacchus, on a weird hotel computer that won't keep me logged in from screen to screen.)

You're allowed to respond on my talk page, anytime you want. Since you didn't leave when I asked you to, but only after a few more rounds of sniping, I supposed you were entirely discounting my instruction to leave. Well, now it's revoked; you're welcome on my page. There seems to be something.... less than quite... what's the word? There's something funny about ignoring an order for hours, and then claiming to be under it's authority. It seems pretty fucking dishonest to me. You either feel constrained by my instruction to leave, or you don't. You didn't yesterday, and now you do? Weird, dude. You are welcome on my talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

K, I struck a word there. If I had to guess, I'd say you were both men editors, looking to slug it out. Franamax (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So let 'em slug it out on my talk, and Moni and I will beat down anyone who interferes. Too many cooks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not looking to slug out anything with anybody as it happens. But neither am I going to turn the other cheek. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure Sandy, I'm not going to get involved in how you manage your talk page. That's a neutral forum and you know what you're doing. I'm pretty skeptical that anything positive will come forth today, but more power to you for trying. I'll repeat my advice that everyone should step back and, as I believe you said, think about it for awhile. Franamax (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sceptical too, as GTBacchus shows no signs of remorse as yet. Malleus Fatuorum

Malleus, how often does insisting that you're entirely right and that the other chap should "feel remorse" work? Is it effective, in this universe? If not, what's the point? Don't "rational people" do things that are likely to be effective? Is this likely to be effective? Really?

I fucked up yesterday, and I've admitted as much more than once, but I'm refraining from apologizing because I think the community will be served by your promised RFC/U. I hope it happens soon. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking you for an apology, and I don't expect one. Probably best if we avoid each other for a few days though, don't you think? Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not a problem. You truly are a fascinating character, Malleus, asking for apologies, and then not asking for them. Funny one, you. :) I'll see you next week. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When have I asked you or anyone else for an apology? Indeed I hardly ever accept them anyway even if they're offered, as I prefer to go by how people behave, not what they say. Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"I will give you seven days to either to either support your assertion or to apologise for it before taking it to ArbCom." Was that an honest statement, about what you'd do in 7 days? Honesty means (among other things) not speaking untruths. I truly and sincerely hope that what you said is the truth, because I have neither supported my assertion nor apologized. If you don't do it, I won't be surprised, but don't go around saying you never ask for apologies, nor that your threats have any substance to them.

I'm only posting here, by the way, because you asked me a question immediately above. -198.83.152.5 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)(GTBacchus, on a weird hotel computer that won't keep me logged in from screen to screen.)

Please stop this GTB. You're making yourself look even more childish and silly than you already do. Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I disagree to an extent, they've pretty much openly said there are situations and editors where their fuse can be well and truly lit. As it happens, you were one of the two editors on that list. You're not pure as the driven snow here Malleus, from what I've seen you give pretty much as good as you get. We're really just talking different points of privilege here, admin vs. article-writer amd what leeway is granted to each. I'll try to expand on that tomorrow (I know, you haven't asked me to, but I feel a compulsion to do so). Since I see my role as an admin as being solely to let the article-writers get on with business (which I for some reason thought was writing articles), the whole affair is rather baffling. I can pick out transgressions from the whole lot of you. Franamax (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't transgressions, it's how those trangressions are dealt with differently depending on whether or not you're an administrator. I trust you'll address that issue as well. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry to interfere in a matter that should have been closed some time ago. It is not as clear an issue as "administrator v. article-writer". I must point out to Franamax that, although Malleus is not an administrator, he is much, much, more than a "mere" article-writer. He is in addition an adviser, a reviewer, a wise counsellor, a copyeditor, and much more. But, I guess, more to the point, he does not tolerate fools. I must say that some administrators, like the rest of us, although they may not be fools, they do some foolish things (and even eventually admit it and apologise). Wikipedians should act as a team; we need all sorts of skills: article-writers, administrators, etc. to build what is a rather exciting project. The process is damaged by all this pettiness. Let's get on with the work! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm very much afraid that this spat in which GTBacchus unwisely inserted himself looks unlikely to end well, for either him or for me. I had thought that a cooling off period before further action might have led to some acceptable conclusion, but I see from GTB's posting above that it has not, nor seems likely to. Right now I can see no alternative to escalating this issue via an RFC in due course, in the full knowledge that the best I can hope for is that GTB is desysopped at the expense of me being banned. But if that's the way it has to be, then that's the way it has to be. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a preposterous scenario you and GTB are storming up, Malleus. It is not "the way it has to be". GTB is giving himself a bad time, trying to provoke you with frenzied gestures from his place of entrenchment. Splendidly obstinate, but there is not much point in you mirroring him. GTB seems to me more like the sort of admin we need; he just occasionally has bad days. There are real battles that need to be fought against genuinely destructive admins if some balance is to be restored for article writers. This is not one of those battles; let it go (we need you to fight another day). --Epipelagic (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

GTB seems to have determined on his course, let it take him where it will. That he may not be the worst of administrators hardly seems relevant; a start has to be made somewhere, pour encourager les autres. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mall-man: Please let it go. There has to be a more important time to make a stand on what concerns you or a more thoughtless moderator to escalate things over. I won't think your willie is any shorter for not rising to the fight (here, this time). Obviously both of you are probably more intelligent and capable of reflection and self-knowledge than the average provoked battlers at this site, anyhow. (And both capable of being a bit salty and rough and flippant, nothing wrong with that btw.) If there's a more clear example of persecution, I will back you up in the future. But this sure ain't sounding like it. Just put the guy on your ignore list (this "forum" has that option, right?) and move on for a while. Let him talk to the hand and just give this thing some time and then come back and think about who was right or wrong, to what extent, with some distance. Let's kick ass on some articles.

It's not about "persecution", it's about administrators blocking and threatening to block for behaviour that they themselves and their colleagues are just as guilty of but rarely even get warned for. A stand needs to be made some time, why not here and now? GTB seems to be up for it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. No sweat. Hope you are happy and tranquil. I find I let things stir me up at times internally. Good luck on how it goes down. TCO (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

William Warelwast or Hygeberht. If you decide on Higgie, I need to add to his lead. Sorry they aren't more exiting, it's the post-holiday letdown. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We'll do William first then. I've got some stuff to do laying new flooring in our hall for the rest of the afternoon, but I'll pop by later when I'll inevitably be feeling in need of a break. Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fun! Flooring! We did that a month or so ago in a rental property, I do not envy you, although hopefully it's one of the "easy to lay" flooring types. I'm avoiding real work myself here, I should be updating some code... blech! Oh, and thank you so much for the copyediting, I know I don't praise/thank/bless you often enough for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's vinyl tiles, which are OK, but my problem is that I've discovered I'm slightly allergic to the dust created when I cut up the hardboard underlay, so after an hour or so I get a sneezing fit and have to take a break. Why is nothing in life easy? Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Could be worse, could be me. Not only do I get to update 15 year old code, but now I have a "rush" job dumped on me to deal with too... and this is the "part-time" job too! ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be advisable to wear a mask when cutting hardboard- the dust contains wood fibres and glue particles which may pose similar dangers to MDF dust (i.e. your allergic response might be to mechanical contamination of the windpipe rather than a reaction to a chemical vapour.) Ning-ning (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for that encouraging news. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, as Mrs Pedro will gladly and sarcastically verify, I'm very alergic to almost all forms of DIY, dust content or otherwise. Happy 2011 by the way. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(Refactored following notification)

In regard to your remarks about Sven Manguard's statement at Ironholds' RFA, I was polite enough to ask you to consider refactoring your comment, and since you have not done so, I am issuing this warning for a personal attack against the editor Sven Manguard.

Referring to his comments as bigoted implies the editor is a bigot, which is a personal attack and will not be tolerated. Please consider your wording more carefully in the future. BarkingFish 18:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC) (refactored by poster at 19:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Please go away and try annoying someone else. I have absolutely no interest in anything you have to say about anything. Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you do or don't, an Incivil remark is not the way to go about handling it. You've been referred for a wikiquette alert, by myself. I am not trying to annoy you, I am simply making clear a rule which exists about what you do and how you handle it. What you decide to do is your problem, not mine. BarkingFish 19:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, I really couldn't care less. You are quite simply wrong, so you'll just have to live with it. Thanks for the link to the welcome page btw. Have you taken the trouble to read it yourself? Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Do you realize how rude it is to put a "Welcome to Wikipedia" message on someone who has been here a long time? You've made your point, now why doesn't everyone get back to editing the encyclopedia, hm? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

When I posted that note, I'd never encountered Malleus, Ealdgyth. I didn't know the user, never seen them, never met them. I followed what I was supposed to do. Speaking of which...

Hello, Eric Corbett/Archives/2011. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BarkingFish 19:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because you've never encountered the editor doesn't mean a quick glance at their talkpage doesn't make it glaringly obvious that they're an established editor, and a highly active one at that. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 19:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I note that for the future. I am still unhappy about the way I've been spoken to, but now I have been made aware of WP:DTTR - I understand kind of why. I will deal with the warning above and personalise it as a message, although as MF has made it clear he will ignore it anyhow, I don't see what good it will do. BarkingFish 19:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's not a good idea to mess with Malleus—he's always right. BarkingFish, take a hike. Shut down your computer, go to the nearest park, and have a relaxing respite from the madness of yourself. You brought this upon yourself. Wahoh (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How would you know, Wahoh? Considering you only seem to have joined Wikipedia 9 minutes before you posted that message? BarkingFish 20:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's try and put this insignificant little spat behind us now BF, with no hard feelings on either side. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think that's the best idea to come out of this all night. I'm too bruised to keep going, and to be fair, I did fuck up. Significantly. I'll leave it be. BarkingFish 20:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We learn some hard lessons here, some good some bad. I realised towards the back end of last year that I was dealing with criticism in the wrong way – the wrong way for me I mean. It reminded me of Parent-Child interactions that I resented, and I reacted badly to it. Arguably I may still react badly to criticism in the eyes of some, but it no longer upsets me. Live long and prosper. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Referring to his comments as bigoted implies the editor is a bigot"—no, it does not. Indeed, WP:NPA says "Comment on the content, not on the contributor.", and Malleus did indeed comment on Sven's post (the content) and not on Sven himself (the contributor). Ucucha 19:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We allow ourselves to be offended, BarkingFish. I don't know who you are, so I would lend no credence to any of your critical commentary should we interact. Similarly, giving weight to comments from a user with whom you have never interacted suggests you may get quickly burnt out on Wikipedia. It is often a difficult place to communicate and we personalize many comments we should simply leave alone. We expect administrators to perform actions to protect us when we should rather resolve issues quietly either between ourselves or just personally alone. It infantalizes us and does not force us to grow. --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prince's Theatre, Manchester, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first production at the Prince's Theatre in Manchester was Shakespeare's The Tempest, on 15 October 1864? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That's something I never expected to see on the mainpage, so well done to you TP. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

...do try not to provoke other editors. If somebody asks you disengage from their talk page, telling them their previous comment was a personal attack (even if it was) isn't the most helpful thing to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Although it was preceded by an attack, GTB did say "Now leave my talk page". I'm just commenting (not in an admin capacity), that continuing to post there wasn't the most helpful (though not the least) thing you could have done. Although I can understand why you didn't, it might have been better if you'd just let it go or thought about how you would have handled it had it not been for your past experiences with admins blocking you for personal attacks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the admins who have blocked me for "personal attacks" ought not to be left unattended. Like most other administrators in fact. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you...are complaining that someone is making turkey noises at you? --Moni3 (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Whew! Not even a minor ban. Maybe I should have one of those signs like at a factory that says number of days without a time lost accident? But, they'll strap me to the chair on the next offense, I'm sure. TCO (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyhoo, Happy New Year, old man! TCO (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Old, young, it's in your head. All you can do is to live your life, wherever it takes you and whatever the consequences. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Que serat, serat...TCO (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

		CopyEditor's BarnStar
		I award you this CopyEditor's BarnStar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles. Probably long overdue. For excellent copyeditor help with Ferdinandea, Loihi Seamount, Mauna Kea, Mount Cleveland (Alaska), and a ton of other lurking-behind-me brilliance, I give thee tis' barnstar. Thank you =)ResMar 16:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ResMar. Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, what do you think there if left to do? Personally I've no clue =) ResMar 16:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's maybe a little bit of reorganisation still needed, but I'll take a closer look after the holidays are over, probably Wednesday. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

CopyeditorStar7.PNG

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I also noticed your many, many edits. Thank you for making Wikipedia that much better. OrbitOne 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Malleus. I previously sought your help at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum/Archives/2010/April#Article Help. I've exponentially expanded the now-renamed Manoj-Babli honour killing case. I want to bring it to featured article status. You're very adept in that arena, aren't you? I need help with the prose and organization. Codedon (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had a little bit of experience with that kind of thing, but I'm no magician. I'll try and take a look over the next few days. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

MF will work his wonders on the prose, which is a bit rocky in some places. One suggestion is that working some of those notes into the prose will improve the aesthetics ... lots of little superscripted numbers that are unnecessarily distracting. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both very much! With respect to the content, is it thorough enough for featured article material? Codedon (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had a first look through and I'm sure we can beat this into shape. I'd be inclined to take this to GAN first though, not least because the story doesn't appear to have concluded yet, with the appeals (still to be heard)? One other initial observation, echoing what SandyG said above. In parts the article reads too much like a newspaper report rather than an encyclopedia entry. Most notably when the family members are introduced followed by their age, as in "Babli's mother, Ompati (50)". Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds promising. Yes, it is a problem that the story is not yet over, but I haven't seen any updates about it since May. It's as if the media became disinterested and stopped following it. In that case, what should be done about the "appeal" section? Should I simply say that no more information is available?

I included the ages of the family members to give some context. I think that omitting them would be workable. What do you think? Codedon (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly drop the ages; so far as Manoj and Babli's siblings are concerned it would probably be enough to just say whether they were younger or older, i.e., what their relative position in the sibling hierarchy was. You also need to check on the tenses being used. For instance "Manoj owns an electronics repair shop at Kaithal and is the only member of his family receiving income" can't possibly be true. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds great. I'll get to work on that tomorrow. FYI: I've nominated the article for GA! By the way, have you finished copyediting the article? If not, there's no rush. I understand that you were fucked about earlier today by a particular misbehaving admin and plan to take some action. I sincerely wish you luck with that. Since my block 9 months ago, I've vehemently resented people who abuse their power. Codedon (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's arse for blocks, or the threat of blocks. I just go my own way, and so should you. I think your nomnation may have been a little premature, but there;s always a long queue at GAN. Let me know when you think you're finished and I'll look at the article again. Malleus Fatuorum 06:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've done everything. Thanks. Codedon (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands which achieved FL status with minimal problems. Now for another very similar list, List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England. Apart from its content, it is virtually the same as the other two FLs in the series. Would you be kind enough, as a New Year present to me, to copyedit as necessary the third paragraph in the lead (the first two are identical to the other lists), and the text in the Notes section of the list. Many greetings. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course, but I probably won't get there until tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no rush.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Another lovely article Peter, I hardly felt the need to touch it. I've just got one question, which I'll post on your talk page in case you don't see it for all of the noise on here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, had to climb high to find it! Now nominated. Many thanks once again.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough. GTB has asked you twice to stay off his talk page, yet you keep baiting him. That's enough. Dreadstar ☥ 04:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Fuck off Dreadstar. Malleus Fatuorum 04:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Defiance of a warning for your harassment? I think that the boomerang has already hit you in my eyes. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 05:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean that your response to Dreadstar's warning sounds like defiance to me. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean I think that you're talking shit. Go do it somewhere else. Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OMG, defiance. Retro you are an idiot, and this is farce. Ceoil 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Malleus, have you ever encountered GTB before this incident? ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, he has. He yelled at me, with the stated intention of "setting my hat on straight", after I suggested that "fuck off, troll" was something he would have been wiser not to say. I also pointed out that he knew damn well that he was starting a fire when he said it, and that really got under his skin. It was memorable.

We've also been parties in the same AfD/RM/whatever discussions, and had no problems there. It's only when I challenge his peculiar notion of conflict management that he bares his fangs. Abusing others is always stupid (yes, even when I do it, roughly once every 18 months), and he hates to be told that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me as though you're now trying to make the situation worse, not better. Parrot of Doom 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for stepping in on an argument that I am not party to. That out of the way, I am going to butt in. Maybe the best solution to this problem is to tell the two parties to:

1. Take their fight off wiki and find another forum to flame each other on.
2. Write essays as punishment on civility, rhetoric on Wikipedia and on Wiki Don'ts.
3. Say sorry to each other if they want any cake.

Both are experienced editors and their argument should be treated with some respect, but they both should respect Wikipedia enough not to have their fight here. --OrbitOne 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to distance ourselves from the punishment response in this case and focus rather on two intelligent adults who probably agree on more than they want to admit right now, and who could possibly work toward a common goal to address what makes them both unhappy about what occurred. Give me the cake instead. --Moni3 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, then I see only two options. They realize that Wikipedia is a place where contrasting ideas can be debated, formally, or do what they did in Newton's era; Give them pistols and tell them to take ten paces. --OO(talk)(useless text here) 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt either needs to be told what Wikipedia is. They are both experienced editors. As for the other option, there are rarely two, and Newton was, at least later in life, quite a peaceful guy. People generally want to be shown that they are understood and heard in conflicts, OrbitOne. Handing them pistols does not do that. --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the pistols were a reference and an attempt to distract them to how gentlemen settled academic disputes in his era. Yes, they dueled when reason did not lead to a conclusion. Kinda puts a new light on the merits of calculus; Newton shot first. Anyways, even the best can forget where they are at times. Maybe we should remind them? --OO(talk)(useless text here) 22:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're trying to be helpful, but I'm perfectly well aware of what wikipedia is and don't need to be reminded. What I'm also aware of is that this is not the first time that GTBacchus has lapsed into abuse when he gets pissed off, and that that's unacceptable for an administrator, or ought to be. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Did someone say cake? Count me in! A belated Happy New Year to Malleus and all commenting here. Live and let live in 2011! (2012 is another matter.) Geometry guy 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC) On Moni3's talk page. --OO(talk)(useless text here) 22:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger, but someone who watched the whole thing unfold on wiki (I didn't) contacted me to say that it looked like you were baited, and the whole thing was cooked up on IRC-- not about GTBacchus, but why that fish got involved to begin with. MF, don't take the bait when the kiddies are after 'ya! It reminds me of what they did to The Fat Man; it makes them feel powerful to take down someone of stature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that GTB did anything other than wander in where angels ought to have feared to tread. I had a pretty good idea that the whole thing had been cooked up somewhere; too many kiddies peddling the same distorted version of the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, do you mean to say that BarkingFish warned Malleus because of a plot thought up on the wiki IRC? ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Figured it made sense, after "crawling" to get back into editing. (Be good, man. In all the multiple ways that can be construed, experiential versus active, moral versus qualitative, etc.)  :)  :)

TCO (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a painted turtle by any chance? Good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That which does not kill us, makes us stronger! I don't mind losing, if I learn. But I intend to win...TCO (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Who were you before? What's the story? Is it a secret? Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Speculation drives the market, as I told the lady who wanted to know if I was (were?) a virgin. I'm nobody, Mall. Just a dude on the Intertubes. Seriously, be good in all manners. One team, one fight. Semper fi, trooper.TCO (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am hugely grateful for your edits. I worry a little about the bill, if you charge by the hour, but it will be worth it. Bless you! Tim riley (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about the bill, we'll sort something out. It's always a good sign when SandyG starts complaining about MoS stuff, so chin up. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you didn't ask for one, but you're getting an apology. I assumed incorrectly when I saw your comment here that you meant that you'd told me to f*** off, which I know you didn't - I got my wires crossed, and I apologise for the inference and possible offence you would have taken from the comments. BarkingFish 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not some china doll that gets upset about stuff like that. Now go write an article. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus--I'm getting pretty sick of reading and re-reading my own writing in this article. I'm not entirely done with it, got a few more articles to read for the Themes section, but if you have a moment, one of these days, to have a quick look with your eagle eye and with your sharpest quill in hand, I'd sure appreciate it. It's under GA review (and possibly FA review, if I understood the reviewer's words correctly); I think the content's there, but it just doesn't look very good to me. You were offered money above for your editing skills--but with Sinterklaas and Christmas in the recent past and two birthdays this week, money is tight. I can bake, though... Seriously, thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You may not have come to the right person, as I've only ever written one literature FA and that about a relatively little-known book that I felt passionately about and had actually read, unlike the Green Plums. I also had a fair bit of help from experts like Awadewit. Nevertheless if you want me to look over the prose then of course I will. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly why I came to you, looking for a critic of prose--in a way, it's better if you know less about the topic. There's no rush, I don't think, and I am not asking you to go over every detail in every section. I just re/wrote the Themes section, and I think that's the worst writing in the entire article. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm looking at viruses right now, which is a fascinating story, so maybe tomorrow or Friday. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Like these? Great birthday gifts for former lovers! Drmies (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, don't know if you are feeling like being pestered at the mo, but I just wondered what you thought about titles for articles about individual workhouses. I've been scraping some info together about Leigh Workhouse, is that the best title or maybe Leigh Poor Law Union Workhouse, Leigh Poor Law Union or just Leigh Union Workhouse or something else I haven't thought of? I thought if we sort of standardised it now, it would be easy to link them to say a list of Lancashire PLUs which I have also started in here. PS Elizabeth Tyldesley was kept, so I started an article about the convent.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite any indications to the contrary on this talk page I'm feeling very chilled out, so pester away. :-) I've just checked with Higginbotham's excellent book – if you haven't got a copy you really must try and get one – and he calls it "Leigh Union workhouse". He's even got a picture of it on page 55. In general I think that most of these places will have "official" names, like Huddersfield's Crossland Moor workhouse for instance, so if we ever wrote an article on that I'd call it "Crossland Moor workhouse", with a small "w" and no Huddersfield. That seems to be consistent as well with articles like Andover workhouse scandal, which really ought to be expanded into an Andover workhouse article IMO. Quite a few workhouses will predate the setting up of PLUs in 1834 anyway. I'm glad you've started on that list, you're shaming me into getting my nose back to my grindstone. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you're ok. There you go, one I hadn't thought of! I'm going to mention the pre 1834 workhouses in the article. I'll look for the book. The Lancashire PLU list is a just a start, it could take forever at the rate I operate. I am coal mining at the moment. I can't visit my relatives now without wondering what workings might lie beneath the ground. I had a most productive day yesterday and started several articles and a totally unproductive day today meeting school friends.:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You've made me think that I might start a similar list for Cheshire if Peter I. Vardy doesn't beat me to it. (Yes, rich Cheshire had workhouses too Peter. :-) ) Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I'll feel compelled to do something about it if you do that and I really wanted to try and find out why I can't make my Coal mines (seams) link like they can from this list which is my current reason for procrastinating.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What is it that's not linking? Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

With the Yorkshire list Barnsley Seam links, with my list, (copying the whatever it's called) Worsley Four Foot mine doesn't :-( --J3Mrs (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It does now; you just forgot to create the redirection page. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't forget, I had no idea:-( I've told you before I have no idea how this thing works, I just copy what I think is ok and hope for the best but sometimes I have to be rescued. I will now try to discover what the redirection page is. Thank you for your help. I have several more to link, I might be back.:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you click on Worsley Four Foot mine and scroll to the top of the page right under the artucle title you'll see this: "(Redirected from Worsley Four Foot mine)". Click on that link and it'll take you to the redirection page, where you'll see how the trick is done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Did it, amazing and I've drunk a large glass of red!--J3Mrs (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just the one? Pehaps that's your problem; take my advice, never edit sober. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. The names have to match exactly. Is it "Brassey Mine" or "Brassey mine" for instance? Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just the one, large, I don't really drink much, and chocolate, done more, fixed Brassey mine, I learn something every day, mostly not useful.:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this sentence (bolded bit):

However, no church from this age in the Slavic-populated parts of the Balkans was up-to-date with contemporary Byzantine architecture.

I am sure there is another way of saying this but my mind has gone completely blank on this one - the article in question, Round Church, Preslav, is currently at FAC and I am giving the prose a bit of a massage. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd merge it with the previous sentence, which would have the additional advantage of getting rid of that "however". Something like "The Round Church differs markedly in appearance from the architecture of contemporary Byzantine churches, as does every chuch from this age in the Slavic-populated parts of the Balkans". Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus Fatuorum, just wanted to thank you for the comprehensive copyedit of Round Church, Preslav. Much appreciated! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It was hardly comprehensive but you're welcome anyway. It's a nice article, I hope you're successful at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I offer you this example of what you could have to deal with from me, since my handwriting is fully as ... creative as this poor manuscript, and often my desk does horrid things to papers also - although it's never yet burned one. THank you so much for all your copyediting, it's very much appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. I was just looking over Mount Thielsen and I don't think it's in poor shape. It certainly needs a lot of fine-tuning. Perhaps a bit more information. Would you be willing to read over it and offer some comments? Regards, ceranthor 20:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look in the next couple of days or so. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I've finished expanding it now. It's around 11kb. ceranthor 16:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

While the church list is marinating at FLC, I thought I ought to do a bit for the Cheshire project. Do you think Tabley House is worthy of nomination as a GAN? Have you any advice for its improvement? If it's worthy, would you perform your usual magic on the text, please. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Tabley House would stand a very good chance at GAN. There's always quite a queue there as you know, so I'd nominate it now and I'll read through it properly later. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Yes, I hadn't appreciated how many articles are waiting. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the best way to give ready access to different guidelines, templates, etc. that help with editing? I have been using a folder in my IE "favorites". I see some people who have very organized user pages with a lot of that clickable. Should I develop that for myself? Also, I sorta see some people who actually get someone else to build their page for them. (Anyone you recommend and how does one appeal to them to get that service?) Thoughts?TCO (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Some editors put them on their userpages, I've got a collapsible box on my talk page. I think there are editors who offer to build user pages, White Shadows may know of some. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I get asked to copyedit a lot of articles and I'm almost always happy to help where I can, but not when my work (and it is work) is taken advantage of to build up a high score at the wikicup, which is what I suspect has happened with this article, which verges on the unintelligible in places. I ought therefore to make it clear that I will not copyedit any article where I know the editor to be a member of the wikicup, and neither will I review such articles either at FAC or at GAN.

I do not seek some kind of reward for what I do here, and very obviously will get none other than further opprobrium, so I will not assist those who do. Discuss. Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I think the Wikicup almost inevitably causes writers to cut corners. It isn't worth having. We can find other virual toys to give out.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And to claim the work of others as their own, which is my real beef here. I'm by no means averse to giving editors a leg up, and by coincidence with the help of Diannaa last night we managed to save Linda Ravenscroft from being salted after its third creation in something like an hour after having been speedy deleted twice. There's obviously nothing in that for me, and there may possibly be for her (Ravenscroft I mean), but that's quite different from the wikicup ethos. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I know we've discussed this before, but what precisely is your objection to the WikiCup? Is it the competative aspect? You say that the concern is people "claiming the work of others as their own", but how do you feel the WikiCup does this any moreso than, say, the fact I list featured articles written primarily by me on my userpage? I'm honestly interested in working the WikiCup towards something that can be respected/enjoyed by all, and so I value your thoughts on any problems with the current model. J Milburn (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the article that triggered my comment, but it's by no means an isolated incident. Why should I be expected to spend hours of my time fixing up a crock like that just so that some other editor can be lauded as a hero of the wikicup? I have never refused to help an editor working on an article that they clearly care about, and especially if they are not native English speakers, but the wikicup makes that collaboration a competitive one, which is anathema to me. "I need your help to get another 50 points in the wikicup". Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me- would I be right in saying that the problem is editors who don't care about the articles themselves, and the WikiCup can serve to make this worse? J Milburn (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the editors don't care about the articles, perhaps they do, but I'm suggesting that they care more about their wikicup points. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those who care more about competition than about achievement. Unhappily, there are quite a few such, and some are talented though misguided.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The good news for the wikicup though is that now that I've expressed my unequivocal opposition to it there will be seething masses of editors supporting it, all very willing to do what I refuse to do. I'm quite used to that here. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand Malleus and I won't ask for such favors. Would it still be acceptable for you to assist me in copyediting (or translating to British English) articles that cannot be counted in the Wikicup (such as ones that were nominated before the competition began and thus are ineligible to claim points from? Or ones such as ACRs that don't get points in the Cup?) When I get eliminated, may I ask for your assistance in working on articles again? I've recently been trying really hard to improve the quality of my work, (which to be honest, needed improvement looking back at some of the articles that I wrote last year) and sometimes, I do need your help on things, whether they be pointers or having you do some copyediting. I hope that you are OK with this....if not, just say so and I'll stop asking ;) All the best and happy belated New Year,--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 03:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course. It's not to do with editors but with motivations; I can think of no good reason why I should spend an hour or more – it can easily take that long to look at an article properly, one I probably don't even have any interest in – just to give someone an extra few points in a competition I don't care about. I'm conscious of what may appear to be a slight inconsistency in my position though, which I'd like to try and clarify. I've copyedited a great many FAs and GAs, far more than I've been credited with or ever will be credited with, but I'm happy to do that because the nominators are working on stuff they care about, not trying to gain points. Ealdgyth in particular embarrasses me with the generosity of her co-nominations after I've shuffled a few commas about in her articles, very few of which I think I deserve. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside White Shadows, and I hope this doesn't sound patronising (it certainly isn't meant to be), I'd have to say that the quality of your writing has improved immeasurably over the last year or so. If you keep it up then I'll soon be asking you for help, not the other way around. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the flattering comment Malleus. (I'll try not to let it go to my head) That means a lot from me, coming from a writer like yourself. I remember once that the PoD said something about "when you [Me] get your first FA or even TFA" and my response was admiting that I'd never get there....everything is funny to some extend with hindsight. However, I doubt that I could help you with your work here, that is, unless you suddenly have a keen interest for the Austro-Hungarian Navy and other battleships of minor navies!--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 04:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely I think; there are too many witches and other weird stuff to write about. Which reminds me of the story of the two children who arrived in 12-century England as the result of a matter-transporter malfunction on their home planet. And looking at that word "weird" reminds me of something else. Have any of your teachers ever told you that it's "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'"? Complete rubbish. Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't let Malleus fool you, did you see he wrote on a medieval rebel the other day? He's going to be corrupted to medieval bishops yet... and when we (i.e. all three of us in the world that care!) accomplish that, we'll get him writing about .. medieval manuscripts next! (Speaking of... Liber Eliensis is probably ready for a Peer Review then a run at FAC..., you have been warned...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You may well be proved right sooner than you think Ealdgyth. I've been toying with the idea of doing something with Thomas de Cantilupe since I did that medieval Welsh rebel. I really want to get my workhouse finished before I contemplate anything like that though. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I just copied some stuff on TdC, but I've got Mike cracking the whip over at Bede wanting me to actually work on the old Venerable guy. And I'm supposed to take the child to Vietnamese this afternoon - must support the one local eatery that serves a decent cuisine! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever had Vietnamese food, not that I can remember anyway; my favourite is probably Korean. I don't know whether Bede is considered to be one of those "vital" articles or not, but it certainly seems like an important topic to me, so good luck to you and Mike with it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Been watching QI perchance Malleus? --John (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what jogged my memory, yes. Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That was the standout part of the standout TV show over the holidays for me. Can't watch them here on regular TV and have to go to extraordinary lengths to download decent TV (read British TV). Count your blessings. --John (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been to California, and I've seen Californian TV, so you have my deepest sympathy. All I remember of it is the earthquake forecasts. Malleus Fatuorum 04:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

... but for what must be the worst TV in the world you have visit Saudi Arabia. I've never been there myself, but I've watched it in Pakistan. Hour after hour of people wandering around some big black slab and interviews so deferential they want to make you vomit. Malleus Fatuorum 04:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds awful. Personally I prefer Abba to Kaaba any day. Seeing Miami Vice in Afrikaans doesn't count as it was so weird it was funny. Far better than the original. Think it was titled Misdaad en Miami IIRC. --John (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I live in America, home to an ever-so-deteriorating educational system (much thanks to the No Child Left Behind Act) But, yes, I did know that the rule existed....however I always thought that "Weird" was just an exception to the rule. This makes me wonder, why do British people use "u"s so often? Colour, Armour, Humour...the list goes on (Though I personally perfer "Colour" to "Color") Another thing (sorry if I'm going off on a tangent here), why do Americans pronunce Aluminum different than Brits?--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 04:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Aluminium#Etymology and WP:ALUM. --John (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity you can't get QI in the States, but in fact words like "weird" are very common, not the exception at all. One obvious example is "their", which we probably all see every single day. Weird. Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the earthquakes are certainly better than the TV here. Had a 4 a couple of hours ago in fact. Like a very heavy lorry going past. I always teach that other than a forensic knowledge of linguistics and etymology, the only way to learn Eng spelling is lots and lots of practice. None of these "rules" is really any good. --John (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it clear that I could care less about the WikiCup, and if I didn't have tough skin, I'd be insulted that you associated trying to improve one of my old articles with trying to get points for some contest, Malleus. Thank you for your comments thus far, and frankly, I'll seek help elsewhere from now on. ceranthor 05:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a good job we both have tough skins then, else we'd both be insulted. Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I missed quite a discussion on pronunciation and TV shows. It's past midnight here and I'm going to "hit the hay". Goodnight guys.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 05:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question about why we British use so many "U"s. British English is full of odd spellings because it's a mish-mash of lots of other languages due to the fact that Britain was invaded or influenced by various people at different times. During the middle ages (by which time we'd been invaded by Angles, Romans, Vikings and Normans amongst others) educated people needed to speak Middle English for everyday use, Latin for ecclesiastical purposes and French for administrative purposes. The words that end in 'ough' such as through and plough (plow in American) tend to come from Norse (the Vikings) and words that end in 'our' such as colour, harbour and arbour tend to come from French (the Normans). There were various spellings used (including plow and color) but they became standardised towards the end of the 18th century. For a short period American and British English were pretty much the same but when the US gained independence Noah Webster decided that Americans needed their own standard English and from then the two languages diverged. Of course all language constantly evolves and no-one knows what the influence of the internet will be. It looks as if neither American or British English will dominate as there are many other hybrid forms emerging that are spoken by millions of people across the world. The arguments about spelling on wikipedia will only get worse :) Interestingly, there are some words that are no longer used in British English that are commonly used in American. The word 'gotten' which is used a lot in the US is described as 'archaic' in the Oxford English Dictionary and is generally only used in everyday English in the term "ill-gotten gains" I have, however, seen 'gotten' used recently on wikipedia talk pages by British contributors. Another US term that seems to be creeping in to British English is 'it will likely be...'. Until recently, everyone in Britain would have said 'it will most likely be...' As the Dowager Countess of Grantham said in Downton Abbey when she sat unexpectedly in one of those new-fangled swivel chairs designed by Thomas Jefferson - 'Why must I be fighting with an American every day?' Richerman (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have some sort of weird neuro condition and can't read or write normally. Please help him get that thing to conform to normal wiki practices. I respect any changes you make including major ones. Just pitch in and help him with the star please. My ability to interact will be really low.TCO (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't read or write normally either, so I guess we must both have some sort of weird neuro condition. ;-) I saw earlier that you'd removed your name from the nomination, which seems a shame after all of the work you put in. Think about it again. Sasata made some good points, but there's nothing there that would take very long to fix. I can help with the presentation aspects, and I already made a start there anyway. In my experience getting through FAC is at least as much about perspiration as it is about inspiration. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the likely edit conflicts. I done on this article til about 9pm. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, no harm done. I'm just happy to see someone else working on it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff on the changes I see you making. About 98% (maybe even 100%!) are things like removing the extra "increases" that I see and am sooo "right on" with. So it's a joy to have you brush it up. I just honestly don't get the overall feeling from most reviewers here that I would for reviewers of a print journal or true-life magazine editors or the like. And then I see this tendancy in wiki to do thinks like overlink (e.g. geographic names). Things that you can even find advice here on wiki describing why not to do it (or why especially not to do in the lead). And dealing with that sort of thing is just a drag. Take care of young Dominick and be of good cheer. I don't mean to be dramatic and the medical thing is really coming at an akward time.* Make the thing sing as best you can. And if you have to turn it into biologist lumpenprose (a study of readability showed that they were the most needlessly wordy of any discipline) avec overuse of nominalizations, then do so.

It's just a total confounding factor. I'm used to a lot more rough play than on the wiki. Places where the banter is much more vigorous. It's just some medical thing in my body. Got back from the ER and there is no (big) tumor or stroke. But am reduced in function (fortunately I have reserves, but I still can tell the difference and it's weird not to be able to concentrate to read, when I am such a surf the net type of guy). Anyhow, not going to die soon according to the ER doc although was sick at stomach last night. See a specialist Monday and they will probably do an MRI to look fer a widdle tumor.  ;) I hope it is, instead, just some bug that is in my brain that my white blood cells will kill soon.TCO (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it's just an infection and it'll soon be cleared up. Do me a favour, put your name back as a nominator and I'll do what I can to help out while you're hors de combat. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are doing so great! That turtle shell with bottom thing was bugging me, wanted to note the correlation unambiguously (top of a turtle is green when pond bottom is green, and black with black) but was struggling how to do so tersely. I am playing the soundtrack from Phenomenon (film), which was rather ominously sitting on the top of my "unplayed in a while" pile of CDs. You gotta laugh man. I actually don't feel scared or unhappy. This is so different from being sick with a bad flu where you go to bed half-scared of making it through. This is so peaceful. Dopey and even euphoric at times. I know this sounds so wacked to say this, but can't help trying to share something pretty. Like one a them sample paras from Willa Cather in Harbrace going on about evocative writing and the like, blabla!  :)  :)

I'm really not that unhappy with the wikians. It is all cool. Learning is fun. And so is teaching. Despite it's lofty Google rank, I almost wonder if the biggest use of Wiki has been to sort of bridge the gap from professional writing for young editors. They are so much further than I was at 18. Source citations all over the place (and the computer has made this so much easier than the typewriter did). I can see beautiful submissions to Science in their futures. TCO (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always been a stickler for pointing out the tautology in the "giraffes' necks grew longer so that they could reach the higher branches" school of evolutionary exposition. Has your doctor forbidden you to drink? If not, I thoroughly recommend a glass or two of red plonk. Which reminds me of another factoid from QI; although doctors always tell you not to drink if you're taking antibiotics there's absolutely no justification for it, as alcohol doesn't interfere with the action of modern antibiotics. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I "get it", friend. I've heard it before and would probably get it anyway if you corrected it anyhow. That's why such a simpatico joy to see you fix things (since I agree anyhow!)

Thanks for the virtual Rumpolian plonk. Despite trying to play with the links and all, I am pretty low off. Spouting off smart things the way I would if drunk. I really feel doped and think booze would be a bad idea. Plus I gave it up the last 18 months. Dropped 70 pounds and lifted weights and biked (actually almost as strong as high school wrestler days). I had so much gin over the years. Feel like I "checked that box". Don't miss it, honest. I'll go see the neurologist Monday and get it figured out. I'm really happy.  ;)

In puttering here and there, I'm now trying to resolve dumped templates in articles where I find them. Where an editor placed a template or tag in an article and I'm sure, supremely pleased with such an action, never attempted to resolve it. In Challenge (literature) a globalize template was placed on the article. Is there a term for parents or other organizations attempting to remove books from libraries or classrooms? Is there a group, like the American Library Association, that keeps track of these protests in the UK? (Or, is the UK a bastion of free enlightened thought populated by no overweight people that we can only look upon with woeful jealousy?) Same question to Tony1 re Australia. --Moni3 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It does happen here sometimes. I seem to remember some objections to Enid Blyton's Noddy books in schools, but but I'm not sure it happens very often, or that we have a name for such objectors; I'll look into it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems just to be included under the general heading of "PC". This is about as official a list as I've found. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a graduate student at Pratt in NYC, doing my thesis on crowdsourcing. I was given your contact info by another Wikipedia contributor in the hopes that you may be able to answer questions about your experience with this site. I can email you the questionnaire if you have a few minutes to help me out in my research! many thanks, rimahsinno@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.163.67 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll email you my email address later this afternoon. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying. I have not received an email from you yet, I hope we get to connect soon! Thanks. Rima —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.163.67 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Gagh, I forgot! I'll send it shortly. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You never know. Can someone tell me why Harry Bassett redirects to Dave Bassett? I just finished up preliminary work on Harry Bassett (horse), and went to do hatnotes, and realized there is no real reason given in the Dave Bassett article why the redirect goes from Harry Bassett... Of course, the whole Dave Bassett article is utterly uncited, so if someone is watching who knows anything about non-American football and wants to tackle that project... that might be good. I haven't the slightest clue, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an error to me, there's no justification for the redirect. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but there may be a reason, and given the lack of sources given on the person article, I'm hesitant to just overwrite the redirect without someone knowledgeable looking into it. The horse isn't harmed by being at Harry Bassett (horse), so it's not a crisis, luckily. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason, trust me. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look necessary to me, either. Harry Bassett has no incoming links, so I can easily zap it and move the horse over. Courcelles 21:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm linking to the Daily Mail here, but "Harry" is the guy's nickname, so might be a plausible search term & might be worth a hatnote on the new horse article. [2] --BelovedFreak 21:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like you're right, as The Grauniad calls him Dave "Harry" Bassett. A hat note on the new horse article ought to do it though. Strange that the Dave Bassett article doesn't mention his nickname of "Harry". Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your move from Dave Bassett to David Bassett - he has always been known as "Dave". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No he hasn't, but I don't care enough to fight you over it. Or indeed at all. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my comment here the other day. I want to make it clear I'm interested in article building solely for the purpose of providing coverage (The WikiCup is a good idea, but it shouldn't let article quality suffer, and I don't intend for it to do so in my case). The article's so poorly written because a lot of it was written 2 years ago when my prose wasn't very tight and I didn't put much care into writing. I'll do my absolute best to work on the prose over the coming days and I hope you'll be willing to forgive my not doing so before asking you to copyedit. Regards, ceranthor 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries Ceranthor, we all get a little heated from time to time, even me. ;-) I stand by what I said though, I won't help anyone get wikicup points. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This was the first computer I ever messed around on. My dad bought one in 1979, when I was 7 years old. I used to programme games on it, play space invaders, etc. He passed away recently (hence not much activity here) and I've been going down memory lane, he hoarded everything but unfortunately not this. With your interest in computers, I don't suppose you know anyone or anywhere I might be able to buy one from? I still have the odd game tape for it. I don't mind what it costs. Parrot of Doom 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your Dad, little wonder you've had other things on your mind recently than to mess about here. I used to know someone who specialised in old computers but I'm not sure what he's doing now. I'll check. Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, from personal bitter experience of tapes from that era I very much doubt that the ones you have will still be readable unfortunately. Even on mainframes we had to regularly refresh the mag tapes by copying them periodically. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to get hold of a working PET or similar era microcomputer if you're determined (The National Museum of Computing have working models of lots of things from the late 70s, as well as earlier decades of course, but I find they are usually more keen to swap stories and request hardware than to part with any of their prized exhibits). However, it's much easier to get hold of the far more numerous (and usually smaller and less delicate) microcomputers from a few years later, for example the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum, BBC Micro and so on. As for the tapes, some survive but many don't. Thus many retro enthusiasts opt for emulation. VICE is probably the market leader for that as far as the PET is concerned, a possibly more encouraging screenshot here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate TPS comment: Parrot, I'm sorry to hear that too. My father died last year; fortunately for me, he did leave me what I consider his prize possession, in red. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if the tapes don't work I can always programme new ones in, line by line :) A US PET went on Ebay recently for a few hundred quid, postage is the killer (steel case) so I'd prefer one from the UK. There's no rush, they're not easily disposed of. Parrot of Doom 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There was one at Newark Antiques Fair back in September or October at some silly price- next fair is in February. It was a TRS 80.Ning-ning (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We had a TRS-80, I seem to recall it interfering with every electronic device in the house. I used to play a moon lander game on it. The computer timeline in my house was Pet>TRS-80>VIC-20>C64>A500>IBM PCs Parrot of Doom 17:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I had one too, and I also remember the lunar lander game, much fun though not as good as the (primitive!!) arcade version. Newark Antique Fair can be a wonderland, or it can be filled with junk, I've been six or seven times on visits to the UK over the years and bought a few things in my time. I think the best was a despatch box belonging to an obscure Gladstonian cabinet minister (Sir Arthur Dyke Acland, 13th Baronet). Not in very good shape at all, but it is still a little bit of history.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

load "*",8 --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(od)For real junk, visit the Nottingham Cattle Market, where the stallholders sell the stuff that's been dumped after the house clearance boys have been. I think the absolute nadir was when a stallholder had on his pile a wooden box holding the cremated remains of some poor old man, and his collection of "magazines". Ning-ning (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As an interesting aside I've just found out that my Speak and Spell ended up in my niece's hands, and is shortly to be returned to me :) That would be the original model, with wobbly round buttons. I have the expansion cartridge for it also.

It's like retro-central here right now. Parrot of Doom 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I find having a few things that were familiar to the eye when I was younger refreshing. I went out and bought one piece of my parents' china (not even one setting, just a demitasse) and it sits on a shelf in my living room. I don't know about speak and spell, though. That might be heading too far in that direction.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that due to what can only be post-New Years drunkenness on a massive scale, I've got sysop rights. Given your general opinion of sysops, your support means a hell of a lot to me; I'll try not to let you down. You're one of only two people receiving thankspam, which out of 167 should be demonstrative of something :p. As always, my main focus will be content-editing, not contributor-removing, so expect to see me around. I reiterate my standing offer to take a look through your GANs - just drop me a line when you need me. Many thanks once again, Ironholds (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy your new-found authority, but don't get too caught in the dramas that surround too many of your colleagues. Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. May I suggest you folk adjourn to the article talk page to sort out your differences? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I now see you've done that. More thanks. Rumiton (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So why did you assume that I hadn't? Why didn't you check before posting here? Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just ... ugh. TFA day. The mess with Richard I of England. Someone trying to add a link to the WRONG out-of-date Dictionary of National Biography entry to Warelwast. It's freezing cold here and damp, which makes my joints ache. The children were annoying as heck this morning... ARGH! There... I've vented and I feel better. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that Willie's TFA wasn't going so badly, far better than my nightmare anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Willie's is going mostly fine, it's the spillover to Dickie-boy that's the problem, along with about fifty million other things keeping me from getting to what I wanted to get done! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

		WikiProject Ghost towns Barnstar
		Thank you for the reviews, edits and fixes to help Thistle, Utah reach FA status. Dave (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to consider joining the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, which is looking for experienced Wikipedians to be Online Ambassadors. The role of Online Ambassadors is to be mentors for students who are editing Wikipedia as part of class assignments. Please look at the Online Ambassador guidelines. I have seen the contributions you have made and know that you would be a great mentor and Ambassador. You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are the right attitude, regular activity and the ability to give practical feedback on articles. Thanks Thruxton (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but are there any sections of Thielsen other than the history that need lots of work? ceranthor 17:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you're watching this article, but it's passed GA with no problems. Many thanks for your help in this. A bit of progress for Cheshire.....--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think that you'd have too much trouble with it Peter. I was just looking at the Alderley Edge article, as the Edge itself is weird enough for me to take an interest in, but just look at this. Absolutely astonishing and completely demotivating. Malleus Fatuorum 11:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite; where do you start? Again, I guess. Although I do have some sympathy with newbies. For people without academic experience it takes some time to get used to inline citations. And the instructions are maybe not firm enough about this. I know that for my initial stumbling attempts I included a section of References (really a bibliography) until I learned to do it "better". I think Alderley Edge needs two articles, one for the village and one for the edge itself. And the best of luck! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'll give that some thought. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The citation style doesn't bother me at all, it's the "Oh wow, David Beckham once lived here, and I think Rio Ferdinand does now too" stuff. Who cares where these overpaid footballers live? Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, looks like I've written a book. Compare [3] and [4]. I know what the wiki warning says but I guess I'll give up on anything original if somebody else can profit from it.Not very motivating is it?--J3Mrs (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll probably find that most of us have written books like that. No disrespect, but £30? Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh MF, don't you think I'm worth it? After all it's a High Class (Start Class) Wikipedia article ;-) What would it be worth finished? I might even find myself referencing myself if I'm not careful.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully some will realise that there's a little pdf creation tool on each article, and that they can have their own copy for nothing. Parrot of Doom 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

30p seems somewhat expensive to me when it's here for free. I have some more to add from the Guardian link but I find myself somewhat reluctant to add it!--J3Mrs (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just forget about it. I've been watching a few TV reports about the death of wikipedia this evening, notably a Newsnight interview by Kirsty Wark. It's not at all obvious that wikipedia's model of unpaid and under-appreciated editors subjected to the harassment of an overly self-important admin cadre has any legs; for myself I contribute in the hope that something better will come along, and that our work will be ported over to it. I've given up any hope for this place. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been struggling with my involvement here for some time now. I am heartily sick of the social engineering aspects embodied in the cloying civility policy amongst others, so I determined just to do whatever I want, wherever I want, and whenever I want. If that ends up being no engagement at all with the project then the loss will be wikipedia's, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you get fed up, it's very easy on here. Doing just whatever you want sounds good to me, and you've said it before!--J3Mrs (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I do what I want to do. Why shouldn't you? (As long as you help me when I need you!) Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You've already shown yourself to be far more sensible than I'm ever likely to be Peter, but I will try to follow your example. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just a quick question. How did you do this? I am guessing you didn't do it by hand. --John (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I did it by hand. Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Hats off. --John (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we've addressed the GA reviewer's points now? I didn't agree with a few of them, notably about adding the commas, but that's no big deal. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All bar one. With you on the commas but no big deal. --John (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus!

I forgot to thank you for your edits on the Shapley–Folkman lemma.

Now, the article is undergoing a GA review. Of course, I would be delighted if you have time to look again at the article.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish you luck with it, but you've got two unaddressed requests for citation and the lead needs some work to properly summarise the article. Right now I don't think it would pass a GA review. Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick. I did rewrite the lead, and provide citations. Thanks again! Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If I was reviewing this article I'd be very worried about the lead, as it's pretty much inaccesible to the general reader. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick look also shows that "vector space" is sometimes hyphenated and sometimes not, apparently arbitrarily. Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

By MOS, the phrase "vector space" must be hyphenated when it is preceded by a modifier, such as in "finite-dimensional vector-space" or "real vector-space" (unless the latter abbreviates "real-vector space" conceivably for "space of real vectors"). I'll check the article for consistency. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'll give you that one. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews though are of course down to the GA reviewer, so I can't do much to help there. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

See, you're not so scary after all! ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I wondered whether saying I'm not scary is "a personal attack" or not, but in truth I have no idea how that stuff works here, so I didn't wonder for long. Has the review stalled? Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

By my (immature) experience, a "personal attack" or "incivility" is a discussion of an administrator's behaviors on my talk page, at least it has felt that way, at least the first time other administrators hammered me for kibbitzing on a Rfc! (Seriously, I understand that it's unproductive to complain about behavior on a talk page ....)

You have my sympathies for your similar experiences, and my admiration for your editing with Geometry guy: This is why I tried to recruit you ....

David Eppstein has made a number of great edits, and I suppose that the GA-reviewer is just waiting a day or so for the dust to settle. (I left a notice in December that I would be unavailable for some weeks, and Jakob graciously extended the 7-day deadline.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has fewer hyphens, now, by consensus. At the article's talk page, David Eppstein argued that contemporary mathematical convention should trump the MOS (assuming my reading to be correct), and he directed me to an interesting discussion of hyphens, from which I excerpt this quote:

The author of the style-book of the Oxford University Press of New York (quoted in Perrin’s Writer’s Guide) [... wrote], “If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad”.

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The GA review of the Shapley-Folkman lemma (improved the article and) did certify it with GA status. (Jakob also provided good suggestions for improvement.)

Thanks for your help.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's good news, but I didn't really help, I just picked at a few very small nits in an otherwise excellent article. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Look ma, no hands! Myrrha: pretty good for an old troll. TCO (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Who says you can't teach an old troll a new trick? :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of good sex and violence (and scholarship) in mythology. Same as with turtles.TCO (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Hey Malleus, watching the improvements to the article has been exciting , thanks for all your improvements there , its looking WP:GA - good to me, Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell, but I couldn't turn down the invitation to get involved. You were right to nominate it at GAR, probably nothing would have changed if you hadn't, but it's sometimes amazing what can be done in a fairly short period of time. There's still a lot of tidying up to be done before FAC though, so chip in. Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to you for accepting the invitation, I just gave it the nudge that was being requested, I have my eye on it, right now, I don't think I could improve it, I will assist as I am able. Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

At FAC even the smallest details matter, like inconsistent citations styles, or "p" instead of "pp". The Devil is in the detail with FAC, a fresh pair of eyes is always valuable. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked since the 15th of October last year,[5] which I think is outrageous given the number of admin wannabes who'd like to see my head on a plate. Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I heard there is a ongoing admin assertion that, "a block is a last resort" Perhaps you are just being good and editing within guidelines.Off2riorob (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't changed, but something has. Maybe the worst of the civility police have been secretly been reined in? Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

as per Newyorkbrad, " editors should not be blocked unless there has been serious misbehavior " and " blocking should always be a last resort." - Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a bit of both, things are looking up. Off2riorob (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They're busy turning on each other for relatively minor offenses.[6] Your little plan is working perfectly, methinks... Doc talk 03:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, its not really a minor offense, its using your tools against a clear consensus .. I supported the user at RFA, and I am also a bit disappointed in the users actions, and lack of ability to accept and revert to consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I never had a plan, big or small, just a deep feeling of injustice. Malleus Fatuorum 03:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps when you get blocked for using a word like "sycophantic", or blocked "preventively" for 10 seconds then you might begin to feel my disdain for the fine but empty words of those like NYB. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Laugh. Always look on the bright side of life. It seems WP:Cowboy adminship has not occured much recently. Maybe as a result of the subject being raised in the Arbcom elections. Wikipedia is a good place to learn tolerance and none judgement, even for admins. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Malleus. If you have time, perhaps you can take a look at Sentence spacing and its talk page. There have been significant POV accusations in the past few months (much of this has been recently archived) and last night major changes to the article. Instead of reverting or modifying these changes, I thought that perhaps I should ask for some more outside input. As its primary writer, I have to allow that I may not be the best judge of what is NPOV for the article. Since you are a very experienced editor here, and you voted against the article in its first FA candidacy, I thought you would be in an excellent position to judge the POV claims for this article. Thanks for your time. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have some time (which I see from the above you might not) would you be willing to cast a critical eye over Somerset Levels? It got to GA in 2007 and I've been meaning to bring it to FAC ever since! I've recently fixed all the broken & dab links etc & now put it up for peer review. I think the content, pics, references etc are all appropriate however you know what my prose is like and I wouldn't want it to fail because of my language skills.— Rod ^talk 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I remember looking at that when it was at GAN? Anyway, if you're not in a rush I'll try and get to it towards the end of the week. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see you in the edit history, but I may have asked you then. No rush I've got plenty of other things I should be doing.— Rod ^talk 19:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for casting your eyes over it - I'm happy for any questions/discussion to be on the talk page where others may be able to chip in. BTW just got back from Jimmy Wales talk in Bristol:-)— Rod ^talk 15:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What was that like? Did you get to meet the great man? Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I and some other local editors got to meet him for a few mins before the public event, while he was doing press interviews etc - photo of when I shook hands with him about to go on my userpage. The public talk was excellent - his is a good public speaker to about 700 in the hall & 3,000+ on the web. Webcast by city council & Ushare. He talked about wikipedia's role in society (worldwide) & some directions for the future. I have loads of pics.— Rod ^talk 15:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its annoying, I think its great. I know my prose is poor & every change or comment you make improves the article. When we finally get there (& I'm still waiting for some tweaks to the map) would you like to co-nom as an appreciation of the time & work you are putting into an article "miles from home"?— Rod ^talk 10:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This question comes up from time to time. It's true that looking over an article like this one takes time and effort, but my general view as I've said before is that if all I've done is to move a few commas around, or point out to you where a few commas need to be moved around, then I haven't really contributed anything much to the article's content. So thanks for the generous offer but no thanks, I don't feel I'd deserve it. Malleus Fatuorum 10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. I'm still waiting for map tweaks & one last page number (book coming from the library) & then I'll go for it.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Manoj-Babli honour killing case passed its GA review! I got some comments from Fetchcomms (here), and will be working on those. Meanwhile, can you copyedit the article for prose? I remember you said that there were still problems with it. I want to take this article to FA! Codedon (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FAC is a big jump from GA, so take your time, don't rush it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my nomination of ZX81 as a featured article candidate. I have responded to the issues you raised in the FAC discussion - could you please review my replies and let me know if you're satisfied? Prioryman (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus and those watching here (especially the many UK based editors who frequent this page). Margaret Thatcher was nominated for Good article reassessment a week or two ago: as the state of the article suggests, it is likely that the reassessment will result in delisting the article.

Whatever one's views on Thatcher's legacy, it is a great pity that an article on such a significant UK politician is in such a poor state. The article has suffered from politicized editing, and would greatly benefit from contributions by editors whose priority is to make the article shine, rather than promote a rosy or damning view of her career. Anyone willing to help? Geometry guy 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

After the grief I received for trying to improve Nick Griffin, I wouldn't touch that article with a 90-foot bargepole. Parrot of Doom 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Shorter bargepoles are available! You did great work on NG, and MR isn't going to generate the same kind of "how dare you present this person in a neutral light" grief. When the flak comes from both sides it is easier to duck and let partisan editors thrash out their differences. Thanks to Malleus for making improvements already. Geometry guy 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've never looked at that article before. As things stand I'm sure you're right, it will have to be delisted. It's a surprise to me that so little has been done to it since the GAR was posted, but I guess that's a symptom of the lack of activity over the last year or so to adequately address the pov tag. Apart from that, I don't think it's particularly well written and it's pretty unfocussed and rambling in places. This article is going to get a hammering when the Iron Lady decides to quit this mortal coil, so it would be nice if was at least up to GA standard. Hopefully we UK-based editors can pull together, but PoD makes a very good point. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

PS to Geometry guy: I'm always stepping where angels fear to tread. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good for you Malleus! The lack of interest in the GAR and the NPOV flag reflects a number of factors, including a desire to delist on NPOV grounds, and fatigue with NPOV criticism by at least one editor unwilling to make or suggest positive improvements. In my opinion, irrespective of the past history and GAR, the way forward is to concentrate on the poor sourcing, focus, and prose, with NPOV on the backburner.

You make a good point about the ticking clock, and I also hope UK based editors will follow your lead. Geometry guy 23:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said in article talk, well done for rising to this formidable challenge. I raised a minor MoS issue about whether degrees and subjects should be capitalized at MoS talk, and I'd be interested to see you contribute there too. As you know I'm a bit of a MoS-wonk and I'll be happy whichever way the MoS conversation goes, except that if it goes the wrong way it means I've been doing it wrong for five years. Oh well, won't be the first time I've been wrong about something. --John (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well John for getting involved with this article; it's really too big a challenge for any one editor to contemplate. As for "Chemistry" vs "chemistry", I didn't realise that I was reverting your change, I just thought it was something I'd missed in the lead. I'm happy to go with whatever the MoS gurus decide. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was Happyme22's article originally, and he's semi-retired, just checks in every couple of months. While I am trying to hold the fort on his Nixon article, I really don't have the time or references to work on Thatcher.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the stupid error with the adverb and the hyphen. I left a longer reply at my talk to your earlier comment. --John (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work! But British Rail isn't the best example to choose for Thatcher and privatisation as it was done under her successor in 1994. --John (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

True, perhaps best to just deop that particular example. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We worked that one in beautifully; ultimately it was in my opinion perhaps the most damaging legacy of Thatcher's time, although I am a rail fan and perhaps biased. Interesting that in this capitalist paradise, the railroads are still nationalised. One takeaway for me from the process is that I have a lot to learn about citation formatting. Still want to go for FA? --John (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We've still got a lot of tidying up to do, not least with the citations. I suggest that we plug away at that and anything else that looks a bit odd while we let the article lie fallow for a few weeks. I'm always telling people not to rush at FAC after GAN, it's a quantum jump. Also, Geometry guy might be able to offer some insight into the current version of the article, but he's currently hors de combat. So yes, but maybe not for 3 or four weeks. Thatcher's such a vast subject that I'm sure we're going to get at least a few "why haven't you mentioned this?" and "why haven't you mentioned that", so let's take the time to catch our breath and make sure that we're ready. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you been to FAC before John? It's a bit like RfA with rules, it can get a bit fraught, so we need to prepare the best dish that we can for the piranhas. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah, nice comparison. I've worked on quite a few articles being prepared for FA but haven't taken a direct role before. Maybe seeing it closer up will give me more faith in the FA process; I haven't always been that impressed with the quality of writing in some FAs in the past. --John (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This one will be different, but we need to make absolutely sure that we're ready. Right now Maggie wouldn't get through FAC, although I think she's getting close. Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll happily defer to your experience in this. Just give me a shout if and when you want more help on this. I will keep plugging away meantime. --John (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think that we could be thinking seriously about FAC in 3 or so weeks time, but we need to get all of even the smallest details right; it doesn't take much to derail a review. The downside of course is that if it passes then it may appear on the mainpage, and TFA is just about the most stressful experience I've ever had on wikipedia. I even got blocked for 3RR twice in one day during one. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing that we definitely need to do is to check on the quality of the sources, particularly the online ones. I can't really see this (ref #32) getting past Ealdgyth for instance, and it's incomplete in any case. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know. But I'm begging: [7]. I think it can be salvaged, it gets tons of daily hits, and the prose needs a look. You're the best man for the job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I kind of resolved not to get involved in any more FARs after what happened with Simon Byrne, but as it's you ... Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

While you're here, let me ask you a question about the opening sentence: "Schizophrenia (pronounced /ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness." Are we sure that "disintegration" is the right word here? I'd probably favour something like "disruption". Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is tht it's disintegration because the deterioration continues over time ... still checking sources for you, though (I don't have all sources-- if I can't find the answer, need to ping Doc James or Cas Liber). Thank you, Malleus :) I haven't yet cleaned up the bottom of the article (beyond "History"), so you may find bigger issues there, not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll inevitably have more questions as I go through, I always do. Just ask Ealdgyth. Would you prefer me to put them on the article's talk page or on yours? Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think keep them here, because Cas has two huge articles at FAC and is swamped, and Doc James is doing all he can everywhere. I'll sort what I can with you here, and then ping one of them if I can't. Working on disruption/deterioration still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disruption
  • So I was right then? I've noticed that I very often am. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • My intent was to search our best sources to which uses what, but 1) I don't have most of the sources, and 2) I see I'm going to have to clean up the citations first (some of them include URLs that go to abstracts, not full text). Anyway, I'm not sure, but I think deterioration is better. Disruption signals more of a one-time issue-- with SZ, it's regression and deterioration that continue. Of course, I could be entirely wrong-- what do I know? We'll check this later with others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Disintegration can be a one-off event as well, as can deterioration; neither implies an on-going process.

• OK, here's another: "... the result of increased physical health problems and a higher suicide rate (about 5%)". I'm not quite sure what "increased health problems means" here; it could mean that pre-existing health problems got worse, or that the number of health problems increased. I guess it means the latter? Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I saw that one earlier as well-- unintelligible. I'll work on finding a source to sort it. I don't know what the 5% is either-- suicide rate overall, or increased risk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Are you sure that you need me on the article? Despite what you say, you're no prose slouch. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sign and symptoms

• "To minimize the developmental disruption associated with schizophrenia, much work has recently been done ...". "Recently" is obviously a word that will age.

• Bad, bad sentence :) I'm going to have dinner-- will catch up later with you, and really appreciate you doing this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm about to cook a curry (or maybe a sweet and sour, can't decide) and eat it while watching Match of the Day, so I'll be back later as well. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Positive and negative symptoms

• "People with negative symptoms tend to respond little to medication ...". It's surely not the people who respond to medication but the signs/symptoms?

People with prominent negative symptoms often have a history of poor adjustment before the onset of illness, and response to medication is often limited. <-- but have changed it thusly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Causes

• "People who have a family history of schizophrenia plus transient or self-limiting psychosis have a 20–40% chance of being diagnosed after one year." After one year of what?

after the transient or self-limiting psychosis. hence changed to "People with family history of schizophrenia who suffer a transient or self-limiting psychosis have a 20–40% chance of being diagnosed one year later." Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Prevention

• "While there is some evidence that early interventions in those with a psychotic episode may improve short term outcomes ...". This is ambiguous, as it's unclear whether "interventions" means many on one individual, one on each individual, or something in the middle.

"intervention" here is more of a group noun to cover the gamut of, erm, early interventions - hence "intervention" covers any/all of support, psychotherapy, medication etc. The word is generally used in this way (as a singular/group noun) by early intervention folks Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Then it would clearly make more sense to say "While there is some evidence that early intervention in those with a psychotic episode may improve short term outcomes ...". Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mechanisms

• "... which attributes psychosis to the mind's faulty interpretation of the misfiring of dopaminergic neurons". I'm really unhappy about the word "mind" there.

yeah, that one needs a bit of thinking about. I'll go read the source Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Prenatal

• "... which may be a result of increased rates of viral exposures in utero." Is it really the rate of exposure, as opposed to the amount of exposure? Rate implies a velocity.

Environment

• "Parenting style seems to have no effect on the risk, although people with supportive parents do better than those with critical parents." This can't possibly be right; either parenting style has an effect or it doesn't. Or is this talking about the prognosis of those with supportive vs. critical parents?

The second clause is talking about course over time...but there are also some interesting political issues here :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Psychological

• ... such sensitivity may cause vulnerability to symptoms". How can you be vulnerable to a symptom?

Medication

• "The first-line psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia is antipsychotic medication. These can reduce the positive symptoms of psychosis, taking around 7–14 days to be fully effective." Pretty poorly written; for starters "medication" is singular, whereas "these" obviously refer to a plural subject. The "taking" is pretty awkward as well.

?? - I beg to differ on the use of medication as a singular/group noun here (though of Doc James etc. gang up on me I'll give over :). Agree there should be a more polished word than "taking" Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Medication is clearly a singular noun IMO, but the problem could be avoided by recasting the sentence along the lines of "The first-line psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia is antipsychotic medication. which can reduce the positive symptoms of psychosis in about 7–14 days". Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah, it'll do me fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Neurological

• "An influential theory, known as the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia ...". A hypothesis is not a theory.

Subtypes

• "Where thought disorder and flat affect are present together."; "Where positive symptoms are present at a low intensity only." These aren't proper sentences.

History

• "In the early 1970s, the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia was the subject of a number of controversies ...". This reads strangely because "criteria" is obviously plural, whereas "was" clearly refers to a singular subject.

Malleus, I'll have internet access, but will resurface mid-next week; I'm going to ping Doc James to look at these, since he has all the sources. And Cas. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And this is why I despise TFA day. Can you deal with this? I have a major project that HAS to get done, and I did not need this distraction. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that kind of "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" thing happens all too frequently. Anyway, I've posted a few replies and made a few changes. Just two questions for you:

Am I correct in thinking that the reason that the breed of Lightning Bar's dam isn't given is because it's unknown, or am I misremembering?

Is Louisiana still noted for the breeding of short-track racers?

Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Della P's a registered Quarter Horse ... I didn't mention it because I sillily (is that a word?) thought it was obvious. I have nothing to show that Louisiana is now noted for QH racing, so past tense is fine. It's folks like this that make TFA such a pain in the behind. Why do folks have to get all angry-nasty about things? Certainly helps a collaborative enviroment! And where are the civility police when you need them? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And thank you. Only about 60,000 lines of code to go... and then I get to write the documentation for it... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've put Lightning Bar on my watchlist for tomorrow, so I'll try and keep an eye on it. I thought you were a photographer? What are you doing hacking out lines of code? I used to quite enjoy some aspects of coding, but definitely not the documentation side, although it did get a lot easier in later years with things like use cases and UML ... anyway, back to work! Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I do contract work for an online game (not a big well known one, sorry) so I fiddle with their proprietary game engine and its code. So this is my "side job"... it's handy in the cold weather when it's hard to photograph. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that you've done a good job with that copy edit. Regardless of the merits of the complaint, your edits were certainly an improvement. Hopefully the maniacs with the open proxies (and all the other misguided edits the TFA attracts) won't do too much damage to it tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There are some things I don't like, such as phrasing like "his dam, or mother, ...", but IIRC that pretty much had to go in at FAC as some felt that words like "dam" and "sire" were too specialised not to be explained on their first occurrence. I've really grown to hate the pointless and irritating trouble that TFA so often causes. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you've any suggestions for reducing the trouble, I'm all ears. It would mean I could do something useful in the early hours rather than cleaning up after lunatics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got none I'm afraid, it all seems so predictable. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

...a character that you trawl through months of my contributions history to find some typos? If so, I can only sympathise. I have already made it clear, it is the promotion of articles in severe need of literary improvement to Main Page standard Featured Article status that I was critical of. If you are unwilling to read my comments, keep your opinions to yurself. Kevin McE (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It was merely the work of a few seconds to look through the first few entries in this list. I thought I might learn something from your contributions, and I did. Can you guess what that was? Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mel Chin TCO (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The article could clearly benefit from some work, but that it may be self-written doesn't bother me at all. A few weeks ago I helped to save this new article, written by the artist's husband, after it had been deleted twice. Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, man. (I'll probably end up linking to it.  ;-0)TCO (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We actually have a sentence on his sculpture now in Myrrha. It got a NYT article in 1984. TCO (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for another pass through, man. All good upgrades. On the mid hyphenation, we actually had a talk page section on it and I researched and linked to some style guidance (not at all meant as wanting it the other way, am totally fine with how we have it now, more as a "we were trying" and "if it intrigues you, it's in archives".

Again, thanks for the work. Onwards! TCO (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens were invented to drive us mad. And I'm mad enough as it is anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing I read said to do hyphenation wrt mid if the word after is capitalized. TCO (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded to Malleus Fatuorum for all his help in making Painted turtle a Featured Article. We could not have done it without your renown scrutiny. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You probably wouldn't, no. How arrogant is that? No, don't tell me, it was a rhetorical question. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just laughing because it has changed so many times over the last few weeks. this is one I totally am willing to let whoever wants it have their way. Like all this crap, I researched it and wrote a little summary of the web guidance. Basically it seems the norm at traditional print sources to use U.S., but there's growing usage of US. I would never contest either.TCO (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I get pushed by reviewers all over the place on that one. My attitude on it is, the trophy goes to those who care.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wandering by and saw this. AP Stylebook (the book anyway) insists that it's "U.S.", and many newspaper and journal copy editors tell their writers that they have to follow AP whether it makes any sense to them or not. OTOH, most non-AmEng style guides, and also Chicago 16 and other AmEng style guides, now prefer "US". Which means we're guaranteed to see lots of both in modern sources. Not a lot we can do to make this go away. - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We here in the UK long ago made the right decision. How many times do you see "U.K.? It looks so ugly, as does "U.S.". Malleus Fatuorum 05:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

When I see the ugly brute I'm reminded of reading a pre-war encyclopaedia. The use of US seems sensible just to show the world we are not stuck in the past . Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 05:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what. Change it.  :-P TCO (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you look over Hygberht for me? Check to make sure it's comprehensible, etc etc.? I'm still waiting on an article for Broad Ripple Park Carousel, so might as well get something small and quick up ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have a horse article close to ready for FAC, so you could display your knowledge (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I have no intention of applying for anything here on wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd have teased, tormented, begged or cajoled you to do it. You'd be tromping out all crusty, salty FA veteran talking to the Oxbridge Wiki club or what have you. I feel very un-Wiki right now though...what a blast this site is to romp around in! TCO (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus just ask them how much they will pay you! You'll be providing instructions and monitoring for students so why can't they pay like the ones on-site? BTW, I'm a little bewildered why academic students need to have a hand holding. Don't students these days have the ability to work out how to edit Wikipedia? I'm not sure if that it is a bad sign of students or a bad sign that Wikipedia is to difficult to edit. ;-) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Waxing serious. It is a bad sign for Wiki that they need to do this. Or that it took them 10 years to get here. But that said, it is an EXCELLENT idea. I almost feel inclined to rock their world and just sign up a gazillion students to write turtle articles in an unauthorized program that "beats them". I'm just feeling very chesty. Like my secret plan to show Sandy canvassing like she had never seen before when I got Lovich and Ernst stomping into the FAC to give it supports. Lie the cavalry in Tie a Yellow Ribbon, TCO (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

IOW, the students are fine. They are the same mix of guile and guileless and all that jazz that they ever have been and that they will be 100 years from now (damned kids). Wiki is the one who needs to think strategically. TCO (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus has made it clear in the past he does not wish to be paid. I alluded, as I recall to the possibility of getting grants for books and similar expenses and he was very much against it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not all the case, not sure where you got that idea from. I've always been in favour of paid editing, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 12:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, then. I'm not motivated enough to pull up the discussion, and I can't remember whether it was here, there, or anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

... or perhaps it never took place at all. Malleus Fatuorum 12:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it did. There was talk of grants, and I said something like it would be nice to get the costs of books reimbursed, and you were not in favour.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

When did I say that? If I did, what was the context? Regardless, it is not my view that editors must be unpaid; as I said, I have no difficulty with paid editing. Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It was several months ago, Malleus, I do not recall the exact context. And I suspect the idea of the "amateur" WP editor will one day go the way of Avery Brundage.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I forgot to express my appreciation with Royal Maundy, now safely promoted. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld is probably poring over that one even as we speak, looking for any reason he can to have it delisted. Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any good sources on Commodore's early days? I feel like doing something completely different and working on Commodore PET. I have a few contemporary manuals and programmer's books, I may even be able to dig out a couple of old reviews (before my mum chucks the old magazines away). Parrot of Doom 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I might have some old magazines; I'll check and let you know if I find anything. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that working on the Pet is a good idea; it so often becomes a bit of nightmare working on articles here, and that one ought to be relatively quiet with any luck. I'm amazed that we got away unscathed with getting Maggie back to GA, touch wood. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wait for TFA day on that one, especially if it is run right after Maggie goes off to the House of the Afterlife Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The logic of not protecting TFAs passes me by, as all the present approach ensures is that readers are guaranteed to see a vandalised version of the article for a significant part of the day. It would be for others to decide, but I'd not want to see Maggie on the front page, although I suppose it's inevitable that she'll appear on ITN soon enough. Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, as I see more and more of my FAs take hits on TFA day, I'm starting to agree. Let me put it this way. I've never seen an article better at the end of the 24 hours than at its start.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've occasionally seen a few minor improvements, but nothing that goes any way towards justifying the grief. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a certain satisfaction if the article's subject is generally unknown, and if the article becomes popular, knowing that some people will have learnt something from it. Wife selling suffered a lot of vandalism until it was protected but you know a good lot of people read from it and learnt something about history. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling suffered from being an April 1 TFA to be fair; never again. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone somewhere (Google it) was selling the entire back-archive of PCW on CD-ROM. If you can rustle that up from somewhere, that's probably your best bet. (If you do, look for the spoof advert for Wild Bill's Computer Rodeo in the April 1982 issue. It still makes me snigger.) – iridescent 17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My dad had every copy of PCW between the late 70s and mid 80s. All in the bin, a long while back. They would have made an excellent source. I'll see if I can "find" the CDROM from "somewhere" ;) Parrot of Doom 18:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look through my old computer magazines but I've got nothing before 1995, so not much use as far as Commodore goes I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking. I'm going to hunt down a half-decent book on the subject I think. I spent my formative years messing around with Commodore's products, and many frustrating hours trying to tape-to-tape games :( Parrot of Doom 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There were a number of "this is what a computer does!" books by Robin Bradbeer in the late 70s/early 80s—they may be worth tracking down; Manchester may be one of the few places where the libraries actually hang on to such things, thanks to the legacy of UMIST. (Bradbeer went on to greater things, writing Sinclair's instruction manuals.) – iridescent 19:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I must say I really disagree with your promotion of this article to a GA. I don't mean to be a spoil sport but it really fails "broad in coverage" criteria for a good article. It is a far from being of an acceptable coverage in scope in my view. Its not even B class. Its a start class article at 7.5 KB.. I've opened a reassessment page on it.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good. Then we'll see whether anyone else agrees with you. Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

King of Micro Stubs eh? Better than being a D grade article reviewer who is more interested in boosting his number of GA reviews than actual quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop now, before your mouth runs away with you entirely. You have behaved like a complete pratt, and I'd prefer that you did it elsewhere, out of my sight. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, actually I had a very valid point about you promoting an article with six sources and less content than many of our start class articles as a good article. It is you who has shown yourself up as unwilling to accept criticism of your reviews. If you can't accept the occasional questioning of your article reviewing and a reassessment without insulting me as a "King of Micro stubs" then don't pass yourself off as a credible reviewer. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Go away, you're becoming even more tedious than normal. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looking at a version of the article from the 24th, I can not find any weight your position that the article is not broad in coverage. It seemed to cover all the information a person would want on the subject. A simple counting of sources can't show what the article says. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's a well-written and concise article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked in detail, but the article seems to ticks the boxes. --Philcha (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I'm glad that's settled...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus you have my word of oath on this I genuinely didn't even look at who reviewed the article and it didn't even register who you were (even after posting here initially) until I saw your response on Dana's page. Sure I'd heard the name but I really am frightfully ignorant of what other people are up to on wikipedia and know very little about you. Actually I regularly view recently created and promoted content, DYKs and recently promoted Good articles as it inspires me with good faith at how the project is developing and that other people genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia to a level of high quality. I honestly don't look at who reviewed it, I am more interested in what the article has to offer and the passion of the people who write them. I think its exciting to see good quality across a diversity of subjects. I was viewing the recently promoted GAs rather idly but the Jutland horse article stood out to me because it seemed unusually short/low on number of sources than I am generally accustomed to seeing and a Jutland horse initially seemed a subject I was convinced could be covered in much more detail. It seems though that in this instance the main/core most important details are already present in the article and that is sufficient for a GA. If you think I'm going to make a habit of picking holes in every review you do and intentionally finding in fault in you in particularly and having some kind of grudge against you, that really is the last thing I'd do. I want to make it perfectly clear that we need as many people who are passionate about Good articles writing and reviewing as possible. After all we seem to be having an increasing demand for reviews. So long as you review to the best of your ability and use your experience I would be the last one to impede your progress. Note though that how I treat others is always a reflection of how they treat me. If we had a mutual respect for each other as competent individuals who are genuine assets to the project rather than the trolls and people who are genuinely time wasters, hampering growth on here by causing trouble, then I'm certain we could be on much better terms. Best of luck editing.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I'm happy to accept that. Let's never mention this episode between us again. :-) BTW, I've posted an addendum on AGK's talk page, as I really don't think he had any reason to threaten you, even if you had posted here in the last hour or so, which you didn't. Best of luck to you as well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Group hug! TCO (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Thankyou Malleus for your message to AGK. I am sorry if I caused any offence and upset. I've also learned a lesson about the GA article process and the true requirements and that is it better to speaker to the reviewer/article writer personally in future if there are any concerns rather than inflaming the situation unnecessarily with a sort of threat of delisting. Let the fact Malleus that you've never had a single one of the reviews thrown at you reversed to date as you say, so that should hold you in good stead and give you some sort of positivity that you are doing a good job.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that maybe GA ought to have a rule similar to the one recently introduced at FAR, so that any concerns have to be raised first on the article's talk page, and the GAR initiated only if they're not dealt with satisfactorily with a week or so. At least for community GARs anyway, as there are obviously some shocking promotions that ought to be reversed on sight. Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That would indeed be a better solution. I had no previous experience of GAR but in this instance a lot of things could have been avoided if discussed first without a threat of delisting.. It is certainly something you should propose, and I'd fully support you in doing if you let me know once you've done it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've given up proposing changes here, on anything. I'm not the most patient of people, and the ensuing interminable discussion just bores me rigid. People can find more reasons not to do something that you could ever possibly imagine. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with "reversing on sight" anything that has gone through a considered process. That doesn't mean that process was not wrong, or that the article should not be de-listed in the end. Maybe even that some people can tell on sight that it should get delisted. Doesn't matter. Given that the thing went through some time-intensive process, the nomination to delist ought to be substantive (in its own content). The de-list procedure should have some hurdles in it (the talk page discussion is fine, and also requiring a substantive [long] and good faith [this is the work plan to fix it] review).

This damned project spends so much time chasing its tail. We need more content and better prose. Less debates. I see this on MOS talk all the time. People will fire from the hip with their take on some style question, but can't be troubled to take 10 minutes and do a google search and read some web articles on the topic and dash off a summary of the different schools of thought. And I really don't want 56skidoo tossing in paragraph-long FARs on all the turtle articles maliciously.

I don't know the Good Article as opposed to "good article" requirements, but it wouldn't hurt "Jutland (horse)" to dig into the Danish sources. When we cover small topics or foreign ones, it just becomes necessary to go to greater efforts of research to "get the story".

But yeah, expect a bunch of low value (we've already discussed that) or (we don't do it that way) objects to any change.TCO (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reversing on sight is occasionally necessary. Quite recently I delisted a GA after it became apparent that it had never gone through a proper GA review, or apparently any kind of a GA review. I'd expect the number of cases like that to be pretty low though, admittedly. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dig into the Danish sources for the Jutland horse by all means, any article can be improved, even the best. But once again I come back to the law of diminishing returns. Has anything added to the article since this storm-in-a-teacup blew up really improved it all that much? Did the lack of it really mean that the article didn't meet the GA criteria? Obviously you can probably very easily guess what my opinion is, but just in case I think we're now chasing trivia, like "the biggest horse statue in the world". Really? What exactly does that tell me about the breed? Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't like the statue. However, it's a notable statue within Denmark--first reaction of our Danish editor. It was listed as one of the two most famous statues by the artist who had a 100 year career and specialized in horse statues. It has ove 100 flickr photos. Species articles are not purely biological.

If it is a Danish topic, we need to dig into Danish sources. Especially if it is an obscure one. Keep the plus sign, I don't care. You could say of any topic, what do we really want to know and then just favor articles that were lead sized. However, given we have a system that uses leads, the article below can go into more substantive coverage.

Your point about diminishing returns is a good one and if Dana wants to work on other breeds that are in worse shape, more power to her.

I don't see why reversing on sight is "necessary". It's not like we are talking about a BLP concern or someone putting Tubgirl vandalizing in. What's it gonna hurt if it carries a plus sign a couple days longer? We have procedures to make a hurdle to granting the plus and should have procedures to delisting the plus. (Or at least for FAR, my concern is there.) If you allow delist on sight, then it will not just be used for articles that deserve it but for those that don't. And nothing would have stopped you from writing a longer delist nomination. It's just work. And the instructions for review say it's supposed to have a purpose of fixing the article. I think the gravitas of the delist requires at least the level of detail that I would give someone who asked for a friendly "how do I upgrade this piece of meat" review. TCO (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't see why it's sometimes necessary then you weren't at the little green blob battles a few years ago; it's a matter of credibility. GAN depends on a single reviewer, unlike FAC. which makes it necessary in very clear cut cases like the one I was referring to. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so. Would you agree that FAR proposals should have a solid initial review?TCO (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking about FAR, I no longer take part in it. I was talking about GAR. And in this particular case the editor of the article had decided to add the GA icon him or herself without ever nominating at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, man, I wasn't being sarcastic with the "maybe", I was ready to take it on faith...the maybe was positive. I was asking about FAR as the situation might be different, but the problems similar.TCO (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Then speaking of FAR, of course any proposals should be solidly based on the FA criteria. Just as any GAR proposal should be based on the GA criteria. Not sure what you mean by "solid initial review" though. To become an FA the article would have been reviewed to the satisfaction of the delegates, so almost by definition it's had a solid review. If at some time later standards change, or any editor has good reason to believe that the article no longer meets whatever are the FA criteria at that time (or even perhaps never did, as the reviewers missed something) then the proper thing to do is to initiate a discussion of the perceived weakness(es) on the article's talk page. If after a reasonable period of time no progress has been made towards addressing those concerns, or it seems unlikely that the concerns are going to be addressed, then a FAR becomes increasingly inevitable. It's not necessary for the FAR's nominator to carry out another complete review of the article though, just to express his/her concerns succinctly with a few examples. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We are working to get List of U.S. state reptiles ready for FLC. Love to have you stop by and contribute and help. In particular, my third para in lead (on genuses) am not satisfied with. Even considering cutting whole thing. Talk page has a list of what we (think) we need to get done before FLC. Come join!TCO (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me TCO, but there are things I want to do here myself. Malkin Towers is very sadly neglected, for instance, I've promised to review Olivia Shakespear, and those Green children of Woolpit need a good seeing to. I'm not the best person to ask about lists anyway, never really got into them. User:Peter I. Vardy is your man for lists; his border on the exquisite. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the referal and will go talk to him. Just didn't want you to miss out! ;-) TCO (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done the necessary on the table for ACCESS & sortability. Good luck with the nom. --RexxS (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd let you know that I've renominated Olivia for GAN. If you have time for it, much appreciated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's get that job done. I've got to warn you though, I'm no pushover. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I know - you're a prickly pear. I don't mind if you push - with good reason. I've reinstated the cuts, so it's in shape for trimming, if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll start looking through tomorrow, but don't worry, I'll be gentle. We've both had enough grief here recently, neither of us needs any more. Besides, I'd have Ceoil at my back anyway if I stepped out of line. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No hurry. I'm mostly only around on weekends now. I do think we have had our fair share of grief around here, but you know that I'm open to fairness. I actually thought the previous review was almost funny. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

After wife selling's April 1 appearance last year I got a reputation as a mysogenist, but nothing could be further from the truth. Hey, I'm married to a woman after all. Anyway, I popped into my local library today and bumped across a great book, Brilliant Women: 18th-Century Bluestockings. I'll redeem myself yet. Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I do like the bluestocking idea. Re Olivia - one of the things that struck me was that she came from a fairly well-to-do family and was given money in trust when she married, but had no control of her own money until her husband's death in the 1920s. We forget how restrictive society was at that point - particularly in the late Victorian/early Edwardian period. So, yeah, I may have belabored the point a bit, but it intrigued me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you've been following the conversation on my talk [8], but I think the image issue is resolved for Olivia. Just so you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and I was just looking through to see if everything else had been resolved as well. I still don't understand the plot of Uncle Hilary though, as I've just said at the review page. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've simplified it. It's too complicated to explain with any kind of clarity, and quite honestly, a bit strange. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, even I can understand that now. Just one more thing, "Olivia's final novel, Uncle Hilary, was published in 1910 and is considered her best work ... Harwood considers it her best writing and best book before ending her writing career." Two things: isn't "before ending her writing career" redundant? Second, it seems to repeat that it's Olivia's best work. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is redundant and removed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That was painless, very thorough and improved the article. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were done but the lead was rewritten during the night. I've changed the factual inaccuracies but left the rest in a rewritten state. Do you mind having a quick look, now that you're familiar with the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am ploughing through a book about miners in Lancs & Ches and thought you might be interested in a reference to a Wigan miner who attempted to sell his wife for 4/6d in 1875. My husband is speculating about how much a Bongs lass would fetch. I doubt it would have registered but for your that article! PS It follows in an interesting account of "shin purrin".--J3Mrs (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

To our modern eye wife selling seems barbaric, but we have to remember that it was the only practical method of divorce for ordinary people, even if it wasn't entirely approved of by the law. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Take my wife — please!" - Henny Youngman. Yworo (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this seems pushy but I've never used the WP email notification system before, sent you (I think!) an email per your request about the Who Was Who entry and am now wondering whether or not it turned up at your end?

BTW, it has been suggested to me that the Churchill Machine Tool Company article be put forward for GAN. This is also a new process for me: if I get stuck then could I possibly query you about what is going on? You seem to have experience in such matters and are involved in the Greater Manchester project. Best. Sitush (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I might have swept it up inadvertently with the vast quantities of spam I get every day. Send it to me again and I'll look out for it. Yes, of course I'll help if you need it with your GAN. Hopefully it'll be a straightforward process though. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Have emailed you again. Thanks a lot.Sitush (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in this article about Matrix Churchill and the Iraq situation. The subject was in the news at the time so suggest a look through google news of early 90's time(archive option in google news) and maybe also check hansard as it was discussed in Westminster at the time. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Obviously articles belong to everyone and no person benefits from their improvement more than anyone else... but nevertheless I very much appreciate the series of subtle and well-considered improvements you made to Delphine LaLaurie over the weekend, along with the excellent edit summaries that helped me understand why you were right to make them. Thank you. DustFormsWords (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly a strange story. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I finally got an hour and a half to watch that programme. I never knew anthropology was such a sack of ferrets. Liszot did get a (mostly) small statue named in his honour, but maybe not for the reasons he hoped. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes wikipedia's childish civility policy look like the steaming pile of ordure it really is. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Ace. And I kinda need your help. I'm trying to build consensus over at Talk:John Byrne#Requested move. So far, not so good. I just need to find people willing to express an opinion here. I didn't think it'd be this hard. Eh. I guess this is just a slow peiod. Ah well. If you can top by in the next 24 hours, that'd be great. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, he asked me before he asked you. Still, we are well down the list.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I wasn't the first to be asked for my opinion then I shan't be offering it. The cheek! Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I may "top by" as soon as I figure out if his saying that means he is auditioning for the role of Winthrop Paroo in The Music Man--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate, and I really mean hate, musicals. Almost as much as I hate operas. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I pay off the references I had to buy for the musical theatre, I will be out of there.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)