User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2009/January

Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire

Would you be so kind as to have a look at this list which I have just re-formatted, and suggest any improvements, etc. I'm thinking of submitting it for peer review and then as a FLC (if people think that it is appropriate). I should welcome your comments on its talk page (I am asking some more Wikifriends to contribute and would like all the comments to be together). Happy New Year. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've expanded the lead and submitted it as a FLC (the lead might need a bit of a ce). Now, how about Arley Hall as a GAC - I've expanded it a bit. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Malleus Fatuorum,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Majorly. All the best to you as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a good holiday

We've been through a lot and accomplished a lot. Here's to a good rest, recovery, and starting the new year right. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ottava. Much more for us to do yet though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 07:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And same from me Malleus; you're an interesting and funny (funny ha ha, I don't mean that you are bonkers) guy to have around. I dont always agree with what you have to say, but usually, I do. Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've quite come to terms with the fact that my views and opinions are at odds with the overwhelming majority of twelve-year-olds wikipedians; to be perfectly honest, I'm rather surprised to find myself still here. Anyway, Happy New Year to you, Ceoil! --Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't let the fact that you are a minority bother you, for god sake! Voices of sanity are badly needed if this thing is going to work. Ceoil (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Miami!

Fireworks over Miami, Florida.

Dear Malleus, I hope you have a really great 2009! Thanks for stopping by my talk page to say hello! NancyHeise ^talk 22:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm entering 2009 with dread, for reasons I won't bore you with. It'll be a win if it turns out not to be as bad as I think it's going to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your c/e efforts on Banker horse. I think I have stared at the article for so long that the words are now swimming about on the screen... --Yohmom (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I know how that feels. I see that you haven't nominated the article for GA yet though, any reason why not? It seems pretty close to me. Go on, go for it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. Before you do, you need to expand the lead by a factor of two or three. It's supposed to be a short summary of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah. I'm working on it. I saved the lead for last, just seemed easier that way. I'll nominate for GA eventually, perhaps in the next twenty years or so... :) --Yohmom (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment (don't worry, not you)

OK, would you say that you were someone Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute who tried and failed to resolve things? I am not fussed if you don't feel you qualify, I am just fed up and tired of her being told. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to resolve between Mattisse and me. She's made her opinion of me abundantly clear, and I've made it clear that I don't agree with her assessment, or her general attitude, but there's no ongoing difficulty between us that I'm aware of. Mattisse does sometimes seem to do her best to be hurtful, but that's just "sticks and stones ..." as far as I'm concerned.

That an editor makes the atmosphere here less pleasant than it might otherwise be is probably a charge that could be levelled against a great many of us. My only real concern about Mattisse's recent behaviour centres on the repeated accusations of impropriety at FAC in particular, which I see you've already given an example of from this page. I may add a statement on that subject later. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, I guess the wording is funny; my take on tried and failed.. is more about folks who have told her to stop her pattern of ongoing niggling comments, slurs etc. which she has ignored, rather than dispute with person X as such. I don't see where to go with this otherwise (well I do really, but hoped it can/could be looked at by more eyes in the community.) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In Mattisse's defense, she runs about 50/50, meaning that 50% of those she fights with are difficult people that help provoke the conflict, but the other 50% are just people who get caught in the cross fires or were neutral. I can sympathize with her in situations similar to Blueboar, but not in regards to Sandy. Part of her problem is that she connects an individual with all of their associates instead of differentiating. Sometimes, people do work together and should be treated as a group. However, other times do not have such things. I don't care for Mattisse, but I wouldn't support an RfC. Her faults are the same faults that most of us have, and an RfC would only push her further into a corner, which is where all the problems start to begin with. Mattisse needs people to be more encouraging, to take her lack of good faith or minor attacks without attacking back and maybe she can begin to figure out who are really the bad people and who are not. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's probably fair comment Ottava. We're none of us perfect, and I've no wish to provoke Mattisse into anything. In fact I think that she does a great deal of good work that it would be a shame to lose. For myself, I've go no problem with anyone elses's opinion of me; I'm quite happy to ignore it if it doesn't match with own opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

second opinion requested at Talk:Hubert Maga/GA1

• See esp. my very last comment. I'd be winding up to throw a hissy if this were at FAC, but perhaps you and/or G-guy may be in favor of a kinder, gentler GAN. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sure G-guy and I would both agree that article needs an awful lot of work to meet the GA criteria. I've added my opinion to the review page. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  I had a quick look at the lead and the first sentence which struck me as odd was "Born a peasant in 1916, Maga served as a schoolmaster from 1936 to 1946, giving him considerable influence among the uneducated." Maybe it is time to reveal that Malleus is a sock of mine :-)

  More seriously, the style of the lead is unencyclopedic. For instance there are poor tense choices that tell a story rather than present the facts:

  • "There was little foreign investment in the country, and unemployment was rising."
  • "Maga's minister-ship was not to last, as he soon was convicted of plotting to assassinate Soglo and corruption."

  On the other hand, these are things that could be fixed by an active reviewer. There's no requirement to do so, but the article does at least have decent print sources, more than many GAs can boast, so I would be in favour of a kinder gentler GAN, if you (Ling) have the energy. Geometry guy 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

← This is the kind of article that I both love and hate to come across at GAN. Love, because there's more than enough to make a good article, but hate because I know that I'll have to do a lot of work to get it to the GA standard, and it would be a minor crime not to help out. No pressure on Ling, of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gulf Stream

Hi Malleus, As we discussed some time ago, I've put an individual reassessment template on the Gulf Stream article and so I'm informing you as the last assessor. I'm pasting the template below.

Gulf Stream has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Richerman (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the editors will be able to satisfactorily resolve the issues you've highlighted. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised one of the previous editors placed it up for reassessment rather than editing it himself (the references were easily found.) Nonetheless, all the various tags appear to have been fixed. It's amazing how much work I've put into an article I didn't even push through GA originally. I threw a comment about the reassessment on the original GA editor's talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it's been fixed, it's an important article. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And it's been easily fixable, so far. Articles like water cycle need so much help that I've had to allow their failure. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FACs and GARs

Hi, Malleus! I feel we might have got off on the wrong foot at Suntag's RFA, what with my overly defensive comments about Columbia Park, Torrance, California's GAN. I'd agree that a trip to GAR was in order; how "grassy expanse recreational area" got past me twice is a mystery and perhaps endemic of a wider problem with the rest of the article. I'll probably even initiate the GAR, partly for the novelty of being a GAN reviewer initiating a GAR of the same article and partly because I want to get this ironed out before I review any more. I'd appreciate your comments there. I'll give Suntag a longer grace period after failing an RFA before nomming !his GA, because I feel like a nice person at the moment. Don't know why.

I was also wondering if you were planning on commenting further at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Japanese Grand Prix. I'm getting myself into an unfortunate argument with Ling.Nut about this "context" issue and feel a wider set of eyes (?) could help sort it out. See you somewhere, Apterygial 12:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Ling.Nut makes a valid point about context that could be addressed by a little bit of rewriting. I'll take another look later. Don't beat yourself up about Columbia Park, Torrance, California. We're none of us perfect. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Apterygial. I am so sorry that your efforts to review Columbia Park, Torrance, California were disparaged in my RfA. I learned a lot from you and you should not have been treated the way you were. This "grassy expanse recreational area" matter seemed to have gotten out of control. Google define states that a park is "a piece of open land for recreational use in an urban area." "place or area set aside for recreation or preservation of a cultural or natural resource" "Open space lands whose primary purpose is recreation or passive enjoyment by the public." I posted "grassy expanse recreational area" because the reference called it a "grassy expanse" and "a park", I thought "grassy expanse recreational area" sounded better than the redundant "Columbia Park is a park," and the basic definitions of a park seem to support my wording. Before my RfA, Columbia Park, Torrance, California had been viewed 731 times[1][2] and no one had challenged that material. During and after my RfA, the page was viewed another 232 times for a total of 963 view by the end of December.[3] Despite the scrutiny, no one has saw fit to remove the material. I strive to be accurate but I ain't perfect. I would be happy to make any changes you, Malleus, or anyone else suggests. Again, I am so sorry for the way you were treated. -- Suntag ☼ 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to respond here despite the cross-posting to my talk page. I was vaguely disappointed, not with the criticism of the article, which everyone is entitled to do in a public collaboration such as this, but that no-one attempted to improve it to a point where everyone agreed that it was a GA. It is unfortunate that an RFA can do this; it becomes more of a witch hunt - a way to sink the candidate's contributions to the project - than an effort to identify what problems, if any, need resolving. Ideally, the article does not need to go to GAR, I'm sure Malleus will agree with me here, because addressing the concerns of those who opposed on that basis should occur through a simple copyediting process. Suntag, there is really no need to apologise. Despite what I might have said in your RFA, I am confident in my reviewing abilities, and will ensure that this blip is not indicative of my future reviewing efforts. Apterygial 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, RfA is what it is, and I'm likely to be the last person to defend it. My own oppose was simply down to the candidate claiming credit for a couple of GAs one of which in particular I felt was wide of the mark. That's not a criticism of the reviewer though; articles get edited, and we're none of us perfect. I fairly recently let Gulf Stream through a GA sweeps review when I probably shouldn't have done, so I'm no more perfect than anyone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I yet have the ability of determining whether something I write is GA quality and I relied on others who rated the articles as GA for their judgment. For the most part, I've been a start/B class article contributor. There is value in the amount of time that passes after an article is rate GA, particularly where the article is improve by several editors. Thanks for the feedback. -- Suntag ☼ 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is no reflection on you that I did not share the reviewer's opinion that the Columbia Park article met the GA criteria. It's a pity that came out at your RfA though, which I know from personal experience can be a pretty bruising affair without that kind of thing. Who knows, it may be me that's wrong anyway, not Apterygial. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

SG GAN

Xin chào Malleus, my best wishes to you & your family towards a happy & properous 2009, as well as in the upcoming Lunar New Year starting from Jan 26 if it's being observed & celebrated in GM by the Asians over your side. I'm finally back (a bit reluctantly) in the Lion City for the time being, & so taking this opportunity to embark on some ad-hoc GAN tasks on behalf of the SGpedian folks once again. I would greatly appreciate if you, or other experienced GA reviewers of good standing, could review this nominated article. Thank you -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again Aldwin. We have a very large Asian population here in Manchester, and a particularly large Chinese one, so there are big celebrations in Chinatown every year. Good to see you back in the harness working on more Singapore articles as well. I'm in the middle of another review right now, but if Poh Ern Shih Temple hasn't been picked up by the time I've finished that, I'll be glad to take a look at it next. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To aptly follow what the folks in Manchester's Chinatown will say to each other during the upcoming spring festival - Gong Hei Fatt Choy! (恭喜發財) Hmm, it bring to mind of a video (Ha Ha!) I saw of some enthusiatic non-Chinese New Yorkers singing a popular Chinese New Year song previously. No problem mate, old Staffy will wait with his trusty bone by his side then - there'll be a few more articles to go before I retires to my den again. Lastly, a suggestion here - u may want to consider to add this link or its template (well said indeed!) to your talkpage banner above. As you can see, you are not alone in having these sentiments too. Very bad karma indeed, in view of this growing groundswell of negative energies here. Sigh! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If it were just one or two editors complaining about a few bad eggs, that could be dismissed as only to be expected. But there does appear to be an increasing groundswell of discontent with the present system of administration, and in particular the far higher standards of behaviour expected of non-administrators; Silensor has got it about right. Something needs to be done pdq, or else the admins will be left with only themselves to administrate.

Anyway, Gong Xi Fa Cai! (I'm hoping that means Happy New Year, I got it from here.) :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gong Xi Fa Cai (in Chinese) or Gong Hei Fatt Choy (in Cantonese) which means 'Wishing you good tidings/fortune' or its full version as seen in traditional Chinese couplet: Gong Xi Fa Cai, Xin Nian Kuai Le (恭喜發財, 新年快樂) which means 'Wishing you a happy & properous New Year!', are some of the common traditional greetings used during the CNY. Except for those that I've seen in Asia in countries like HK, Taiwan, China, Thailand, Vietnam etc to date, which are huge & electrifying in mood & celebrations all over, I've never experienced personally what the festivities are like in the West, esp where the Chinese are a minority there. According to our human history, CHANGE usually come in two forms - it may come from WITHIN aka 'Restructuring', or WITHOUT aka 'Revolution'. It's an inevitable reality whether we like it or not. Unless we have a visionary who can make inspiring 'Yes, we can!' speeches here (including equally inspiring MV too), just like what William Wilberforce similarly did against the House of Lords back in the 18th century, I believe the current status quo will remain more or less the same in the foreseeable future. Maybe we should keep our fingers crossed for the return of this legendary King, or maybe this King, for a CHANGE 8P. As for me, I go for this spiritual master's saying: 'Be water, my friend' -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreement

Malleus, we both had a rough patch last October, but recently I find myself agreeing with almost every comment you make. I commend your good taste :-), welcome you back to the fray, and I look forward to working with you to kick this encyclopedia (and one or two of its editors) into shape! Geometry guy 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The back end of last year seemed to get a little fraught. Not quite sure why that was, but a little distance since then has allowed me to put things into a better perspective. It's pleasing that we seem to share a common vision for GA in particular, even if it does sometimes seem like shouting in the wilderness. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit, but there are more than just the two of us, thankfully. I'm glad the break brought perspective. I blame the election for the intensity of October/November, and the rest is history. Geometry guy 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Crap! I left my camera at home. :-P Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus tends to do that with people... he pisses them off, and then people start to see/appreciate him for what he is.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

... which is someone who pisses people off? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No no no. They tend to see you as someone who is correct. That pisses people off until they can come to terms with it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus is usually correct because he usually agrees with me, obviously! On the extremely rare occasions when he disagrees with me, I am merely disappointed in the momentary lapse of judgement, not pissed off :-) Geometry guy 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Be careful. Agreeing with Malleus too often tends to be bad for one's health, and you'll end up being accused of "enabling" him. :-) Good to see you back around MF. I'm still mostly gone, but I'm always around. I only log in to pester people these days. Content work (yes, I do that) is almost 100% IP now. Imagine me trying to get thru an rfa after that admission! Gasp! He logs out to edit! Good thing I'm already an untouchable. Keeper | 76 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Maga GA review

Thanks for the note. I'll try to look at it soon. I'm busy grading Final Exams at this exact moment. Should be finished tomorrow... later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Induction

Because you stated that you were not part of any cliques, cabals, elite groups, etc, I wanted to induct you into the Literatia. It is a special sekret organization that promotes 18th century English (note English) nationalists. Through this promotion, we seek to undermine the anti-English Imperialists out there. You are allow in because of your amazing work on the Johnson page, and everyone knows that he was the most hard line, Scottish hating, French mocking individual out there. God save the Queen. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My first invitation to join a clique, I'm touched! I've been called a member of the Manchester claque before, but I've so far failed to make contact with them, so that I can be paid for my efforts. You've just reminded me about the state of William Harrison Ainsworth though ... :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would make a nice 20 part DYK (... that William Ainsworth, a prolific writer, wrote many works including: -list of major works here-?) lol. I would love to work on that with you. I will start prepping in my sub page. Right now, I am trying to do something similar for Leigh Hunt. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm frankly staggered that Ainsworth, considered in his day the equal of Dickens, and an author with at least one book that has never been out of print to his credit, is so shabbily dealt with in his wikipedia article. I can feel another trip to the library coming on ... --Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll start a subpage next week, list major works in section, and start dumping research. Once we figure out what works have enough information to really go at (there should be quite a few), we can start piecing together pages. Also, I would think that a very large DYK would be good, because the larger the DYK, the more attention it gets. Plus, if Ainsworth has over 10 pages listed on his DYK, he will be near the top of the largest DYK sets, which would make it impossible for him to be ignored in the future. :) It's madness, but it will be wonderful madness. 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a simple enough process (or was, unless things changed again on me, hah!) but we will just have to build all of the articles together in basically a 48 hour period. So, prepping them in a subpage tends to help. :) I already have some info on Ainsworth in a subpage, so I will have to start a new one for this task. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK remains a bit of a mystery to me Ottava, so I'll be happy to leave that in your hands. I just want Ainsworth's article(s) to do the man some credit. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Olivia, did you tell him the secret phrase? "Oh-wa-ta-gu-si-am"?

Danebury

Hi Malleus Fatuorum, I think I said once before (and elsewhere) your ability for grammatical analysis considerably exceeded mine.Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a curmudgeonly, pedantic, grumpy old man Pyrotec. It's a nice article, but I wouldn't have passed it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand, following the problems highlighted by Pyroctec, I was considering withdrawing it but hoped I would be able to improve it in time. The article can be better and GA isn't about badge collecting. Feel free to delist it, I'll continue working on it as I now have greater access to sources. Nev1 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Delisting is obviously the nuclear option. Every article, even the best, can always be improved, as you know. I'd rather help to make the article worthy of its GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1346

I went through and fixed everything you mentioned. Wrad (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done again. Wrad (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Castle Hotel, Halton

Saved; thanks for your support. This means all the Grade II* listed buildings in Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire now have articles. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you a cricket player or cricket fan?

If not, I have a question for you. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Living in England of course I played cricket at school, but that was an awful long time ago. I don't even watch cricket on TV, because it bores the pants off me almost as much as snooker does. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Liners

'Happy New Year' to you, Malleus! Nice to hear from you again. The shade of red for the funnel and flag was the best I could do. Putting Ted Gray's 'Manchester Liners' book cover next to the Wikipedia image shows little difference. Perhaps my attempt is a little 'pale' rather than too 'light'. Would be happy for a more artistic person than myself to improve on the image. Also - yes please do turn the rectangle into a flag - I just dont have the know how.

Have just bid on Ebay for a set of ML playing cards with the company flag on the reverse. Had thought of uploading an image if I succeed in the bid. This might also give a hint at the true shade of red. I have not been able to lay my hands on a colour image - the one you inserted is the only one I've yet seen.

When you're ready, would most appreciate guidance from you on what needs to be done to attain 'GA' status. I gather that improved 'quality' rather than 'quantity' is the key!

RuthAS (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a boxed set of two packs of ML playing cards, made by Waddingtons. What information are you hoping to get from them? Mr Stephen (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you compare the reds in this graphic to the red used in the ML logo? Which is closer? Is either even close? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the image using my uncalibrated monitor to the cards under a 60W bulb, I'd say the top one wasn't far off. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. That's good enough for me, I'll get to work on the flag now. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The reds look quite different to me, but that's maybe because we've got our monitor displays set up differently. With your permission then, I'm going to make it look a closer match to this image on the front of Grey's book [4].

I think we should be thinking of a GA nomination sooner rather than later, so I'll have a look through and see what I think remains to be done. We should also ask at the GM project for any input from other members. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus - yes, please go ahead with improving the funnel colours and flag. Another GM project member has added some contributions earlier this afternoon. The more the better ...

Haws book on the Furness Withy Group including ML says on page 18 '. . . 1898 May; Acquired Manchester Trader; April 26 (sic) sailed Avonmouth-Montreal-Manchester. She brought the first cargo of grain to the city'. Elsewhere, he says the prospectus for ML was issued on May 10. I now conclude that April 26 should read May 26.

I now have an image of an earlier ML ship taken circa 1912. Unknown photographer. Whilst I am now able to upload my own photos, I still have not learned to steer round the more unusual Wiki licences. Would you mind if I emailed the image to you, please, for inserting in the pre WWI section? RuthAS (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Image licensing is one of wikipedia's tarpits. I'm no expert, but if you send me the image I'll do my best with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, it's amazing, don't you think, the number of errors and discrepancies you find in published sources when you try to bring them all together in an encyclopedia article? When I was writing the Pendle witch trials I couldn't even find a consensus for how many witches there actually were, pretty fundamental! --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I'm very happy with the new image of ML's flag and funnel colours - very professional, Malleus! As you surmised, the photo of Engineer was from a pre-WWI anonymous postcard. Your write-up on it is just fine. Re section headings - I split the period into (I think) logical sections - Pre-WWI, WWI, interwars, WWII. After that, the periods to choose are not so obvious, but can't see much wrong with those chosen - it doesnt have to be the 50's, 60's etc. Will make more input in the next day or so. RuthAS (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with your choice of section headings as well, they make sense to me. One thing that probably does need a little bit of expansion is the Stoker family's involvement. Bob Stoker is just plonked in at the end, without any context. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now covered the points raised by Nev1. Also added material on the Stoker family at appropriate points. Anything else needed? RuthAS (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only glanced at the article yet today. What was the relationship between the two Stokers? Was the second the first one's son? How did he succeed to his position? I'll take a more in depth look later, but I'm thinking we're almost there now. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Please see Post WWII ops, first para - I think that covers your point re the second R.B.Stoker. RuthAS (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, will do. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus - have made a first attempt at expanding the introductory narrative, whilst still keeping it succinct. Is it normal to include links in this section? There is now more 'white space' at the top - is this acceptable? Should we add a 'See Also' section to cover such as Manchester Ship Canal - or are the in-text links sufficient? RuthAS (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

White space at the top is no problem. I personally prefer to have as few links in the lead as possible, as any claims there ought to be substantiated in the body of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, Malleus, will delete links in the lead, review and go for GA! Many thanks for all your help. RuthAS (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus My references sources do not give figures for turnover or employees. Stoker quotes profits/losses for the odd year. The table figures came from the Mergers Commission, which I think you located. Will try to find that reference and quote it. Otherwise, it would need a trip to Manchester Central Library, when I can fit that in, to see if they have any sources. RuthAS (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a reference to the Mergers Commission report would be fine. It's just that a reviewer will expect to see a reliable source for any statistics like those in the infobox, and they're not mentioned anywhere else in the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus - there is an answer to the 'GRT' apparent conflict, but it may be too erudite for the average reader. Cellular ships (as M/cr Concorde), are able to pack in more volume, and therefore cargo, for any given length of ship. GRT is a measure of volume. It may be better if we substitute statements based on ship lengths, which will now be done. Re conversion of Gross Tons. Ship size is still quoted in GRT, even today. I have no access to any conversion factor, which would presumably be to cubic metres capacity. RuthAS (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're the expert, I'll leave it to you to decide. For myself, I find it easier to relate the length of the ship to the length of the locks. I'll have a think about grt ... --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Have searched for a comparable shipping line article, for getting a line on treatment of GRT - but there are none! We seem to be 'trailblazing', as Manchester people often do! In shipping circles and in historical books about shipping, GRT still 'rules'. I propose to leave things as they are. Regards. RuthAS (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Some other shipping line articles include a listing of their ships. Those articles are not as 'rounded' as ours on ML. A listing of ML's vessels would be very long, and would 'unbalance' the article. To compromise, would it be a good idea to add a brief sub-heading, under which a reference would be made to the ML 'Old Mates' link, indicating that the website includes a full fleet listing? RuthAS (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, we'd never get through GAN with a list of ships like that. I think a better idea than linking to the Old Shipmates Association would be to create a list article, and link to that. We could maybe also add a section drawing attention to significant ships in the fleet, with a link to the main list article at the top of it ... not so certain about that, but the more I think of it, the more I think a new List of Ships in Manchester Liners' Fleet article is the way to go. We could even think of putting it forwards as a Featured List in time. :-)

;)

Thanks. — Realist² 16:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deprod notification: Chris Kirby article

The article had already been proposed for deletion, so I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kirby using the reason from the PROD template. —Snigbrook 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA criticism

In this case, I'm not sure how you can be critical of the process but not critical of individual editors. I'll give two reasons; first, asking the 20th or 30th question on an RfA is a simple lapse of common sense. Whether you believe the process should be governed more strictly or changed or dispensed with completely, you surely agree that there are times when the problem is the behavior of the participants. Of course there are structural (and no-blame) methods of addressing these behavioral problems, but see my next point.

Second, very little improvement to the process has come about in the last two years through any sort of consensus agreement. You've noticed, I'm sure, that many problems are simply cyclical - some seem to go away while others arrive, but before long those unmissed issues return at full power. When they are related to the behavior of individuals - whether nominators, voters, candidates or questioners - the only effective remedy I've seen is (a) the people at fault recognize it and reform and (b) the public airing of their errors warn off others. While saying "ashamed" may have been too harsh a choice of wording, naming names (as opposed to an amorphous 'those other people') seems to be the best option. Avruch ^T 00:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, to paraphrase Jonathan Swift, "Principally I hate and detest that animal called RfA; although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth." --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright, you asked for it!

Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dlohcierekim 02:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FA question

Hello, Malleus. It's been a while, and I hope all is going well with you. I believe you were one of the first !Admins I asked for advice over my first and only experience with FA. (It turned out to the positive). Today an editor began making stylistic changes to the article (Anna May Wong), and I objected on the grounds that this sort of thing had all been worked out during the course of the FA trial-by-fire... If you could look in at the recent edits (and reverts) to that article, and my discussion with the editor here to offer input based on your FA expertise, it would be much appreciated. Dekkappai (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, Anna May Wong again. I thought we'd managed to put that one to bed. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In your dreams, Malleus! ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've taken a look, and it's like the curate's egg, good in parts. First of all I don't understand the nonsense about the repeated change of date format in the lead, and the justification being given for the change is absurd. On the other hand, I do quite like the rejigging of the lead into chronological order, that works for me. Such a change would have no effect on the article's FA status. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Right-- I reverted that as part of the date controversy without reading it. I'll change that back... Thanks for looking in. The question remains though (at least in my mind) How much tinkering should be allowed after an article has passed FA? I admit I have little patience with Wiki's "guidelines" of the minute, and have no intention of seeing what, if anything, they say on this particular issue. I go with my gut on this sort of thing, and ask trusted editors for further input. Gut says: Treat an FA as somewhat settled, additions should contribute substance, not stylistic nit-picking. Dekkappai (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to keep up with FA standards, there will need to be some stylisitic as well as substance changes to articles. I don't treat FAs on my watchlist as sacred, but I do try hard to keep out unreferenced additions. Stylistic things aren't such a big deal, if folks like to switch words around and stuff, it's no skin off my nose. (Probably why Malleus will put up with copyediting my research efforts, I don't scream bloody murder when he whacks my prose.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It has occasionally happened that an editor has objected to my battering of what they believe to be their unimpeachable prose into some sort of grammatical and comprehensible shape. Curiously, on the couple of occasions I can remember it's been non-native English speakers, so I just leave them to it and go do something else. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In general stylistic nit-picking is discouraged whether an article's an FA or not. Consistency is key though, which is why the date format in the lead ought not to be changed. Period. As to how much an article can be altered after it becomes an FA, well, how long is a piece of string? Certainly I think that the relatively minor reordering of the lead being suggested wouldn't cause any FA reviewer's heart to flutter, and would likely be an improvement IMO. At the other extreme, I'd probably begin to become concerned if whole new sections were being added—particularly if the referencing for any new stuff wasn't up to snuff, as Ealdgyth says—or existing sections removed. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the input. I'm generally not one to quibble much over style (other than consistency, as you point out), and welcome improvements to my prose. I do have the feeling that edits to an FA should be either clear improvements or valid additions. (There's a fairly major episode in Anna May Wong's life I left out because of complaints the article was already too long... now I wonder...) But I'll keep the above in mind. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire FL

So we've made it - the first FL for WikiProject Cheshire! Thanks for your help and support. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Great news! I commend you for your patience with the process Peter, which seems just as arbitrary to me now as it did when we were trying to get Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester through. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ainsworth

I purchased a few books that I could track down and were not over 200 dollars. They should arrive next week. However, one of the professors that I was to work with when finishing my dissertation is gone, so I suffered another major real life set back. I will work hard when I can on this (seeing as how this was the third major set back due to staffing for my dissertation). I will dedicate myself even further so I can further my own understanding and hopefully publish some more on my own so I can get over these academic problems. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It'll probably all work out for the best in the end Ottava. Some years ago I worked with a guy who'd recently completed his PhD. Nothing particularly remarkable in that, except that in the three years or so it took he'd met with his supervisor only four times, and he wasn't even doing his research at the university, but for a small company he'd set up himself. (In case you're interested, his field of study was 3D imaging.) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of many groups that really care about Keats and his response to the Anglican tradition. :) I will link you with my user subpage of material when I start placing some. Then we can discuss what we will need. Also, I can forward you some access information into various databases when the time comes. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nethermost Pike

Just to say thanks for your review and all the chages you made. Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Well done on producing such a nice article. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I spent roughly 15 minutes searching for the right barnstar! That said, I present The Copyeditor's Barnstar to Malleus Fatuorum for his outstanding effort cleaning up the mess that is Hubert Maga. You deserve it! ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll only deserve it if Maga gets through GAN. That Ling.Nut is a tough reviewer. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're work is awesome as it is, with or without GA status. By the way, do you have JSTOR access and, if so, could you e-mail me a copy of Full Circle in Dahomey by Samuel Decalo (he just seems to be everywhere!)? Link is [5]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I don't. Perhaps someone else here may be able to help. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got it, but I don't know how to attach files to Wikipedia emails... Apterygial 00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't attach anything to a Wikipedia email, but if you trade emails, then you have each other's email addresses, and can attach via normal email. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That's what we're doing. Apterygial 01:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on RFA talk page

Hello. I felt rather hurt by this comment of yours on the RFA talk page. Your suggestion that I should be removed (i.e. banned) from the project because I think some RFA questions are silly is a personal attack and completely against the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Civility. Please be more respectful and considerate towards me and others in future. Really, stuff like makes editors want to leave and is highly detrimental to the growth of Wikipedia.--Patton^t/c 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

MALLEUS, I can't believe it... YOU of all people are being accused of incvility??? NEVER!!! It never happens! You are the model wikipedian... I'm going to block you!

PATTON, two things. First, Malleus is an Ass, everybody knows that. The best way to deal with him, is dish it back at him in kind, and ignore half of what he says---the other half is usually pretty insightful. Second, I do think you are being a little over sensitive there. Your comment about it being "silly" could similarly be seen as a personal attack.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

An ass? Oh, well as you already know I don't know anybody here. BTW I have no problem with him calling my what I think stupid, but saying I'm stupid or saying I should be banned, well that's an insult. Also I didn't make a comment about anybody else, I made it about some questions...sure if the questions in question want to complain then fine I apologise to those questions ;)--Patton^t/c 21:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Me? Uncivil? Are we sure this isn't a case of mistaken identity? "I'm the very model of a modern wikipedian ...". Oh, and as Balloonman says, I can be a complete Ass as well. Or as Jennavecia says a complete dick, or as ... well you get the picture, I'm sure.

To be serious though, I wasn't making a personal comment about you, but rather a general one about censorship. It was not my intention to cause you any distress, but if I have, then I apologise for that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, who are you??? What have you done with Malleus??? That sounded like an apology ;-) I'm going to have to block this account until I'm sure that it is Malleus at the helm, and hasn't been coopted ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Errr... Pattton - seriously, that was not a personal attack. Not only does Malleus have the best interest of Wikipedia close to his heart, but that was really just a comment that should not in any way be taken personaly. Pedro :  Chat 

Not so fast there Balloonman, I haven't finished my WP:Wikiquette complaint yet for you calling me an Ass. With a capital "A" no less! You know what a stickler I am for the justifiably highly respected policy on civility ... (damn, think, what would Malleus say now?) ... Oh, I know, he'd quote George Bernard Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Or something like that anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedro who said you have to be a vandal or troll to be incivil? Loads of users do it in heated discussion. I was hurt by what he said. I took it here in the hopes of an apology, which I got.--Patton^t/c 16:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:A word to the wise

"...taken to MFD It may work, it may not..." ;)--Patton^t/c 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. What have you taken to MFD? I was simply drawing your attention to the mispelling of "preperation" in your offer to undertake copyedits, and the irony of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant the notice at the top of your page. It reads "I am outraged that the AdminWatch initiative to level the playing field between the standards of behaviour expected of administrators and non-administrators was taken to MFD It may work, it may not, but the defensive attitudes being displayed by some administrators leave a bad taste in the mouth." There's a missing full stop...--Patton^t/c 21:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, touché. I wrote that rather hastily in a less than ideal frame of mind. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your mission...

Should you feel up to it, of course, could I beg a CE off of you, of Nigel (Bishop of Ely)? I think he's just about ready for FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course, I'll be happy to help. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're a lifesaver... we all know I'd never get an article through FAC on my own prose (grins). It's good enough for GA, but FAC... well... Thanks, Malleus. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A'm sayin' nuthin'. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Andover F.C. GA review

Just want to say many thanks for your help in getting this to GA standard, not only the review but especially for the shedload of copyedits you made. You know what, I reckon that alone deserves a barnstar.

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your efforts in going over Andover F.C. (and probably a load of other GA candidates too) with a very fine tooth comb and making all those little copyedits which were instrumental in finally getting it up to GA standard. Cheers mate! Bettia (rawr!) 09:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much! We could do no less for what was obviously a labour of love. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Maga and my wife :-O

Hi Malleus,

My wife is really really talking about how we didn't spend any time together etc. while I was slaving over my dissertation. She really wants a couple weeks to take a small trip etc. I might get a couple hours of Wikipedia time tomorrow, but that isn't guaranteed.

Would you be willing to do me a favor and take over the GA nom of Hubert Maga? I would owe you one if you did.

I don't like the lead; it needs to say in the first sentence that he was the first president etc. It reads like a summary of the article that doesn't stress its main points. Some minor points can be left out, and major ones need to be receive more emphasis.

I really appreciate your help. If you can't do it, I'll ask G-guy or someone else. Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I was initially going to say that because I've done quite a bit of copyediting to the article some may think that I have a vested interest in its success, and so decline. On reflection though, all of my copyedits were done during the article's GAN, after I gave my second opinion, and I can't think of even one article that I've listed without copyediting it during its GAN. So I'll take over the review. Enjoy your trip. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! FA Musings, see this Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus. I see absolutely no COI in you taking over the review, and I have noticed all the good work you have been doing here. Geometry guy 23:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good to get an outside view, so thanks for that. I'm optimistic we can address all of Ling's concerns, as well as my own. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My sincerest thanks..

...for giving my talk page a break from its excruciatingly painful lull. I feel important again. You and Tan certainly have a unique and engaging (from and outside perspective) rapport : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus and half of the wiki-community have a unique rapport ;0---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Only half? Must try harder. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to stop being right all the time. Apterygial 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

One day I'll be gone, and wikipedia will degenerate into a grey goo of conformity. Thankfully though, I obviously won't be there to see it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA comments

I'm a little perplexed why you are asking; is there any particular reason? Caulde 21:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

None other than the obvious one. He made a mistake, and you made a rather similar mistake. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why you forgive one and not the other? Caulde 22:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask, yes, there is. One accepts full responsibility and does the decent thing. The other does not. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying there was some sort of conspiracy with regards to mine? Sigh, some people just never learn do they. You've just always had a hatred against me because of Didsbury and that Grade I listed building list - grow up will you, your rhetoric is getting past the point of chronic. Caulde 22:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, toys and pram have once again become separated. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You avoid me, and I'll avoid you. It's not hard. Caulde 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be hard for you. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Santa Claus

I beleive, so does my grandmother. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I remain dubious about Santa Claus, but I'm leaning towards a belief in the Easter Bunny. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And here I had you pegged as a devotee of the Invisible Pink Unicorn Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You know me too well. I've always believed that colorless green ideas sleep furiously. --Malleus Fatuorum 09:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

For the copyedit on Pipe rolls. I was bored and expanded it, but of course it was rough. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still there! I was very surprised to see the state this was in when I followed the link from your Nigel article, so thanks for doing the hard graft. My bit's easy. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't let it get around, but occasionally I like to edit something besides ecclesiastics! I really should work on a few others like this... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As you're interested in history, what about lending me a hand with this? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I don't even begin to have the slightest bit of sources on that subject. I might have something in some files somewhere, but as we're in the process of moving, everything not medieval or horse related has been packed up for the moving process. I'll add the subject to my list for lookup when I hit the university library next. I'm not joking when I say that my interest in most historical subjects ends at the Reformation (grins). I don't even like much American history, and I live here! It's too recent. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of the (probably apocryphal) story of the Chinese diplomat visiting France in the 1960s or 70s. When asked what his view was of the French Revolution he replied "Too soon to say." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A favor?

Good evening Malleus! You have been a wonderful help in the past as you have copyedited articles for the Equine Wikiproject - your non-horseman's eye tends to see things that we horsey people skip right over! I was wondering if you would mind dropping by to take a look at Suffolk Punch, a draft horse breed that we are getting ready to go for FAC at some point in the near future. It would be much appreciated, and if there's anything I can do in return, please let me know. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely a non-horsey person. At my wife's insistence I did once take a few riding lessons. Had to give it up though, as she and her friends spent so much time rolling around the floor laughing at my efforts that it was clearly a health hazard for them. I'll be happy to take a look. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! Blackmail material! Did they happen to get any pictures? And you're in luck, Dana writes less... eliptically... than I do! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures do exist, yes, but they don't give the full flavour of the comedy. I'm fairly big, and the friend I'd persuaded to come along with me for the lessons was absolutely gigantic. So we were put on two monster horses–mine was called Jumbo. It didn't make the slightest diference what we did to our horses, they just stolidly ignored us and did their own thing. After my third lesson of being taken wherever it was that Jumbo decided looked interesting, at whatever pace he thought appropriate, my wife booked us on a pony-trekking holiday in Wales. After about an hour or so of gentle ambling around the hills we came to a fairly flat section, where the leader said that those of us who felt confident enough to do so could let our ponies have a gallop. I wasn't confident at all, but my pony shot off after the others; never been so scared in my life! --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Having just come from dosing my horses with drugs to combat their snotty-nose-syndrome, I needed that! Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Malleus! I look forward to your comments/edits. And I think you would find common company with my boyfriend in your riding endeavors - I tend to spend far more time laughing at him then is really good for me :) It appears to be a common curse for men who date/marry seriously horsey women... Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm mean. I make my hubby ride English. Poor guy. And he gets to show halter too, since I find halter showing incredibly boring (cackles). A well trained man is so helpful around a barn... (p.s. he cooks too!) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ride English? Is that the rising up and down on the trot thing? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The one with the flat saddle. Most men in the States ride Western, in the cowboy saddle. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My attempts at that were one of the things that particularly provoked mirth from the none too sympathetic gallery of my wife and her friends. But to be fair, even I could see that I was rubbish at it. Having said that, when done well, it looks so much more elegant than the lolling about in the saddle that cowboys are prone to. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Arley Hall

Following your very recent remark at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire, how about this for GAC? Comments, copyediting, involve others if you wish, etc. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent candidate for GAC, some nice pictures there too. You know how anal I am about trying to get the prose just right though, so I feel compelled to tweak it just a soupçon before it goes under the microscope. Give me a day or two ... --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that this sentence is often followed 12 hours later by "you have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia", you might want to ask Giano to have a look at it as well. I don't think even his many enemies would deny that he has a magic touch when it comes to English-country-house articles. Besides, he could probably do with something to distract him right now. – iridescent 23:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'll chance my arm and see what he says. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your amazingly rapid attention (again) and for involving Giano. Do you ever sleep? I don't suppose people are sensible enough to realise that you were using the term in a Freudian rather than in an abusive/rude anatomical context! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

They've completely re-vamped the website - thanks for spotting it in time; that could have been embarrassing. So more work to do in changing the refs. The tour of the house seems to have gone, so I've lost quite a bit of information. The tour of the garden is still there as is most of the rest. Not tonight though - I retire at bedtime! Cheers. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've changed all the refs (which seem to work OK) and made some consequential amendments to the text. Re the tour of the house, this may be a mistaken omission so I've e-mailed Arley Hall asking them about it. We can't go for GAC until that's settled. If they don't restore it, I'll have to make more amendments. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks

Please stop the personal attacks. I have removed Tony's page from my watchlist. [[6],[7] I hope this will end our contact. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try to take a long, hard look at how you're behaving. Why would you suppose that it's of any interest to me whether you have Tony's page on your watchlist or not? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you two make up? Maybe not, but please agree to a truce. Mattisse, you are overreacting. This is one of the core problems. As I've indicated more than once, I harbour a deal of goodwill towards you, and want to see your contributions foster a harmonious environment. Tony (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem so, as Mattisse appears determined to keep up the kind of nonsense that resulted in the last RfC, and which may well result in more serious consequences if it doesn't stop. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured List Copyediting

Hello Malleus. I was looking for someone to copyedit a list of mine and Collectonian (talk · contribs) directed me to you. The list in question is List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1), a list of episodes from the series Oh My Goddess!. It recently failed a FLC because the episode summaries needed more copyediting, and though I have been desperately searching for a copyeditor, nobody in WP:ANIME was able to do so, often citing WP:WEIGHT. However, I don't feel that this will be an issue as the copyedit needed for the list is solely fixing grammar and flow. Could you possibly do this? Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm prepared to have a go. I've edited the first three episode summaries. What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You clearly know what you're doing. Man, I wish I had found you earlier... Thanks for the help! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll carry on then. It'll probably take me two or three days to get through them all though. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No biggie. I probably won't be able to renominate for FLC for another month or so because it so recently failed it... Take your time! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maga

Yes, I'm going to work on it. I've been on an unannounced wikibreak over the past couple of days. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, I'll leave it for now then. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Crewe

Hello Malleus. Following you message in which you mentioned your ideas about wanting to improve Crewe on WT:CHES, I've made a proposal for you. It chimed with some ideas I recently had (which is why I now have the two recent books about the History of Crewe). Are you up for it?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied there, count me in. I don't have any sources as yet though, need to have a search around. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a start: added some books I know I would be using to a bibliography section on Crewe. I've also managed to make a very short start to one section in a sandbox of mine: Crewe Article Sandbox. It is very short and will have to wait for me to add the sources as I'm too knackered to do it at the moment, but have them all to hand. I'll continue tomorrow.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, but I've been a little distracted elsewhere, and I really want to get Manchester Mark 1 to GAN, or at least close to it, before I get too involved in anything else. Hopefully next week ... --Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

North Sea

Hi, Malleus, I'm here to ask a really big favour. I've just issued a "fail" in the GA review of North Sea. The editors have worked really hard, but they don't yet have the skills for such a big topic. I've left some advice at the end of the review. Since I know you're an experienced and helpful GA reviwer, I'd be grateful if you'd have a look and see if there's addtional advice you think would help these editors. --Philcha (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What a fantastic review! I've left a few brief comments, but basically I agree with pretty much everything you've already said. Get the structure right, get the prose sorted out, and it should walk GAN next time. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Except I suspect they should split out a lot per WP:SUMMARY, as it's a huge article. Thanks for reassuring me that my advice was reasonable. I owe you, don't forget to call it it. --Philcha (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only 36kb of readable prose, which seems fine to me considering the topic. I suspect it looks bigger than it is because of all the short subsections. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, it didn't feel like that while I was reviewing it - in fact it's felt like a bloody great mill-stone. I was quite relieved when I concluded it was in the editors' interests to fail it without dragging the agony out still further. --Philcha (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: What happened to AJAX article?

Hi, I was looking at the Discussion on AJAX_Programming article (I was a very early contributor). Everything prior to Oct/Nov 2008 is missing, and someone (you?) seemed to suggest it was still available in a backup or transclusion or something, but I can't find it. Would you please clarify what happened? Thanks very much. KTyson (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

All discussions before about then have been archived (here for instance). You'll see that there's an archive box towards the top right of the discussion page where you'll find links to all the discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus. It is amazing to briefly review what has happened in the past two years. I was an early adopter of Ajax, transitioned from "regular" web dev to Ajax style, and knew first hand the striking benefits, so I made some basic entries about the technique to help others. The original article was far better than the current article. Something seems to go deeply wrong with the Wikipedia model in cases like this. Not to start a flame war, but Ajax (plus SVG) is clearly an open-standards RIA competitor to Flash and Silverlight - but compare these three articles. If I were paranoid, I'd say outside powers were steering the content either (1) into the ground, or (2) into an advertisement. KTyson (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I too was drawn to Ajax when I first saw it demonstrated a couple of years ago. I came across the article because I was checking on the quality of old GAs, and sadly, as you say, the article had deteriorated to such an extent that I had to remove its GA listing.

You're right in your comparison of the Ajax and, say Silverlight articles, chalk and cheese really. I don't think there's anything sinister in that, insofar as everything that Microsoft pumps gathers a lot of attention and followers compared to the open-standards alternatives. But so many of the computing articles are poor—take a look at Information technology, for instance. What that Ajax article needs is for one or two editors who care and know about the subject to adopt it. There's an entropy problem with all wikipedia articles though, in that you can't just write them and then leave them, you have to watch over them as well. That's just the nature of the beast. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good ole Nigel...

What's your thinking on him? I think I've totally mined out anything to add to his article, so assuming the experts in the copyediting department are happy, I'll be ready to throw him up at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he's worth a punt at FAC. I'd say go for it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Maga again

Are you considering adding the ending comments to the review soon? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about the missing political background, and in particular the tribalism present in Dahomey during Maga's time. I'm unconvinced that this addition to the lead: "He arose on a political scene where one's power was dictated by what region in Dahomey they lived" does the topic justice. I think we need to have a short background section describing what the tribal divisions in the country were, and greater clarity surrounding the tribal allegiances of each of the main protagonists in this story. What tribes are there anyway? What proportion of the general population belongs to each? There's still a lot to be done. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have nominated it for community reassessment. Hopefully this will judge whether my additions are enough (and I did add a paragraph under the "French National Assembly Deputy" section) or if a complete background section is needed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good luck with the reassessment. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me

I understand that you don't like the way I responded to Ottava Rima's post, and you have every right not to; I don't hold that against you. But I don't see how this, in an unrelated thread, was necessary. I tried to leave a constructive response to your question—furthermore, since people in the past accused me [wrongly, I think] of trying to "control" DYK, I purposely made it clear that I was hoping for people other than me to give input as well. So I was a bit frustrated to receive this comment from you. That's all.

No need to respond to this comment. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is clear to you that I will respond whenever and wherever I choose, whatever your feelings on the matter. Your reply to Ottava was disgraceful, but it had no bearing on my comments about the DYK criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You are always welcome to respond; I just meant that it wasn't necessary if you didn't want to. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The real, real, REAL problem with RfA

Is how seriously this thread was taken.

I lol'd. Giggy (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was amazed as well. I just thought that I was making a little joke. I never intended it to degenerate into the slough of despond that would inevitably be the fate of RfA/3. Still, I'm a great believer in letting people get it out of their systems, so if a fake RfA is what it takes, then fine by me. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit naive to think it'll get anything out of some peoples' systems, unfortunately... Giggy (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been called many things, but rarely naive. I know what you're getting at though, and I'm sorry to say that you're probably right. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You're always welcome to report my horrendous personal attacks to the appropriate IRC user. Giggy (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you ever see me complaining about "personal attacks", or other wikinonsense, then you should go straight to ANI, because my acount has been compromisd. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already wondered if your account is compromised... I saw an apology earlier this month... that couldn't be Malleus.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You said something about needing to be an admin so it dawned on me that it was basically an RfA anyway... :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to be an admin, nobody needs to be an admin. Wikipedia has far too many admins anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The only man that can be trusted with the power of leadership is the man who does not want it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Never a truer word Ottava. I recall at least one North American Indian tribe who used to choose their chief by looking at all of the possible candidates and choosing the one who least wanted the job. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my experience with the concept was some variation attributed to Confucius. I don't remember how it actually goes. By the way, it looks like you are on your way to becoming an honourary admin. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if someone nommed you and then there was a bunch of pre-transclusion support, you'd have to accept. I like the idea that not wanting the mop is a sign of readiness for it. Dlohcierekim 04:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has to accept anythng. Have you learned nothing Grasshopper? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, you crack me up. The rfa (talk) thread is brilliant. Keeper | 76 04:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone realised it was a joke! *shocked expression* Giggy (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be a joke to you Giggy, but if you persist in that kind of obvious personal attack then I'll be left with no choice other than to go to ... what's that place called where kiddies go to complain to their surrogate parents about some perceived rudeness ... it's on the tip of my tongue ... is it Wikipratt? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's over here somewhere... Giggy (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The joke is on all of those who thought it was a joke until the very moment (January 32 at the 25th hour) Malleus is promoted. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Past differences of opinion and reconcilliations aside, your snide little comment about too many admins rankles. I spent a miserable amount of my volunteer time cleaning CSD today because no other bugger was there to do so. Attack pages, gross copright violations - that kind of stuff - y'know the bits we actually need to remove a bit sharpish. So before you start your bollocks of "too many admins" how about you think that there are a few bloody volunteers here who could do with some more people with the tools to help. Pedro :  Chat  00:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally, smilies of whatever kind contextualize something as "this is probably not serious enough to cause drama". So, with that in mind.... Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good point Ottava. I did miss the winky smiley. Sorry Malleus. Pedro :  Chat  00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I did Malleus a disservice. He would have loved the opportunity to fight under the assumption that it was serious. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus and I don't fight. We disagree. There is a fundamental diference. I did not see the smiley - my fault. Malleus is intelligent enough to understand that, without that context, the comment would seem overly agressive, and equally savvy enough to understand that a missed smiley happens. I'm not sure if you're trying to bait me Ottava to be honest. Mistakes happen, I apologised and did not remove my remark here out of decency, openness and honesty . I hope you understand that. Pedro :  Chat  00:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, you missed the smilie at the end of my post. :P Haha. Don't worry so much. Relax. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Pedro, if there's only you cleaning out CSD, then it seems like there's about 1,500 too many admins. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Touche! Pedro :  Chat  13:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I wondered why they disappeared before I could get to them. (:. Dlohcierekim 13:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - Daniel Adamson

Hi

I have finished for the night, but may get back on to it again tomorrow. I would appreciate you checking it, I hope to find some more info next week from the Greater Manchester County Record Office, as they have quite a lot of records there for him. I am most interested in his patents as it seems he was quite an innovator and so hope to expand that part perhaps next week.

It has been nice to do this, I spent many a day in my Grandads garden watching and listening to the factory and its goings on, as well as going through it during our walks. I was also in the Adamson Military Band for a couple of years !

Anyway, thanks in anticipation--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste Hacheme

I am perfectly content to let the GAR fail, as I am acquiring some sources for the man. However, I am perplexed by the link you provided to source the amnesty claim. It was a guide to how to use Keesing World Archives, and didn't mention Hacheme at all. Perhaps you mistyped? On a related note, do you have access to the Keesings World Archives? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have copied the wrong link. try this. I don't have access to the Keesings World Archives, I just did a Google search on "hacheme +dahomey" and that popped up. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Random Stuff

1953? If so, you are equal to me (referring to the Mark 1 discussions). I started my last year psychology degree in 1974, graduating in 1975. On the matter of the camouflage on West Road, Crewe, I've just spoken with my mother, who is still alive, though in failing health and variable memory. She says that the camouflage was not just on the walls, but also on the roof, and was quite elaborate. It was all just left to weather away, she said, and wondered if it was still there. When the weather gets better, I'm off to take some photos of Queens Park and some of the milestones surrounding Crewe, and I'll take a look to see if there is any sign of it.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we're of the same generation DD. :-)

I never saw the roof, but the sheer scale of the thing was amazing. As your mother said, it was just left there after the war, no obvious attempt to remove it. You really had to stand back from it to see what the at first sight random daubings were meant to represent though. It was certainly still there in the 1970s. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Liners

Malleus, the review of 'ML' for GA has been started tonight. Some initial comments have been raised. I've not been through the process before. Does one make amendments to the article, where necessary, as they are raised, or reply to the reviewer's talk page? I think that you took the image of Manchester Liners House recently - do you think that it has been 're-clad' since 1969? RuthAS (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's good. Amend the article where necessary and just say you've done so on the review page. Equally, if you don't agree with a point raised by the reviewer, explain why on the review page. I'll take a look myself in a minute. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I did take that picture, yes, and I don't think it's been reclad, as it looks exactly like a (copyrighted) picture I'll try to find again which still has Manchester Liners across the top of it, not Furness House. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note re 'loaded guns'. Have always believed in being open and honest. As posted a few minutes ago, I'm now withdrawing into my shell, unless asked to emerge by the reviewing editor! Regards RuthAS (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mind me giving you a gentle prod. It's best just to sit back and respond to whatever issues the reviewer brings up as best you can. Trust me, I've been through this process a few times, on both sides of the fence. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the congratulations - but I could not have done it without your sometimes firm but invariably constructive and kind prodding and contributions! Yes - I'd noticed your listing of GA's which you've passed and failed. You're quite a veteran Wikipedier, Malleus! That experience comes to the fore, for the better. Glad to have added a feather in the cap for the GM Project. Regards RuthAS (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed working on this with you. Perhaps we can do it again sometime. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe - But, . . . some of my articles are necessarily 'lightweight', as the subject and published material on them, is not extensive. However, I believe that some of these modest railway lines, stations etc should not be forgotten, and Wikipedia is a good place to record their sometimes fleeting existence! I learned a lot from you about matters 'Wiki' during our collaboration on 'ML'. Regards RuthAS (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen Hellingly Hospital Railway, currently at FAC? It's written by one of my wikiheroes, someone who apparently believes that the difference between a silk purse and a sow's ear is just how you look at it. It's the small articles that make wikipedia special; any encyclopedia can come up with an article on gravity, for instance, but how many have an article on wet floor signs? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Carroll Pickett

After I merge in the GA-review comments, I'd love to get your input on the article. If you have comments that weren't raised in the review, I'd love to hear them now so I can add that to my to-do list. Of course, if you want to jump in and edit that would be even better. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Continued from Pedro's talk

As requested, I am moving our conversation here. As far as I am aware, I pull my share of the janitorial weight around here, and have never made any flagrant abuses of admin power, so I am very curious to know exactly what you meant by saying that I need to "get my arse in gear." GlassCobra 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you understand what I said to you here? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that you have chosen to pursue this matter because you find my opinion that there are too many administrators to be in some way distressing, or perhaps even targetted at you personally, goes some way to proving my point. The Devil makes work for idle hands. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it distressing, merely a bit disheartening, and I certainly don't feel like you're "targeting" me in any way. I'm just trying to get more detail from you, and to explain my point of view in return. Your theory that there are too many admins is based on a couple (albeit highly visible) cases of admin abuse and wheel-warring, which I will not deny is an extremely poor reflection on the admin corps; however, the fact of the matter remains that the vast majority of admin work does not in fact come from "dealing with" other users, but cleaning up after the legions of vandals and spammers. Having less admins would severely increase the workload for each individual admin, as well as allow more junk to filter in.

I would also appreciate a straight answer to what exactly you meant by saying I need to "get my arse in gear." Thanks. GlassCobra 14:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are deliberately attempting to twist my words, that's what I mean. You did so during the discussion on Pedro's talk page and you are doing so now again here. "Your theory that there are too many admins is based on a couple (albeit highly visible) cases of admin abuse and wheel-warring ...". How can you possibly know what my "theory" is based on? Starting a discussion by telling the other party what he or she believes is not a great way to encourage a healthy exchange of views. Which this is not. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and apologize for my presumptions; however, I would like to clarify that I found you telling me to get my arse in gear rather offensive. I am curious to hear about why you believe there are too many admins, then, if my assumption above was incorrect. GlassCobra 15:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'll forgive the presumption, I'll weigh in here since I have a feeling I may have originally started the "too many admins" meme. My point at the time – and while I can't speak for Malleus, I suspect his too – is that there are too many admins who see their role only in terms of hovering round the flameboards prodding half-dead disputes back into life, and/or flogging the dead horses of sometimes years-old disputes at RFC / RFAR / WT:RFA / ANI / AN / WQA and over at ED and WR. (Not naming names, but I'm sure you'll have no trouble thinking of examples.) The active editor / active admin figures are roughly 10,000 / 1000, making an admin / non-admin ratio of about 1 to 9. Yes, some, probably most, admins do excellent jobs – and there's a false dichotomy here, in that it's only the very good and very bad admins who tend to get their admin status noticed – but the figures don't IMO bear out the "we desperately need more admins to keep up with this ever-increasing workload" argument. (I don't say this from the viewpoint of a fly-by-night dilettante or armchair critic who doesn't bother getting my hands dirty in the cesspools, but as someone with 2800+ deletions and 800+ blocks.) – iridescent 16:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In contrast, since it is only the very good and very bad that get noticed, the figures also do not bear out to desysopping half the current admin corps, nor is it reason to allow RFA standards to skyrocket. GlassCobra 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has the right not to be offended GlassCobra. For myself, I always find it offensive to be told what it is that I think, by those who have no idea what it is that I think. It was not my intention to offend you however, or any other administrator. In fact I kind of thought that might be obvious from my starting the topic on Pedro's talk page anyway. I was, and am, making a general point about administrators, not about any particular instantiation of that breed.

Iridescent has summed up pretty well my opinion on the subject, and in particular the absurdly high ratio of active admins to active editors. Bear in mind as well that most vandal fighting is actually done by editors, not by administrators hanging around WT:RFA and similar black holes, discussing their navels. There is one statistic that I think might be telling, if ever I or anyone else had the energy or motivation to collect the data for it. What is the effect on editing levels of promotion to administrator? My impression is that too many just sit back and think "job done". Certainly don't need any more of those. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you name any administrator who has simply sat back and said "job done"? I can think of absolutely no one who would fit any description like that. 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean "worked up until their RFA, then once they'd 'levelled up' left the project", then User:Hdt83 and User:Kim Dent-Brown are a couple, off the top of my head. It does happen. – iridescent 18:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Butting in to tell Iridescent, "well said." We can always use more working admins, and less drama addicts. Dlohcierekim 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also no harm in having admins that are neither. (We need more admins like meeeee!!!!) Geometry guy 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we all try to be a little less precious?

I was sorry to see earlier today that Jennavecia has handed in her badge and retired, but not altogether surprised. Her description of the project as a "frustrating obsession" is one that also resonates with me. In her valedictory speech she was kind enough to mention me: "You're a dick of porn star proportions ...". Am I upset by that? Not in the least. Just as I'm not upset by Balloonman's frequent references to me as an "Ass". Yet if I called Balloonman an idiot (not that I think he is) I'd have the civility police on my back in no time, and be looking at another block if I didn't immediately grovel in the mud. I'm not condoning name-calling, but it's only a name after all, doesn't hurt anyone, just makes me laugh.

There certainly are serious civility issues that need to be dealt with, but they're not. I have the example of SandyGeorgia in mind, and they need to be stamped down on. But a bit of name calling? Isn't it rather childish to get upset about that and go crying to mommy every time someone upsets you? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was also rather pleased, maybe honoured even, to see that I was also noted in her parting statement. WP:FORMER grows ever longer....... 2009 may well be the year of attrition for admins and non-admins. I intend to stick around, as although I too find it a frustrating obsession, I have the self-belief thay my small contributions (not even close to yours Malleus I may add) are valuable and important if we wish Wikipedia to be credible. I assume that all editors can agree that at the very least we want Wikipedia to be that. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was saddened by this turn of events too. Jennavecia has made a fabulous contribution to Wikipedia, and it (we) let her down by not supporting her. I agree with Malleus about the frequent misapplication of civility policy. However, there is a fantastic, and almost unassailable defense in the face of incivility allegations: apologising. It irons out crossed wires and builds collegiate editing. But also if an accusation of incivility is truly in bad faith, then an apology is hard to answer. Geometry guy 23:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not always.[8] --Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you citing my comment here, Malleus? I see no relevance at all, especially since I said in the same section that both I and Pedro appreciated your apology. GlassCobra 18:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was obvious why. Ever since I apologised to Pedro for upsetting him—not for voicing my honestly held opinion you'll note, but for upsetting him—you've been on my case. Thus proving my thesis that there are indeed too many administrators, and that the Devil does indeed find work for idle hands. Haven't you got anything better to do? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Me trying to figure out why you think there are too many administrators proves there are too many administrators? And me having nothing better to do? Are you kidding? Check my contributions. I'll tell one thing, though; I do have better things to do than continue this farce of a conversation with you. GlassCobra 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad to hear it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a sad day when one of our most beautiful admins steps down. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely you don't mean LessHeard vanU retired? – iridescent 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I almost rofl'd about. Thankfully, a blizzard hit DC so I wouldn't have any of my fellows or (oh god) a student see that. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sad. (What is my example?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like she just burned out from too much drama on the noticeboards. A pity, yes, but sad, no, this happens all the time. Like most who burn out she has an essay stating that Wikipedia is run by morons and doomed to fail. If she ever returns, I advice her to read a few high quality articles and stay away from the noticeboards. To quote Antandrus, "Anyone who runs from the community because they cannot tolerate its vices, divisions, and politics, will have to face the same vices, divisions, and politics again elsewhere in life."--Patton^t/c 18:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am betting that Jennavecia is going on an extended Wikibreak (three months minimum) taking time to enjoy life away from a computer… in the meantime growing some real sharks' teeth… and when she comes back she'll be takin' names and kickin' ass!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I found two biographies on Ainsworth, one somewhat recent and one old but well sourced. There isn't a lot out there biographically, but the two will be enough to reconstruct his life in a thorough manner. I haven't bothered to get into the literary/critical parts, which would contain some more on the biographical, and I feel that this could be filled in later. I can start next week. I am about to finish up the first half of Fielding's plays this week. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:RFA

Why did you make this edit? Do you mind if I restore it? SF3 ^(talk!) 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't, at least not deliberately. I had a series of edit conflicts, perhaps that has something to do with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do that for a while now. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

wt:rfa

O M G Dlohcierekim 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Mind if I patronise you to the extreme..? Garden :  Chat  21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess he too wanted some attention. Oh, well. Dlohcierekim 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a MySQL error, nothing to do with me Guv. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? a squirrel you say? Dlohcierekim 21:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you feel that it would be helpful to issue me with a vandalism warning for inadvertently blanking one of the most unproductive pages in the whole of wikipedia, then go right ahead. See if I care. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You blanked the Civility Workshop??? – iridescent 21:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The way that particular discussion is going, I think this would be more appropriate. Can't believe how heated it's getting. Oh, well. Cheers,
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Oh, for God's sake Iridescent, it was an accident, probably a bug in MySql. It's a shame though, because it's put this back by at least another decade. Ah well. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I ought to have followed the link you gave before replying Iridescent, I just automatically assumed it was a joke link to WT:RFA. How does it go now, something like "my bod"? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Should it not be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuorum? Majorly talk 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. That bastard Malleus Fatuarum is nothing to do with me. (S)he's a no-good waster who spends far too much time around GAN and FAC, and not nearly enough time around XfD. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

At least you cured my ennui. Dlohcierekim 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest RFA thread

Malleus, I always drop by a talk page when I say something in a thread that someone might interpret as a put-down ... I never consciously put anyone down on Wikipedia, and I want to make sure we're clear. I talked about people talking with "moral authority" at WT:RFA#Arbitrary break about how arbitrarily everyone is dismissing keepscase's perspective. I agree with you that people should never be silenced or put down on Wikipedia, but I also support the idea of looking at anything that would improve RFA, looking for consensus, and writing it down. My sense is that consensus is leaning in the direction of letting people ask whatever question they want to at RFA, but that whatever it is that's making people uncomfortable might be dealt with by letting candidates know in the RFA instructions that it's a minority position that "silly" questions are useful in RFAs. Whatever your position is, I'd appreciate your input in the thread. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, my viewpoint has evolved on the point you brought up in my RFA. At the time, it felt unfair; now I think that you were right. No one person should be saying, "if you're thinking of RFA, then do this". What will or won't help someone pass RFA is for everyone at RFA to decide, and what does or doesn't constitute good copyediting is for copyeditors in general to decide. In my defense, I think my viewpoint was in line with expectations at the time, but I pride myself on thinking for myself, and I should have known better ... I do know better, now. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, your RfA was not in anceint history...NOTHING changes that fast on WP... especially on RfA---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know B-man, I think the times, they are a-changin'. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see you say that. I suspect that you and I are very different from each other in our outlook on life. I have never been a joiner, so I don't much care what the consensus is about anything, I only care about what I think is right. The world is big enough for both of us though, and more importantly it needs both of us. Go in peace my son. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's strangely comforting. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

River Parrett

Hi, If you had any time to take a look at the River Parrett it would be really helpful. The GA reviewer has commented about the prose, particularly in the course section, which could do with a copyedit.— Rod ^talk 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the Course section, hopefully enough to satisfy your reviewer. If there are still prose problems that need to be dealt with before GA listing, let me know and I'll do what I can to help. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant thanks.— Rod ^talk 14:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)