User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2008/November

Astrophysics Data System

Thank you for your oversight and extra edits! Really, I have been very uncomfortable over this. So thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think apart from being a bit undercited in a few places, as you've pointed out, the article generally looks OK? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I looked up my father's name on their data base and found a whole lot of papers by him going back to 1939 and up into the 1990s when he died. I can see that the ADS system is a immensely useful tool, a huge accomplishment. As far as the citations, I notified the three projects that are involved on the talk page about the article. Probably there is enough there for anyone who actually knows about it to figure out what is going on from the citations listed. You fixed up some MoS issues. The article has no major problems as far as I can tell. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Netley Abbey at FAC

Hi Malleus, Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your note on my talk page. You are right that the prose has suffered a bit from the attentions of various 'helpful' editors, it's also had the life sucked out of it. I'm probably far too close to the text to fix it properly at the moment, it needs a fresh eye, preferably someone who has experience about writing about these kind of things. There has been no reply from the opposer to my response after 14 days and he hasn't really given me much to go on. Also, his objections to the use of probably and likely are, I think, frankly silly. When dealing with an archaeological site like Netley, it is most often impossible to deal in absolutes. Half the time we can be pretty damn certain but we cannot say "yes this is so 100%" because it depends on interpretation of the evidence so it's necessary to qualify statements. That's the way it's done in professional writing on topics like these and the qualifications I have given reflect the sources and the current state of scholarship on Netley. If the experts feel the need to qualify their statements the article must too. Perhaps I should have been a lot firmer on this in my response, but I didn't want to come across as snotty.

The other thing that seems to be exercising some people is the gallery (though there are no opposes citing it - yet). Wiki policy according to my reading of it doesn't forbid it and I feel that the historical images are genuinely very useful to the reader and ought to be kept together. It can go if it has to, but I think there are strong reasons to keep this material. Providing useful stuff to the reader is more important than the bronze star, but we shall see. I'm not wedded to it.

Overall, I found some of the comments and suggestions very helpful, and they have lead to good improvements in the article. However, some of other comments - and changes made by certain editors - have been rather less than helpful to making a better article. I must say that I've found the pompousness of a few of the contributors rather irritating. My guess is that Netley won't pass FA, if that happens so be it as I've got other articles to work on. I've learned a lot that will be useful for the future. One of the things I've learned is that I'm never going to bother taking an article to FA again. This has been my first serious encounter with the more whiney and anal aspects of the wiki project and frankly I am not impressed. I'd rather write articles that will (hopefully) be useful and interesting to readers than argue about wiki policies with people whose obscurantism and nitpicking would shame the Byzantine court. Soph (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's very easy to get discouraged by the FAC process, but I really do think Netley Abbey will get over the line if the prose is attended to. Be a shame to let it go at the final hurdle. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you found the FA process bad, and certainly hope that my nitpicks weren't too awful. I generally don't do too much prose stuff, but I do try to find bits where British idioms are not clear to non-Brits, so that hopefully my fellow Yanks can become a bit more cultured and knowledgable about things outside our borders. And, yes, des Roches is on my list of articles to work on, but I've been stuck in the middle of Hereford for a while... it'll be a bit before I get to him! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with table situation

I am trying to fix a table situation in Rocko's Modern Life. I have told the editor that the DVD table is way too big. However, I don't think he knows what to do and I certainly do not know how to skinnify a table. I probably should just fail the article but I would rather do what I can for it first. Also, I would like to learn how to deal with this type of table situation anyway. Any help would be appreciated, as you know everything! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the table size as much as I think it can practically be reduced given the long lists of episodes. If i've misunderstood what you were asking for just let me know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the solution is not to use the table format. But I have done what I can with the article. Thanks again. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine

Hello there! Great to hear from you.

Sure, I'll take a look today sometime (I'm out for a few hours, but I should be back to the PC later anyway). From a cursory glance it looks good, and nearly Good! Manchester Liners looks like a very credible GAC too - outstanding for a newbie really! I'm hoping to get Scout Moor Wind Farm (currently here) upto GAC also at the moment... infact, I wouldn't mind you taking a look at that as a return favour! :S

After that, I'm hoping to get back to settlement articles. I've my eye on Chadderton, Heywood, and helping User:Parrot of Doom with Radcliffe. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've written a short review on the talk page. Hope it help! I've been quite brutal, but I know you like that! Let me know if you'd like me to pop back. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Brutal is good. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Netley Abbey promoted?

Cheers Malleus, I could never have done it without you, it was your subbing of the text which tipped the balance. Thankyou for that and all the other help you've given me! How can you tell it has been promoted BTW? Soph (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it's been added to the promoted log.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. I can almost guarantee that your second FAC will be a lot easier than this one. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Help!

What exactly is supposed to happen at GAR? It seems to me that Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1 is getting out of hand. I struggled with trying to add suggestions, but ended up getting blamed. Finally, a new editor weighed in with a plausible review, so I decided to vote Delist. Now a second new editor has enter to argue with the first new editor. Is this argument to and fro about article content supposed to occur on GAR? (Seems like all this should be on the article talk page.) According to the edit history, this GAR is now at 63,320 bytes. Is there a way to intervene and end this, or is this GAR normal? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems to be one of those GARs that has become a sick bed. What ought to happen is that reviewers reach a consensus on whether or not to delist this article. I see a lot of comment and argument, but very little clear, focused thinking – focused not on the article per se, but on whether it ought to be listed as a GA or not, the sole purpose of a GAR. Looks you're the only one so far to give a clear opinion one way or the other. As things are going right now the review will stagnate towards a keep by default. I haven't looked at the article in a while, so I'll take another look later and give my opinion on it too. Perhaps that'll encourage some others to get off the fence; I think the article's had more than enough time at GAR to be improved if it's going to be improved. So far as closing the review is concerned, it basically needs to go quiet for a few days, and then someone uninvolved can make a decision and close it as delist or keep. Is this a normal GAR? Thankfully no, it isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I enjoyed your comments. Very interesting perspective and evaluation of the article. (I'm impressed, even though I already know you are good.) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind, but I was just stating the bleedin' obvious. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The wierd thing is, I ended up by being blamed by everyone! Just like you and the Ireland thing. Until the delists came along, thank god. I will surely thing long and hard before I ever do that again (GAR). What a snake pit. And I ended up spending a great deal of time on it, coming up with rationales, suggestions etc. Only to be accused by all parties. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You made the fatal mistake of being too detailed in your comments, and so got dragged down into details. GAR isn't an FAC, it's an assessment of whether an article ought to be listed or not, not a detailed review of the article. I have to say though that I didn't understand some of the comments flung your way any more than you did. I don't know if you're from the UK or not, but I do think that there's a language (and perhaps an attitude) divide between those of us who are and those of us less fortunate. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am among the less fortunate. However, point well taken about the detailed comments. I have too much the FAC mentality of cover my butt if I open my mouth. Another lesson learned. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Stupid bullshit

I'm borrowing your talk page because it's just weird if I vent on mine. Plus, I had a conversation with myself on my talk page last month; I can't have people thinking I'm crazy. Speaking of people, I'm fucking sick of them. Do you ever have to deal with pretentious people, and you really just wish you could take out that stick they keep shoved up their ass and beat their face in with it? I'm sure you have, thus why I chose your talk page. *Deep breath* I need a vacation. لennavecia 00:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a wonderful talk page! And glad you vented here, as I certainly understand how you feel. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I ever feel like taking the stick that some people keep shoved up their ass and beating their face with it? I'll give you two guesses and one clue. The correct answer isn't no. :lol: Feel free to rant whenever you need. As with your page, the civility police are not welcome here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed from my recent lack of enthusiasm that I am skirting the limits of my patience with The Wikipedia Community which at present appears to be 75% squabbling children, 10% obsessives, 10% cranks and crackpots and 5% useful contributors. If you've been following the last couple of weeks on my talk, you may have noticed that what lip-service I paid to WP:CIV has now gone out the window. But then, I'm "incapable of telling the truth" (©2008 Wikipedia Review) so don't listen to me. – iridescent 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand that also. Incredible, isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum is right though. Just plug away at the articles and enter a cynical drive-by comment here and there. It feels much better than taking it all seriously. (Try FAC and its component talk pages to see cyclical nitpicking at its very best. Hope I don't get dinged for saying this, or Malleus Fatuorum's page doesn't get dewatched as a consequence.) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I had noticed that; my own enthusiasm has also waned for rather similar reasons. I look at it this way though. The world would be a poorer place without articles about shopping malls, A roads, 18th-century mummies, and ancient computer hardware. ;-) So fuck the wikipedia community, I'll do whatever I want to do whenever I want to do it. I do understand that you administrators are not in the same fortunate situation of being able to turn your back on what is risibly called a community though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See, thank your lucky stars you are in a position to detach. It is better not to be a "member" with associated "responsibilities" to reflect the community nonsense. Best that you not move over to the other side, in my view. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if I wanted to become an administrator – which I don't – my chances of ever becoming one are so close to zero that you wouldn't want to bet on the difference (I'm paraphrasing something John Wayne said in one of his movies). My view is that I offered my services, I was considered to be untrustworthy, and so my offer was rejected. End of story. I will never be an administrator and I'm quite content with that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I get the idea that you are not quite content with that. But I wish so much that you would be. It is a stupid job, in my view, which has no real benefits that I can see, except being able to move a page over a redirect and other assorted "privileges" that are not worth what you would lose. Your opinion is already heavily considered. O,K. You can't "block", the ultimate in weapons. But if you follow ArbCom and other assorted venues, blocking is not what it is cracked up to be and gets even "important" admins in trouble. Just go be an attorney if you want that kind of hassle. Or whatever it is called in your neck of the woods, solicitor? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're partly right of course. But I'm content not to be an administrator, and I unequivocally don't want to be one now or ever; what I'm not content about is my RfAs, and in truth I probably never will be. You're also right in that I'd have gained very little anyway, as I'd very likely have been the most reluctant user of the block button in the history of wikipedia. Still, water under the bridge now. Let's get back to writing this encyclopedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, gentlemen... and lady. ;) Adminship is not all some think it's cracked up to be. I like being an admin because, as cheesy as it sounds, I like being able to help people who come to my talk page needing things they are technically incapable of doing. I also like having authority behind vandal warnings and not having to go request shit then constantly check to see if it's been done or not. Other than that, it can be a pain in the ass. And if one more person tells me that I don't uphold the standards of a Wikipedia admin, I'm srsly going to flip my shit on someone. Standards my ass. ArbCom has pretty much established what is expected of admins and what is unacceptable. I'm a far fucking cry from disgracing the position. That's not what pissed me off today, though... just my commentary on the adminship deal. :) لennavecia 02:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a major diversion, but a propos of Jennaveccia's "Thanks, gentlemen... and lady. ;)", I wonder if anyone else feels as I do more comfortable knowing the gender of whoever it is I'm talking to? Or am I just a hopeless dinosaur? (That last was a rhetorical question btw. ;-) ) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you. I like knowing who I'm talking to. Male of female and even better is a pic. Otherwise, it's like you're just talking to text, which is odd. Regardless, yo'ure still a hopeless dinosaur. (O, rhetorical.... >_>). لennavecia 13:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that I am female? (I have carefully tried to be neither.) —Mattisse (Talk) 20:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think you're female, or at least I have no opinion one way or the other. I was thinking of Iridiscent, who I automatically thought of as male because of his/her interest in sheds and A roads, but who others have hinted may be a female because of his/her preference for pinkish colours. That's a reflection on me, not on Iridescent, of course. I'm not bothered what gender, race or creed anyone else is; it's just as Jenneveccia says, it's nice to have at least some picture in your mind, however imperfect, of who it is you're talking to. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Don't want any picture of me. Prefer not, if you can still deal with me, sans picture. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

From the list of recent donators "When information is freely accessible to anyone, the entire world benefits.". Guess it might be crap working here but at least somebody appreciates it. Pedro :  Chat  20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who appreciates what I'm doing here may donate to my paypal account. Email me for details. :D لennavecia 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review pages

I happened to see your message. I took care of the housekeeping deletions for you. Vassyana (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's great, thank you. I just assumed that user How do you turn this on had fixed it, as (s)he was the first to reply. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You were right

I am now firmly planted along side you in the belief that adminship just isn't worth it, and RfA is a bloody mess : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You offered to help out and in return you were given shit, and your RfA became a farce. About par for the course I'd say. The stampeding herd mentality at RfA is most unedifying, and I'd encourage anyone to stay away from it. The only way that the administrator selection process will be cleaned up is if everyone refuses to submit to RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Malleus is allways right, even when he's wrong ........ remember that?. Yes, Wisdom's RFA just about managed to get every bit of what's wrong about the admin request process into 1 day. Pedro :  Chat  18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The worst part though is that it once again nearly cost the project a good editor, and even almost a good administrator. That's far too expensive . --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly so. Frankly. I'm nearing the end of my interest on WP. As a commercial calculation of effort / reward I'm not sure the reward is worth it. Some other poor fucker will do what I do after I go so why should I bother? That's a management decision for you!! :) I think maybe a nice new account, start again, and see what it looks like from the ground up. It will be a shame to lose the username though. Pedro :  Chat  22:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Join the club....  DDStretch  (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah - my username is way better than yours :) Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a club that's only going to get bigger. I won't be leaving and coming back under a different username, but looking back through my recent contributions I'm embarrased to see how little of what I joined to do I've actually been doing. I didn't join to get abused by Irish article pov-pushers, or those who're upset because their beloved GA isn't up to snuff and don't like being told so. I joined to improve a few articles about my local area and a few others that I was interested in. The RfA thing as well will remain an unhealed wound for me, and sooner or later it will be why I leave the project for good. PS, I don't hold it against you that you voted oppose in my first RfA. Much. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that oppose was one of my bigger mistakes. If only WP:UNDO had a broader range. You're dead right - I never created my account to sit arguing the toss with trolls and fools who think they own the place - I joined to fix up some spelling errors and add a few facts. As I got into it I realised I wanted to be part of a massive success and to help towards something for my children (well, child singular then). Now all I see is school kids with "mission 1) Become and admin" on their user page. WP isn't broken. It really is good - actually damn good. But I'm tired of the politics. I'm tired of the "per Pedro" at RFA. I'm tired of trying to maintain a standard no-one else seems to care about. I hate the bullying by admins (and bureaucrats) and the POV warriors who use admin tools and cover up their mistakes and self interest by blocking everyone who might complain or twisting edits to make themsleves look clean. And I'm fucked off with peopple who can't just put their hands up and say "yep - sorry - got that wrong". Still, I've got to do the final feed for my daughter. Maybe I can get her an admin account. She'd do better than a lot round here. Random hitting of the block button by a three month old seems pretty much akin to regular practice anyway. </rant> sorry for the rant Pedro :  Chat  23:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

we could ban you for not writing articles?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something rather similar, but not so radical. Why not give up your bit for a short time, and come join the rest of us in the trenches? You can always get it back just by asking for it whenever you want it anyway. The world of wikipedia looks a little different down here at the coal face. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Remind yourself of how demeaning it is to have to ask a responsible adult kiddie administrator to delete a page you created in error, for instance. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Pedro :  Chat  23:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, who is going to do the G10 speedy deletions at eight in the morning when it seems to be only me :) ?! Nah you're right - I need to get a perspective. Do you think asking at WP:BN if they'll give it back in a month is a bit cheeky? Don't really want a drama monger reconfirmation RFA Pedro :  Chat  00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a coward. I can't hit the button. I know I need the tools. This is pathetic. I preach long and hard about admin bullying and you often state (rightly) about prising the bit out of admins. But I'm struggling to give up something that I know is so meaningless. How stupid am I. I just want to be able to clean out CSD early in the morning. But I do want to be honest about being open and accountable. Sodding hell. Bugger, bugger, bugger. Pedro :  Chat  00:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up; it's not cowardice, it's that uncommon thing called commonsense. Look at your own net positive argument. Would wikipedia be better or worse if you were to give up your bit? A whole lot worse in my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, relinquishing your administrative capabilities, even temporarily, is not the answer. This place would suffer greatly without your dutiful actions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Maverick

I don't know if you live in the USA but Pres. candidate John McCain was called a "maverick" because he often went against his own party when it seemed they needed to be checked for some idea gone wrong. His vice presidential candidate was also called a "maverick" because she fought against corruption in the political atmosphere of her state of Alaska. "Maverick" seems to fit you - who seem to fight against whatever happens to be wrong with a situation - and you do it in such a nice and humble way. Humility is something of great value to the Christian monks, they say you can not achieve spiritual heights without it. You have that special virtue that many people don't. I appreciate all your help and good humor and I award you this for being unique, special, original and very helpful to this person who really needed your help at very important times. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 23:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that Malleus could also be comparable to (you choose): Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, or James Garner (each "Maverick" of course). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really humbled! I'm not from the USA, I'm from England. But "maverick" fits me pretty well all the same. Had I been able to vote in the US presidential election I'd have voted for McCain. Not because he's a Republican, but because he's an obviously decent and honest man who has in the past had the courage to go against his own party. But most of us are mavericks here in England, so I'm nothing special. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget our true mavericks!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that Obama, as the first African American president, has hopefully done a great deal to heal the racial divides that have marred so much of US history. I guess time will tell whether that's any more than cosmetic, but I wish him well. My inclinations remain with McCain though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Humm. I've lived in England. I would not agree that most are mavericks; from my experience very few are. A friend of mine who married late in life and thus had a child when he was fifty, was constantly publicly called a pedophile by the pointing mobs whenever he took his kids to the park. This is in Cumbria. Is that not part of England? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cumbria is certainly part of England. Had I seen your friend being so abused I would have offered my support, and even waded into those pointing mobs if necessary. There are idiots everywhere, and sadly our education system is in a downward spiral of decline, so even those who ought to know better sometimes don't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wordsworth would surely be sad to see how Cumbria has changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cumbria is a pretty empty place by UK norms, so parts are still much as he described them, although global warming has shifted the seasons a bit. Thinking about daffodils. The Lake District in summer though is not a place I'd recommend to a visitor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Help again

Malleus. I have expanded the article on Lyme Park. Do you feel it is fit for nomination as a GAC? If so, could I trouble you with some help in copy editing, please. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very credible GA candidate. I'm a bit dubious about the rather short Popular culture section though, particularly as it has a request for citation in it. I'm not really sure that being a backdrop in an episode of Red Dwarf is worth a mention, although the fact that it has been used in a few television sets is probably worth including somewhere. What about combining the Popular culture and Today sections? They're both on the short side anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very quick attention and advice (again). I agree; but if Pride and Prejudice is not mentioned, someone will add it, so I might as well have my version and reference. I have merged the two sections (not sure that I like the title - can you do better?), found a reference to Red Dwarf (so might as well keep it in for company with P and P), and added stuff about a couple of organisations which have used/are using the park. Is this any better/OK? Also I was not up to date with the current advice about non-linking of dates (in references and elsewhere), so thanks for fixing that. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You've probably noticed that the article is now a GA. Many thanks once again for all your input. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have the time and inclination

I am doing a GA review for Arthropod. The editor is very cooperative and responsive. However, the topic is slightly over my head and I am loosing confidence that I can be helpful. Overall, I think it is a superior article and meets the GA criteria, except for a few issues, like the lead, which I have brought up. If you have time to make comments, either to me directly, or on Talk:Arthropod/GA1, your input would be greatly appreciated. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's generally a great article, well worth GA. The lead is longer than is usually recommended, that's true, but it's a large subject, so I think WP:IAR might apply. The prose would need tidying up before FAC, but for GA I think it's OK, except for one thing. I found the use of apostrophes in sentences like this one very grating: "... bees' ommatidia contain receptors for both green and ultra-violet". All bees don't share the same ommatidia, and each ommatidia is part of one bee. So why isn't it "the bee's ommatidia"? There are lots of similar instances throughout the article. Apart from that, I think it meets the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much. Sometimes I get too close and lose perspective. Also, I am not entirely clear on the rules for GA, as reviewers vary widely in what they require. Mostly, I was concerned about the lead, but if you say OK, that is great. Thanks for all the copy editing you did, with your usual impeccable good taste. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To do GA reviews well is really hard I think, harder than FAC. How good does the prose have to be? How broad in its coverage is broad enough? Is the article sufficiently well cited? Are the sources at least plausible? Does the image licensing look credible? All down to you to decide. Some reviewers take refuge in invented, imagined, or mythical rules, like one citation per paragraph, or leads no longer than 4 paragraphs. The work you've done demonstrates that you're better than that, you're thinking about what you're doing. My view on the lead is just my view though, no more valid than yours or anyone else's. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I always appreciate your perspective. Sometimes I do not know when to bend! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your post on Balloonman's talk page. Thank you for commenting! Malinaccier (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthropod

Many thanks for your help with copyediting, and for helping to resolve the issue about the lead - I'd looked at it several times and could not see what I could omit without making it less accurate.

I notice your comment above "To do GA reviews well is really hard I think ...". I can't compare it with FAC but the few GA reviews I've done make me aware of how many judgement calls there are. As a reviewer I think I probably push a little hard on coverage - possibly because a buddy and I pointed out glaring gaps in a GA and it was delisted. I might ask your advice on that some time, if that's OK. --Philcha (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free, but my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's. I think after a few hundred reviews you begin to develop a sense of whether an article is a GA or not though. The harder thing is to pin that feeling down into a concise, coherent review, ideally without upsetting anyone. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a bit like believing three impossible things before breakfast :-) Philcha (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha! You have another new fan in spite of yourself! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

British English?

I wonder how we are going to deal with such titles as the above after this. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating ... I like to stay au courant; does it make sense to stop saying "British" in some contexts involving the Welsh or Scots as a matter of sensitivity? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice on WP:GAN

I added "(P.S. Good luck on the WP:RfA!)" to my acknowledgment that I'll review an article; is well-wishing okay at WP:GAN or should I keep it strictly business, do you think? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are any rules, but some people can be a bit touchy about what might be interpreted as canvassing, so probably best avoided. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remove it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Redviolinist's RfA

Hey there malleus, I saw this RfA comment, and couldn't help but think of your cynicism towards the admin cabal... I'm thinking about taking Woody before the Admin Cabal Tribunal for Heresy?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Note the first half of the last sentence of Woody's response.

I think Woody's about right, Admin Cabal or not. Besides, children ought not to be administrators anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Admins need the ability to communicate and admit when they are wrong"? Admins are never wrong. – iridescent 20:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a widely held opinion, especially among admins themselves. Not an opinion that I share though, obviously. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that Woody's right, I was just reading it and chuckling because you are always critical of the admin cabal... because many don't admit they are wrong. Woody is stating a principle that is contrary the Admin Cabal's stated principle, "We are right, the peons are wrong!" ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

3 days "sans tools" and back to it

I made it a day, but had to use the tools to answer and help a fellow editor. I'm not sure what that message means to others, but I know what it means to me. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GA reform redux

I've recently had a chat with a couple of the contributors, and we think it may be worth revisiting the GA reform proposal put together by the working party during the Summer. Since you contributed to the proposal's development, I was wondering if you'd care to comment? I've left a brief recap at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#GA reform redux; your input would be much appreciated. Thank you, EyeSerene^talk 13:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Tony1's talk page

Hopefully you yourself will also do the right thing, and consider on your actions today. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate, so I can consider which of my actions were a problem? Thanks. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Take some time to think about it, then we can talk again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I did think, and honestly can't work out what I did that was wrong. (Btw, on a side note, did you take my idea for the link to the talk page in your sig? I noticed your sig was different :-)) – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I noticed you are a Mancunian, as am I (well at the moment!) I just joined the GTR Manchester WikiProject. Are you interested in working on something? Seems all our interactions are negative, and I really don't like that, so would like to do something a little more positive, if you're interested. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the GM Project; I hadn't noticed that you'd joined and were now one of the Manc claque. :-) What I like about it is that it's relatively lively and supportive, usually with a few articles on the boil heading towards GA or FA. Collaboration is what it's all about though. There are a few articles I'd like to work up, do you have any in mind? Believe it or not, I think that disagreement is healthy, not a negative thing at all. What makes disagreement negative is how it's dealt with. My favourite quote is: "Truth springs from disagreement amongst friends." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My only ventures into the FA arena have been disasterous so far (Mark Speight was an article I worked on). I think collaborating on something, with you or any of the members would be better for me, since working on Speight was an uphill struggle all the way, all on my own.

Of course it is OK to disagree with each other, but I did feel our only interactions had been pretty negative, and think it would be more enjoyable if it wasn't always like that.

I had liked the idea of Wilmslow Road for GA, but I have no idea how much info could be written about a road - and yes, I've been following the recent threads on FAC about short articles. I feel it may even be lacking for a GA. Stockport would be a good one to get somewhere, possibly even featured. Would take a long while though. What articles were you thinking of? I'd rather go with what the more experienced people are working with to be honest. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Belle Vue Zoo is one that really only needs to be properly cited and tidied up a bit to make GA IMO. If you can get hold of the Nicholls book from your local library, it would be a good project. Of course I'd help as well, as would the other GM project members, but every article needs someone to drive it, to take charge. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a read of it. I have never heard of it, but it looks good. My new computer should be here this week, so I'll be able to concentrate on articles once more (I find without my own machine it's a lot harder to concentrate). – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To address the easier question first, my sig hasn't ever changed so far as I'm aware; certainly I can't recall ever having deliberately changed it anyway. For the more difficult question, I believe that it's now been generally agreed that the block was at the least "heavy handed". Yet your first response appeared to be in defence of the established authority, subsequently back-tracking when other "established authorities" took a different view. The only authority that matters is your conscience, not what anyone else thinks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand what you mean. I didn't really look at the facts very well when I first left a comment. When Bishonen left her message, saying how he'd only made one revert, I saw how the block wasn't needed just for one revert. My mistake. I suppose I'll look into things more carefully before commenting next time round. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine

I won't argue, I've got things to do in the the real world until Friday. You can have the GA now and I'll add what I think is needed at the weekend.Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I look forward to working with you to get this to FA. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please, stop. Do you really think this comment does anything to move the discussion along in a productive manner? All that comments like that one do are hurt peoples feelings, and turn Wikipedia into a battle ground. Consider this your only warning for making such a blatantly rude comment. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 21:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any personal attacks there. Malleus is entitled to his opinion (I happen to disagree with it, and probably would have been less blunt myself, but still...) I don't think this message will really do anything. Do you honestly think anyone would heed an "only warning" like that? C'mon Tiptoety. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not very helpful either HDYTTO. ;-) I guess my goal here is to create a more civil environment for users to edit in, and calling a user "corrupt" does quite the opposite. And yes, he should heed said warning because I am prepared to enforce it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 21:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen Malleus's comments, and I know he is blunt. A good editor was just blocked, so he may be just angry. Tiptoety, I thought administrators were janitors, not police officers. Vandals are warned, not good editors. And I would strongly oppose any block, if that's what you're referring to when you plan to "enforce" the warning. A block will do nothing but damage. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and he has every right to be frustrated or mad. But just because he is a established editor does not mean the rules do not apply to him. Also, you are suggesting that regular users should not be warned for actions that create a hostile environment? Would you rather them just be allowed to continue being disruptive, or just flat our blocked with no warning? I felt that my message was rather friendly and left a lot of room for a reply like "Yes, probably should have not been so harsh." And by enforce, I do mean block, and it would be for a violation of WP:CIVIL. Tiptoety ^talk 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps you can explain what part of this is not civil. Seems to be an honest expression of an opinion to me. Do you remember "honesty"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If Tiptoety is giving me a formal warning, then I say bring it on. I have had just about enough of wikipedia's poisonous atmosphere, created by incompetent, malicious, vindictive and dishonest administrators. I give Tiptoety a formal warning to leave me alone; get back under whatever stone you crawled out from under. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I think I am trying to do the opposite. Get rid of the poisonous atmosphere by ensuring that Wikipedia is a constructive environment to edit under. I guess you think otherwise and I respect that. All I ask is that if you can not say what you need to say in a polite manner you do not say it at all. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 21:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think you're thinking at all, and I would prefer it if you kept your sanctimonious claptrap well away from my talk page in the future. It's not welcome here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rjd0060 violated the primary Wikipedia principle of WP:AGF by blocking on "one revert" on a well established user without giving a warning first. That is a sign that the person is not fit to be given the power to block. Your defense of that individual seriously brings into question your own ability to uphold the rules and regulations that are fundamental to Wikipedia. This is especially true when you start to go around warning those who disagree with this egregious violation. Your actions are totally unbecoming and you better stop immediately. That means no more responding to Malleus. No more taunting well established users. No more manipulating core policies to say exactly opposite of what they mean, no more lack of AGF, and no more harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He's not being disruptive though, he's just saying his opinion. I strongly disagree users should be blocked for mildly uncivil comments. There would be times where I would agree to a block for uncivil behaviour, but not in this instance. I'm sure whoever the editor the "attack" was directed at didn't bat an eyelid. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no attack on anyone, simply a coment on a process, which make Tipywhatever's warning to me all the more egregious. Proves the point of what RfA is really all about though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Tiptoety has confused WP:CIVIL with WP:YouKeepSayingWhatIDon'tWantToHearSoI'llVaguelyThreatenYouUntilYouAgreeWithMe. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I won't tell you what I really think about Tipwhatevery, but I'm certain you can guess. Why is it that that those of who care most about the encyclopedia , and who write most of its decent content, have to put up with shit like this every day? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I must say I agree with TT here - whatever your opinions,. tone them down a bit, please. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"tone it down"? Blocking users without cause and without warning, and then having someone blatantly warn others who come to his defense is extremely, extremely dangerous. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Why tone it down? To protect the guilty? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mal: Not one edit, nor log entry excuses they way you behave. Goodday. :) Synergy 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. There is no reason for Malleus to be bending over backwards to be so polite in these situations. It is a shame that he feels the need to hold back instead of being able to contribute his opinion and there is no excuse for him to do that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what Synergy just said, but the bits written in English looked like a personal attack. lol: I'd have thought it obvious why I can't say what I really think though. The children have won; a "civil" environment has become more important than building a respectable encyclopedia. I'd have more respect for an honest environment, but that's not the way the wind has blown. C'est la vie. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

\o/ we won! Synergy 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Pro tem. I ain't going to be chased away; I'll leave in my own time, when I'm good and ready. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, with all kidding aside, I don't want you to leave. Just to respect the wishes of other editors who want a more civil environment. Good contributor aren't exempt from policy, and that's what I see as the core of this conversation. What we perceive as incivil, is the grey area of death that creeps up on us from time to time. Synergy 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, with all kidding aside, I don't give a flying fuck what you want. We are each of us different, we want different things. You want civility, I want honesty. If wikipedia isn't big enough to accomodate both us, then so be it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Synergy - policy does not support a person using administrative powers to give a veiled threat in order to defend a friend of theirs that screwed up by not assuming good faith and performed a block which violates core policies. Tiptoey is acting incivil and abusive, and Malleus has acted 100% civil and polite. Good contributors aren't exempt from anything. However, admin who don't contribute and instead go around performing such actions are a harm to this encyclopedia and should be purged. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe there is anyone who will genuinely think that a calm and respectful environment is a bad thing, and thus any attempt to create it is equally, not a bad thing. Likewise, I understand that many of you feel compelled to be honest, blunt, forthright, and forceful. That is fine. The question you need to ask is: is it actually accomplishing anything? Wikipedia is a kingdom of ends, not means. Are blunt, honest, forthright means in this case actually accomplishing anything? I do not believe so. The damage done has been undone. Leave it alone, please.--Tznkai (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is my talk page, not yours Tznkai. I will decide what is productive and what is not, not you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I generally speaking, deeply respect the user's privilege to edit their own talk page in a way they see fit. However, userspace is not "yours" it is owned by the project at large, and may only be used in ways that help the encyclopedia. This is not helping anyone.--Tznkai (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to hide a discussion on my talk page because you do not approve of it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hatting doesn't hide anything.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That is its purpose. Now please go away and annoy someone else. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

To change some subjects - I would like your opinion (because you are more impartial on the topic than others I work with): I am working on Keats's poems Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion. My talk page has an idea for a page on Keats's attempt at an epic (the background, the concept, the two fragments, and the themes of them treated as one whole). However, I was thinking about having this as a third page, with the two fragments with their own pages, as they are notable on their own and can be discussed as their own, with this page being devoted to discussing them as one whole. I know the page size may fool you (no harvnb or other large templates, and no pictures added), but it will be very long in the end. Does this seem like an acceptable plan, or should I just spread the information out on the two existing pages and not have one for the "Hyperion" speculated epic that Keats intended but was never able to fully make?

If this page, as one on the two as a set seems appropriate, I plan on doing the same with his Odes (i.e. a page devoted to his major odes, their organization structure, and how they are read as a set). Does that seem appropriate? I have over 40 books that discuss the topics, and dozens of dozens of articles, so notability shouldn't be an issue for either. But yeah. Does that seem appropriate? Or am I mad (Sandy, don't yell at me!) like the people I study? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, my background is in the sciences; I know hardly anything at all about arty things like poems. I'm aways willing to learn though, but I suspect that someone like Awadewit may be more able to advise than an ignoramous like me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No no no. The first line clearly says I want someone not in my field to respond to it as a piece of encyclopedic writing, not literary. :P Come on GA/FA expert. Answer! :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look through, and there are many things I don't understand. For instance: "After redeveloping his views on salvation, Keats switched the focus in his epic from Apollo and his development to the development of a poet. The poet slowly progresses through the stages of life until he is able to attain an understanding of his own identity as a poet". Redeveloping? Which poet are we talking about? Tell you what, I'll do you a deal. I'll help with your article if you'll help with one of my favourites, Tam O'Shanter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG. Don't actually read the page. Its not even close to being done. Its too icky right now. I want you to think of it as a page, not its content. Would it seem appropriate to have a page devoted to the relationship of two poems based on a theoretical idea and have the two poem pages as separate pages or no? :P I need an answer: 1 page, 2 pages, or 3 pages (I prefer three different pages). :P Its okay if you don't have one. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think I begin to understand your question now. My answer would be no, all on one page. The relationship, in my opinion, should be in the poet's own page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hold fire on that, let me think about it a little more. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a very complex concept, which is my problem. There is a lot of information on it (i.e. "Hyperion" as a concept, not as an actuality) that could make it notable on its own, but not necessarily encyclopedic as its own page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Liners Ltd

Thank you for your (very quick!) help with format, dates, etc. Your contributions to Wikipedia are always helpful and constructive. I will be adding further material to the 'ML' article over the next few days. RuthAS (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. The Manchester Liners story is one that really deserves to be told. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind invitation to join the Greater Manchester Wikiproject team. Before I take the plunge, can I explain 'where I come from' and my (numerous) limitations! My main interest is in the 'History of Transport' and the impact of Transport on people's lives and the economy. My contributions outside that field would be limited, as I believe in keeping to subjects where I have some knowledge. As a 'latecomer' to the web and Wikipedia, and of 'senior' age status, I have only limited skills in the finer points of Wiki layout etc - as you will have noted! My strength, if any, is in being able to gather material from reference books etc and turn it into non-technical Wikipedia narrative aimed at 'Mr & Mrs Interested-Person-in-the-Street'. If, having read this posting, you still think I could add some thing to the GM Wikipedia project, perhaps you would let me know. Will resume on Manchester Liners shortly - but one has other things to attend to in life as well ...! RuthAS (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your specialised interest in and knowledge of the history of transport would be invaluable. There are so many transport related GM articles crying out for attention, even some of the high profile ones like Manchester Ship Canal, and Port of Manchester, as you already know. One of the GM project's strengths is in the helpful friendliness of its members, so you'd find no shortage of assistance with the finer points of wikilayout, which you'll soon pick up anyway. Every one of us just wants to see the GM articles improved, and you can obviously help with that, as you've already demonstrated. Besides, if you don't write that Manchester Liners article then I'll have to do it myself, so don't be selfish, come and join us. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Allright, Malleus, I'll join and see how things go - dont expect too much from me - but I'll try from time to time! RuthAS (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Malleus! I've tried to add my details to the list of participants, but although appearing in the 'history', they dont turn up in the table of members. Cant cope with pasting or boxes! Can you help, please? RuthAS (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed now. they're tricky chaps those wikitables. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Malleus! RuthAS (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Malleus! I will add some further narrative most days, but please be patient with me! I was going to confess my inability to insert photos with my contributions - I just dont know how to do it. I used to have some photos of ML vessels, but gave them away many years ago. Will search for old postcards at local philatelic fairs - possibly these would be acceptable copyright-wise? Otherwise Mr Gray is the obvious source - with due acknowledgement, of course. What do you think? RuthAS (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Further thought on illustrations. There's a good website at www.manchesterliners.co.uk with many photos. There's a contact email address given. Perhaps the linked ML retired crew association might be able to help. Also, this site would be worth adding as a link to 'our' article - but I dont have the skills to do it myself ... Will not be able to work on the article tomorrow. RuthAS (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're doing great work, the article's becoming quite informative now. I see as well that one of the interested wikiprojects has tagged it as being of high importance! I've moved the article to Manchester Liners (without the Ltd) to comply with the manual of style on article names, and I've added the old shipmates association in a new External links section. We could always ask Gray or the Old Shipmates Association if they'd be willing to release a picture under a suitable licence if we can't find anything in the public domain. People are often surprisingly generous. I'll have a search around as well and see what I can find. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Yes I'm pleased with the way 'our' article is coming along! Have added further narrative tonight for you to check over. Please could you move "Ship Naming" to after "Decline & Closure" to allow for better chronological layout? Should have a 1930s print of an ML ship to hand soon to complement the late-ish coloured photo you inserted. RuthAS (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The article's coming along very nicely. I'll move the Ship naming section now. Well done on getting hold of an earlier picture than I was able to find. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus: I now have the black & white 1930s PC of "Manchester Port", which I mentioned was on the way. As said before - I do not have the ability to upload it to our aticle on ML. Could I therefore email the image to you, please? Regards RuthAS (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You'll need to send me the licensing details as well – copyright status, source, date taken, photographer if known, publication date, that kind of thing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus - there's no information on photographer, date, etc. The only clue is the printed 'Post Card' wording on the reverse. That could be argued to indicate that the image is in the public arena. The article on Manchester Exchange station also reproduces an (earlier) postcard, giving credit to Thomas Cook, who were only the intermediary supplying the image - not the original taker of the photo. Despite lack of marked date, the ship photo post card was clearly taken prewar. That makes it over 70 years old. Does that help? How long does (unclaimed ) photo copyright subsist? RuthAS (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll go for a public domain claim then, on the basis that the photographer is unknown and the photo was published as a postcard more than 70 years ago. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Malleus - thank you for your invaluable help re the photo - I'm very happy with the result and explanation. The article is coming along nicely! Have added a little further content and have more ideas for additional material. Will now be away for three days. RuthAS (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Malleus - your asking too much! (From my in-house resources, that is!) Leave it with me and I'll see what I can do - but it will take a week or so (or perhaps more). I've heard of a full-scale history of ML by one of the Stoker family and will see if I can borrow it through my local library - they would have to borrow it from elsewhere, I'm sure! Regards RuthAS (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't ask, you don't get. :-) I haven't looked at Farnie's book for a while, but maybe there's something in there? I'll leave it to you anyway; I'm struggling with the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Any help you can offer there would be greatly appreciated. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Malleus- I hope you like the recent additions to 'ML'. Some came from a newly acquired book by Dancan Haws. Have now ordered the 'Stoker' book on ML, so will await that before proceeding further. Hopefully it will include the type of statistical material (materiel?!) you requested. Sorry - the Experimental Machine piece is far too technical for me to contribute to in any worthwhile fashion - 'horses for courses', as they say Regards RuthAS (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Hopefully Manchester Liners will soon be your first GA, the first of many. The Experimental Machine is a bit out of my normal stomping ground as well, as were the Pendle witches, but I like the variety and the opportunity to learn about new things. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Malleus - sorry to say, the 'Manchester Liners Saga' by Robert Stoker, lately MD thereof, just received, doesnt give the statistics you asked for. I will therefore have to go to the Manchester Central Library some time in the next few weeks to try to 'dig out' such material! Will add further 'anecdotes' in the meantime. Regards RuthAS (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Malleus - re British (sorry 'London') Airways - you're very kind. I'm not too easily put off by over-bureaucratic defenders of 'received Wiki wisdom' - but your implied support has replenished my enthusiasm, thanks! My intention re BA was to record their cessation of services from Manchester and other UK airports and consequent retreat to 'Fortress LHR/LGW'. Have restarted work on ML, but hope to unearth more in Manchester RuthAS (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My support wasn't implied, it was very much meant to be explicit. From what you may have seen elsewhere, I have very little patience with the children who chastise those who have forgotten more than those children are ever likely to know. I see now though that you're a tough old bird, so I shan't be worrying again, now that I've seen that you're prepared to stand up for yourself. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates

While I agree templates can be blunt, I find them useful. I did remove and explain via edit comments the information three times before adding the template since it read like original research and I could not find a source after doing a quick search that there was a BA company strategy to only focus out of London. The template I chose to use was also of the 'general note' variety and meant to be used as a friendly reminder. Regards, NcSchu_(Talk) 17:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Honourable mention

Tznkai mentioned you, without naming you, here. See if you can spot it. ;) لennavecia 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yes. I saw that and instantly recalled a thread here from a few days ago, wherein you referred to yourself as such. XD I got a good little laugh. :p لennavecia 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mount Osmond, South Australia‎

Hi! I was able to get this started - the history section is fully referenced now, and I've ported over the text for population. I think I have a source for the politics, so that leaves geography - which is a tad tricker, but I think I can pull something together from what I have. Unfortunately, I'm going to lose three days, so I won't be able to finish it off until Wednesday. Hopefully that isn't a problem - if so just let me know, and I'll do my best. - Bilby (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, take as long as you need. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added references now to everything that seemed like it really needed one, and I've chased down almost all of the refs to confirm that they're still good. I think it is close to GA again, and possibly there, but if there's anything I've missed just let me know. In regard to the photo (which was raised on the talk page), it was released as non-commercial use only, so I figure it isn't good for commons, but should be good here. However, I'll try and drive up there some time in the next week, and see if I can get a new shot to replace it with, just in case it is a concern. I think I'll go back to new articles for a bit after this one: it is much easier to write to your own sources than to dig up sources for someone else's work. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right about that; trying to find sources retrospectively is a real PITA. I'll pop over and take another look at the article shortly. It would be good if you could replace the photo some time, but I'm certainly not going to stick over that for GA. Citations was the most important thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Usernames

Hi. Question - is your username intended to mean "hammer of stupidity", or am I mistranslating it? (My Latin is extremely weak.) DS (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hammer of the foolish. Your Latin is obviously not so bad after all. :-) Derived of course from Malleus Maleficarum. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So you're a Wikipedia ban hammer? >_> لennavecia 15:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

When have you ever seen me take part in a ban discussion, or even seen me arguing in favour of a block? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons images

Malleus, I hate to bring up a few-days-old discussion, especially since we've never interacted before, but I'm slightly confused by your argument in this thread on Iridescent's talk page. When you say that "Commons images need to be justified in each article they're used in", are you talking abour fair use rationales? I'm wondering if you misread free use as fair use in the discussion. As you said, Commons are more rigorous about their images than Wikipedia is; Commons don't accept fair use images, so every image their is free content that can be used anywhere. As far as I can tell this is exactly what Iridescent and How do you turn this on were saying. Commons images are never used under fair use, and so never need fair use rationales. Raven4x4x (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of free use, yes. I'd forgotten that Commons doesn't accept fair use images. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all this fair use / free use stuff can get confusing sometimes. And annoying if you deal with it too much :). If I may offer some advice, I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss a person's opinion as "irrational ramblings". You may find they actually have a fair point after all. Raven4x4x (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I will take your advice in the spirit in which I'm certain it's intended. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

admit it

... you're just pissed 'cause I'm trying to steal your Bastard of the Year crown. Come on. Be a man. Admit it. :-P Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're a mere amateur, although I have to admire your courage in considering putting yourself forward for the walk across the hot coals competition. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Put your FAC where your TALK FAC is :-)

• Here ya go, a mini-article for you to review: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)
• Later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That'll be an interesting one to watch. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I ain't touching it. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather interesting thread to stumble upon. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it? In what way "interesting"? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It just seems odd that an editor would point out a specific FAC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In what way odd that an editor might comment on the fact that a 721-word article had been nominated, given the interest surrounding short articles at FAC, and my stated support for such short articles? Are you suggesting that I might not otherwise have been aware of your article's nomination, and therefore might not have lodged my opposition to its promotion? If so, then reflect on the fact that I frequently look through the list of FACs, and comment on those that catch my eye, even doing some work to help some of them get over the line. This one, for instance, which I managed to find all by myself. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's like I'm swimming in a sea of stupid...

Pray I don't drown. :/ لennavecia 21:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Read my talkpage lately? This year, September seems to be lasting until Christmas. – iridescent 21:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Have I missed something? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish I'd missed something. Haha. There are just so many pointlessly dramatic situations... and editors. It's like nothing can happen on this project without ridiculous amounts of stupid discussion. An example, that I don't think I can get yelled at for discussing, is the... hmm... drama, for lack of a more descriptive word, on Talk:Michael Jackson. It's like, I'm engaged in these discussions and while typing out my comment, I literally cannot even believe I'm having to make the comment. It blows my mind. لennavecia 05:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson doesn't come close for stupidity – at least "should we include details of rumors about him, even when they've been denied" is a legitimate discussion. For true stupidity, head on over to David Van Day, who for some reason has drifted onto my watchlist; the lame edit-warring there is so fascinating, I don't want to step in and put a stop to it. – iridescent 13:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap! Does BJAODN still exist? The entire David Van Day article should be moved there... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Gulf Stream

Hi Malleus, I was reading the above article and checking on the refs for some rather overblown statements in the "Localized effects" section, when I began to realise that none of the citations in the section seem to support what's said in the text. When I went to put a comment on the talk page I noticed you'd done a GA reassessment in September, which included asking for this section to be cited, and you passed it. I'm confused, have they slipped one past you there (which seems unlikely) or has someone changed the citations since you passed the article? I've listed my concerns on the article's talk page. Richerman (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe I was bamboozled, and didn't check the added citations closely enough; I'll take a look now. Either way though, if the citations don't currently support the facts, then this article needs to be brought back into line, by being taken to WP:GAR if necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think if I looked at that article again today I'd be a little more critical of it than I was during its sweeps review. A couple of the citations don't appear to support what they're presumably intended to support, it's true, and I ought to have noticed that. The facts don't appear to me to be particularly contentious though, although I'm not offering that as an excuse. A GA Sweeps review is a delicate balancing act; you need to make a much stronger case for removing an article's GA listing than you do in a regular GA review for not listing it. But looking at the article again, I'm concerned about the lack of citations in the Behavior section as well. I think there are only two courses of action: fix the article or take it to WP:GAR. Don't let the fact that I may have cocked up deter you. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at it too and noticed that the behavior section is undereferenced - I just found a dead link further down as well. It's getting late so I'm putting some tags on for now and I'll see what happens with those first. Richerman (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

Per your recent wiquette alert, your personal attacks on me [2], and your vandalism to Talk:Brenda Song (yes, I do mean vandalism, since you have not fixed it yet), I am hereby warning you that any further vandalism or incivility may (probably will) result in a block. Gimmetrow 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to it, bring it on. Threatening me with a block for warning you about your own dishonesty in attempting to rewrite the article history of one of your favourite articles – for which you have already received a 3RR block – is quite simply a bizarre and outrageous abuse of authority. Not a surprise though, just the way it is around here; too many administrators in possession of power beyond their limited experience to wield with any honesty or integrity. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit by Malleus to Talk:Brenda Song was not vandalism, but a positive correction to restore article history. However, I recommend that Malleus leaves Gimmetrow's talk space alone. Please read my comments there. Geometry guy 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am quite happy to stay well clear of Gimmetrow's talk space, but I thought that he ought to be warned that if he persisted in his vandalism then I would do exactly as I did before. Frankly I fail to understand why anyone comes here and tries to threaten me anyway. Is it supposed to scare me into submission? Fat chance. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Malleus is not a vandal. Suggesting such a thing is beyond ridiculous. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Err.... that diff is from a month ago. How is that "recent" ? Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not recent. It's old, and pointless even threatening a block over it. I'm honestly shocked that Gimmetrow is an administrator. This is the kind of behavior that should be avoided. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there will soon be some effective checks and balances put in place to curb this kind of administrator abuse. Until then we just have to grin and bear it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You're the one doing the abuse here, MF. You've been warned multiple times to stay off my talk page, and you were let go once with the NPA above. No more warnings. Gimmetrow 23:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, just listen to yourself. You're a disgrace. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, if you block under these cicumstances I will reverse your block. Any such block is outside policy, both in terms of the letter and spirit of WP:BLOCK. Pedro :  Chat  23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

MF has been guilty of abusing editors in the past. He has been guilty of incivility. He personally attacked me, and was in clear terms no longer welcome on my talk page. Yet he posted there. Are you saying you are now making MF another untouchable? That you will personally undo any and all blocks of MF, however worthy they may be? And that you fully support MF in his incivility and abuse of other editors? Gimmetrow 23:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for transparency Malleus and I had a set to that was pretty ugly, far more of a "Personal Attack" than the diff above (on both sides). I'd implore you to leave this. Pedro :  Chat  23:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You have made it very clear that I am not welcome on your talk page. What leads you to believe that you are welcome on mine? Please take your crusade against me elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not saying that. However 1) As an admin you should never tell editors they are not welcome to post on your talk page (excepting obvios bad faith editors which Malleus is not). 2) I said I would undo any block by you over this issue. 3) Malleus needs (IMHO) to be far more civil. Regretfully, my definition of civility is not shared by Malleus, you, Jimbo, Giano II or anyone else as we all have different tolerances. I'm saying that if you block over this you'll be at ANI and ARBCOM in a flash. I don't "do" vested contributors but I do "do" net benefit to the encyclopedia - and that extends to both of you. Pedro :  Chat  23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

On History of University of Santo Tomas

Dude, thanks for editing the article History of University of Santo Tomas. I just hope the article will get a GA status in no time. --Pampi1010 (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)