User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2011/June

Need opinion/help

In your time on Wikipedia, have you had any dealings with self-published books as sources? If so, what exactly are the restrictions(if any) on such sources? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to look at the credentials of the author. Is he or she a recognised expert in the field? Or have recognised experts commented on the work? Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Last in the series

The fifth and last list in the series, List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South East England, is now approaching submission as a FLC. Would you be willing, again, to have a look through the text, and improve it as necessary. The first two paragraphs should be OK, as they are identical to the already accepted FLs. Thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Double standards

Regarding this, I agree it's a problem. Hopefully the fact that I have now indefinitely blocked Spencer195 helps demonstrate that at least some of "us administrators" agree with you that there is a problem and are attempting to rectify it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Better late than never I suppose. Contrary to popular opinion I have nothing against administrators; my beef is with the system of administration, which encourages and turns a blind eye to such double standards. Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If we'd blocked him unilaterally, we'd have a pitchfork-wielding mob demanding heads on poles for "exceeding authority". While there are some situations (generally where sensitive material of some kind is involved) where it's unavoidable, in the main Arbcom tries to avoid acting as the Wikipedia Police Force. (An Arbcom block is effectively unappealable unless new evidence comes to light, since the people hearing the appeal are the same people who placed the block, and that's not satisfactory for anyone involved. Whatever Pedro might think, there's no secret Arbcom mechanism to remove people who Dare To Challenge The System from Wikipedia; the only times Arbcom issues blocks and bans directly without a formal case are genuine emergencies, and situations where for legal or personal reasons the matter can't be discussed publicly.) In this particular instance while the user was clearly being objectionable and was quite likely a compromised account, there was no clear and present emergency to warrant Arbcom wading in all guns blazing—thus the best course of action is to remove the admin bit, but then let the usual checkusers-and-community-noticeboards processes determine whether there's a problem that warrants any kind of actual sanction. – iridescent 15:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that Arbcom acted sensibly in the circumstances. I was just remarking as an aside that a non-administrator would not have been treated so leniently by the apparently vast horde of admins waiting to swoop on the slightest sign of incivility, such as the use of completely unacceptable words like "sycophantic". Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Kennet and Avon Canal

Back in 2008 you did a GA review of Kennet and Avon Canal (its been GA since 2006). Over the last week or so myself & a few others editors have been expanding & improving the article with a view to taking it to FAC. There are still a few issues (at least 6 page numbers to find etc), but if you had the time and inclination to polish any of the prose that would be very much appreciated.— Rod ^talk 17:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look later. How's Nailsea coming along? It was a pity it had to be failed at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing has been done on Nailsea since (see User talk:Jaguar#Nailsea GAC for a potential rewrite of the sports section). However I believe he has exams (which we wouldn't want to adversely affect) & we have both been working on List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset which is inching towards FLC, so Nailsea has taken a back seat.— Rod ^talk 17:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

His exams was one of the reasons I closed the review, so as not to distract from the important stuff. I think with a rewritten Sports section it would be fine at its next review. Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You are obviously busy but I was wondering if you'd had a chance to glance at the K&A article as, apart from a couple of page numbers I hope to get this week, I've gone about as far as I can with it & you know what my prose is like :-(— Rod ^talk 13:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started looking at it and I've left some questions on your talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully initial queries re lead & early plans addressed. Responses on my talk page.— Rod ^talk 14:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello Malleus! Thomas the Slav is undergoing a WPMILHIST A-class review, and will probably be nominated for FAC after it is complete. If you have the time and disposition, I would be very grateful if you could have a thorough look at it along the lines of Michael Lachanodrakon. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 12:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look after the A-class review is done if you remind me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the book is looking so good...

I offer you another sacrificial victim. This one'll net you a co-nom, he's rather meaty and almost as long as Willie boy. We're continuing to skirt around Becket her... this time with one of his patrons - Theobald of Bec. I think i've added most everything I can turn up. I hope. (mutters) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll start taking a look at that probably tomorrow, but a co-nom for moving a few commas is too much. One day maybe I'll write something important like wot you do, but until then I might restrict myself to minor Royalists. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, crap, Sandy promoted... that has to be the absolute quickest FAC I've ever run... William de Chesney maybe? Or Gerard (archbishop of York)? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Deusdedit of Canterbury also, if you're interested in a goody-two-shoes ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's do all of them. Deusdedit first? Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Whichever one interests you most. They are pretty much all finished with research and just need polish to get over that last hump. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're taking requests, might I be able to convince you to take a look at American Livestock Breeds Conservancy? It's my first article about an organization, and so I'm being wishy-washy on taking it to FAC. I keep getting the feeling that I'm leaving out something major... Anyway, if you're interested, your opinion (and copy-editing skills) would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm slowly working my way through my backlog, but I ought to be able to get there in the next day or two. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

English National Opera

I've been giving the English National Opera article a thorough overhaul, and have put it up for peer review. If you have time and inclination to take part in the peer review it will be esteemed a favour. Perfectly understand if not, of course. Tim riley (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review

I have finished the GA review of Robert Tatton. It looks very good, and it seems that a lot of the issues I had with your commas are just the differences between American and British English. (In American English, you have a comma after every introductory phrase and nonrestrictive clause, and beginning a sentence with "but" is considered substandard writing style.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As Fowler says, the fear of beginning a sentence with "but" is just a superstition. Thanks for doing the review. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But that is just Fowler's opinion. ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird, huh?

OK, so if you liked editing on the Donner Party, you will LOVE this one: Alferd_Packer#Popular_culture I've actually seen the campus cafeteria at UC-Boulder, for awhile, their slogan used to be "serving our fellow man since 1863."  :-D Montanabw^(talk) 19:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They have a big mural in the back of the cafeteria (or at least they used to) of Alfred Packer chewing on a human bone. For seven years I ate lunch in that room. No wonder I'm a bit twisted at times. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, I just hate that "Popular culture" section. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My wife grew up less than a mile from where Packer was buried. I've also eaten in the Packer cafe at CU Boulder. --Moni3 (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, you can't eliminate "Popular culture" - but you could tag these items, then cull them in 2 weeks. I get fed up with insertions of SpongeBob SquarePants into Sponge gets - I revert them and give them a "vandalism" warning. --Philcha (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Life's too short; I get into enough spats as it is. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

XKCD has something to say about that (I have that on the wall of my office room). That section is too horrible for words, working on it... --Errant ^(chat!) 21:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I told you long, long ago the only way to handle IPC which doesn't lead to a temper tantrum; set up a dedicated ''foo'' in popular culture page, move the crud into that, and link from the parent article. That way whoever is interested in IPC (and some readers are) can find it easily, nothing gets deleted so nobody gets offended, but the main article doesn't get cluttered with "he was mentioned in a The Love Boat episode in 1968" digressions. – iridescent 21:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And that was good advice that I've used very effectively in several articles since then, including Guy Fawkes and that bloody film. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

List of sections of Chester city walls and associated structures

When my current FLC is done with, I was considering nominating this as a FLC (for Cheshire!). Before you go, do you fancy copyediting the text so that, when the time comes, it will be in a suitable state for nomination? Then, can you recommend a replacement to help me (and the Cheshire Wikiproject) in the future? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No recommendations I'm afraid, but perhaps someone reading this will have some ideas. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit question

Most of your changes I either completely agree with or at least have no objection to... but "tenure of"? That sounds really odd to me. Can you explain that choice to me? LadyofShalott 22:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There was some redundancy there anyway, so I've changed it to "The project restored the original floor plans, which had been altered during the Masons' tenure". But I'll just flag up anything else I see for you to fix, rather than copyedit it myself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. LadyofShalott 22:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Column width

Hey Malleus, if you have a moment, can you explain this to me? Whenever I have more than a couple of references, or they are screen-wide or wider, I use 'reflist|2'. What does your edit do, precisely, and (how) is it better than dividing by two? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It let's the browser decide how best to fit the columns. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MF. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Shin purrin

I have an excellent reference in one of my coal mining books that I can email if you are interested. --J3Mrs (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the article's nothing to do with me. I only noticed it because User:Qrsdogg made a wikilink from Cotswold Olimpick Games. I guess that he or she will make of it what they will. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's got a lot more to do with clogs and coal miners than the south. Saves me looking for it then. I just thought it looked like your sort of quirky :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my sort of quirky, but it's not my article and I've got all kinds of other quirky up my sleeve. If Qrsdogg wants my help or yours then he can ask for it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add something to Clog (shoe)#Clog fighting Richerman (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The flesh is unwilling, and so is the spirit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good advice, I've taken J3Mrs up on his/her offer. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse

You, I note, were one of the last people to interact with user Mattisse on enWP prior to xyr final indefinite block.Your considered opinion on seemingly similar disruptive behaviour on Wikinews would be welcome (see n:WN:WC.) --Brian McNeil /^talk 07:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)

I have nothing to add to what I've already said about Mattisse elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing a GA nominee?

Would you be at all interested in looking at Camak House? (I've done almost all the work on it, and this is the first article I've ever put up for GA.) LadyofShalott 20:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you know what you're asking for? I'm notoriously tetchy and uncivil when I don't get my own way. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I know you know what you're doing with regards to GA and FA. :) LadyofShalott 20:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, so long as you know what you're getting into. I've thought for a while now about doing no more GA reviews, as I know I expect too much compared to many other reviewers. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Just try not to call me an idiot outright, and I'll try to address any issues you find. =) I would like it truly to be a good article. LadyofShalott 21:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made at least a first pass at addressing everything you've listed so far. LadyofShalott 00:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Malleus. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!! Thanks for both the review itself and for your help getting it up to where it needed to be! :) LadyofShalott 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I like your solution for the quitclaim explanation. I would have just wikilinked it if it hadn't been inside a (since Drmies made me aware that we aren't supposed to wikilink with quotes). To footnote it did not occur to me, but I agree it is useful. LadyofShalott 01:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A reply

I'll respond here, if that's OK. If I thought Tryptofish had intended to insult you, as opposed to making a light-hearted joke about TCO's conflating of two usernames, I might have responded differently. If I am mistaken, and Tryptofish did intend that as an insult, then I apologize for misinterpreting it. As to the rest of your comment, I take great exception to the idea that I had to be "pushed" into writing. My first edit here, in 2006, was to create an article about a play. It might even predate your first article creation, actually. No, it hasn't received GA status, and probably won't, but I take this project seriously, and my writing seriously, and if you have any serious criticisms of my writing, I am more than happy to listen, and to learn from your advice, because I do respect you as a talented writer and editor. In fact, I respect you enough not to act as a civility cop in my own RfA to shield you from lighthearted jokes. If you want to give me writing advice, I'll happily accept it. If you want me to play RfA nanny to defend you from the kind of comments that are multitudes milder than the sort of thing you dish out to people daily, sorry, I'm not interested in that position, even if it means an oppose from an editor I respect. 28bytes (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes, I'd ask you to reconsider multitudes milder than the sort of thing you dish out to people daily and consider striking it or else posting diffs so we can see Malleus' alleged daily incivility. I don't see it myself. Malleus, I'd like you to consider that the comment was meant to be lighthearted, was on no account intended to offend you (in my judgment anyway), and was not made by the candidate but by Tryptofish. --John (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. "Daily" is unfair, I've stricken it. 28bytes (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I note the "multitudes milder than the sort of thing you dish out to people daily" and note that you have not struck "multitudes". Go play with someone else. Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He did strike "multitudes", in fact he struck the whole clause which was an unfair criticism of you. What more would you have liked him to do? --John (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well bully for him. There's nothing else I'd like him to do, and I'm quite certain that he'll fit in just fine with the rest of the admins. Which is of course is not a great compliment as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I resemble that remark. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare. Monkeys. Typewriters. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've stricken the rest of it. Malleus, I apologize for storming onto your talk page like that. I took the "pushed to write" comment personally, and it put me in a bad mood, which is no excuse, but there you are. Mea culpa. 28bytes (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

M-17 (Michigan highway) Good Article reassessment

I recently started a Good Article reassessment for M-17 (Michigan highway), which I did not and do not believe meets the GA criteria. However, I now think this would be better served by a community reassessment. What is the best way to move this from an individual reassessment to a community reassessment? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do I think is to close your individual GAR and initiate a new community GAR. Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. cmadler (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I sincerely appreciate the good faith gesture. I look forward to working with you under happier circumstances, and if you ever have the urge to improve some more of my prose as you did before, I will be grateful for the help. Best, 28bytes (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Little things, or what ought to be little things, sometimes get distorted out of shape here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was nice of you and showed real class. I appreciate it. --John (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired and fed up with wikipedia's caste system

I'll finish all of the reviews I've committed to do but no more. If the project ever gets its act together then give me a call, but until then ... Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

..."I'll keep courting attention"? Geometry guy 00:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

.... That's one interpretation. I guess that time will tell. What's clear to me is that wikipedia wants to be rid of Malleus, and that Malleus is equally pissed off with wikipedia. That's wikipedia's loss. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. What's going on? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask Geometry Guy. We peons aren't allowed to complain about our station in life. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere I'll finish my reviews, but then no more. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Look you and I disagree about things at times, but one thing we know in our bones is that the work we do here is vital. And griping is part of it. I gripe a lot when I get stressed and cranky - too much writing, too many reviews, and then I just crumble. Walking away for a few days always helps - though I never seem to stay away for long. The next and the next and the next article always needs work. Go away for a few days and then see how you feel. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I feel it in my bones; this is the end for Malleus. He had a good run, but he couldn't put up with the corruption here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rethink, please. I am not sure what is going on. Digging around appears to suggest perhaps it is something to do with a GAN bot. In any event, I know that I am not by any means alone in valuing your efforts here. Truthkeeper is probably more attuned to your situation, but my gut feeling about people is not often wrong. Take a break, sure, but don't give up. - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a break. Think about it, and then see how you feel in a few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Malleus – I have no idea what's going on. I saw you complaining about corruption. I hope to add some perspective: all human beings are full of sh*t. I mean, it's possible that there are a small handful of Gandhis and Mother Theresas running around who genuinely deserve respect, but the other five billion-plus are just are grubby as you and I are. So, since Wikipedia is a product of human beings, it is of course full of sh*t as well. This is not a surprise in any way. It is to be expected. It is par for the course for the rest of reality. HTH, gotta run.  – Ling.Nut 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's corruption on a rather small scale, but I really have had enough of the "trust of the community" nonsense. You may be prepared to put up with it but I'm not. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Mall. Actually I was going to ask your opinion on something, but it appears you have your plate full at the moment. Sorry to hear you're getting so much flack. If there's something I can do, feel free to let me know. I hope these frustrations will pass soon, but I also realize much of the BS here is a never-ending stream of stupidity too. Hope you feel back up to par ASAP. — Ched :  ?  03:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm also not sure what has caused you to feel this way, however I would just say that the wikipedia project (and my prose) would be poorer without you.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Seconded. Apterygial ^talk 08:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thirded. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Fourthded. Jaguar (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Fifthded. What is going on here? All the best editors seem to be leaving or on the verge of doing so... Constantine ✍ 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• .......

• ......

• Seventeen hundred and twenty ninethded. Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Eighteen hundredethded. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• ......

Malleus, please don't leave. This encyclopedia will have a huge loss without you. In the next couple of months or so it will crumble and the knowledge of Good Articles will never be the same again. I understand that some things here are corrupt; I've been there before. Once I reverted an administrator's edit and I got told off for doing it. Some people just don't understand the idea but nobody wants to get rid of you. Over the year we have seen some good members on Wikipedia retire because they realise that disputes and corruption affects them. But if you go, then I'm sure some dramastic consequences might follow. Just don't worry about it. One day the project will get its act together. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But one day it will. Jaguar (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I hope you realise that the project will be much less likely to get its act together without you here to help it on its way. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Like If the Basso profondo retires, Wikipedia:The Opera will be sung by the Prima donnas --Spearcarrier58 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oh God, did someone actually make a "like" template and inflict it upon Wikipedia? Is this an encyclopedia, or myspace/facebook? Who did it? Burn them alive! Turn them over to the IRS! – Ling.Nut 15:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• User:MZMcBride of all people, who's usually more sensible. (The day this proposal goes live is the day I leave Wikipedia. As if those Hot-or-Not style "rate this article!" boxes currently popping up like weeds across the project aren't obnoxious enough.) – iridescent 15:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• I see Fetchcomm's name in there, too. Urf. My dinner is ascending my esophagus.  – Ling.Nut 16:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone needs to start one of those Facebook campaign thingies against that proposal. Alas, as I am not registered with the site, I cannot do this. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

against what proposal? All I see here is Malleus mad at someone or other (no clue who), and me mad at whoever did not have enough sense to delete that "like" template.  – Ling.Nut 16:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The one linked to by Iridescent. Going OT, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cheer up Parrot of Doom 19:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Today this, tomorrow popunder ads.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sad to see you go, but honestly I cannot blame you. I would have left long ago if I had been blocked as many times and for as ridiculous reasons as you have been. (WTF, I just saw somebody blocked you for 10 seconds. Definitely preventing the irreparable damage that would have resulted had you edited during those precious seconds.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, each of us have had our feelings hurt on the project. But the work is important, and some people, like you, are specially skilled to accomplish it. Please reconsider.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to figger out what's going on here, so sumbuddy better just tell me !! It's bad enough that I just saw that disgusting suggestion on Jimbo's talk page, attributed once again to the trivial frivolity of women. Now there's something I'm sick of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, please understand that your contributions to articles and your mentoring of new editors help to make Wikipedia a more attractive project for many of us. I value your contributions and even your righteous indignations.

It may be time to let TCO or Ceoil know who is bothering you, so that the offender may be publicly dispatched! "There is no sacrifice to God more pleasing than the execution of an unjust and wicked king." Defending the actions of the people of England,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you stop citing Milton all the time? Drmies (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And just make sure TCO isn't the one you tell. I've seen execution by turtle ... it isn't pretty.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I just came back and came by your talk page to see that you hadn't been run off and this is what I find?!?! You trying to make me leave again? Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I keep trying to tell someone about this. I got called lazy today on Wikipedia. It was delivered with the gentle-soft first person plural. I should be fuming, and part of me is, but most of me thinks how futile it would be to respond. I hope soon I will no longer care that someone with low reading comprehension and vocabulary skills calls me something I am clearly not. I'm so overwhelmed with the feeling of futility here that I'm silenced. It took me 5 tries to write this. --Moni3 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This may or may not be of any use to anyone here, and I apologize if it isn't. I've been involved in a lot of situations which get emotional here, including a lot of religious ones. Yes, some of you will see that I haven't been doing much lately. Part of the reason for this is my having spent some time getting together articles and other materials mentioning the

"outstanding" reference sources as determined by the American Libraries Association or Booklist, which range from about a dozen to 30 or more per year, depending on how good the output that year is. I have finally started adding them here, at at User:John Carter/Reference sources, with the hope of eventually transferring the appropriate entries from the list to the individual WikiProjects, either as a separate page or section of a page. In time, I also hope to create articles on those reference works which meet notability requirements, specifically indicating their strengths and weaknesses as noted by others. I do think that having such information available might help a lot in some of the contentious discussions around here. I clearly still have a lot of work to do still in even getting all the material on the list linked to above, but am working on it. I hope it will be finished in a month or so. If we can start making some of our discussions based on the comparative quality of the sources, and produce some sort of clear evidence as to the nature of the quality of the source, I think that might help somewhat. If you would want to hang on until this turtle-slow bastard actually finishes the list, and maybe establishes sublists for the bulk of the existing relevant projects, maybe then things will be somewhat easier. Also, hey, if you wanted to help create articles on some of these sources, specifically on any material regarding their comparative strengths or weaknesses, that might help a lot. It may not get a lot of thanks from some, but I do think it might be a very uncontroversial way of helping make things better around here. And it will I think maybe make some discussions easier if those of us involved can point to something somewhat concrete, because that would help make it harder for any discussion to relate to the individual himself or herself. Anyway, just a thought. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• And I'm getting someone who is doing a slow burn because I reverted his unsourced and ill considered edit adding very peripheral information to a FA I had worked on. I guess I should just let articles disintegrate when I have the power to hold back entropy for a time ... well, so do you Malleus but you're leaving.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have power here? I don't think so. But like Moni3 I've grown to find the place dispiriting, for all sorts of reasons that there's no sign of ever being addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    When I find Wikipedia dispiriting, I don't edit... Geometry guy 22:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    • I committed to finish the reviews that I'd started. That I've now done. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    You may or may not have power here, but you have power. You have the power to see that for many things, when people do a google search, they get a well researched and thought out article rather than Yahoo! answers or a dubious messageboard post. Who cares what goes on between the back room boys? You're laying truth on the planet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    "The day is short, the task is great, the laborers are lazy, the wage is abundant and the master is urgent. It is not incumbent upon you to finish the task. Yet, you are not free to desist from it."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    ...then when I feel I can contribute something helpful, I edit again. Geometry guy 23:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    If that works for you, then fine. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    Why do you hide behind your edit summaries ("We're not the same people") while omitting such information from your reply? You suggested at the start of this thread (with a petulant comment about "peons" which I hope you regret) that I might have some insight into your current malaise. As a result of this comment, one editor above found his/her way to my talk page and thought the issue bothering you might be related to the GAN bot; it obviously isn't, but you didn't deny it - nor clarify or apologize for your churlishness. It is never too late to do so, of course.

    Meanwhile a contributor and reviewer from a similar generation to yours is facing a 3 month to 1 year ban at arbcom because he has problems interacting on Wikipedia without entering into disputes - did you not notice, or were you not interested? Can you accept the many injustices of Wikipedia and continue to edit, or can you not? If it works for me to accept that the project is imperfect, what works for you? Geometry guy 00:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    Let me try and spell it out for you Geometry guy, as you don't seem to be getting the point. First of all, as I'm an infrequent and always reluctant visitor to the ArbCom noticeboard, I have no idea which editor you're talking about. I saw from Wikipedia Review though that Abd was in the frame for a community ban, is that who you're talking about? Secondly, I absolutely do not regret for one second my comment about "peons", as that's exactly the way that Wikipedia is run; all the power given to administrators and none to anyone else. Thirdly, I have never complained about the GAN bot, and therefore I see nothing churlish in not denying something that I have never said. Fourthly, as an administrator you're part of the problem here, but you might consider becoming part of the solution. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

    Is that all you have to say after taking nearly 3 days to reply? I stopped watching the thread (and only noticed it now); in the meantime, the ArbCom case I mentioned is about to close (it wasn't Abd). And here, you have ended as you began, with posturing and yet more yawn-some repetition of your recurring memes that admins have all the power (all? what does that mean?) and therefore (somehow, in your own distorted logic) all admins are part of the problem. As you suggested at the beginning of the thread, "time will tell". Time has told. Geometry guy 23:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's all I have to say to you. Time has indeed told, so now please go away and try needling someone else. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not the same people Malleus. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, nor a "caste" of editors to needle. Geometry guy 23:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You're making a fool of yourself, time to stop. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. TTFN, Geometry guy 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Book

If you like odd books, consider Peter Reich (son of Wilhelm Reich), The Book of Dreams. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• We got all the Pokemon and Monster Trucks a person could want--but Lyrical Ballads is in pretty pitiful shape. Maybe this should be my pet project. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • One thing my experience here has taught me is that if you're looking for a quiet life then picking a niche like that is often a good option, especially if all the other interested editors have retired/died/been blocked/been banned. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Or conversely, if the quiet niche does have another occupant who disagrees with you, things have the potential to escalate very nastily very quickly, since there are too few people for there to be an obvious broad consensus; some of Wikipedia's most foul-tempered arguments have been in the murky corners. (One of Wikipedia's oldest in-jokes is a tribute to a particularly venomous argument over which photo to use on Bathrobe.) – iridescent 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I had the very same thought myself after I wrote that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Heaton Norris article

Not sure why you've decided, twice, to remove the "Cultural references". Judging by the discussion above, it seems you have a problem with these being added for other articles. Why? It seems anyone can edit Wikipedia, but only with what "senior" users like yourself deem acceptable. --TheoMorgan (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have removed it if I'd seen it first, it is trivial and contributes nothing to an understanding of Heaton Norris. Anyone is of course welcome to contribute but that contribution can of course be edited or removed. --J3Mrs (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but there's no reason it needs to be deleted. It's basically a town no-one has heard of outside the local area, aside from the references made by Mrs Merton. What's wrong with trivia? --TheoMorgan (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite a bit. For instance, if I were writing an article about wood, why would telling someone that "in an episode of The Sopranos, Tony beat up a rival using a piece of wood" be at all useful? Parrot of Doom 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is that it is entirely irrelevant to the subject. LadyofShalott 12:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you try adding something about Heaton Norris to the Heaton Norris article Theo, rather than about Mrs Merton? It could do with a decent governance section for instance, or what about its schools or churches? Any significant landmarks? You might find WP:UKCITIES a useful read to give you some idea of what ought to be in a settlement article. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But is is relevant to the subject - you've just decided it isn't. Referring to a block of wood is hardly the same as a very specific reference to an obscure Stockport town; in fact it's completely different, and a very silly comparison to make. Now, if we were talking about London, there are a zillion pop culture references. But this is probably the only claim to fame that Heaton Norris has, and yet you don't want anyone to know about it. Strange. I should point out I had never heard of the town before Mrs Merton referred to it, and I've never even been there before. I thought it was amusing trivia as a fan of Mrs Merton, and it would probably amuse a lot of visitors to the page. Yes, it may be slightly irrelevant, but does it really matter? The Wiki hierarchy has decided that the world does not want to know about Mrs Merton's humorous in-jokes. In the article on Mrs Dale's Diary, is it really relevant to cite contemporary parodies? No, but it does provide an insight into how people thought of it at the time. The Mrs Merton item provides a small insight it what I'll wager is the only time it has ever been referenced! --TheoMorgan (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

According to that link, Malleus, I've only done what is suggested. It is listed twice that those things are acceptable (by their inclusion, anyway). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UKCITIES#Culture and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UKCITIES#Cultural_references Maybe I didn't make it clear enough in my edit that the series Mrs Merton and Malcolm is a sitcom that is supposed to be based in the town, which is surely relevant. --TheoMorgan (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, why not write a Heaton Norris in popular culture article if you believe that it's important information? There's a curious misunderstanding throughout Wikipedia, which is that references have to be symmetrical. One might argue that Mrs Merton's comment is relevant in an article about Mrs Merton, but that doesn't make it relevant in the opposite direction. The question to ask yourself is this: "In what way does that information improve my understanding of Heaton Norris"? If the answer is, as you suggest, that most people would never have heard of the place otherwise, then you need to provide a reliable source that says so. Do you have one? Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are over 13k GBooks hits for "Heaton Norris", and over 230k GHits generally. Add in the fact that Google is far from the only source for information and I find it hard to believe that Mrs Merton is remotely "probably the only claim to fame" that the place has. I do vaguely recall some interesting industries in the area at one time, but have too much other stuff on my plate to follow through right now. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is where it seems Wikipedia is just being taken over by small-minded bureaucracy. Heaton Norris is not important enough to have it's own "Heaton Norris in popular culture" page. All that it would consist of is the Mrs Merton mentions, and then the article would be deleted anyway as someone would deem it irrelevant. How can I possibly prove that people haven't heard of the place otherwise? Actually, I am interested in popular culture references, and feel other "settlement" pages should feature them, as they do add to my understanding of a place. --TheoMorgan (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why not set up your own Wikitrivia project? Malleus Fatuorum 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, there are certain articles which lack a "popular culture" section (like Auschwitz Concentration Camp) and other articles which have them like a dog has fleas. Why not add a few, like "Auschwitz was mentioned in episode 10 of 'Allo Allo'"? Ning-ning (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, this comparison is very silly. There have been vast numbers of films made entirely about Auschwitz, though I'm sure you know that already. This must be one of the only references to Heaton Norris in mainstream popular culture. Anyway, you'll need to remove far more entries, like the ones for West_Hartlepool#Popular_culture, Salford,_Greater_Manchester#Cultural_references and Ashby-de-la-Zouch#Culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoMorgan (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The state of other articles has absolutely nothing to do with the state of the Heaton Norris article. You need to make a case for what Mrs Merton's comments tell us about Heaton Norris. To me the answer is nothing at all, therefore it has no place in an article about Heaton Norris. A good rule of thumb is to consider how you would integrate the material into the article body instead of dumping it in a trivia bin at the end. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps TheoMorgan should be informed that this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, or anything like that. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Lo and behold, West Hartlepool now has no cultural references. It's actually of great interest to many people. I've yet to be convinced by any of these silly comparisons to "a block of wood" or even Auschwitz. I didn't "dump it in a trivia bin"; I added it in a new section called "Cultural references". Now, what if I called it "Culture", as in the Salford article? And thanks for patronising me, Peter, but I know what this is. The Heaton Norris article is basically boring otherwise. But hey, you keep Wikipedia boring, if that's what you want. I thought anyone could edit this site, but it seems the Wiki "hierarchy" has decided we *cannot* have these Cultural references! It seems the "editors" of this site are determined to impose their will on the rest of us. Most people wouldn't object to these "cultural references". It isn't "unsourced": I've watched the DVDs of Mrs Merton where she mentions the town. It is a fact that she mentioned it. I feel it needs adding back as a matter of interest: it's a very short article. Of course, one cannot list every "cultural reference" to London, but I'd like to know if there are *any* others to Heaton Norris. Therefore, it is relevant. --TheoMorgan (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Who exactly are "the rest of us"? So far as I can see there's only you arguing to include this nonsense in the Heaton Norris article. Have you included it in the Mrs Merton article? No? Why not if it's so important? Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, since there is and article titled The Mrs Merton Show, that is where the information is actually pertinent - as it is a detail about the title character. It is not, however, a detail about Heaton Norris, except in the most trivial sense. LadyofShalott 23:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahern was born in Heaton- that is why she set the show in Heaton. For some reason TheoMorgan ignores that (notable comedienne's birthplace) and chooses instead to argue that a trivial fact about the show's setting should be included. Ning-ning (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"I thought anyone could edit this site" - anyone can, so long as they only add relevant information. Anything else is liable to be removed. Some rubbish about Mrs Merton tells us nothing about Heaton Norris. Parrot of Doom 08:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said

"Wikipedia has become so desperate to attract new editors that it ignores the retention of existing editors. There are plenty of articles, but far too few of them are even half-way decent. The new editors who need encouragement are those who pitch in and improve articles, not those who create articles on their newly formed garage band or whatever on their first edit, as I think the statistics clearly show."

— Malleus Fatuorum

I'm late to the party but I just read the above for the first time and wish to show my support! The bit about few half-way decent articles is so true. I spent a few hours looking at new articles yesterday and found an overwhelming amount of low quality shoddy pages. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at new articles can be very dispiriting. Hardly any are worth spit. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I have recently done a little work at NPP, thinking that it would take my mind off various arguments with Indian caste-ists etc. I very rapidly took the "advice" at the top of the page that requests people to consider starting at the back of the list. Even there, I found numerous soul-destroying moments ... but at least (I hope) a lot of the cruft had been caught beforehand by people more dedicated than me! Inherent notability, in particular, has been something of a bugbear.

And a question for you, Malleus. Should the "that" in my second sentence have been "which"? For reasons unknown to me, I always prefer "which" but here in WP-land it seems to be t'other that is preferred. You are sh*t hot on this sort of stuff, and my copy of Fowler is buried under several thousand other books currently in storage. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fowler says "Relative pronouns are as troublesome to the inexpert but conscientious writer as they are to useful to everyone, which is saying much. About which, in particular, problems are many, and some of them complicated." To cut a long story short, "that" is defining (as in "all the houses that are blue") whereas "which" isn't. (Compare "all the houses, which are blue" with "all the houses that are blue".) My simple rule of thumb is that "which" naturally follows a comma, and unless there's a comma then "that" is probably correct. I wouldn't myself have chosen "that" in the case of your second sentence, as I don't think it could be considered definitional, but that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong". I'd have preferred either "at the top of the page, which requests" or "at the top of the page requesting". Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I must copy the above to some place in my userspace, thank you. In particular, it serves as a reminder that some judicious juggling of sentences can often avoid the issue entirely. Of course, neither of us can count: the awkwardness appears in my third sentence. Bugger! I feel that perhaps it is time for me to go to bed. I do believe that we are going to have another of Manchester's multitudinous sunny days tomorrow, and I would like to see some of it. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

<--Malleus, I was about to ask you for some advice, but now that I see that Fowler is your King James I'm not so sure anymore! Are you sure you're not a Victorian? OK, I'll ask you anyway. I can't figure out what to do with the numbers in the opening paragraph of Beasts of battle. I'm speaking of the trope as a singular, and of the beasts that make up the trope in the plural. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edwardian, not Victorian. Anyway, I think the opening needs to be rewritten, perhaps something like this:

"The Beasts of battle is a poetic trope employing the wolf, the raven, and the eagle, animals that traditionally accompany the warriors to feast on the bodies of the slain. It is found in eight Old English poems and in the Old Norse Poetic Edda."

• Thanks! And I meant "Victorian", as a low blow. ;) Fowler makes good reading, though. I have a reprint of the first edition on my desk. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Three Laws of Robotics

Hi

I was hoping that you might get a half hour or so to look at the Three Laws of Robotics article. I am a little confused as to how to proceed with it.

I put it up for peer review Wikipedia:Peer_review/Three_Laws_of_Robotics/archive1 after a large amount of editing but, as there was little response, proceeded to GAN. The basic problem, as pointed out by SilkTork during the GAN Talk:Three_Laws_of_Robotics/GA1 at the end of last year, is that they consider the article contains a lot of OR and may need rewriting from scratch.

I considered the article state in this version [1] to be good enough to go to GAN, thought the current state is not perhaps satisfactory due to several chop and change edits to the structure.

How would you proceed? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's a worthy subject. If I was tackling it I'd start out by applying a big pair of shears and getting rid of probably about half of it. There's no sense of a coherent story, and it does look a lot like an essay rather than an encyclopedic account, lumping together anything that might vaguely be related to Asimov's laws. I'd also try to work out a better structure for the article, something with a bit more of a chronological feel. I think there's a lot of work needed, but it's worth doing. Chop it back and then guide its growth would be my advice. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I learned something new again because of you lol, I didn't realise there should have been spaces between the text and ellipses so thanks for that for a start :¬) I have to go back over my current copyedit and correct them though now :¬(

As for the Three Laws article, I was of the opinion that only the material directly mentioning Asimov and directly related to their application should be mentioned. Some parts of the article appear to be fancruft, some are extraneous and some just not that relevant.

I will try and find if anyone else is interested in working on it first and then start with the scalpel.

Thanks again for taking a look and for making those corrections. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. The Three Laws article ought to concentrate on ... well, Asimov's Three Laws; removing some of the fancruft would be a good start. It's a subject that interests me, so I may keep an eye on the article and chip in from time to time. Good luck with it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your comment about my efforts to address your concerns regarding the article Everything Tastes Better with Bacon. I've gone through another pass of copyediting, to address your comments about improving the prose. I'll do a bit more on that now. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter up the FAC more than is necessary, so would it be OK with you if I pointed out specific things I think need to be addressed on your talk page? Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a great idea! :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, you had some great ideas and suggestions for improvement. I've responded to all of them, noting it each time in the edit summaries to make it clear which user's comments from FAC I had utilized. :) I've noted some more specific responses at my talk page. Do you think it's a bit better now, at a point where you'd be willing to strike your oppose? -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It'll take me until tomorrow to finish looking through. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sure, sounds good. I'll try to be responsive as best I can if you've got any further suggestions. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've gone ahead and responded to all of your additional points. I'm hopeful that at this point it's satisfactory, at least enough to strike the oppose? :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

help the 330

It's a nice Aussie kid writing the article. It's got a LOT of decent content. It needs a little work on prose logic...agreed. But Sandy has her hatchet out readuy for it. And that flies in the face of something I read in 2009, where she said she looks out for content, not just style.

So...give it a hand man.

I'll take the ban. I don't belong here.

But those kids are nice guys...and it is going to break my heart if they get sidelined when it is NOT even a bad FA, just an under-reviewed one.

Come one, man...I know you have a kind heart for the kids.

I will make it up to you. Name the price. Whatever...TCO (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested. Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Flixton, Greater Manchester

Fancy helping me get this to GA? Parrot of Doom 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not. A quick question: do the village and the ward have the same boundaries? Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Around here people would say no. If I mention Flixton village (where I live, coincidentally), people will expect I mean somewhere around the western end of Church Road, where it meets Carrington Road and Flixton Road. The wider Flixton extends across a much wider area. For convenience, unless a source that explains it all is found, for boundaries I'd recommend sticking to the ward right now. Parrot of Doom 18:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Trafford boundaries are a problem, to say nothing of the not infrequent changes to them. I had the same problem with Stretford in spades (is Old Trafford in Stretford or not was one recurring discussion), but I took the view that sticking to the boundaries of the town/borough rather than the much smaller ward was the way to go, so I'd be arguing that the article ought to be about the village, particularly as the ward would only have existed since 1974 and Flixton is much older than that. But of course it's your call. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I had similar issues with Radcliffe, which has unbelieveably convoluted history in that regard. I just settled for calling wards ward, towns towns, etc. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've exhausted the online stuff I can find, so it's off to the library at some point this week to seek out more. The local libraries should be fine for what we need. I'm waiting for a sunny day to get a decent shot of St Michaels. Parrot of Doom 22:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look around as well ... might pop in to Sharston Books if I'm going to Wickes tomorrow, which is quite likely. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't take any money with you (cash only), or you'll be sorry. Parrot of Doom 22:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean I might be tempted to spend? Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of an Aladdin's cave, although some of the books are more expensive than you'd think. I sneakily used my phone to grab snaps of pages relevant to articles I was working on :) Parrot of Doom 23:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To be

This is precisely the kind of edit my dissertation director would have made--and he wrote TO BE in the margin. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Less is more. I find that many have a tendency to use two words where one would do, but I like to see surgical precision. Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I resemble both remarks. Oh, I just started The Force That Through the Green Fuse Drives the Flower. I italicized the title analogous to Easter, 1916, which was the first (short) poem I could think of, but MLA style dictates quotation marks. What do we do here? I can't find it in the MoS, at least not quickly. BTW, look at the Dylan Thomas bibliography--no articles. Where are the Welsh editors? Drmies (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the length of the poem apparently. If it's a short thing then it's in quotation marks, but if it's an epic then it's in italics. Don't blame me, I didn't invent the rules. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what I thought, but "Easter, 1916" is hardly an epic, and certainly not long enough to be published independently (the MLA criterion). And I'm not blaming you for that, no! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are many Welsh editors. Or at least many interested in Dylan Thomas. Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK reform

Malleus, I wish you'd not damn the system (as I did with my "House of Lame" posts a month or two ago), but support those who have been working to convince the regulars that DYK can be significantly improved and play an important complementary role in the project to the purely quality-based procedures. At the moment, it's like the FAC troops are coming across to lob grenades. But DYK should be strengthened so it can work to strengthen the skills and output of editors who create and expand articles at the early stages: there lies an important trajectory towards more candidates for GA and FAC. Tony (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got nothing to add to what I've already said, so no need to worry about me. My view quite simply is that Wikipedia needs better articles, not more articles, and DYK does nothing to further that goal. Quite the reverse in fact. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point.--SPhilbrickT 00:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Update

Hey there Malleus, hope you're doing well. I responded to your recent suggestions about further improving Everything Tastes Better with Bacon. If you've got additional feedback, I'd be most appreciative. Do you think at this point you would've stricken your oppose, and/or not oppose in a future possible FAC? — Cirt (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure to be honest. Graham Colm made a good point, and I think I'd want to see a bit more substance instead of what appears to be a series of reviews from regional newspapers; somehow the article doesn't seem to have a spine. Anyway, I wish you luck with it at your next attempt if you choose to try again. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm quite thankful already for your help and suggestions. Perhaps you'd be willing to help out further, maybe in the course of a peer review, prior to another attempt at FAC? :) — Cirt (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually get involved in peer reviews, but let me know when you nominate it and I'll try and take another look. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright Malleus, thanks very much, I'll do that! :) — Cirt (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently arbcom-l does leak

Over at WR your request of earlier this month for a cleanstart has been revealed. Good old iridescent, eh? 58.163.175.132 (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like you can't trust anyone here. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. Looks like you'll make it into The Register. :( Hans Adler 14:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that's fame of a sort. Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And just to clarify, in my conversation with Iridescent I wasn't asking for a cleanstart, I was discussing the pros and cons of a cleanstart, which is of course now a non-starter. Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this to Jimbo Wales. How could private emails get passed around like this? It's a disgrace.--John (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just chatting with Iridescent and mulling over a few options, and he asked me if I had any objection to our conversation being forwarded on to ArbCom. I said no. Silly me. Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is just a disgrace. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for your trouble and I hope I haven't made it worse by posting at Jimbo's talk. Remember my standing offer to step in in case of need if you are feeling pressured by any situations that may arise here. --John (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't read Jimbo's page, but I doubt that anything you posted there could make things worse for me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Malleus its all hot air, nothing that makes you look bad, and youve had a lot worse thrown at you. If I was you I take comfort ttat the leaker seems a bit dim. Ceoil 22:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I take comfort in the fact that I have never emailed anything to ArbCom, so there's nothing more to reveal. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You're in the post

You like?. It's rather long, would it be ok if we expanded it and made it into one of the main stories? Mm, probably wouldn't. Still, you can add that to your wiki-swag list ;) ResMar 02:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not a very good write-up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Do what you like with it. I remain rather puzzled as to why I was the first victim, as my story is rather a pathetic one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope someone will be re-writing it, but I haven't found The Signpost staff to be very competent of late. It's rather disgusting the kind of things that run lately there, but I've not had any luck getting anyone to pay attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm drowsy and am already over the character limit for a short, Sandy...but I'll go back over it and cut it back a bit, I suppose. We don't all write Featured Articles regularly :/ ResMar 02:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't be so hard on them. It's a complicated story that I certainly don't yet understand. Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well. I can stop being civil now too can't I. I have quite a few things to say about jerk-faced manipulative...people myself. So, zip it. Tony will get around to it anyway. ResMar 02:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec3) Like many other problems on Wikipedia the thing with the Signpost is basically a function of a complete lack of competition fostered in large part by the clique nature of the project. Their standards are low because there's no oversight and nothing to show that it can be done better. And yes, they tend to just totally ignore any kind of criticism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not getting into this discussion, because I know I will lose against said posse. Suffice to say that perhaps it would be a better read if certain people bothered to write it, instead of floundering in the mud being annoying hypocrites. ResMar 02:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Prove that your talk ain't all air, boy. Go and write some shit. Or shut your pie hole. ResMar 02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you addressing your comment to me Resident Mario? Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, no, to bashy-mc-bashy over there. You usually have solid reasons for yelling at someone. ResMar 02:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to mention or further publicize the names of specific Wikipedians who were victimized by this incident, and I shall urge that the Signpost does not do so.

Resident Mario, the tone of your comments here, especially under the circumstances, is not appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

An issue I considered, seeing as how M is a genuinely jovial fellow, and hardly blinked at it, and a user already suggested it in the Post suggestion box, and he didn't seem to think it was a big deal, I'm fine with it. And my tone is my business. Go ahead and block if you want. Abrasions like these are the very reason Wikipedia is loosing editors like a leaky boat. ResMar 02:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether I blink at it or not is not the issue, this is very much bigger than the minor revelations about my email conversations with Iridescent. 02:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's the fact that this is possible that is more relevant. Maybe we should institute a new ArbCom rule: arbitrators must have passwords at least 8 characters long =) ResMar 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, if I was a journalist covering this story I'd have decided that my only importance in the story was that I was the first to have had my supposedly confidential correspondence revealed, and I'd be wondering why that was, given all the juicier stuff that's subsequently been posted. Answer that question and you'll find your felon. Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If the hacker had been smart he would have archived everything he found and sent it out in one big bunch. The fact that he didn't? I think Ir deletes old messages, and yours was at the top of the pile, which is the only reason you ended up being thrown out there. It's not the most interesting thing in there, probably. But it is very abrasive. There's a saying for these things, I think it goes "Giants in the playground." ResMar 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't care what you choose to publish in the Signpost so long as it's accurate. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It probably won't roll anyway, the way things are looking. You can rest in philosophical peace. I suppose. And I was going to make a copyedit request, too...before all this craziness of course :/. Ah well. ResMar 03:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You must report stuff as you see it, not how you're told to see it, that's the essence of journalism. Sure you won't always be right, but you won't always be wrong either. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear rewrote the issue just now, although now it is way too long to be anything but a major story, or deleted. ResMar 03:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll vote for major story, whether I have a starring role or not. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be acceptable now, I think. Nuclear went and removed your name altogether. ResMar 03:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh bugger. And there I was thinking that I was destined for stardom. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh shush, you don't need it. Didn't your talk page make the "most edited" list? I can see why, considering I can't get away without an edit conflict. ResMar 03:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mario, might be time to walk away. Seems to me you're getting worked up for no reason. NW (Talk) 03:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I was worked up like, 20 minutes ago. Now I'm happy to get it over with. But Sandy's spite still hurts. A little. ResMar 03:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

1952 Winter Olympics

Nice one, appreciated. --Dweller (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sshhh. Don't tell anyone, I've got a reputation to maintain. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're an old softie at heart, Malleus. Me, some guy keeps appearing to tell me that three editors will appear to me, one blocked in the past, one in the present, and one in the future, but I take a stiff glass of Jameson and nothing seems to happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That story (the original one) has a happy ending, but mine is just a tale of bitterness and resentment. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for copyediting the Winter Games. I meant to go through myself & completely forgot until I saw Dweller's comments today. I was on my to the page when it started popping up & I thought I'd leave you to it because you're better at copyediting than I am. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I just had a quick first look Truthkeeper, there's still much to do, so have at it! Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could carry on. Two problems: I'm very familiar with the subject so the prose doesn't really bother me, and real life is slowing me down a bit. If you can't finish, I'll get to it on Friday or Saturday, if someone else doesn't get there first. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any great rush, and I may never finish. My biggest concern right now is the overall flow, as my question to H1nkles below. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I may be able to sort it out, but will need a chunk of time to twist the flow. It's not pervasive, I don't think, only the first few sections need work. When I read it, I zoomed through it, but I think that's because I know the history; I can see how it's difficult for readers who don't. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right; when it gets to the individual events it's not bad, but the introductory stuff needs some work. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Scrub that, the whole article needs a good seeing to. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes thank you for the flurry of edits. It is a credit to the project that people are willing to help out strangers for the betterment of the whole. Thank you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when I copyedit I do tend to do it in a flurry of edits, which I know can unnerve some people, but that's the only way I can do it. While you're here, I think there's a bit of a problem with the overall flow of the article, which is a bit like this happened ... then that happened. Some of the parenthetical observations, like "After the 1936 Games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) opted to separate the awarding of the Winter Olympics from their summer counterparts" could usefully be moved to footnotes – how do you feel about that? Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I find the claim that the 1952 Winter Olympics used a computer to be rather unbelievable considering that the first modern computer was built only three years earlier, and a computer at that time was as big as a bungalow and very far from reliable. Added to which the cited source makes no such claim that I can see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I got pinged as well, ok, might leave you to Norway and take a journey on hte airbus maybe...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't pinged, I only noticed the article as I was looking through the older FACs. I think it needs a lot of work. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the work, I haven't used footnotes because it's somewhat arbitrary as to when to use them vs. keeping the content in the body. Do you have a rule of thumb that you employ in your writing? You can find the reference to computers under "all facts" in this link [2] the title of the entry is "Scores in a second". I see your oppose on the FAC and I assume your concerns relate to the presentation: the flow of the article noted above and the need to move parenthetical refs to footnotes is that correct? Is there more I should work on? Thanks. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 03:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've found the quote: "In figure skating, in order to give the results immediately, computers were used to calculate the scores awarded by the different judges for the compulsory and free programmes." That's not even remotely credible. More than one computer? In 1952 there were very few computers in the world, and none of them were in Norway. At that time the term "computer" was still used for people who performed calculations, rather than machines. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough I took it at face value but your point is well taken, I'll check it out and make fixes if necessary. Britannica says computers made their Olympic debut in 1964 so I'll go with that as it fits better with technological advances at the time. I've removed the information. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 06:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

outdent - Just so you know, I'm taking the "Venues" section to work on in my sandbox. The prose needs a bit of twisting. I think I've done what I can at the top (which thankfully you're fixing), have skipped the events but will come back to those if needed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll ignore that section for now. I think we can do this. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we can too. I'm not as fast as you and need to think about what I'm doing, so that section is better done out of mainspace. I'll copy it back as soon as I'm finished. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I don't think about what I'm doing? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that you do it intuitively. I have to work harder on it. I knew you get me for that sentence. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus, I'm feeling a bad because my so-called copyedit may have made things worse instead of better for H1nkles. Would you mind having a look at the hyphenation and numbers in the "Cross country" section? I hyphenated if an adjective, i.e. 50-kilometre race, otherwise not. But I think I may have done it wrong. Also, sorry, but didn't mean to offend last night. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had another look through, and there's probably still stuff that needs to be done. The best we can hope for now is that Tony1 doesn't turn up to further criticise the prose.</joke> And don't worry, you didn't offend me; I just couldn't resist. I don't know about you, but I find it helps to leave a little gap between editing and looking over the article again, it seems to refresh the "leetle grey cells". Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for all you've done. This has been a worthwhile process. Malleus, do you feel as though your oppose still stands due to your concerns over the flow of the article and the parenthetic references? To address your conerns for the flow would you suggest I combine the different event subsections into one section like the Venues section? That's the one part of the article that is fairly choppy. Again, thanks for all the help. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll look through again later and probably strike my oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

pardon my bollocks

• (Someone erased that whole thread on the arb talk page; I left a message on his/her talk page).... Yes it is just bollocks. My faith in the better angels of peoples' nature is at times touching. I have, on occasion, pondered quitting my job and working as a writer for Hallmark Greeting cards. However... one... must... never stop hoping. One never knows where one has influenced someone to do better.  – Ling.Nut 02:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I write elsewhere, and although it has its frustrations it's nowhere near as frustrating as writing for wikipedia. For one thing you don't have to keep defending it against Randy, and for another once the money's changed hands the client can do whatever they damn well like with the text, so long as they don't attribute it to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • That was me that erased the thread by accident in an edit conflict mixup. It has been fixed. My apologies to you both. Jusdafax 02:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oh wait. Your comment was "That's just bollocks". I interpreted that to mean "Be realistic, Ling: there's no way WR will do the right thing." Now i see it could also mean, "Ling, your suggestion that WR delete all private info on sight and ban all users who post private info is full of shit". Which was your intention?  – Ling.Nut 01:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This is what I thought was bollocks: "About a million years ago, I Opposed one RfA based largely on the fact that the nominee was a WR regular ... Ban user who posts." Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I actually don't remember the details of that RfA, nor whose it was, nor when it was. It was indeed a long time ago; I haven't participated in RfA in forever. I probably Opposed for other reasons, perhaps reason you might find more valid... but I did argue with several folks who stood up for WR. As for "ban user who posts", I was talking about banning him/her from WR. I would like to ban thta person from Wikipedia too, but... I dunno, there may be some technicality about not banning someone for off-wiki actions. As for the basic idea of banning at all: Why is it controversial? I dunno how much this person has posted yet, but if he posts real names, real addresses etc., then ban the low life scum. Why is this worthy of even a moment's thought?  – Ling.Nut 01:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
      • We're probably talking slightly at cross purposes here. If you're talking about banning User:MaliceAforethought from Wikipedia than you'd first have to work out who that was, if indeed he or she is a member anyway. As for WR, well, they can ban whoever they like for whatever reasons they like, but I don't see that posting these revelations is one of them. Sure I'd prefer it if my personal email address wasn't plastered over the site, but then it's hardly a state secret. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
        • (ec) Yes. First, I dunno how much info has been released, but all the talk is that Malice has... probably... tons upon tons of it in his possession, ready to be released at any time. I saw something about him/her taking requests about what info to release?? What a crotch rot. As for banning from Wikipedia, yes, you'd have to figure out who it is, and yes, here would be purists who would say the activity was off-wiki (but I think they'd get shouted down in this particular case). And yes, my post was to WR people only, and about WR only, including the bit about banning malice. I was asking WR to play responsibly. I know what the role of WR in the universe is: WR people say it's a legitimate check against Wikipedia malfeasance, but that's horse shit. WR is a place for big mouths of all ages to do their thing. It's a hot air sink. And you know what? That's OK. Indulging in hot air puffery is very, very far from being a sin. Let them feel special and important; let them blather on. But... there are lines that should not be crossed by any civilized users of the Internet. Outing folks who did nothing other than bicker on Wikipedia is on the wrong side of one of those lines. – Ling.Nut 01:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
          • There are no "WR people only". I not infrequently post there, but it doesn't mean that I approve of personal details being revealed. Even User:Newyorkbrad posts there from time to time. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
            • "WR people only" means "only Wikipedians who participate in WR". I wouldn't wanna go to all the trouble of popping over to WR, getting a user name (did I get one years ago? I don't remember).. etc., and I wouldn't be heard there anyhow. Even here on Wikipedia my voice is a small one, but at least it's nonzero. :-) My only goal was to persuade people who might have cachet over at WR to persuade the WR crowd to 1) delete any personal info posted, on sight 2) ban anyone who posts personal info, no questions asked. That's all.  – Ling.Nut 02:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Nobody who edits here has cachet at WR, as a very cursory examination of the site would reveal. Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
                • Call me a f*ckhead then. :-) I was hoping that at least one person here had the respect of someone whose finger is one the various delete and block buttons there. I actually find it hard to believe that no one here has any influence there, but, you know, of course you are more likely to be right than I am.  – Ling.Nut 03:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Deusdedit of Canterbury

I think I addressed most of your concerns from User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 20. Sorry it took a while, life got a bit hectic for a while (still is but that's nothing really new around here...). I'm sure I introduced new errors of comprehension with my fixes, would greatly appreciate it if you'd point them out? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for, looks good to me. Only one additional comment, which is that in "The one exception was Damianus, Ithamar's successor as Bishop of Rochester, who was consecrated by Deusdedit some time between 655 and 664" it seems rather redundant to give that date range as it corresponds precisely with Deusdedit's term as archbishop, and he presumably couldn't have consecrated Damianus unless he was an archbishop. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Took it out, you're correct, it was a bit odd. Thanks muchly for the copyedit! Up he goes at FAC shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the further copyediting (and this diff's edit summary cracked me up!) I sliced my right thumb the other day and typing is an exercise in frustration right now... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Will you have mail?

Hi, Malleus. If I message you through the "E-mail this user" feature, do you suppose you'll see that message? And, not that it's madly confidential or anything, but will it be plastered all over WR? Bishonen | talk 20:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

My email link works fine, and nothing's been leaked from my PC. What appeared on WR was a few emails I'd exchanged with Iridescent and he forwarded on to ArbCom. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Cool. You have mail. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Frankly Bishonen the second part of your message is very odd. There is no commentary anywhere that Malleus has had his email compromised, and therefore your comment but will it be plastered all over WR is grossly insulting, as it implies he is likely to post private conversation onto forums. Unless I'm reading this wrong or you're.. dimwitted is the best I can come up with that won't get me blocked... you've basically said Malleus is the kind of person who would post emails on to Wikipedia Review. Wow. Pedro :  Chat  21:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh go take a cold shower or something, Pedro, and don't be so ridiculous. I saw Malleus ...somewhere... mention his personal e-mail addy being plastered over WR. I really don't remember where... he just contributes too much. But I saw it, or possibly dreamt I saw it. Nor am I about to mount a major research project to find it, just because you're paranoid. (Now block me! WP:CIV!) Anyway, that's why I asked that question. If Malleus considers me a hostile presence on his page, which I really doubt, I don't think he's a shrinking violet in need of your protection from me. Wow to you too. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Now block me! WP:CIV! - Bless. Please calm down, and please try to remember that text only mediums don't work well. I got bored after I saw the the word paranoid so forgive me that I couldn't be bothered to read your comment in detail. I suspect I missed nothing of value. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think at this point anyone would be a bit on the cautious side. I'm not exactly clear how WR got hold of what they did, but it's enough to make the sanest of us paranoid. Having seen the results of various port scanners, key loggers, phishing scripts and such - it's easy to imagine anyone thinking twice before hitting that "email user" button. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some folks have simply opted out of that option all together. The think that gets me is ... with all this juicy gossip that Maliceaforethought has at his disposal, I kind of found everything that was posted to be rather ... ummmm ... mundane. (no offense intended to Iri or Mall.) I saw one post ... (over at WR IIRC) that mentioned money changing hands. If that's truly the case, I'd be asking for a refund. Oh well .. quite possible I'm missing the good stuff. Cheers and best to all. — Ched :  ?  21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Tempers seem to be a little frayed around Wikipedia recently, but I took no offence at Bishonen's question. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Then that's all good, considering the content of the first leak revealed personal infomration about you and Iridescent (now a he I gather) slagging off "Pedro and his pals". I feel Bish could have phrased that better but if you don't care then I certainly don't Pedro :  Chat  22:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I think you need to calm down Pedro and look at the facts. I never "slagged off" you or your pals in any of those emails, or anyone else for that matter. It was quite simply a discussion about a clean start, nothing to do with you or anyone else, to do with me. That Iridescent chose to make the comment that (s)he did in confidence to the other members of ArbCom (I have no more idea than anyone else whether Iridescent has testicles or not) is nothing to do with me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I said the content of the first email leaked information about you and slagged of me. I didn't ascribe the content to you, and I'm mystified as to why you think I did - please re-read my comment - which blatantly states Iridescent made the comments. The last thing I want is any misunderstanding between us. Pedro :  Chat  07:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that everyone is nervous and looking behind their backs and looking for innuendo where there is none. My money is on a disgruntled ex-arb (well I expect they are all a bit disgruntled now) I still think that the sacred wikithing was not secure - otherwise why all the fuss when they thought I might have breached its sacred portals - I still suspect that a few ex-arbs were popping in and out at whim - I don't suppose that we mere mortals will ever know the truth, but there's no point glaring at each other. Giacomo (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

there's no point glaring at each other ........ sage advice. Thank you Giano. Pedro :  Chat 

Whole thing reminds me of a story line from Harry Potter. I blame Severus Snape. --John (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that "we mere mortals" will never be told the truth, and like you I think the most likely explanation is that the list wasn't secured as it was claimed to have been, so at least some ex-arbs still had access. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment of mill articles

Thanks for your dogged effort to assess these 60 or so articles. By now you must have a very good idea about the way my edit factory works. I am still far too close to the topic to recognise the most important faults. Can you find time write a paragraph on my talk page suggesting methods to bring them all up to C quality. User:Bob1960evens suggest that common terms need a sentence of too rather than a link- can be done but I am conscious that I will be 'furthering the sin' and just boilerplating in more text into multiple articles. What I feel is needed requires referenced local knowledge- which is increasing difficult to Google- as the first twillion hits refer back to the WP article, the LCC template or the multiple WP mirrors. So what do you think. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

for the edits to Indian Head eagle. And, on consideration, for not joining in the drama. I am going to take some time with little activity, but I am coming to realize that your view of Wikipedia and its inhabitants has a lot of merit. I just haven't decided what to do about it yet. The project has merit, I wonder though about the people in it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with editor behavior (or behaviour) is that so many of the editors are steeped in the whole usenet confrontational approach. In other words, they are male geeks, and there is entirely too much "battleground" involved, along with "status" behavior. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny Wehwalt, I was going to post a similar note for Malleus. Sometimes it's hard being here. The project is worthwhile, but wading through the crap - not worthwhile. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I 'spose I'd best bite my tongue on the side effects of "wading through the crap", which is growing, and growing, and growing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike my watchlist, which I just pared back to 74, including no user or policy pages. If it isn't happening there, it isn't happening. I always watchlist my FAs. Do the math.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I just took hundreds of pages off my watchlist too. Something's going around. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Going 'round? I recognized in December 2010 that the children and power hungry had effectively won, and substantially pared my watchlist back then. I mostly limit my concern now to BLPs, faulty medical info, and a few FAs. The Day the Music Died was long before WR put in their contribution. I 'spose if I'm not to join you all in frustration, I'll need to accept that babysitting is part of my job now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am hoping that what has been successful before for me, "If I don't see it, it doesn't bother me" will work. It's worth a try. I guess it says something about me, but frankly I don't know what I would do with my time if I wasn't here, and no, I no longer go to see that band, so there (the bassist proved to be a jerk, but I can't tell the story without it showing up on Perez Hilton).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony made some reasonable points in his review, just a shame he chose to do so sub-optimally. But I'm hardly one to be throwing that sort of stone. Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made those changes in response to his screed that I felt appropriate, looking at it I hope dispassionately.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons we are losing so many new editors is that the top brass are so abrasive. WP:DBAG is not observed nearly enough. And everyone's a contributor. ResMar 19:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Who, in your mind, are the "top brass"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A progressive classification based on the "size" of one's "wiki-penis". I consider myself a low middleweight. ResMar 20:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)