User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2011/March

Wife selling

I hesitate to use this header because in a way I think the article has become a poster child for all that's wrong with Wikipedia at the moment. At any rate, I've read the Jstor article I've found, and can't tell how useful it is because it refers to literature. It does include some specific instances of wife selling that might be helpful. If you send me an email, then I'll attach it in my response. Might not be a bad idea to consider adding a section about wife selling in English literature - certainly Hardy mentions it and apparently Austen mentioned it. I seem to think that Awadewit had some feedback on the page too, but maybe I'm imagining. I don't mind helping with this. I owe you a few. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Email on its way. We already mention Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge, but only in the lead admittedly. An Eng lit. section isn't at all a bad idea. Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling isn't all that's wrong. Parrot of Doom 13:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent page title! I see it was started in 2003 though. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sent. I'd have to think about how to do this - not as a list of novels, but would want to do some research about why it was included in the literature. English lit. isn't my speciality so will take a bit of time and thought. To PoD - not everything that's wrong by any means, but maybe the flavor-of-the-month. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

When I have the opportunity I'll work something up about the literature in my sandbox and you guys (as in Malleus and PoD) can approve. I'm not entirely certain this is necessary, but slightly intrigued that it's reflected in the popular culture of the period. It's not high priority for me, but one way of going at it before others add their opinions to the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it'll be a useful addition, so thanks for taking it on. I have a vague memory that many readers of Hardy's Casterbridge were convinced that he'd invented the idea of wife selling, but sadly I can't remember where I saw that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the paper you sent yet, but the more I think about this the more I'd like to integrate any literary references into the body of the article if possible and where appropriate, as with the Mayor of Casterbridge. Otherwise it become a magnet for the "wife selling was mentioned in episode 13 of Dr Who" kind of rubbish. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. I've been busy, but have had this percolating in my mind. I've found another paper (also about Hardy) that looks at the folkloric tradition, and gives the text for a popular early-19th century ballad called "Sale of a Wife". There was a fair bit about wife selling in literature so I really need to think about how to do it. The best thing might be a sentence or two only and then link from The Mayor of Casterbridge and other novels to wife selling instead of stuffing it all in wife selling. Btw - I peeked at Workhouse - it's coming along nicely. Much different than the article I tried to reorganize. Truthkeeper88 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been making that same argument at various articles for ages, perhaps most notably at Guy Fawkes, where various editors insisted that the mask worn by the hero in the film V for Vendetta was essential to a comprehensive account of Fawkes. As you say, the links should be incoming, for the benefit of anyone interested in the film who wants to know about its cultural background. So far as workhouse is concerned I'm going to have to leave that one, at least for a bit. Perhaps someone else will finish it off. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As you say, the links should be incoming. This is the reason I've stopped working on Olivia Shakespear for a while. I need to add a part about Yeats' poetry, but I think it should link into the Shakespear article rather than out. Why stop on Workhouse? Truthkeeper88 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've pretty much stopped working on anything, not just workhouse, largely because I'm finding the environment here to be increasingly demotivating. Too many tinpot administrators trying to rule the roost; let them have it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is demotivating to be a writer. I agree. I am finding it helpful that I have less time available to be here, so when I am, I tend to enjoy it more and I try to focus only on writing. Seems to help. Truthkeeper88 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically the perception is that we're not needed, or at best easily replaceable, and we need to have that reality ground in our faces. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Writing is not a profession, but a vocation of unhappiness"-Georges Simenon. Smallman12q (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there isn't an avalanche of content editors joining, so we are still needed. I've found that generally writers are marginalized, whether here or in the workforce. I've worked for companies where writers were always the first to be cut. Here the product is writing, but the writers are still marginalized. The good thing is that we have people like SandyGeorgia who keeps this assembly-line going. And as I said above, stepping away from the assembly-line is helpful too. I keep coming back because writing is something I have to do - it makes me happy. Truthkeeper88 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I had to laugh when I saw this. However, there are still ISBN-10s which could be changed to ISBN-13s. Geometry guy 23:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I know how tediously anal some editors can be here. The article very likely wouldn't have got through FAC with inconsistently formatted isbns, and I've seen articles dragged to FAR for not much more. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You might further be interested in WT:MOS#ISBNs and WT:ISBN#ISBNs_and_hyphens, which is why I found the timeliness of your edits amusing. Geometry guy 23:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeez. I only noticed because I'd added a new source and spotted when I was checking it afterwards that the isbns were formatted differently. BTW, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where you complain about admins, I do so with crats. The answer to the second question is easy: about 10⁶⁴ since each angel occupies one Planck area. Geometry guy 23:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

dashing through the snow

Malleus: will you please fix my dashes in U.S. state reptiles? And anything else, if you want.TCO (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but since the recent software "upgrade" the script I used to use doesn't work any more, so you'll have to do it the hard way. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, I think. TCO, in the future, you can use the script linked in my edit summary to do it yourself - it's quite quick and easy. Malleus, the script doesn't work in IE for me either (nor do popups and a few other things), but works fine in Firefox. Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dana! I actually thought I was doing them right as I put them in, but we had different people working and maybe I missed some too. If I click the thing in the wikimarkup that looks like um, a hyphen (sorry Tony) does that make en-dash?TCO (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox (with the vector skin), but it doesn't work for me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

TCO, I can never figure out/remember which dash is which, and which formatting rule goes with which scenario. That's why I love that script so much. Malleus, that's weird. No idea on how to make it work - I tried for a while to get things working right on IE and finally just started using Firefox (also with the vector skin) on my home computer as well as my work computer because it seems to like WP better (at least for me). Maybe a post at the village pump (technical) would help, if you care that much... Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Does your vector script have this? importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js");

Or is it the full script put in there? I also use Firefox and vector, but there were some anomalies brought in by those last set of Wikimedia updates a couple of weeks ago. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It has the import. Strangely it stopped working immediately after the upgrade, then started working again for a day or so before failing again. This script ('User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js') hasn't worked either since the upgrade. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be the new guy criticizing, but blithe incompatibility with IE seems...interesting...from a website that is feeling some decline. Interesting how many features (here, Commons derivative pic uploads, videos) don't work with the 50%+ market leader browser.TCO (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm - your js page has:

• importScript('User:GregU/dashes.js');

Mine has:

• importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js");

The only difference I can see is the " and ' which I suppose may make the difference? (I do not know enough about js to know for sure) - it say to use the " on the documentation page though Chaosdruid (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

By a process of trial and error I've discovered that the offending script is "User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js", so I've commented it out and the dashes script now works again. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, that new page patrol script gets into an endless loop and thus locks your custom .jss page from ever executing more stuff. I had to remove it as well. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Quest FAC

As you reviewed the last Dragon Quest FAC, your input is wanted for the current version if possible. Thanks.陣内_Jinnai 16:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't be able to help, but I wish you luck nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Temagami greenstone belt

Hey. I was just wondering if you are interested in reviewing this article for GA. It's already nominated at GAN. Just thought you could rewiew it because you did a rewiew for the Anahim hotspot article in 2008. Volcanoguy 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I will if it's not been picked up in two or three days; there are other things I need to be doing before then. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It has been at GAN since February 2. Volcanoguy 22:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The shortage of reviewers across the board is almost as much of a problem as the shortage of administrators. (That is of course a joke.) Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Volcanoguy 22:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Volcanoguy, but in the current environment I'm not motivated to do anything other than whatever little work I can find time for on the articles I have some personal interest in. My reviewing days are over. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You said you were going to review it in 2 days and now you say you are going to. What a twoface. Volcanoguy 07:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I love you too! Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a helluva review for a "D class" retired twoface reviewer.:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

... and it's by no means over yet. Lots of work needed there. I wish I hadn't made the offer, but, well, you know. Looking on the bright side though, I'm finding it a lot easier to say "No" these days. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And so you should. I'm amazed at how many editors visit your page wanting something. This is supposed to be enjoyable. --J3Mrs (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite understandable really, I'm just an easily replaceable unit of work, rather less valued than you are, because you're a female. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The female thing on here is ridiculous. Wikipedia should be nurturing decent editors rather than pandering to questionable fringe groups who want to be treated as special cases. Hey, I hope you don't include me in the women thing! Tdlesshere are some extremely irritating aspects to wikipedia, women is yet another one. I could go on but it wouldn't be politically correct........... :-(

No, I don't include you or any other of the women I've collaborated with in this silliness, not at all your fault. It's interesting that none of them work on obviously girly topics, apart from horses arguably: American history, medieval bishops, medicine, English literature, coal mines ... and even with horses they've tackled tough subjects like horses in war, not at all girly. Wikipedia needs lots more women like you and them, but it also needs lots more men like me and PoD, and Nev1, and ... it needs lots more good and committed editors in other words, regardless of gender. I'm still waiting for one of the supporters of this initiative to attract more females to be brave enough to explain what would be different if there was a 50–50 gender balance. Would we have more articles on knitting or crocheting, for instance? I'm not saying that such subjects aren't worthy of articles, but that it seems to be sexist to assume that only women would be interested in writing them. By far the biggest problem here is the strident and authoritarian tone that many editors, particularly administrators, adopt towards they consider to be less worthy than themselves (or those they value "less than the dog-shit on the sole of my shoe" as it was fairly recently put to me) and it may be that some women are more intimidated by that than most men would be. But the way to address that problem is to to address it directly by getting rid of such administative clots. To make it worse, hardly a day goes by here without encountering some loud-mouthed block-headed know-it-all insisting that a particular article has to include a certain favourite "fact", or that it has to be written in a certain way because s(he) she has just come across a half-understood paragraph in the MoS and has been fired with an evangelical zeal to impose this knowledge on the rest of civilisation at whatever cost.

I'm also reminded that there are lots of editors here whose gender I don't know, and neither does anyone else except they themselves. Iridescent is a good example of one who has very carefully revealed rather little about his or her real-life identity, and certain not his or her gender. I've variously thought that Iridescent was male, then female, and now I'm uncertain again, so I'm not sure how representative the survey sample was that came up with the 87–13% ratio of males:females. Anyway, I fell better now for having got that off my chest. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't me :-) but I'm glad you got it off your chest. I agree about the know-it-alls. I don't understand why they don't put their efforts into improving the zillions of awful articles instead of nit-picking those that have been thoroughly reviewed. They could help the women's cause and start on shopping. You really must catch up, women don't knit anymore, they shop. Wikipedia is no different from RL organisations and I can say with 100% certainty, that some people (not all) use any power for purposes it wasn't intended, I know I had four years of it. But that's in the past, thank goodness. Now I can enjoy myself here knowing I'm in the company of editors such as yourself, PoD, Nev1 and Peter I Vardy.

Grammar queries on FLC of Listed buildings in Poulton-le-Fylde

I was asked to look at the FLC of Listed buildings in Poulton-le-Fylde. There are a couple of grammar/MOS queries I'd appreciate a comment on if you had the time:

• Capitalisation of "the Fylde" for The Fylde
• If "fish stones" is a proper name should it be capitalised in the description?
• "Woollen merchant James Baines" should this be wool merchant or have alternative punctuation?

Any comments/fixes appreciated.— Rod ^talk 17:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• A quick reply; it should obviously (IMO) be "wool merchant", as "woollen merchant" implies that he was made of wool. I'll take a look at the others later. Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Slightly longer answer; the plain is called "Fylde", or "Fylde Plain", not "The Fylde Plain", so it should be "the Fylde".
• I don't think that "fish stones" should be capitalised in the description as it's there a description of the stones, not their name. Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks again.— Rod ^talk 20:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

short, quirky article

Please come over and review state reptile. You LIKE short, quirky articles. TCO (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't do lists, sorry. It looks good though, so best of luck at FLC. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll get the ball across the goal line. I miss you though. TCO (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nyom nom

What do you think of the concerns raised by two reviewers here? Parrot of Doom 18:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, made me feel hungry, time to think about what to have for dinner. Basically I think the reviewers did make one or two decent points, like the Saturnalia issue and the 13 ingredients, that would be easy to fix, but they're way off beam in asking for modern recipes. This isn't supposed to be a cook book. Reading through though I was wondering why there was no mention of the kind of pastry used, which presumably has changed over time. A pie after all is the filling and its covering, not just the filling. Also, if you don't want to use {{imagequote}} then I think you ought to look at moving William Henry Hunt's painting. But basically I think that it's at best a pretty average review. I think there's some kind of backlog clearance drive going on at GAN right now, so they're perhaps trying too hard to get as many reviews done as possible this month. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume pastry wasn't ever mentioned (apart from the shape of the pie) because its just something to hold the filling in, certainly the Victorian authors didn't see fit to mention it. I disagree on the Saturnalia point, if I'd included every mention of it I'd seen there would have been about 10 citations in a row. The Victorians might have just been inventing a connection, I'd like to find the "ancient almanack" I've seen quoted so often. What bugs me is the insistence that mention must be made of other countries, and that more should be made of the pie's latter history. That little or no source material is available on either seems to have been ignored. It makes me wonder what's going on, what with this and the lack of further input to HD&Q's FAC. Parrot of Doom 19:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the "where Roman fathers in the Vatican were presented with sweetmeats". The phrase "Roman fathers" is inherently ambiguous in association with "Vatican". Does it mean the fathers of children, or Catholic priests? Isn't the Vatican a relatively modern institution anyway? Basically I just don't understand what that sentence is trying to tell me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says "Fathers of the Vatican at Rome" - notice the capital F. I think that means The Pope (or his priests) was given sweetmeats, a custom derived from Saturnalia. Parrot of Doom 20:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

William de Braose, 2nd Baron Braose

Think he's about ready for a run at GAN. I don't really have enough enthusiasm to take him to FAC, but GA's definitely doable. Any objections, as I figure you've done at least half the work on him... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No objections at all, good luck. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Green Children

Look what Interlibrary Loan just brought me: the 1966 hardback edition. I was going to offer to copy it for you, but this book shouldn't be hard to come by where you're at--you've probably read it already. I read the first couple of pages to the kids tonight. Oh, I also got a version of Read's book, so I don't have to read it as PDF anymore. Joy! Drmies (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't read it, I'll check it out. Reading Read's book to your kids sounds a little bit like torture though; I barely understand it even now! Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see I misunderstood. I'll still check out Crossley's book though. There's a misconception that the green children were the Babes in the Wood that still needs to be addressed in the green children's article ... so much to do, so little motivation. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No no, Crossley-Holland! Ha, it's still somewhat torturous. The oldest is five, and the book is for somewhat older children. I don't even get the vocabulary ('tis a bit British)--the men who find the children are cottars. The main guy is called Clac, and when he's tired he leans against a balk. Foor lunch they have a flitch. No wonder the green children don't want to eat it! I can't find any images online besides that cover, but the drawings of the children are very nice. Tell me if you can't find a copy (I don't know if you have access to Interlibrary Loan, and I'm sure they did away with public libraries during the Blair administration, no?)--I'll be glad to copy it (in b/w) and send it to you. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there's a gloss in the back. A 'flitch' is a side of bacon, but I'm sure you knew that already. Motivation can come from strange places. Years ago, I got motivated here by Stac an Armin. Happy days Malleus, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We still have public libraries here, despite any rumours to the contrary. In fact my own local authority has just opened a new one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to get some more material in, and might add one or two things to the article. What kind of citation format do you prefer? There seem to be two competing systems--footnotes, and footnote+bibliography. For academic stuff (that is, with lots of books and essays and no newspaper articles) I prefer something like what I used for Guillaume de Dole. It's kind of a drag to work with, but it allows specific page references for each citation. I am sure, though, that there must be better ways: did you stick in the Harvard references, like {{Harvnb|Haughton|2007|p=236}}? That reminds me--I need to order the Cohen book. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very much a fan of the {{Harvnb}} style for articles like this one, which is the style it currently uses I think. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(An hour later:) It does now! Except for one website, from the Leeds Library--without author or date I don't know how to do that. If you could fix that, the mechanics of the article are in decent shape. When I get Cohen in I'll see what I can add. Did you write the counterarguments about Fornham St Martin and Flemishness? That's the part that really needs references. Perhaps that whole section should be divided in two, for the two sets of explanations. As is reflective of Wikipedia in general, the outlandish explanations will take up three times as much space as the reasonable folk-tale explanations. (BTW, after looking at this article a while ago I was led to Duncan Lunan--now that's a mess.)

What really surprises me, in the end, is that there is little on this topic. I plowed through all the databases (I think) for language and literature, and it's slim pickens. I wish I were allowed to scan one of Margaret Gordon's images from the Crossley-Holland book; the boy and the girl are holding each other as they're being discovered; she's crying. Really nice. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's like everything else here, I just jumped in because of my fascination with The Green Child and one thing led to another. I don't recall writing anything about the Fornham St Martin vs. Flemishnes stuff, but my memory is by no means perfect, even though I've had to admonish it very strongly in the past for forgetting important stuff. Lunan's article is indeed a mess, but where to start with all of this wikichaos, and how to stop it? I haven't checked, but I'm quite sure that thousands of articles were created today, and that 99.99% of them ought to be deleted. Malleus Fatuorum 05:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus..

Would it be too much of an imposition for me to back off on the statements that you're making, regarding RHE's health? AGF states that unless we have evidence to the contrary, we take editors at their word, and I don't think that making RHE produce a doctor's note (or somehow personally verify his health) is productive.. SirFozzie (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As you might imagine I am very pissed off with Rod's antagonistic behaviour, stretching back some time now. I don't believe a word that he says, and my view is that he is pulling a sickness card where the truth is equally likely to be this. Nevertheless, in deference to your request I'll add nothing further to the discussion unless someone else starts making accusations against me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Gawsworth Old Hall

I've had a go at expanding this article, and think it may be ready for GAN. If you agree would you please copyedit it (for Cheshire!). Thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, glad to see that your recent travails at GAN haven't diminished your productivity. One quick question: "To the west of this is the Library, and to the left, the Morning Room". The conjunction of "west" and "left" seems rather odd. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems fine for GAN to me, but the world seems to have gone bat-shit insane recently, so who can tell. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your excellent work. I'll have a look at the sections you mentioned on my talk page over the weekend, and then probably present it for GAN. I keep doing some of this stuff for the sake of the near-moribund Cheshire project (I have no wish to "run" it), although I am spending most of my time on conserved churches (more interesting than one might think!). Regarding the "recent travails", they are not resolved. I have come to an impasse with the reviewer, who says he has asked for a second opinion. Meanwhile I have invited one of the contributors to the discussion (who offered) to have a look, but no action yet. Seems a stalemate; not sure what to do (nothing for the time being, I guess; no big deal, just another attempt for Cheshire!). Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens

Would you hyphenate "two and a half hours" or "half an hour"? I've been thinking about this all day; my natural inclination is not to, but I don't know if that's British English or just bad punctuation. Apterygial 09:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I probably would, yes. It's "half-a-crown" (remember them?), for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 12:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Australia went decimal in 1966 (off the top of my head), so sadly no. Bad punctuation, then. Thanks, Apterygial 14:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We went decimal in 1971, but I remember half-a-crowns very well, as that used to be my weekly pocket money. Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's hyphenated, and see also Half crown (British coin). --John (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hyphenated in my dictionary. It isn't "half of a crown", implying that you've chopped a crown in half, it's a coin known as a half-crown. Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Spat

I don't know if you are are following this. I'm finding it fascinating. If it weren't a serious project, I would consider Wikipedia to be a source of ongoing entertainment. I really shouldn't take life Wikipedia so seriously! Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, things seem to be moving again now, hopefully in the right direction. It's been my experience that there almost always has to be a bit of give and take during reviews, such as introducing the attribution as Gguy suggested, and at least the Present day/Location dispute has effectively been settled. Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Do either of you guys think Andor Gomme would make a good DYK? I've no experience with that, but the origin of his first name is certainly amusing. Geometry guy 19:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Go for it. Fascinating! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why not? It's slightly on the short side though, at 1453 characters. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to reply that I was looking forward to someone insisting on adding inline citations: "Erm, now which source do you think this statement is taken from?" I would reply. However, Peter has jumped in already with the superfluous cites! It looks like I should try and find a second source, so it doesn't look so daft! Geometry guy 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've nominated it! Doesn't the Publications section count? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a single source, provided it's authoritative!! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me again. One of the DYK rules is that the hook has to be supported by an inline citation. That's why I provided it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm going to go and sulk 'cos I wanted to write the hook! Just kidding... Yes, I read the rules, but I like to draw attention to bean counting whenever an opportunity presents itself: WP:IAR is policy for a reason! Anyway I've added another source, and the quote, so the character count should be just fine now. Geometry guy 20:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm done now, and I've assessed the article for WP:Cheshire as a small contribution towards keeping the project active :) Geometry guy 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• It seems like all's well that ends well Peter.[1] Congratulations. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  My congratulations also, but please also respect the good faith efforts by the original reviewer who passed the article. I have long known this reviewer as an exceptionally dedicated and clueful Wikipedian.

  (I provided advice on avoiding personalizing a disagreement already, but the best editors, in my eyes, stick to that principle even when the other guy doesn't.) Geometry guy 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  I've made no comment at all about the reviewer, who in my experience is generally one of the best, and I don't know why you're suggesting that I either have or intend to. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  I was suggesting no such thing (the imperative was not addressed at you personally, Malleus), but am glad we agree anyway about the qualities of the reviewer :) Geometry guy 01:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not me - I think he's a menace. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Everyone seems so touchy around here lately, including me I suppose. You may not have noticed, but fairly recently I was called a Grade-D GA reviewer, but I lost no sleep over it. Getting the tone of a review right is a difficult balancing act I think, and nobody gets it right all the time. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Having just now caught up, I've realised the intent behind your imperative, and I'm not sure I like it. It's one thing for the nominator to have a pop at the reviewer, par for the course really, but quite another for the reviewer to make charges like these against the nominator.[2] I'm sure you know what I mean. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  No you haven't, and I can be no more sure about what you mean as you can be sure of my intent. I comment more below as this is an interesting illustration of general problem. Geometry guy 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, and I thought this was all over! So I'm one of the aggressive and selfish few that grab the attention and make things difficult. That's a new badge for me. But if any reviewer reformats a nomination of mine in the future without prior discussion s/he will be treated in a similarly "aggressive and selfish" manner. Perhaps that particular reviewer will keep out of my hair in the future (not that I have any these days!).

I only came across the above when I was about to send my thanks to you for helping to get two Cheshire articles to GA in one day. If I believed in barnstars, and if there were a Cheshire barnstar, I would award you one (but I don't, and there isn't). Now this is the sort of review I like! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had a proper look at that link and have discovered that I am rude, aggressive, self-interested and juvenile as well. Could there be an element of projection here? Thanks to you and Gguy for keeping me in touch with reality. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Gawsorth has made it, so well done, things are back on track. I'd have to say though that I'm unimpressed with what's happened here; an administrator makes offensive remarks about another editor and then instead of reprimanding that admin another comes along and exhorts the victim not to respond in kind. No wonder they've begun to believe that they're invincible. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't find adminship at all relevant to this discussion. Nor were there personal attacks. If I wanted to make exhortations, I would have done so explicitly and directly on Peter's talk page. That was not my intention either. Please beware of confirmation bias... Geometry guy 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I heard a wonderful radio play some time ago. The story was a simple one: the break-up of a long-term live-in relationship (the couple may have been married without children - I don't remember the details). Each 2-3 minute scene was played twice, once from his viewpoint, and once from hers. What made the play special was that the dialogue in the two versions was identical. Small changes of tone and emphasis radically changed the mood of each scene, and the sympathies of the audience.

Different people can perceive the same series of events very differently, as we all come with different past experiences and have different goals. Such differences are even more likely on Wikipedia, as text communication conveys even less information about motives and intent than real world interaction. Peter rightly suggests an element of projection, yet simultaneously projects "some people are somewhat rude, aggressive, self-interested and juvenile" entirely onto himself. The reviewer came to the review with preconceptions (as we all do), and the initial comments he makes that "But why is it that people get so heated over minor issues? And behave so inappropriately?" are likely post-perceptions of the communication breakdown in the review. There is likely disagreement over the word "minor" and what is "inappropriate", but Peter has himself acknowledged getting angry. From "some people..." onwards, however, SilkTork is clearly (in my perception) speaking in generalities. Everyone needs to vent sometimes, and part of assuming good faith is about cutting others a little slack, not taking things personally, and not jumping to conclusions, because we don't all perceive the same events in the same way. Geometry guy 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrators would do well to remind themselves of that before reaching for their block buttons with such monotonous regularity for the slightest of perceived "personal attacks". Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the "citation needed" for "with such monotonous regularity" I agree :) Geometry guy 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Malleus. Please don't get on at Gguy. I've no idea whether he is an administrator or not; that's irrelevant. He sorted out (for me) a situation that should never have arisen. For that I am very grateful, and have given him my thanks. And that's the end of that.

What is not irrelevant to me is Silktalk's rant. I obviously started it off. If it's not directed at me, at whom is it directed? Was I wrong to understand from it that I am not somewhat rude, aggressive, self-interested and juvenile, aggressive and selfish? If it's not me, who is it? I must have problems with self-perception because I always considered myself to be respectful, considerate and engage with the notion of collaboration, to be intelligent, cultured, co-operative and tolerant, and one of my life-long faults is that I have a craving to be respected and admired. Oh well, sooner or later I realise that self-realisation has to hit the fan!

By the way, I would rather write articles, compile lists, etc than waste time dealing with all this cr*p.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Gguy is making excuses for Silktork, a fellow administrator, and I was merely pointing that out. Perhaps when you get blocked for using a word like "sycophantic" you'll understand how I feel about the evident double standards at play here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(post ec) There's nothing to deal with. "At whom is it directed?" you (Peter) ask. "Some people" is the obvious answer. It is an aggregate opinion based on multiple experiences, all but one of which were past-experiences which have nothing to do with you.

Similarly, Malleus has multiple bad experiences with admins and he brings this to the table whenever he interacts with an admin. I don't take it personally: that chip is on his shoulder not mine, and he needs to let off steam too. Identifying SilkTork as a "fellow administrator" is an example of that. I don't identify at all with the some notional admin corps., and even though Malleus must know that by now, he still brings it up. Any collegiality I share with SilkTork is as a fellow reviewer, whom Malleus notes above is "in my experience is generally one of the best". Yet he still tolerates an unambiguous personal attack (as a "menace") on this reviewer by another editor in this very thread.

Another answer (continuing reply to Peter) is that SilkTork's comment was addressed to me personally, and sympathetically, as is clear from the edit summary, so treat it as an email. I like the openness of user talk, but it is still in essence a discussion between individual editors. You have also been sympathetic about the efforts involved in resolving a dispute and bringing an article back on track, and I am very grateful for that.

According to the proverb, a single piece of straw can break a camel's back, but it would be silly for that straw to worry "what did I do wrong? why blame me?" Geometry guy 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter you're one of the nicest people on here. I stalk some of the articles you write and they're excellent. Ignore anyone who thinks otherwise. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks PoD. I really appreciate that.

Can we now bring this section to a final close.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When I'm good and done.</joke> There's nothing else that needs to be said. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Eagle.

What, exactly, is wrong with the change? The original Eagle wasn't the only one that had stories, the new one did too. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You've already been told, repeatedly, what's wrong with the change, so please stop. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been told, repeatedly, that's it's wrong because Parrot of Doom doesn't like it and he put a lot of work into creating the page. Please tell me the actual problems you have with the changes (and the various compromise versions). It's OK to admit it if you don't know. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You might find that you get a better response if you can manage to be a little less patronising. To put it simply, the sections where you want to insert your links cover more than the subject of your links, which are therefore inappropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to remind Parrot that swearing at other people isn't on either.

The history of the original comic already had a link to the list of comics for both releases. Totally inappropriate because it's the wrong section and it relates to just one comic. I tried to fix this by making the original release section point to the original comic's list of stories and adding a link to the second release's list of stories. This was reverted.

I tried adding a completely new section outside of the history section which addresses the stories specifically, which I think solves the problem as it is an appropriate place for the link and doesn't need to be separated out. Sure the one sentence section was primative, but I think it would be a good section to build on. But you reverted that.

From my reading of what you've said the "List of comic stories" link needs to be removed entirely... or am I missing the point again? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems to work, others may have a differing opinion. I still think that there's something wrong with the basic set up... the newer series is sort of dumped in the middle of information about the old. I realise it wasn't the success or as ground breaking as the original but it wasn't the failure that the current format implies. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review request

No good deed goes unpunished. As you were so good as to help me at PR and FAC with Henry Wood, can I bother you again, with the peer review for Thomas Beecham, which I hope - with the aid of input from Wiki-colleagues - to get up to FA standard? Most grateful if you have time. No rush at all. Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really do PR, but as this is such a good cause I'll have a read through and leave a few notes on the review page. Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Your eagle eyes are truly superb. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

turtle farming to GA

Malleus, could you take a look at this article and let me know what is needed to take it to GA? Not some formal peer review thingie, just your insights; In particular am trying to think through what content needs to be in there and how to organize it and research it.

Any good model articles for coverage of an industry or people that you know that have written industry overviews?

TCO (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Geometry guy is probably the best person to ask. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't escape V

Book:Gunpowder Plot - hah, it gets everywhere! Parrot of Doom 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I watched V again the other evening, it was on TV, and I'm coming to quite like the film. But apart from the superficial Fawkesian stuff it seems to me to have far more in common with Big Brother and 1984. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So whenever you see it linked with Fawkes, do you think "Die! Why won't you die??!?!", like the scene in the sewer? Parrot of Doom 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A little bit, I must admit, but the book looks rather nice, have you looked inside? And at £13.96 including postage far more reasonable than the silly prices asked for those on offer on Amazon. "Beneath this mask there's more than flesh, there's an idea, and you can't kill an idea with bullets." Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to comics I only have Dan Dare compendiums on my shelves, although I have looked longingly at this, since the TV series was rather excellent. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather more old-fashioned; I have Rupert Bear annuals, some of them quite rare and signed by Bestall. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I used to read Rupert's adventures in the Daily Express (when I was a wee lad). His article is, unsurprisingly, shite. Parrot of Doom 23:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It could certainly do with some work. BTW, I wasn't talking about the V comic book, I was talking about the wikipedia book you linked to, a good half of which you probably wrote. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it, I'm often conscious of using up people's bandwidth unnecessarily. Mind you over 600 revisions to HD&Q is probably a bit overkill, sometimes I'm trigger-happy on the "save page" button. I often see mistakes as I'm waiting for the page to update :( Parrot of Doom 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I've generated the book and here it is. Take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's really quite nicely laid out, I like the way the pictures appear. The infobox looks rubbish though. I might put a bit of uber-work into one of my (not an ownership claim!!!) favourite articles and pay to have it sat on my shelf! Parrot of Doom 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you'd like it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talking of comic books did you ever read these by the Pendlebury artist Ken Reid? My mother used to read them to me from the Manchester Evening News and I remember reading Fudge in Bubbleville in the dentists waiting room. Richerman (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I never did, but then I'm not a real Mancunian. I was born in Cheshire and spent most of my childhood in Scotland, and a good deal of my working life in London. I spent a few years in Manchester in the early 1970s and didn't come back for well over 20 years, and then only because my wife was offered what seemed to be a dream job. Otherwise I'd still be living in west London in a house worth God knows how many millions instead of this shed at the bottom of a friend's garden. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The way property prices are going you probably got the best deal with the garden shed though. --John (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

and I'm sure the gentle drizzle of Manchester must remind you of your youth in Scotland - or was it more of the horizontal rain where you lived? It's a pity those comic strips never got syndicated. I think I once had on of the Fudge annuals - I bet it would be worth a few bob now. Richerman (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never really understood the "it always rains in Manchester" thing. The west coast of Scotland is very pretty, but it's bloody wet and those damn midgies can't half bite. In contrast, when we moved up to Manchester from London there was a hose-pipe ban in place for most of that summer. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the total amount of rainfall isn't remarkable I think we get a lot more wet days than the south of England. It's nothing compared to parts of Scotland though - no wonder the Guy that wrote "Why does it always rain on me" came from Glasgow. Richerman (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not for Cheshire

You have helped previously with copyediting the text in lists of conserved churches. This is the latest, the longest, and the penultimate in the series, and I should like it to join its sisters as a FL. There should not be too much to do. The first two paragraphs are identical to those already "accepted" (but brought up to date with 2010 figures); the rest of the lead parallels the others; and the blurbs are fairly short. If you can help (again) I should be very grateful. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I find this interesting, following the Spat discussion above. I wrote an article on St Peter's Church, Sudbury, to populate the list above, and rated it (myself) at C. It was then nominated as a GAN by another editor (without reference to me) and, with a deleted ref and a minimal expansion of the lead, it has been accepted as a GA! Now compare the quality and the broadness of this article with St Mary's Church, Astbury, and spot the difference(s)! I have no quarrel with the Sudbury church being accepted as a GA (and I will take the credit for it as I did 99% of the work, so please don't take any GAR action). But I am enjoying the comparison between my struggle over the Astbury church, and the ease with which the Sudbury church passed. Happy days (could it be red nose day or something?). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just the luck of the draw I guess. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies like this are in the nature of GA processes; if GA were Microsoft, it would have a huge advertising department to explain that this is a "feature" not a "bug". GA does not always get it right the first time: an individual review can only be as good as the individual reviewer. Consequently, GA processes are set up so that it is as easy to reassess an article as it is to assess it. If you believe a listed GA, even your own nomination, is lacking with respect to the GA criteria, you can ask for reassessment. GA aims to achieve consensus and article improvement through multiple reviews, rather than through a single action. Personally, this approach appeals to me, as the encyclopedia is constantly evolving. Geometry guy 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Flying Dutchman

Well, the book I ordered from the library has finally arrived, just have to collect it now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talking to one's self is the first sign of madness. Parrot of Doom 00:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the second, talking to someone who isn't there? Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I was very tempted not to respond to that but the joke would pass over most people's heads. :) Parrot of Doom 21:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always been told, "Talk as much as you can to the most intelligent person in the room."--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Still talking to myself I suppose. I've collected the book and it's very interesting, but despite its title there are only three pages on the Flying Dutchman. The book's subtitle is "and other folktales from the Netherlands", so I might instead irritate the new page patrollers and ingratiate myself with those who believe that wikipedia is systemically biased towards UK/US topics by creating a whole new slough of articles. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Traft ihr das Schiff im Meere an?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

iLoo

User:Bob Castle did a copyedit of the article. Have your concerns been addressed? Out of curiosity...what did you mean by "I am completely unconvinced by this article"?Smallman12q (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant that after reading it I still have no idea whether this was a seriously half-baked proposal or a late April 1 spoof. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Speedy

Thanks for the support, and excellent copyediting, too. The best part of the deal was getting Benea back, she worked so hard on this, and it's fantastic to see so many people applauding her work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just about the best ship article I've ever read, and a jolly good read it is too. Everyone involved deserves a pat on the back. Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Capel Lligwy/GA1

Thanks for your copyedits here (and elsewhere) on the Anglesey church series; I think I'm ready for you to take another look, so as and when you get the chance, please stop by. Bencherlite^Talk 18:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll hopefully be able to get back to it a little later this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ack!

Where/who was the pirate bishop you wanted me to look at? I've lost wherever the conversation was... and am high as a kite on sinus pills since it's spring and the pollen is sky high here. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of Pirate Kings, but Pirate Bishops? Forsooth!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's my mate Wimund. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's a Scot! I'll drop a note on Deacon's page, but I honestly don't have many sources on Scottish history, it's not something I felt like studying (no matter that I married a McBryde...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have dim memories that there is a monk involved with the Battle of Sluys during Edward III's reign... although our article on that battle sucks so badly that I couldn't tell whether or not I'm right. I remember reading it in Thomas Costain's works on the Plantagenets when I was very young (those books and Van Loon's books were what got me hooked on history... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I came across Wimund via William of Newburgh, who is one of the only two nearly contemporary sources for the green children of Woolpit. His story of a pirate bishop seems no more fantastical to me than his story of those kids. And somewhat less fantastical than the later suggestions than they were extra-terrestrial aliens. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

'Xpect you've seen this, but Jaundice has a photo of a somewhat greenish-looking child. Using pigments on an inkjet printer a dirty green can be produced using yellow and black (explained by some optical theory that I can only quarter-remember) so a combination of melanin and jaundice may possibly produce a khaki-looking individual. Ning-ning (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Scottish food

(seeing your edit summary that "Scottish history sucks")...Scottish food doesn't (...excepting Jugged Hare). Would it be possible to for you to obtain a photo of a bridie? That article needs one as well as any contributions you might be able to make to it...very welcome there. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I live in Manchester now, so I haven't seen a bridie for heaven knows how long. Nor a fried Mars bar either. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've enjoyed keeping up with the denizens of Chatsworth (Manchester mascots to the world). On the bridie, I may have to get out the rolling pin...I haven't had one in several years now...I would have to find some HP sauce, though. Hard to imagine a bridie without it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen that series but I expect I've come across most of the villains depicted in real life. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Y chromosome needed

For the moment...and I'm going to lose my feminism card I was about to lose someday anyway by asking this, but pursuant to this discussion (skip to today's posts starting the 17th), is there something testosterone-related that I'm just really, really missing? Is it a male way of communicating that my lack of gonads is perceiving to be inefficient and unnecessarily confusing? --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

At first sight that looks like a crazy proposition, but it's getting late here now and I'm to lazy to read it all; a summary would be good. In these kind of discussions I'm always reminded of the Spartan's respect for their women as equals but different. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In summary, there's a statement in the lead saying that men have historically shaped the standards for what is acceptable in love, sex, and family for women, and lesbians have been invisible because men have not been a part of these relationships, viewing them as invalid. An editor removed it despite at least 14 cited statements in the article--and two of those "statements" are actually entire cited sections--backing it up. I'm just confused. Either the editor has absolutely no idea what he's talking about or there's some kind of code he's using. I just don't understand what his reasoning is. He seems to think it's my personal opinion maybe that I believe this. Dude, I don't know really what his point is, but the article has a NPOV template and all he can do is respond in tree-falls-one-hand-clapping replies. --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

By a curious coincidence I was watching a TV programme about Peter Wildeblood the other evening, whose trial was one of the UK's most notorious since Oscar Wilde. I doubt he'd agree that homosexual men had historically shaped anything, but once again I'm reminded of the Spartans. Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at an article created by the editor, the low standard of English in that article, and the use of a mobile phone for a macro photograph (interesting "old-fashioned" visual quality) to illustrate the article, I smell troll. Ning-ning (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that I'm being trolled. I'm unable to believe people are this dense and can work a computer. In re Malleus, let me ask: does the statement, or whatever I said...nevermind, let me rephrase: what did I say that made it seem as if homosexual men have shaped women's sexuality? Or was that something different? If there is a genuine misunderstanding about this sentence in the article, I am interested in resolving it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Crossed wires probably. I don't find anything at all contentious about the statement that "Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships ...", seems self-evident really. I was simply musing that homosexual men have also suffered because they did not conform to a standard for respectability in love and so on imposed by heterosexual men, so it's not all men. Except perhaps in the Spartan military, where I believe homosexuality was pretty much mandatory. By another curious coincidence a female friend of mine recently decided that she was gay (she's in her mid to late twenties). The only person who really batted an eyelid was her boyfriend, with whom she was sharing a house. He wasn't at all amused. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't just the Spartan military, or even especially the Spartan military - a variety of ancient Greek societies viewed male homosexuality as normal or beneficial, with the Sacred Band of Thebes being the military unit where homosexuality was specifically a requirement for membership. The Romans also had more tolerance for male homosexuality than most later societies, although (ignoring the Greek examples which they were very much aware of) they regarded it as a cause of effeminacy. As another coincidence, the author of Oranges are not the only fruit turned up at WP:BLPN yesterday. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I had to escalate this to ANI today, a forum I never trust. Although the user who initially placed the NPOV template on the article has been blocked for 3RR, another is calling the statement offensive and inaccurate. I'm honestly asking here, and requesting you take a look at the talk page discussion and tell me truthfully if I am misunderstanding what is going on. Either I am astonishingly out of touch or other editors are. --Moni3 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Task force

Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No I wouldn't. My view can be stated very simply; the present system stinks and it ought to be dismantled. I have no intention of wasting any more of my time in trying to persuade those who are too blind to see what they do not want to see. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

thnks

• Thanks for the kind words! Will be editing sporadically: perhaps sometimes a lot, but sometimes a little or almost none. Thanks!  – Ling.Nut 01:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hic! Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

Thanks for your support over there (and others who will be reading this I think), it gives me a bit more confidence that the blood running down my forehead isn't an illusion, but rather the result of banging my head against a brick wall built of ignorance. Parrot of Doom 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Even I'm finding it frustrating and I've hardly touched the article, so I can only imagine how you must be feeling. I notice that we're back to one of PBS's favourite hobby horses now, his misunderstanding of the guidelines on the layout of references. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking that creating 5 headings in a short history section is overkill? I was thinking the 20th-century and effigy headings were fine, but no more. Parrot of Doom 19:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo accounts

400 free Wikipedia:Credo accounts available - just in case you wanted one, but didn't already have access. Anybody else you can think of who would find one useful? --RexxS (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already got one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I use mine about once every month or so. I've not found it particularly useful for my work .. might be good if someone posted a list of available sources for those seeking the new accounts, so they know if they might get use out of it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the present allocation system, as it seems a little bit demeaning to me. I wouldn't have applied for the initial tranche of 100 had the same conditions been in place. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at them, honestly. I'd highly recommend folks snap up Oxford Dictionary of National Biography acounts if they were ever offered (or to the ODNB's sister project the American Dictionary of National Biography) but Credo is a lot of tertiary encyclopedias, not many things as in depth as the ODNB. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Joining a library that offers online access to the ODNB is the best. Sadly though with the cuts taking place here in the wake of the banking crisis I've noticed a few public libraries quietly dropping it, or making it less available to those outside their area. My own local authority included. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I pay a yearly subscription fee for the ODNB, but I would pretty much be unable to write much without it. When I stopped and thought about how much I spend on fast food, it was easier to cut that back a bit for something educational! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Luckily I live in a big conurbation, with about 10 local authorities each of which has different priorities, and many (most?) of which still provide access to the ODNB. I agree with you that it would be a great loss. Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suspected you might have, but best to be certain ... maybe one or two of your TPSs might take advantage. @Ealdgyth: the Credo site has a list here, but editors have to follow the right links to find it. The full list might be a bit long to post. I've found that my local library lets me access Credo, OED, ODNB. etc. online now, but I guess not everybody has that facility. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia email

You have email,  Roger ^talk 04:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it, and I'm unimpressed. Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

TPS alert ...

Anyone see anything DYK-worthy in Wighard? I'm not seeing anything, but you never know... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• ...that although Wighard was selected as the 7th Archbishop of Canterbury, no-one is sure whether his death in Rome occurred before or after he was consecrated? Bencherlite^Talk 12:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Saxon monk is appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by other Saxons; instead of waiting for the pallium to arrive in the post (as his 6 predecessors did) he goes to Rome so that there would be no doubt that the Pope supports his appointment. He dies, apparently of some kind of plague, either before or after he's palliuminised. At which point a Libyan ancestor of Ghaddafi suggests that his mate Theo the Turk would be good for the job. Theo gets the job, arrives in England, tells the Saxons to stop shagging their sisters at the Synod of Hertford.

• ...that Wighard died of some foul disease after kissing the Pope's ring? Ning-ning (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

LOLOLOL... thank you for that laugh. What a great summary of the article (grins). Amazing what you can fluff out a tiny little bit of information with... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone see anything in Libellus responsionum? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Gregory I might've said monks have always been monks? Gregory I dictated who could marry whom? Gregory I suggested punishments for church robbers? Gregory I wanted to control pregnant women and new mothers? Gregory I discussed the sexual dreams of priests? This sounds like a good opportunity to enrage large swathes of the population. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

...that in the 7th century, Pope Gregory I was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if a man could marry his step-sister? (or if pregnant women could enter churches, or if priests could hold mass after having a sexual dream). Dana boomer (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Dank/RFA

I'd like to ask some questions about the endorsements idea without distracting from the "Eureka" thread. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI 25 March 2011

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malleus Fatuorum 25 March 2011 -- PBS (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? just more of your usual bollocks I expect. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I read through that thread. I was getting worried that I might be from Greater Manchester and not even know it. Then I realized that all you Greater Manchesterians apparently type "ce" and I generally use "c/e". Whew! That slash makes all the difference. LadyofShalott 02:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you ever use naughty words, or are disrespectful to your superiors, then you're from Greater Manchester, at least in spirit. BTW, do you know what "slash" means "oop north" amongst us barbarians? Urinating. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparantly I'm from Greater Manchester (despite never having been there) as I routinely use "ce" all the time... it and "ref tweak" are my favorite edit summaries.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, nope I didn't know that. I'll have to remember to ask the one person I actually know from those parts if he knows that usage or if it developed after he moved across the pond. LadyofShalott 02:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask him what "having a slash means". Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not from Greater Manchester; the closest I've been is the airport, unless listening to the Stone Roses counts. I worked with a guy in Scotland who used to call it a "single fish" though; do I win anything for that? --John (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My brother calls it "checking the plumbing" when we're out on the piss, but y'all need to be careful lest you're branded as members of the Greater Manchester cabal. The irony is that PoD probably lives a couple of miles from me, J3Mrs maybe 15, Richerman probably even closer, but I've never met any of them. Last year I was in Chorlton library, looking through the local history stack, as was someone else who I thought I recognised from a picture I'd seen somewhere. I ended up having to explain what wikipedia was before being escorted to the door. (I'm exaggerating, of course, but he was bemused. ;-) ) Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia never sleeps, eh? Do you think English has more euphemisms for sexual and elimination acts than any other language? I certainly think it has more derogatory words for foreigners than any other language. These are both original research based off my own impressions though. I remember being really shocked when folks in the bar in France would say "je vais pisser" when going to the toilet, rather than using a euphemism. Makes you think. --John (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think English just has more words than any other language, because it borrows and incorporates them. I love France, but the public pissoirs are gross. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the biggest in the world. Makes you proud, doesn't it? Not to even mention all the dialect and slang. The euphemisms thing is still weird though, in my opinion. It's even worse out here; as you know, one goes to the restroom or the washroom or the bathroom here; to say "toilet" is extremely rude. --John (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Christ almighty. Someone break out the tinfoil hats. Parrot of Doom 08:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a three ring circus. Greater Manchester Project, the rottweiler of Wikipedia, whatever next? --J3Mrs (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Its the WP:GM claque all over again - remember when that comment was made? Parrot of Doom 09:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

'Fraid, I don't but I can imagine, hope I haven't caused you any extra trouble.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

[3] Parrot of Doom 09:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Before my time. I'm surprised the Greater Manchester project hasn't been banned, it's participants are too forthright for their own good.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't done the stats, but I'd bet a pound to penny that most of these daft civility reports originate from the "have a nice day" American editors. Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How come "Greater Manchester punching above its weight" has been deleted form the Guy Fawkes night discussion page? - I thought it was hilarious. However, I'm upset about not being included as one of the Greater Manchester sockpuppets - obviously I'm not aggressive enough. Still, that may change since I reverted this pointless edit - is PBS just trying to be awkward? Richerman (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

He's just another misguided admin on a mission, no shortage of them sadly. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, an admin who was blocked for disruption a couple of months ago. Gotta love Wikipedia. – iridescent 01:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

... and who has apparently learned nothing from that block. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just flabbergasted that an admin can have such a poor command of the English language, and be so woefully inept when it comes to understanding how to treat a subject with 400 years of history. He's clearly a complete ******* *****. Parrot of Doom 16:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"You may well think that, I couldn't possibly comment." Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As for that block - [4]. I'm surprised you don't recall, both of you commented on it.Prodego ^talk 06:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is PBS a reincarnation of Tan39? I lose track—we really need a central register of these things. – iridescent 10:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've got no idea. It was certainly a rather cryptic response in any event. Perhaps PBS was the one who blocked Tan39? I really can't be bothered to check. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted your comments about PBS's disruption block for comments about the disruption block on myself. That wasn't very AGF on my part. Prodego ^talk 06:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of blocks, you might be interested in this discussion as to whether block logs should be editable; the views of someone who's been on the receiving end would probably be worth hearing. (I can see both sides. The main argument for it is that it would stop editors who'd be incorrectly blocked from being stigmatised for their block log; the main arguments against are that everyone who'd ever been blocked for anything would demand their block log be examined and thus create a huge backlog of work, and that it would allow abusive admins to cover their tracks.) – iridescent 01:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that discussion earlier, but I'm disinclined to take part in it. My view is very simple. It's inevitable that some will use the "look at the size of that block log" argument to encourage administrators to impose another block, but to remove incorrect blocks with no corresponding way to record them in the administrator's own block log as an illegitimate use of the block tool is to play into the hands of the poor administrators, of which there are already far too many. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's technically possible, but I really like Brad's idea of asymmetric logs (that is, a bad block is removed from the blocked users log, but remains on the record of the blocking admin). If a cop had a long record of arresting the wrong suspects, the suspects wouldn't get a criminal record regardless, but neither would the cop have all records of his incompetence removed. – iridescent 10:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I found this interesting reading, as its clear from the comments of others (see Slimvirgin) that PBS's tendency to repeatedly change articles to his preferred style, no matter how convincing the arguments against, remains unchanged. There seems to me to be a long-term problem with his behaviour. Parrot of Doom 10:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Somerset (again)

Thanks for all your help with Somerset Levels which got its little star last night. The next target is a list. It's not quite ready for FLC nomination but if you (or any of your talk page stalkers) had the time/inclination to turn your eagle eyes to the prose on List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset that would be great.— Rod ^talk 08:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Brent Knoll was defended by a wall 10 cm in height? Designed by Spinal Tap? Ning-ning (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks changed to 10m - I don't think Spinal Tap ever played that venue ;-)— Rod ^talk 10:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that Brent Knoll (and Brean Head) feature in Dion Fortune's book Sea Priestess? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't. Do you mean Brean Down?— Rod ^talk 10:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I do indeed. She called Brean Down "Bell Head" and Brent Knoll "Bell Knowle", but her biographer, Gareth Knight confirms that these were the actual location of the novel [5]. I should probably add that to the articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

She had lots of local connections (mentioned in Glastonbury) but not someone I've ever read.— Rod ^talk 11:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she knew that area well. All her novels seem to be bedded into actual landscapes. I've been all round there taking photographs (although not as good as the ones in the actual articles). Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:St Deiniol's Church, Llanddaniel Fab/GA1 / question to TPS-ers

Thanks for your note - I'd seen your review in progress over the weekend, although was unable to edit (pesky family getting in the way again!), and was going through my watchlist to find the link again when the orange bar came up. Over to you I think, when you get a moment (no rush, needless to say). The only point where I'm not sure I agree with you is whether this and similar articles should start "St Foo's Church, Llanfoo is a 19th-century church ... " or "St Foo's Church is a 19th-century church..." - i.e. whether the location is part of the name or not. Looking around WP (that well-known reliable source) both forms seem to be in use, so I wondered whether any of your talkpage stalkers had any words of additional wisdom. Bencherlite^Talk 19:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously not a deal breaker, but I too will be interested to see what others have to say. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lead section TT first sentence format says "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be in boldface as early as possible in the first sentence", so I've emboldened the location as well as the dedication or whatever in the first sentence, hoping that's correct. But I'm no expert; just written too many church articles (and I hope I do not have to go back and change them all). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously a matter of interpretation, but mine is that the article's title is whatever appears before the comma. What appears afterwards is redtape necessary for disambiguation. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(arguing against my point) I think we had a similar issue when you pre-FA copy-edited Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford in relation to how many times I needed to say "Oxford" in the opening sentence. We ended up with "The main buildings of Jesus College, one of the colleges of the University of Oxford, are located in the centre of the city of Oxford, England [etc]", so cutting down on repetitious repetition of "Oxford". Whether the title is "Buildings of Jesus College" or "Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford", removing one "Oxford" there helped improve the flow of the opening, and so perhaps the same could be said here - by only having to mention the village/town once, the phrasing improves. Bencherlite^Talk 20:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember that. A similar point came up at a current FAC, "The Broad Ripple Park Carousel is a carousel ...". Well blow me down, the carousel is a carousel. This isn't a GAN sticking point though, so I'll run through the article again later. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you once more. Bencherlite^Talk 19:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I possibly can get away with it, I avoid "is" or "was" right after the article subject. There is nothing wrong with "The Broad Ripple Park Carousel, located in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA was first constructed in (whenever). Some people don't like it, and I've had some drive by changes I revert, but sometimes it is the best answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Review Request

I was wondering if you could do an A-Class review on the Frank Buckles article. If you can't, that's cool, just please let me know either way. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 22:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A-class reviews are for members of the relevant project(s) to carry out, so I'm afraid I can't help. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I thought anyone could, my mistake. I will ask someone over at WP:MILITARY, since it falls under that category. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 22:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Man in the Moone

I wrote the book up as a stub--at least, a stub of what it could be--for DYK review. Expansion should not be so difficult even with just Google Books. As you see, it's in pretty poor state, but at least it's something. Oh, I also had a second edition of The Green Child, with the Felix Kelly illustrations; I had hoped for tons and tons of illustrations, since I'm oddly fascinated with the book. You were right in saying that the second part isn't all that great, and plotwise it's rather unlikely. And what an odd statement that is, given that it's the "realistic" part of the novel! Thanks for tipping me off to it, which you did by writing it up. All the best! Drmies (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty damn good start! I've collected a few bits and pieces while investigating the green children that I can add when the muse returns. I'm glad you enjoyed The Green Child; it's an odd little book that I too found strangely fascinating. Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Malleus. I've gotten some of my students interested as well in the children, since I was teaching SGGK. Did I tell you I read the story to my daughter in Kevin Crossley-Holland's version? I had to return the two editions of Read's book to the library, but will be on the lookout for a used version.

As for The Man--whenever you feel like it, sketch an outline and I can help fill things in. I'm a bit hesitant to do it myself since you are so familiar with writing larger articles, and I have a tendency to develop them from what I find in one source after another, never doing an overview first, and thus the intermediate stages are often choppy. I saw that The Man was republished by Broadview; I'm going to ask them for a copy--or two, if you'd like one. Ssht, don't tell them, or they'll accuse me of driving up book prices. I do hope your muse returns, by the way. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What did your daughter make of the book? For myself, it wasn't until I wrote the article that I began to feel that I had a real handle on what Read was saying. What initially attracted me was his use and understanding of language. I was kind of up to speed with the psychoanalytic aspects of the book, but the significance of Plato's allegory of the cave had completely passed me by. Malleus Fatuorum 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, why is the present tense ("plays") correct in the sentence, "The book is notable for the role it plays in what was called the "new astronomy""? My sense is that it both sounds wrong and is wrong, "played" sounding far more natural and corresponding to the "what was called" part of the sentence ... Ericoides (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was thinking of the literary present tense when I changed that, but on reflection I tend to think now that "played" is probably better. Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mike Jackson

Hi Malleus, since you did such a good job on the GAN a while back, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mike Jackson/archive1. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I'll keep an eye on it but I won't offer an opinion unless reviewers are thin on the ground. I think it meets the FA criteria but we'll see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The first FAC of my own, so this should be interesting. Thanks a lot for all your help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)