User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2009/December

A perhaps helpful summary of my attitude towards Wikipedia
I firmly believe that the project has failed and is beyond help, shackled by its lack of effective governance. I also believe that there is a great deal of good content here, that will thankfully be available for a more rationally run "encyclopedia" to host come the time.

Wikpedia was a worthwhile experiment that we should now learn from. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Amen to that. Welcome to the Dark Side. – iride  scent  01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 
 * 

Feck sake
I just got the Barlow book for Dick Turpin. Its almost 500 pages. I sure know how to pick 'em. :( Parrot of Doom 23:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a similar problem with Antonia Fraser's book on Cromwell. A thick paperback with pretty small print doesn't make for encouraging reading. Typical woman, can't get to the point without going all round the houses. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2008 Monaco Grand Prix
Looks like it made the main page. Aptery gial  00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Aw, bad luck. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm waiting for someone to complain they find the title offensive (we have to put it in context for the children, etc.) Aptery  gial  01:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A request...
Hello again Malleus! I see from the above that you already have several articles awaiting your attention, but I was wondering if you would mind adding one to the list? Cleveland Bay is another horse breed article that I have been working on for a while, and would like to take to FAC at some point in the next couple of weeks. Your eye on prose would be much appreciated, as well as catching any American spellings. It's a British breed, and so should be in British English, but I'm an American, and I don't write in BEng all that well :( Thanks in advance, if you have the time! Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. You're third in the queue now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was fast! Thanks so much for your edits - a look-over by you always makes me feel more confident in taking the article to FAC! Dana boomer (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't finished yet Dana, that was just a quick initial look-see. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh...I didn't see this comment before listing at FAC - I thought you were finished. Oops. Well, I guess I'll just take my licks for being over-eager if you find a bunch more stuff that needs fixing. My apologies for not checking here first. Dana boomer (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it'll be fine, it's a nice article, but good luck anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

in re: Campus Pride
While I'm sure everyone does appreciate your great zeal in vigorously patrolling wikipedia for possible junk articles, call me eccentric but I personally feel it shows more courtesy not to mention common sense to wait until someone actually finishes up entering the initial data on a new article before slapping a plethora boxes on it and/or trying to have it speedily deleted. Especially when this means you have just blown away all the editing work the OP has just done. . . . sigh. Thanks ever so CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is make a case for notability, which you've not yet done. And btw, nobody appreciates anything that anyone does around here. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So true! CyntWorkStuff (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You fucking cunt
Mallyarse Fatbum stop being uncivil you nasty mean spirited shithead, Wikipedia is da 'pedia built on civility and it's foul mouthed fuckers like you that spoil it for everybody. If you can't say anything nice then say nothing at all, surely even a dumb fuck like you can remember that. RMHED (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hell dude? Are you drunk? --Moni3 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RHMED - piss off with this crap or I'll block you. The only reason I'm not is that I doubt Malleus would want me to. Pedro : Chat  20:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would that be a 10 second block? RMHED (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Up to you mate - what do you fancy? Pedro : Chat  20:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't bother me Pedro, just makes RHMED look like an idiot. Strange behaviour from an ArbCom candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew it wouldn't, hence why I didn't block, but Tenofalltrades just dropped the hammer anyhow. Pedro : Chat  21:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess that was inevitable, if only to give the illusion of fair play. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the correct response should have been "who're you calling cunt, cunt?" --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread makes as much sense as teaching someone not to drive with brights on by hitting them head-on going full speed. What did you possibly hope to accomplish by starting this, RMHED? Are you freaking running for ArbCom??????? WHAT THE HOLY HELL???? I already voted, but I have a woefully short memory. --Moni3 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do actually like RHMED, rather like one likes wobbling a tooth when they are 7 years old. He's blocked for 24, his arbcom thing is his way of having fun. No big deal. Pedro : Chat  21:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems quite obvious to me. Trying to goad Malleus into making some kind of complaint, thereby exposing double-standards where no double-standards exist to expose.  Epic fail. Parrot of Doom 21:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone who's been paying attention would really expect me ever to initiate a complaint about civility anywhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ten just locked RHMED's talk, which I'm personally against and have asked him to revert. If RHMED wants to blow of steam there it's his issue. However just thought I'd mention it. Pedro : Chat  21:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, this is getting all out of proportion. I'm really not bothered what RHMED says on his talk page, and like you I think it's better to allow him to blow off whatever steam he feels he needs to. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's all stop wasting time and energy and get on with writing an encyclopedia. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Parrot of Doom 23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, MF, and I thought you were just a friendly dork! :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer my mental image of Malleus out carolling in Dickens costume, honestly. Big hat, long cloak, the works. Handlebar mustache and sideburns (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I expect that RHMED was trying to make some kind of point, but just took it a little bit too far, 'cos I am a friendly dork really. Well, a dork anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Derek and Clive and some subsequent discussion were the antecedents. Classic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had posted that on RHMED's talk page what do you think would have happened to me? Have you or anyone else ever seen me call another editor a cunt? I'm thinking that someone ought to initiate that obviously inevitable ArbCom case and just get rid of me. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, what's incredible is that he's trying to RUN for Arbcom while pulling this kind of thing. Hope that Arbcom bid's a joke too, otherwise it's gone I'd say. Soxwon (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I like Ealdgyth's image of Mal. That's how I generally think of Giano. Also, while I've never seen Mal call anyone a cunt, he did call me a bitch once. I was deeply offended. It still bothers me to this day. *sob* Lara  ☁ 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I think I've called you a bitch more than once Lara. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, also to be fair, that bit at the end there wasn't to suggest I was crying. ;) Haha. <3 Lara  ☁ 03:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * After the events of today, WR should be booming tonight!  ceran  thor 03:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh yeah, that was the funniest thing I've read all day  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I still lurk on this page for a reason...--Yohmom (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To Arms! The Nazi's are back!   « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. I just saw the 10 second block thread from yesterday. Holy shit. This community gets exponentially more stupid with each passing day, and the admin corps goes on blatantly abusing the tools to no action. Love it. Also brilliant to see that not one defender of CIV (including the morons that can't figure out the difference between incivility and personal attacks) from the previous days' discussion swooped in with their bloody battle stick to beat RMHED. It's only inappropriate when it's directed at someone you like, right? Yea. But, of course, there was the token empty block threat. Lara ☁ 13:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jennavecia, when you were an administrator, you were quite willing to block editors for so much as a single personal attack directed against you. Since you equate the willingness to engage in on-wiki personal attacks and incivility with intelligence, shouldn't you have praised 97.106.41.249's formidable intellect, rather than blocking him? Andrea105 (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that this discussion take place on Lara's page, since it's purely related to Lara? Or ... wild idea... let's get back to editing articles... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no. It's a typical tactic. I like watching the people go digging through people's contributions so that they have shit to throw. Of course, that example is no where near the same as what I was talking about, but you can't expect those who have no ability to differentiate between person attacks, incivility, and plain rudeness to differentiate between incidents of established editors being punitively blocked in a blatant misuse of the tools and a cowardly troll being blocked for throwing insults from behind an IP. Lara  ☁ 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So WP:NPA and WP:CIV apply with considerably attenuated force to registered editors with significant contribution histories? Perhaps we should modify the policies to instruct editors in immunizing themselves from policy enforcement via this method :) Andrea105 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The silly question and the smiley at the end are typical too. Your exaggeration of the situation on AN/I, your misclassifcation of the rude and/or uncivil edits as personal attacks, and your edit warring on his talk page speak no good for you. Glass houses and such. Oh, but right... because I blocked an anonymous troll, I'm casting stones from a glass house too, right? Neg.  Lara  ☁ 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your hairsplitting distinction between "rude and/or uncivil edits" and "personal attacks" is unsupportable in this context. For over two years  WP:NPA expressly described "Profanity directed against another contributor" as an example of personal attacks. Do you seriously suggest that, despite the concededly incomplete nature of the specific cases described, the removal of this particular example demotes "Profanity directed against another contributor" to the realm of mere incivility not amounting to a personal attack? Andrea105 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly this does not belong on Malleus' talk. Secondly, Andrea you need to step back from this. Whilst it's public knowledge Lara and I really do not get along at all (and therefore avoid each other), I would fully acknowledge that she was a quality admin and remains a quality editor. Her admin actions were spot on. Policy is sometimes descriptive, not perscriptive. You need to realise that. Pedro : Chat  20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's that time again...
Are we basically looking good with Mellitus? Longchamp's done at FAC and I was thinking of running the poor little archbishop through shortly. If things are missing, etc. let me know so I don't clog up FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll check Mellitus later/tomorrow; I've still got a bit to do at the Gunpowder Plot's FAC, which seems to have stalled a bit. See you later. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm thinking within the next week, not within hours (in fact, I'm off for a family dinner at a very excellent German place so will be out of touch most of the rest of the evening.. yay!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Addressed those last points... anything else? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, I think that's about it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Featured article candidates/Mellitus/archive1 Did I miss something? I could swear that first sentence is .. indeed, a sentence, it's got a subject, a verb... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave your lead a quick copyedit but yes, indeed, it was a sentence. I seem to get a few of those kind of comments regarding my current nominee Ode on a Grecian Urn (Sandy will probably archive it soon because of lack of reviewers revisiting after their statements). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Not very impressed with that "basic c/e of leed". --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I try and try, but there is just no satisfying you. :( Haha. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't you I was complaining about Ottava. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, trust me, I know. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Anna Bethell
Hi. I'm sorry, but I disagree with every edit you made here. We do not use the serial comma, and we use the dot after Mr. and Mrs. Both of these choices are consistent with MOS and are consistent throughout the WP:G&S project. WP guidelines say that you should not change an article's style selected by its creators. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where can I find a copy of this project specific MoS of yours? Just looking through the project's one and only FA I see very many MoS errors, including this: "Grossmith quoted Gilbert as saying, "Deer-stalking would be a very fine sport if only the deer had guns" and incorrect use of the cquote template. Who do I have to ask permission from to fix them? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The project has several FAs. If you really want to spend time eliminating sentence-final punctuation from ellipses, which is not required, feel free. Also, if you want to change quote format, be my guest, as long as when you are done the text and images look nice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I have other things I'd rather be doing. I just wanted to consult with your version of the Manual of Style. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I'd watch out. I happened to run across these individuals because Gilbert happened to model one of his productions off of a Tennyson piece and they did not like my request that information from the text have sources that directly connected the information with the article's subject. They then followed me for quite a while and tried to have me blocked quite often. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I only came across this article because it was a DYK yesterday; I've got no interest in sticking my nose into articles I'm not interested in and where I'm not wanted. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Albert Rimmer of Southport
I didn't notice the AfD, but I wouldn't have objected; and I have now heard from the Southport museum that they "do not have any paintings by Albert Rimmer (1825*1870) on display or in their collection.  He is not someone we have heard of as a local artist from Southport either.  We can only therefore presume that this article is, as you suspected, a hoax."

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. The whole thing smelt very fishy to me, but it's nice to have proof positive that we were right. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ode on a Grecian Urn
Ode on a Grecian Urn - I just expanded some and rewrote some things. I decided that I wanted to have as many critics as I could use (now 39). Could you look through the language? Many copyeditors, but I expanded some lately. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just about to pop over there, after all your whining about not getting enough reviewers. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I whine and whine, but you know, it can never be enough to review. If only I could get 30+ people to look over each of my FACs! Ottava Rima (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah, Malleus, the Structures section is all past tense. Please stop adding in present tenses. People will just oppose over that like they do all the time for me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, now you are switching to past tense in the present tense themes section. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned with you lowercasing a word within quotes and changing the dashes within quotes. We aren't supposed to mess with quotes in such a way, and I don't care if the MoS demands it, it is not proper as quotes must accurately reflect the attributed source to be legitimate (i.e. free of any plagiarism problems). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, I checked this with the MoS only yesterday, it's what should be done. While you're here; "He concluded that Keats fails to provide his poet with enough characterization to be able to speak for the urn". Who is Keats's poet? Should this be poem? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone seems to think they know better than me recently, which I obviously disagree with. So I wish you the very best of luck with this FAC Ottava. I'm sure it'll do very well without any more of my "help". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't really helpful to start making tenses inconsistent and to alter formatting that is directly taken from a source, is it? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your bollocks elsewhere Ottava, I'm not interested. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, but WP:V and WP:PLAGIARISM trumps the MoS. If someone said that all quotes must start a certain way, then that line goes against at least one policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe what you like, I'm not interested. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you aren't interested, why get so upset and defensive because I pointed out that there was a problem with the action? Obviously, you care about it far more than you should. This is the MoS section, and only the dash is mentioned. I have brought up the problem on that talk page. Furthermore, the section begins "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation" so I don't feel like I am stating anything crazy here. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You believe that you're right and I believe that you're wrong. I guess time will tell. In the meantime I'm not interested in continuing with this clearly unproductive discussion. I've reverted all of my changes to your article and I want to hear no more about it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I pointed out that four things you changed were changed for the worst. You then revert all of the other changes. Yes, that is being spiteful, especially when you say "your article". You cannot say that you did not change a verb in a paragraph that was completely past tense to present tense, and you cannot say that you did not change a verb in a paragraph that was completely present tense to past tense. This removes the consistency within the paragraph. You then reverted it even though I clearly stated that it had to stay that way for consistency. What is the excuse? You know that reviewers always point out when tenses don't all match up in a paragraph and that they oppose over it. You know that I would have to ensure that they are all consistent. Why would you revert, then complain like the above? Is there any reason? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for calling you spiteful. You made a lot of great changes to the page. I hope you understand that I was not criticising what you were doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

M for Malleus
What stuff do you have on the Gunpowder Plot, and Mr Fawkes? I saw a couple of cheap books on Amazon and bought them (The Gunpowder Plot by Alan Haynes, and The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605 by Antonia Fraser). I've realised that actually, I really enjoy working on these tales of intrigue, murder, ineptitude, and a bit of olde-worlde sillyness goes down well too, so I think I'll focus my efforts on things like this. If you have any material on one or the other, I'd be happy to work with you getting them to FA. Parrot of Doom 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only got the Northcote Parkinson book, Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I'm thinking that it might be best start with the plot itself? And maybe let the seasonal silliness around Guy Fawkes die down a bit before tackling that? Should be easier to put him in context once the plot's cleared up anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It'll depend upon the structure of the two books I've ordered (which should arrive in a day or two). Is Fawkes at all notable, other than for the Gunpowder Plot?  I'm wondering if he needs his own article. Parrot of Doom 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question, I'm beginning to somewhat doubt that he is. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * His 1603 mission to Philip II would probably warrant a sub-stub if anyone could be bothered to write it, even had the Plot never happened, so probably yes. 92.11.55.195 (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that we start with the Gunpowder Plot article then, and if by the end it looks as though there is too much detail about Fawkes to fit in there, we look at a separate article? The same question could also be asked of Robert Catesby, and most (I haven't looked at all the articles) of the other conspirators.  They seem to all be saying much the same thing. Parrot of Doom 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want, I can tell you the -true- story about the Gun Powder Plot and the martyrdom suffered by those glorious heroes at the hands of tyrants. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it end with Richard Hammond blowing up a shed, while shouting "WOOOAAAHH!"? Parrot of Doom 20:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The 17th century seems to have been a fascinating time, and certainly the present article doesn't do justice to the Catholicism background, and King James' apparently hardening attitude towards Catholics. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I think there's certainly enough interest to assume that improving this article is a good idea. I'm just reading the Fraser book (and the Haynes book when that arrives), and typing as I go, so it's all a little disordered right now. Parrot of Doom 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we need to add a little bit about how the conspirators were recruited, integrated with their short biographies. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't be too difficult with the three primary sources we [will] have between us. Right now I'm working through Fawke's motivations.  Its an extraordinarily complex tale.  I think this article will end up seeing as significant changes in structure as you made on Moors murders.  I have to work through the conspirators as Fraser writes them though, as she has a particularly engaging way of switching back and forth through history. Parrot of Doom 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can do Catesby if you like; he's obviously the lynchpin, and it ought to be easier to see the wood for the trees when he's written up. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Go for it. It won't keep me from working on it, in fact it'll make less work for us both.  Actually one thing that's a bit lacking is dates.  If your source has more dates knocking around, feel free to supplement or replace anything I've written. Parrot of Doom 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a start on Catesby, but two things now strike me. The first is that the Earl of Essex's 1601 rebellion is key to understanding how events unfolded, so that needs to be mentioned, and the second is that we need to slightly rejig the conspirators section more towards the plot and less biographical. How they met and so on. Strikes me as well that we could usefully give the account a little more impact by including more personal descriptions of the conspirators, like their ages, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'm just about getting to the commencement of the plot in Fraser's book. I think you're correct, its probably easier to let the players fall into place as the plot builds strength.  The short biog details can then be included at that point.  There are still things which need resolving, like Wintour/Winter for one (Fraser has already said this name change was important but hasn't yet explained why). Parrot of Doom 15:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll have to do quite a bit of reorganising at some point, as I think you said earlier, but as the article dvelops it should become easier to get a feel for that. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If its at all helpful, the ODNB entries on Robert Devereux, and those involved in the Plot, are pretty darn good, with a huge range of sources. I'm going to continue with the Fraser book before I look elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm more concerned at the minute to try and give a coherent account of how these thirteen conspirators got together; I'm beginning to think that there may well be enough information on at least most of them to warrant separate articles. While you're here, the article presently says that it was Winter's uncle who was the priest executed in 1586, but my book says it was the Wrights' uncle. What do your sources say? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly what the article says, the footnote lists her sources as "Gerard, Plot and Plotters, p. 21; Humphreys, 'Wyntours', pp. 55ff". Parrot of Doom 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very strange ...".
 * Probably a simple mistake. The ODNB agrees with Fraser. Parrot of Doom 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to keep adding information to those little biogs as I go, and we can sort it all out along the way. Catesby and Tresham were cousins, through their mothers, and had been raised together (Fraser p110).  It was his uncle Thomas Tresham who helped bail Catesby out after the Essex crisis.  Fraser postulates that the young Tresham was 'dominated' by Catesby, a hint at the latter's ability to command. Parrot of Doom 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fraser says that Catesby may have been educated at University of Douai, or that he might have spent time at Oxford University, Gloucester Hall (now Worcester College), and that if so, he left without taking his degree (presum. to avoid the oath of supremacy). She also says that in 1598 both his father and his wife died, and that the loss of the latter has been attributed to his 'return to Catholicism of his forefathers; to the Church in its fanatical form."  Several sources are offered for these assertions, but she does say 'maybe', 'could have', etc. Parrot of Doom 21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that there are some biographical details—such as which university Catesby attended—best covered in the conspirators' own articles. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, I just pointed it out because right now the article says "Robert was converted to Catholicism by Jesuits in about 1580", and the two sources used seem to be at odds about this. I mean, was Robert seriously converted to Catholicism aged seven? Parrot of Doom 22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of the art with these articles, just as with the Moors murders, is in trying to decide which of the sometimes contradictory claims are the most plausible. Thinking of the Samlesbury witches, I don't find the claim that Catesby was influenced by Jesuits when he was as young as seven all that implausible; Grace Sowerbutts was only 14 when she was persuaded by a Jesuit priest to perjure herself in an attempt to have three innocent women hanged, for instance. As for the phrase "converted to Catholicism", I'm less certain. I can't remember at what age a child is confirmed into the Catholic faith (perhaps Ottava can tell us that), but I'm pretty sure from personal experience that it wasn't as young as seven, although the memory does sometimes play tricks. I guess we have to go with what most accounts claim, and hedge it around as Fraser apparently does. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think then that we could be a little less specific where the sources are in contention (perhaps explaining so in the footnotes).
 * I've been integrating some of the biogs into the prose, and think I've not done too badly. It might need your pruning shears, but I thought that we could spread the personal details of each plotter through the 'plot' - so perhaps, when it comes to Fawkes, we could expand on him when the decision is 'made' for Fawkes to be the one in charge of the gunpowder.  And for Robert Wintour, when the conspirators flee to Huddington we could then explain that Wintour had inherited that pile and grown up there, etc.  It would avoid having an A B C list of things, and would also make a more engaging read (rather than the reader having to wade through thirteen introductions all in one go).  What do you think?  BTW the Haynes book has arrived now. Parrot of Doom 14:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think that's pretty much the way to go. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How good are your image hunting skills? If you can find a bigger copy of this, that's the one to use.  Its also in the Fraser book but a higher res version must be knocking around somewhere. Parrot of Doom 19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How big in the image in the Fraser book? The image doesn't need to be any bigger than this does it? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Its only about 4 inches long so will look awful if scanned. The image you've linked is good though. Parrot of Doom 20:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BOOOOOOOO! I wanted to confuse people with that little nugget :) Parrot of Doom 21:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a quiz book. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wintour's name is important, because his confession was signed Winter-and he had never done that before. Also, Wintour had been shot in the shoulder, but the signature was steady.  Which, Fraser suggests, means that the confession was fiddled with, for the government's own purposes. Parrot of Doom 15:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't bothered reading any of it as I've been too busy with the gruesome stuff, but would you be able to tidy up the Bonfire and historical legacy bits, if you can? I'm about to go right through it all again, and fill in the blanks (and correct any assumptions by Fraser) with Haynes. After which, I think I'll get pissed—especially after writing that bit about what happens when you're H,D&Q. (I've seen it on the HBO Drama Elizabeth, but its still fooking scary to think about) Parrot of Doom 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try and have a look at them. My favourite section in any article is Popular culture, as you may know. I'm still a bit tied with RL wrting though—nothing so interesting as the Gunpowder Plot though, sadly. On the subject of scary, I was looking at Rack (torture) yesterday. I think if the choice was between the rack and H,D&Q I might elect for the latter. At least, as Guy Fawkes demonstrated, you had a chance with that to end it quickly. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think you've done a really excellent job with this. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some really interesting articles in the Instruments of Torture category. I particularly liked (!) the Brazen Bull as the ultimate in irony. Parrot of Doom 00:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There certainly are. I'm thinking we could do some good work with instruments of torture. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you want to know what it was like to be Hung, drawn and quartered, watch HBO's take on it (not for the squeamish) Parrot of Doom 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My God! Mirren was a great QE1 though, just as I'd imagine her. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That programme is utterly awesome, historically quite accurate. I highly recommend it.  If you want it, email me. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit backward with multimedia—didn't even have a DVD player until last Xmas. What format? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd have to email me for details, I can't say on here :) Parrot of Doom 11:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Break
Apart from the last few sections, and a couple of reads for grammar, and duplicated text, how do you think this would fare at FAC? Would the reviewers achieve what Guy Fawkes couldn't? Parrot of Doom 01:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hard to say. It contains the word "Catholic", so ... worth a shot though, once it's had a final buffing up. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well doubtless there's still a bit left to do on the political aftermath (over years, not just months), but I think the plot and trials etc are all pretty good now, so I've nominated it - Featured article candidates/Gunpowder Plot/archive1 Parrot of Doom 17:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's certainly worth a shot now. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support it at FAC but, as you point out above, it has the word Catholic and it was our attempt to try and bring back our wonderful religion and conquer the evil heathens, so I'm sure someone will complain. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Succeed or fail at FAC, it's come a long way over the past few weeks, and that's what really matters. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave you an image check. 4 of them needed dates, and I provided you the info for two. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hopefully Parrot of Doom will get to them later, but if he doesn't then I'll try. I've got RL calling me away for a bit now. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * eek! Six more edits and I'm level on with DSotM - and that article took bloody months (this one has taken about two weeks)!  I really must get a 9-5 job life! Parrot of Doom 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Historical subjects are easier to write about, I think. Time gives a perspective, the sources are invariably better ... I'm still agonising over this article I started on ages ago, but can't quite seem to finish. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks like an interesting article, and an even more interesting book. I'm considering my next article to be something about the 1910 London to Manchester air race.  It seems like a forgotten part of history but could make for "those magnificent men in their flying machines" reading. Parrot of Doom 11:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't help thinking that the whole 'background' section from Liz to James needs a bit of something to 'thicken' it up. There are lots of interesting facts floating around in a rather watery soup, compared to the rest of the plot, and the aftermath, which now I think are rather good.  Can your Mr Northcote help out at all?  Its difficult with the sources I have, Fraser talks about the background over about 100 pages, and Haynes just rushes through it like a bullet train. Parrot of Doom 17:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do later. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking much better now, thanks. Sorry I haven't been much help lately, I've got a cold bronze head from this blasted cold.  Annoyingly, my book about Dick Turpin ended up in the wrong library, so I won't get that until Tuesday now. Parrot of Doom 22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been a bit distracted as well over the past week or so, after writing off my wife's beloved Toyota Rav4. I think she's forgiven me now though, after we found her a beautiful and fully-loaded Jeep Grand Cherokee over the weekend. What a monster that is! Enough to give Ken Livingstone a heart attack. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mild interest, but how did Bates accidentally become aware of the plot? Did they leave the baby monitor on? ;) Parrot of Doom 21:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He was a servant. Servants sometimes overhear things they shouldn't. Did you never watch Upstairs Downstairs? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I bet that's one conversation he wished he'd never heard :( Parrot of Doom 23:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much exactly what Northcote Parkinson says. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done :) If we'd started a month earlier, we might have beat your record for getting a newly-promoted article on the front page :) Parrot of Doom 20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm quite pleased we spent the time on it. It's an important historical event that every British child will have learned something about in school, and it's no longer an embarrassment. Oh, and it doesn't even mention bloody V for Vendetta once. I notice that Nev1's got his Castle magnum opus through FAC as well; some good work there. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the nice things about getting an article into shape is that it seems to discourage anon IPs from inserting things like V for Vendetta. Guy Fawkes will obviously now be an easy article to resolve (now I have the material), but I may just take a breather for a few days.  I have a busy week next week. Parrot of Doom 22:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You've also got Dick Turpin to shepherd through FAC. Good luck with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can help with Dick Turpin. I'm not CoI'd from -that-. Just drop me a line. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you know Ainsworth's work well enough, maybe a short quote from a relevant passage in the 'modern view' section? Parrot of Doom 00:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been messing around with maps, seeing what I can build so others can get an idea of who was where in the midlands. I can build an entirely new map based on Rocque's 1790 map of England, which will be extremely close to the roads the conspirators used, or I can simply use the map on the right, with some kind of key.  All the important locations are covered there, Catesby's house, Princess Liz, Rookwood, Holbeach House, Habington, The Wrights, etc. What think ye? Parrot of Doom 22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a new map would be better. There's to be too much detail in the map on the right for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah. I knew you'd say that :( Parrot of Doom 23:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wondered, does your Northcote book say much about Fawkes being taken to see the King? Both my two books gloss right over it.  I feel it could do with a little elaboration, particularly about "blowing the Scotch back to Scotland". Parrot of Doom 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not much, no, and nothing about that "blowing the Scotch back to Scotland" bit. It says he was "questioned in the king's presence", and that he admitted his intention to light the gunpowder and blow up the House of of Lords, but "Guy Fawkes would say nothing more and denied having any associates". --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Philcha's GAs
Hi Malleus - regarding this, while Philcha recovers from his illness, I'm willing to review Bix Beiderbecke; would you be willing to take over either Talk:St. Boniface General Hospital (Winnipeg)/GA1 or Talk:Eustrombus gigas/GA1? Thanks, Geometry guy 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take over the hospital, and then if nobody else does after that I'll do the snail as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Malleus. I think I should be able to find a snail lover. But now I must crash. Geometry guy 01:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Malleus, thanks for offering to take over the St Boniface GA. As you can see, Philcha's main concern was an over-reliance on PR (hospital-affiliated/advertising) sources, which I have hopefully fixed by now. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will, don't you worry about that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for offeringTalk:St. Boniface General Hospital (Winnipeg)/GA1 --Philcha (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I've addressed all of your comments - care to take another look? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me now, so I've just listed it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. I've listed Bix, and can review the sea snail. I was wondering if you could take a quick look at I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song) and Talk:I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song)/GA1. This was part of the fall out of the LittleMissWikipoo/ItsLassieTime sock incident. I have the impression that the nominator is more interested in the article being listed than whether it is a good article. I've removed unsourced material, but I can't pass my own fixes without a second opinion. Geometry guy 20:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in Somerset
I know your copyediting skills are in demand but I wondered if you would be kind enough to look at List of civil parishes in Somerset. I've done most of the actions recommended at Peer review/List of civil parishes in Somerset/archive1 but there is a comment about my grammar - "I would have someone copyedit this - the prose is OK, but the commas especially seemed to need some work." I'm going to put it up at FLC but any help appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again.&mdash; Rod talk 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at it, hopefully you think it's an improvement. Good luck at FLC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I got an edit conflict with you just now on List of civil parishes in Somerset. I didn't mean to overwrite your edits while dealing with issues at Featured list candidates/List of civil parishes in Somerset/archive1. Sorry&mdash; Rod talk 14:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I think I only moved one paragraph; it seemed to make more sense to me to put the civil parish stuff together, but if you don't agree then feel free to move it back. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking for some help
My Biology class has undertaken a project of taking currently existing articles that are stubs and attempting to get them to GA or even FA status. I was wondering if you had any recommendations or any helpful hints that would help us achieve this goal. Thanks!Reddevil1421 (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What sort of help do you feel you need Reddevil? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I need help on making the scotch bonnet article GA. I don't mean to be blunt, but being new to Wikipedia there is probably a multitude of problems with the article that I wouldn't address. I guess to give you a starting point, the information on the page seems somewhat lacking. I am finding it difficult to find information or research that would be relevant to the scotch bonnet. A shell is somewhat of an uninteresting object to most people, but I find its existence fascinating. Also, I live on an Island in North Carolina, and I felt this would be an article would allow me to express some local pride. Thanks Reddevil1421 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. The information in the article is your responsibility, else your AP project is pointless. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
Not been a good morning at all.. cold, dreary, I have some birther nonsense being added to Quo warranto and then lots of film additions. I don't have problems with stuff that has some secondary sources to go with it, it's important to note that, and if there had been a play/film done just on Gilbert (or any of the others) I'd not object, as being the main subject of a film, book, etc. is significant, but everyone and his brother that was alive around Becket gets mentioned in Becket works... I do welcome anyone showing me I'm wrong though. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much my view too. I included plays and TV programmes about the Pendle witches in their article, for instance. There's a place for fictional portrayals, but they need to be in some way substantial, I think. How many fictional portrayals have there been of Billy the Kid or Doc Holliday I wonder? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (shrugs) I'm not going to edit war over it. if we can't persuade him, I'll deal. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of the above, this was just too ironic for words today. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Three-Source hypothesis
An article that you have been involved in editing, Three-Source hypothesis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
And likewise. Terrific copyediting job. DocKino (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bacon
Hi MF. Just wondering, would the bacon challenge interest you by any chance?--Sky Attacker   the legend reborn...  23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not by any chance, but good luck with it nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ashley Tisdale/archive2
You said Ashley Tisdale is "written as a series of loosely connected facts, without any real narrative flow". I don't think I'm able to make a great narrative in this article, since - as stated by myself in the nomination page - English is not my first language. Do you know where I can get any help? I mean, any user who can help me go through the article and try to make it a better narrative? Thanks for your suggestions in the nomination page, btw. My objective is not the promotion itself but make the article the better as possible. Decodet (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know any FA about a celebrity (with a similar career to Tisdale's would be good) I can use as an example? I don't have any idea about how to make a good narrative there. Maybe if I have a good example, I can do it by myself. Decodet (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * English isn't my first language either, my first language is Doric. Basically you need to tell a story, not just list a bunch of facts. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there in the article any part that is good? I just want a reference, thanks. :) Decodet (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a bad article Decodet, in fact it's quite informative, so you should be pleased with it, whether or not it gets promoted to FA. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Decodet (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, take a look at the first paragraph of the lead. Is that what you're expecting? Thanks! :) Decodet (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're asking me to look at, but if it's this: "in the week of February 12, 2006" then more work is needed. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked you to read the lead, because I rewrote it. I didn't understand what you meant above but are you saying that I should try to rewrite this part: "in the week of February 12, 2006"? Thanks through. Decodet (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me be frank. I'd never heard of Tisdale until today, so do whatever you feel needs to be done. Personally I'd be majoring on her chest, but there you go, I'm just a male chauvinist pig. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, it's ok. Thanks through! Decodet (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Look over Emma Watson, Ethan Hawke or KaDee Strickland as possible templates to follow - these are all biographies of relatively similar people which have successfully reached FA level. Read the FAC reviews for them as well, to see what issues were being raised. 92.11.46.250 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Gonna read them. Decodet (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Doric? Isn't that one of those languages with 80 words for "sheep" but only one word for "book"? Or am I confusing it? ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have memories a two-hour slot in the day when us kids had to speak in Doric, lest we forget it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I spent few hours to rewrite most of the article's sentences and paragraphs and I personally think it's finished. Please, take a look when you have time. Thanks! Decodet (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Coldplay Expert. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Get civil. Now. Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds''  02:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Andrea105 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Malleus, but I already have a girlfriend. Look, I encountered you on Wikiquette alerts. Do you want to go back there? It seems you have an issue with Wikipedia as a whole. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...vandalism? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More childish "fuck offs" to anyone who critises them. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See   . Andrea105 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't approve of those comments by any means, but it's certainly not appropriate to template an established contributor for "vandalism". Also, it's really not necessary to rollback someone's comments on their own user talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the error. This editor's use of language more appropriate for vandals than respected contributors caused some confusion :) Andrea105 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do as you please children, I'm sick to death with the lot of you. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then take a Wikibreak or retire. If you hate the place, there's really no point in hanging around. (Note: this is not an attack, merely logic) -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to be terminally dense. I want you to fuck off. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And we can add another diff to the list... I'll leave when you learn to be civil. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that's a very clear (if somewhat crude) statement that MF doesn't wish you on his talk page. Shouldn't you, in the interests of civility, take the meaning as clear and leave him alone? It works both ways, you know. You won't convince him to be your definition of civil by ignoring what he's quite plainly saying, and being rude that way, even if not in uncivil words. Why don't BOTH of you drop the matter, rather than striving for the last word or whatever it is that is driving this. Please. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that everyone (that does mean everyone, not just MF) take a step back and not inflame situations. I know if I had someone come along and revert my comments on my own talk page, I might get a bit hot under the collar, so lets everyone think of how they might react if they were in the other persons shoes, and take time to THINK before reacting. None of this is helping the encyclopedia or is exactly something that requires instant action. Think before acting usually means things don't escalate. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was trying to restore them, but I got fed up of the edit conflicts. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah right. Just fuck off. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Don't even need to restore them any more. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 02:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thejadefalcon – please stop posting here and escalating the situation. Your comments are no longer constructive. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Were they ever intended to be constructive? I rather doubt it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually they were. And since you posted on my talk page in the same thread as Floquenbeam, you'd know that I'd already struck your page from my watchlist. I think that, if you want me to be stay off your page for pointing out incivility, afford me the same courtesy? Don't bother replying because this page is staying off my watchlist and you can stay off my page until you've finished attacking people, whoever they are. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeez Louise, just leave me alone. I'm convinced that you're an idiot, and I'd really prefer to have nothing more to do with you. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is quite enough. No more attacks. Why don't we deal with the issue of personal attacks? I'll start. Malleus, you're a good editor and all, but the Wikipedia community cannot tolerate attacks on other users. Next time, please calmly explain what you think to other editors instead of swearing at and insulting them. Even it they are rude you you must remain WP:CIVIL. See WP:BITE and WP:COOL for more information.-- Twilight  Helryx  04:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Good editor". from the looks of it im going to have to dissagee with you. IMO this project would benefit from his retirement. Your comments were way out of line and now your just sticking to your guns even thought it has been stated directly to your face that you were wrong. Deal with it.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, your opinion counts for very little. There are a great many people who post messages of thanks on this talk page, for the work that Malleus does on articles in need of attention.  Why not ask them, if they think the project would benefit from his retirement?  Is it perhaps because the only people who think that he should retire are those who are more concerned with politics, their happy-fluffy-world-of-perfect, and with defending their vanity, than article-building, and reinforcing the important rules of Wikpedia—of neutrality, and verifiability? Parrot of Doom 12:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys. Try not antagonize each other while debating, even if it's well intentioned. As for being a "good editor", try checking his contributions. Malleus has made quite a few good ones. I've also noticed that some of you here have been assaulted by other editors for something you did in the past. You may not be aware of this, but right now you're doing the same thing to Malleus. Do you remember how it felt when it happened to you? How do you think he's feeling right now? If you want him to stop making personal attacks, then show him how not to. I've known another editor who also made constant personal attacks and that method completely cured him. So why don't you all cease fire and talk things out?-- Twilight  Helryx  14:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Report on the administrators' noticeboard
Your comments are currently being discussed at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Andrea105 (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andrea, did you point out that several of those diffs you posted were Malleus returning comments that I believe you rollbacked off his page? (I'm not sure, I don't pay that much attention to the message that the history shows when an edit is rollbacked as against a undo. That's just about as rude as saying what he said, in my book. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unaware of any generally accepted practice to permit editors to maintain on their own talk pages severe personal attacks and abuse directed against other contributors. Naturally, if this is indeed the case, I will modify my behavior accordingly :) Andrea105 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, talk pages aren't something you want to edit war over comments on. You went over 3RR (or came close) by reverting his comments. It's ... rude... to do that. Also, it does appear that you used rollback for that, and rollback is to be used for vandalism, which is defined rather narrowly. I'm not even sure that "f--- off" is a personal attack, in some respects, it was pretty clear that Malleus was telling someone to leave his talk page alone, and your reverting of his comments helped escalate the situation. No, Malleus didn't have to use that phrase, but using rollback to revert away another editors comments isn't what rollback is for. Nor is going close to 3RR for that sort of thing either. The best thing anyone can do when in this situation is to descalate, on BOTH sides. While talk pages aren't given huge latitude, a bit more latitude is allowed on one's own talk page. Nor are we censored, so cuss words alone aren't incivility. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, my use of rollback was mistaken, due to Malleus' extremely harsh language. While swearing is not a personal attack per se, I would consider the use of expletives directed against other contributors for the purpose of insulting them to violate WP:NPA. Andrea105 (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, let's all go back to whatever it was that we were doing before this. In my case, freezing my behind off feeding my horses in single digits in the Midwest. Presumably, Malleus was writing content somehow, and everyone else was of course writing encyclopedia articles, right? Let it be. Let it drop. And that's my take on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Im sorry Malleus. My coments were uncivil as well.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 10 seconds for two personal attacks on other users talk pages
Unable to determine who started, provoked, or escalated what on the talk page here, I am not going to act regarding your actions here. You breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - and approached violation of WP:DISRUPT - but you were also taunted to some degree and edit warred against. I just issued a 5-second block on Andrea105 for her behavior here.

However, when you took it to other people's talk pages, that was not acceptable. and were not acceptable or appropriate. You were arguably defending yourself here, whether the form of defense was not. But when you went to their talk pages and attacked them, that was not justifyable.

I am imposing a 10-second block for personal attacks and a serious violation of WP:CIVIL.

Please do not do it again. Report it to ANI if people are taunting you here. And certainly don't escalate it elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.
 * Am I reading this correctly? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's already expired for a while by the time you put that up (it was only ten seconds long, after all).-- Twilight  Helryx  14:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, but I'm wondering if this is a joke block. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No it was note a joke block . I'm not sure what "protection of the encyclopedia" or "behaviour modification" it was going to achieve but there we go eh. Pedro : Chat  14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Subject to the blocking administrator's comment, I think it's more a "make sure an entry winds up in the block log" block. In general, that's not a particularly recommended use of blocking, but I don't think that the blocked user has standing to insist that the block length should have been greater.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mentions in the block log have done virtually nothing to prevent repetition of such behavior with this user in the past. While a mark in the block log may prevent some people from repeating poor behavior I suggest that a 10 second block in this case is not preventative and that either no block or a block of significant duration would have been a better idea. Chillum  15:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Telling someone "that's blockable abuse" is not the same as blocking them. Lots of people throw the words around, in some cases it's not taken seriously.  On the other hand, blockable abuse within a complex many people at fault situation may require some associated slack.
 * If the behavior had continued in any significant manner, blocking again for longer is now easy and obvious - you were blocked once (for a nominal, not serious time), and continued the behavior.
 * Not standard, no, but this was an unusual situation, with a legitimately taunted long-time abuse case party. Doing nothing wasn't working.  Blocking for longer seemed unfair.  This worked, other than Malleus being upset at me again.  It was balanced between the two involved parties.  So sue me...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I told George, I agree with the block mostly to serve as a reminder to both parties that they escalated the situation needlessly. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pathetic! --Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * *cough* No need for that, Malleus; as ridiculous as it may seem. Please see WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and WP:NPA for more information.-- Twilight  Helryx  16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you go and find someone else to annoy? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. Keep this behavior up, and it's your funeral. Not like I'm going to take the brunt for it. *walks away*-- Twilight  Helryx  16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked you to leave me alone. Please have the courtesy to do so. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:DonnchadhGenealogy.svg
Hello. I noticed your improved family tree, it looks great. I think there could be one typo. It has "Allean", where the article uses "Ailean".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, it was difficult to read on the jpg I was copying from. I'll change it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...
(Just had to get the Monty Python ref in...) Justus is at PR, as is Lightning Bar. Which next at FAC, do you think? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm.. or Carucage or Thomas of Bayeux? Decisions decisions... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that my enthusiasm for anything wikipedia related is at an all-time low Ealdgyth. I really do think the time may have come for me to leave it to the children who have been so eager to get rid of me for as long as I can remember. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I made a typo in my last edit summary; I meant they all look good, not goof. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a break. No need to descend to childish antics or anything, it's the holidays, surely even the English weather sorta cooperates for you? Go carol or something. Don't you Brits wear Dickens costumes for that or something? (grins). Me, I'd go hit a pub for some decent beer myself, but I'm just a benighted Yank... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And some grown-ups still need your help, advice and wisdom...... Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whenever I want to give up, I stay away from policy pages and process pages, maybe answer some reference desk questions, and just stick to writing or updating obscure little articles. I just pretend that everything I hate about Wikipedia is invisible to sane people. "Ignore all rules" also works as "ignore everything". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rulers? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't get engaged either. Maybe it's winter doldrums, as much a winter as can be had here. But it remains, I come to Wikipedia and I don't know what to do here. --Moni3 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was engaged for a while, but that ended in a ball of flames. Damn women. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OR, watch the Personal Attacks on women there! Besides, I'm sure it was all your fault, it always is the male's fault. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Buncefield fire
Hi Malleus. I finally completed the Buncefield fire article. Sorry that I took so long. :) Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  07:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes you've listed. Thanks.  Lourie Pieterse  08:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Kudos
Cheers for doing that new genealogy, btw. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just did the one that seemed the most difficult to read; it wasn't even easy to read when I printed it out at A4 size. Do you think it's worth doing the other one as well? It's not really a big job. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's not too big a job, then it's worth it. For sure ... it's always helpful to see such information in such an easy to process format. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

More downright filth
Do you have any ideas for more twisted stuff we can work on? I have a book coming so I can kick Cock Lane ghost into touch, as its a bit of a mess, and there's always Guy Fawkes. Hawley Harvey Crippen is a good contender, but I feel that Jack the Ripper (or even Jack the Stripper) is an important article that needs attention. Parrot of Doom 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember the good ol' days... ;)  ceran  thor 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack the Ripper would be good as there has been kerfuffle in the past I recall...which would be nice to settle with a 'preferred version' as it were. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My only plan at the moment PoD is to wait for the emergence of wikipedia's replacement, which will hopefully be a rationally run project without the sanctimonious clots like GHW and Chillum. I'm fed up with throwing pearls before swine like User:Coldplay Expert and User:Thejadefalcon. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all relative. Just do what you enjoy and the rest is irrelevant...we're all only reams of text on a white page anyway... (unless you've been to a meetup that is :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I do fancy a crack at Jack the Ripper but its certainly not something I could do alone (too much source material). I suggest you stick to what you're good at, editing articles, and let the politicians do whatever they like. :) Parrot of Doom 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, let's have a bash at Jack the Ripper then. As a gentle warm-up though how do you fancy wife selling? It seems to have been surprisingly common for about 300 years, lots of newspaper reports, even songs and stories featuring it, and it's something we ought to be able to knock off pretty quickly. I've made a start, but I haven't got any print sources yet. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I'm not interested in wikipolitics PoD, but what I am worried about is best summed up by this. WebHamster has been chased away, ChildofMidnight is under pressure at AN/I, Ottava Rima has left, some of the best administrators I've encountered during my time here have disengaged with the project ... one day it'll be your turn, and maybe then you'll be glad that I fight for every decent editor. If I'm still here myself that is. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll have a look to see if I can get 'owt from the library for both. I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly they got the Barlow book for Dick Turpin. Parrot of Doom 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for a book on Matthew Hopkins I reserved months ago. Which authorities' libraries are you a member of? I'm with Manchester and Trafford. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Trafford, at Urmston. Parrot of Doom 00:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend joining Manchester as well. In my experience they've got a wider range of books. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's something really hilarious ... those buffoons up there giving you warnings and their benighted advices, and wishing you to retire? How tragicomic! (As we say it in Serbian "Jebeš budale!" ;)) I just dropped by, but I must admit that I visit this page from time to time for your candid comments. Keep up the good work :-) Vladimir  (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They're just kids VVVladimir, they'll learn in time. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, most probably they are just kids, and hopefully they will learn. But there are kids and kids, and these kids just might have more to learn than some others (at least it seems so from what is written there by them). Vladimir  (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wCXr_6wgns Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I'm optimistic that your Badnjak article might get a mainpage spot on 6 January next year ... that's to say I think it deserves one, but I sympathise in advance for the inevitable vandalism. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks in advance for the sympathy :lol: Really, is there any way to prevent that? (probably a silly question) Vladimir  (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's difficult. On the one hand you want people to know about stuff, yet on the other you know it'll get trashed on the day. Still, if you're adamant you don't want to see it on the main page then just tell User:Raul654. He does all the main page scheduling. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandalism or not, let it be on the main page (if it passes). If I was afraid of vandalism, I wouldn't edit here to begin with. We'll see what's going to be of that. Vladimir  (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick Q Malleus, with regard to the 'letter apprehended', what do you think? I ask because I think you wrote that bit. Parrot of Doom 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether I wrote it or not, I agree with Awadewit, but "intercepted" isn't the right word either I don't think. Changed it to "fell into the hands of". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my, do I dare insert certain verses from page 56 of this? I'm sooo tempted... Parrot of Doom 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't preview page 56, but from the snippet I can see page 96 looks potentially interesting. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "He soon made the gentleman, deliver all his money. But the madam she did put her watch, into her hairy c...y.  Tho' to Ireland, etc"  "But Turpin quickly found it out, which made the lady cry.  Because he handled her twat, and stroked her plump soft thigh.  But to Ireland, etc."
 * Songs back then were much more interesting than the X-Factor crap we have now. Parrot of Doom 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information... We were all trolled.
We all appear to have been semi-professionally trolled. User:Andrea105 was apparently in fact a sock of User:John254, who's been indeff'ed for some time for obvious reasons.

I find it quite unfortunate that they got away with it long enough to taunt you into the incident a few days ago. I looked back and didn't see it at the time, but the behavior since then became increasingly evident, and after they were indefblocked they admitted it on their talk page.

You were clearly set up, in retrospect.

I don't know what John may have against you - I don't recall what the interactions were in the past. But apparently he has an issue with you now. He threatened to keep coming back with new socks, unfortunately. I don't know if we can tell now if they'll come back and bother you again.

If you find yourself running afoul of a new user who is inexplicably butting heads with you - I urge you to come to ANI and flag it there, for an admin to see if they might be another John254 sock coming after you again. Please feel free to reference this, and Andrea105's information, to get other admins looking at that aspect if I'm not around to take a look myself. I certainly have no intention to let him get away with it again if we can help it, but that will require some cooperation from you as well.

Have a better one...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I've got no idea what John254 might have against me; perhaps I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and presented an easy target. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps many read your username and think it's "Malleus Malifecarum." (Blocked for 10 seconds? Sounds pretty kinda pitiful evil, don't it? lol Better get meaner than that. Shoot for 10 minutes next time, why don't ya? :-) Excuse the drive-by noise .. just holiday strolling, don't remember how your talk got on my watchlist. Cheers, and happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This ten-second block business was a really bad idea; it didn't even give Lara and me time for a block party. The only worse thing I've seen lately is the dissing of His Obesity.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt. I love me a good block party. And shame on Ottava for shutting down my fun with Andrea. No good comes from stopping someone from trolling a troll. Lara  ☁ 16:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, dear, when Wiki conspires against us, we'll just have to have our own block party. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing that concerns me most about this episode is the sex change from John to Andrea. I just find that ... wierd. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't he the one who had a sock who claimed to be a female nudist or something? J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  17:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Kristen Eriksson or something.  Majorly  talk  17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) A guy pretending to be a woman on the Internet? No way! :P (Cf. User:Kristen Eriksen, particularly "her" userpage). By the way, as a sometime student of sockpuppetry, I'm always curious how many legitimate users immediately adjust their monobook script and start in with heavy-duty recent changes patrolling. I'm sure there are a few people who are genuinely motivated to register and edit Wikipedia specifically to perform rapid-fire, semi-aumotated vandalism reverts - though it seems kind of sad - but I have to believe that it raises the Bayesian pre-test probability of sockpuppetry considerably. MastCell Talk 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It does happen - someone who regularly edits as an IP, but sets up an account so they can use AWB or Twinkle which require autoconfirmed status, for example. (My own account springs de novo writing a very long article, because I'd previously edited as an IP but post-Siegenthaler needed to use a logged-on account to create new pages.) – iride  scent  15:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This character has all the signs of a returning user...  Majorly  talk  17:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I said!! XD Lara  ☁ 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alex, Lara, tsk tsk. Surely if someone wants to make a quiet return under a new identity, the community wouldn't want to see a self-righteous lynchmob demanding an inquisition into who knew what and when, followed by a rabble of admins ceremonially going out and rounding up everyone who knows more than they do? Oh, wait... – iride  scent  15:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like to say "I told you so", but I told you so – iride  scent  15:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I demand to know knew, when, and how! John254 used to be a pest around RFAR, right? Dropping his unwanted opinion on every case? Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else. Lara ☁ 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From what little I've seen, that description matches a lot of people... J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  18:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * John254 was the ultra-inclusionist obsessive who used to hang round AFD non-admin closing as keep every single article; he's also the one who kept recreating Seth Finkelstein, with hilarious consequences. There's a couple of very old WR threads about it here and here. – iride  scent  18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Justus...
When you have the time or motivation. I wanna finish off the last of the "need to improve to FA status" articles for the Gregorian mission Featured Topic. Lightning Bar will probably be next so I can have a break from Anglo-Saxon history... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's nice and short; I'll have a look tomorrow. What do you think about Parrots of Doom's and my latest project? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw it. I just unearthed my copy of Weaker Vessel and will poke through it looking for anything relevant... not sure there will be. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in Weaker Vessel so I am afraid I don't have anything to add. You're moving out of my time frame... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

comment about admins and the rules
I'm beginning to see what you meant :( Parrot of Doom 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some people best avoided, but sometimes they just come calling. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Images are hemorrhoids, especially of living famous people. I wrote Roy Orbison and it sits at B class because I can't find images.


 * I see the folks responding to your threads are rather dismissive. That's unfortunate, because understanding fair use rationales takes a lot of love and nurturing. Quickly, one can realize how futile the free image policy is and by extension, how futile it must be to work on any article focusing on a subject notable after 1923.


 * You have several options: write to the copyright holders of the images and ask them to release their images through the GFDL license. They could tell you to piss up a rope (several have told me to do so), but you also might get really lucky.
 * Write one hell of a fair use rationale for a historic image. Choose images that have been included in your sources, that the sources refer to to illustrate something of the image. Remember, it's the specific image at issue, not the band or the era.
 * See the fair use rationales in File:Stonewall_riots.jpg, File:CharlesKnow1.ogg, File:Rosewood_Florida_rc12408.jpg
 * Make sure your fair use rationales can be cited or have citations in them, and express the necessity of illustrating something in the article that absolutely cannot be understood without the image. A lot of this has to do with how you word it: "Because X is shown or source Z has written about issue F, words are unable to express what is shown in the image."


 * And remember. Free images are a huge pain in the ass. As much as admins? Interesting question... --Moni3 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My general approach to the fair use image policy is to avoid non-free images like the plague. As you say though, it does tend to restrict which articles you can work on. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had problems in the past, but not insurmountable ones. The difficulty comes when people interpret the rules too literally, and then make up their own when they no longer suit. Parrot of Doom 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Philcha's GAs - many thanks for covering
Many thanks - and stick around, we all need you. --Philcha (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to be able to help Philcha. I hope you're beginning to feel at least a little better now. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity
Hello, Malleus. Ealdgyth suggested I contact you, since she is pressed for time. Here is what I wrote on her talk:

I am currently in the middle of a GA nomination for Philip the Arab and Christianity, and I seem to be at loggerheads with the reviewer, Wandalstouring. In addition to points of dispute on content outlined in his comments and my replies in the review, we are in dispute on some very basic points of procedure: he finds it impossible to review an article written without detailed edit summaries, and I find it impossible to work with a reviewer who does not respond to points of dispute on the GA review.

He has requested a second opinion on the article on the GA nominations page, and has previously requested that I seek outside guidance on content, context, and style; he does not trust me on my own recognizance in these matters. As he wrote on my talk: "Your edits have not convinced me you are capable of handling the problems on your own within reasonable time, so do try to get some outside help?" I believe Wandal's main problems with the article are: (1) that the it does not do enough to contextualize the evidence presented, and (2) that it does not (I am not as sure on this point) make its structure clear and readable.

Would you be willing to assist? I would be very much obliged if you were. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there some confusion on the talk page? I notice that Wandalstouring talks about descriptions of Romanization (cultural) in the article and yet I can't find the term in the article (quite rightly so as modern academic opinion is that the concept of Romanization is full of pit falls; there's a good short review of the problems and recent opinion by David Mattingly somewhere). It is strange to hear the word "science" used on subjects about the humanities, but I think by "scientific" Wandalstouring means "expert". I don't think it's fair or realistic to expect you to be able to use non-English language sources; if you can make a rationale for why a sources is not necessary (beyond that of language difference though, perhaps it's out of date or referenced by another work), then it need not be included. With the large bibliography of modern sources used in the article, I doubt there is any one that is indispensable at that none overlap; the same goes for those recommended by Wandalstouring, although dealing with unknowns is always difficult.
 * As for edit summaries, when filled out properly they can be useful, but it's laborious and boring, so a way round that is to answer each point Wandalstouring raises with a comment and a link to how you've addressed the issue (it's what I do in FAC/GAC reviews as I can't be bothered with proper edit summaries and it saves the reviewer having to trawl through a lot of diffs to find the relevant changes). Nev1 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. GAN works well when the nominator and reviewer collaborate, but there's a disturbing trend towards demanding the same standards of GAs that are demanded of FAs. To speak frankly, I'd be a little critical of some of the prose if this was presented at FAC ("Philip the Arab (r. 244–49) was among the few third-century emperors favorable to Christians", for instance, is ambiguous), but I think the article easily meets and surpasses the GA criteria. I'd certainly have no hesitation in listing it as a GA.


 * If you and the reviewer can't come to some kind of mutual understanding, then my suggestion would be for you to ask the reviewer to close the review as a fail and then for you to take it immediately to WP:GAR. I've been in your position myself in the past, and sometimes the only way to resolve the impasse is to get more people involved, which is what GAR will do. Even with second opinions, the decision at GAN is solely in the hands of the original reviewer. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice, Nev1 and Malleus. And thanks to Malleus also for the copyedit. I will wait for Ealdgyth to comment, which she hopes to do "tomorrow or this weekend". After that, if Wandal and I still have no common ground, I will ask him to fail the article and move on to GAR, as you suggest. Regards, Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "You're too late. I already requested a second opinion. I always do that before I let an article fail." （；_；） Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikispeak, etc.
Greetings, Malleus. I hope you remember me from the old Anna May Wong FA days, and I wish you happy holidays. I was wondering if you were aware of what the ISP was (I think) getting at, and I was (somewhat criptically) getting at in our recent contributions to Wikispeak. As the Patron Saint of Blocks, have you ever been granted the muzzle for restoring your own !vote at a discussion after an Admin on the opposing side had removed it?... If not, you may enjoy a glance at THIS. Anyway, many of the editors I respect most (yourself included) have an unjust block or two on their record. I'm happy to have finally been awarded that honor. Take care, and happy editing! Dekkappai (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of the specifics of what the IP was geting at, but the general point seemed plain enough. I only removed it because it wasn't really amusing, not because I didn't agree with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem with that removal. The situation in a nutshell: Bit of incivility on my part which was included in a vote. Admin on opposing side of vote removed entire vote, and warned me to "AGF", I restored !vote, then got blocked without warning for incivility. Just thought you might find one more bit of Wiki-wackiness of interest. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Call that a block log? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A shriveled up, pitiful little thing I know... Maybe I get some points for the Block review discussion though (which they closed before I could comment). At that sober, impartial jury, it was kindly pointed out that I am a menace both to Wikipedia and to the little tyke in Africa, and that I churn out an endless amount of crap, and so I deserve any punishment that comes my way. Oh, and I don't make our volunteers feel sufficiently welcome ;) Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Take care
Good luck.

Plus, I still have all of that Ainsworth stuff sitting around. Some of it is buried in my user space, others are in my talk page archive and other places. I'll email you sometime with links or copy and pastes of it. I just demand credit when you nom them. :P

Mrathel and Ceoil will probably finish up the poetry stuff (Keats, Coleridge, and Wordsworth). Should be exciting. Both will need some copyeditor to keep an eye on them, so, you better do your best while you are still allowed to. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, Brad thinks that major Arbitrator conflict of interest is now of no importance. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottava, this sadly seems to be a done deal. All you can do now is to accept your fate with dignity supported by the conviction of your faith. I really do hope to see you back in harness in a few months. What's done is done, let it go. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but seeing the same corrupt people turn on others, its only a matter of time before they go after you. I'd rather burn them and chase them off the community for their utter corruption than let that happen. There will be more emails leaked and more corruption exposed on these people. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottava, I'm going to have to agree 100% with Mal here. Corruption is an extremely loaded term, and while there may be a number of imperfect things to fix at en.WP; the way you're lashing out isn't going to solve anything.  I beg you, please reconsider your approach here. — Ched :  ?  00:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You may well be right in supposing that I'm next in line Ottava—well after Giano anyway—but when my time comes I hope that I'll be able to leave with dignity, not kicking and screaming. Think of yourself, not what anyone else has done. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I have produced far more content than all of the Arbitrators combined. They can never take that away from me, and it will always mean that I am superior to the ArbCom, especially those who have sided with someone who abused their ops. But I will expose them for their back deals, hypocrisy, and outright lies. I especially enjoyed how Coren waited until after the election when he secured the support of my friends and myself before voting to ban me. Wonderful stuff how he played both sides on that one. I wonder what Moreschi would have said when Coren was CU'ing him before posting to support Moreschi for ArbCom. I guess Coren had to check first before he really tossed his hat into that ring. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not one of Coren's fans either, but you have to be looking forwards now, not backwards. What's done is done. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wiki is clearly punitive and not preventative. It is all about what people have done in the past. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Emotional judgements?
Hello Malleus Fatuorum. Thank you for the help with this article. I just want to explain one thing. In my native language, it is possible to say tragic/tragically without being emotional or POV. Everyone, who dies buried under an avalanche, dies tragically (in Czech language). In English, the meaning of this wording appears to be different, thank you for reminding me that. It was not my intention to insert POV or emotional statements, rather a little misunderstanding, caused by a language barrier. Usually I'm trying to avoid such statements, even when I love the subjects of my articles :) The main goal of my DYK nominations is to improve my imperfect English, and sometimes it works! Your little change helped me to come to a better understanding of your language. Have a good day, Malleus. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting to know. I once worked for a German company, and the tendency of Germans to translate müssen as "must" rather than "need to", or "have to", or "should" caused all sorts of subtle communication problems. Perhaps English is just too complicated with all its subtleties of meaning ... --Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

River Parrett & Witches' mark
Hi again, In a recent discussion about the possibility of getting River Parrett up to FA your name was taken in vain (by Pyrotec) & we wondered if you would look at the Prose? On a totally unrelated topic.. while working on Caves of the Mendip Hills I came across a link to Witches' mark which needs a bit of work & I instantly thought of you!&mdash; Rod talk 18:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Witches' mark looks right up my street, particularly with those two unsightly tags at the top—I like to work on the important topics. From a quick read through though, an awful lot of it seems to be junk. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your ce of River Parrett. I've now put it up for PR. The Witches' mark link was on Goatchurch Cavern based on an explanation of the science at Goatchurch Cavern marks explaining that "ritual protection mark was preferred to the description "witch marks" used in some references in order to avoid confusion with the same term which is used in many writings to refer to the marks left on a witch's body by its familiar (used as a diagnostic in many witchcraft trials)", so may not be that relevant to the Witches' mark article & I'm not sure if we need a separate one for ritual protection mark.&mdash; Rod talk 09:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Turpin
History or law ? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * History, definitely. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I should get a salary for these taxing decisions that cause grey hairs. Thanks!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Other fish in the sea
There's always one. I think I'll forget Jack the Ripper then, I can't be arsed with owners. Parrot of Doom 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let them get on with it; the important thing is that the article's being improved, not who gets credit for it. Not impressed with what's being implied here though: "However, I would still consider opposing because swooping in on an improved article, dressing it up, and palming it off as your own work is not in the spirit of the FA-process, nor of collaborative editing." Charming! --Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just know with attitudes like that it'd be a nightmare. Fuck 'em, they can sit and struggle with it for another 12 months.  Meanwhile I'll get another 6-7 articles to FA in that period, and learn a lot - which is why I do this - learning.  Oh and your prose lessons are most welcome, keep them coming. :) Parrot of Doom 20:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are, as you say, plenty more fish in the sea. I'm still hoping to get Mathew Hopkins into shape once wife selling is done, then there's the Paisley witches to sort out, the Witches' mark, The Green Child to finish off, all the Ainsworth stuff, the cider riot (I see that one's red, no owners to worry about there) medieval sanitation still needs some work, the Manchester Ship Canal has languished unloved for far too long now ... --Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gong Farmer always makes me laugh. I don't know why.  Maybe its the thought of all those golfers, in their Rupert pants, passing under the A57 where the shit waste trains used to run :) Parrot of Doom 21:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm always amused as I go past the golf club at Boysnope Wharf, where the shit trains were unloaded.

Well, well! I was reading the Salmesbury witches article and it had a link to the Matthew Hopkins article - what a load of complete bollocks! I did a copyedit on what was there but still found a lot of it didn't add up, so - as it's almost completely devoid of references - I checked out one of the external links. The George Knowles one | here seems to be really well researched and hardly anything in the unreferenced wikipedia article agrees with it. So I thought "I know the man to sort this out" and came here, only to find that it's on your list already. I've got a couple of other things in the pipeline at the moment but when I get time I might have a go at that one too if you've not already done it. At least I can use the Knowles web page to make some corrections for now, but I'm sure you'll want to get stuck in with some print references at some point. Oh, and if PoD is reading this - I haven't forgotten about speaking to Joe Martin about the listing for the beam engine but he didn't turn up for a pint last Tuesday. I'll phone him later today and see if he's got any advice to give, although I know time is short. Richerman (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, it's pretty poor. I've been waiting for a book I ordered from the library to arrive before tackling it. I know that some people probably don't think that articles like that are very "important", but I think they are; it's our history. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think you have an unhealthy interest in the left hand path :) Richerman (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You may well be right. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to PoD's and Malleus' first point, I've seen a few of types of credit-grabbers - along with other MMORG types on WP. Perhaps the editor who complained of "swooping in on an improved article, dressing it up, and palming it off as your own work" has been a victim in the past. As you say, you guys have other fish in the sea. --Philcha (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand why some editors might find PoD and I descending on an article to be quite intimidating. We both tend to work rather quickly, so rather hard to control. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Richerman, things look fairly positive for the beam pump, I've got a few engineering bods to email English Heritage so we shall see. I'm hoping to make a site visit early next year.  As for obscure but interesting articles, I was reminded today of Elizabeth Canning, which, if I take it on, should complete a nice little triumvirate of 18th-century shockers - Canning, Mary Toft, and Cock Lane ghost.  They're the three big scandals I most often come across. Parrot of Doom 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin help needed
Will some helpful passing administrator please move this to here for me? Chambers's Edinburgh Journal is the correct and original title, but it's already a redirect, so I can't do the move myself. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Antandrus. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Clicking idly on "recent changes" prior to finding something useful to do today.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper
I do not own the article. At the time of the accusation of ownership, there were five editors who'd contributed more to the article than me. Did I say no-one else could work on the page? No. Did I say anyone else's contributions are unwelcome? No. I invited external input. DrKiernan (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows you don't own the article, you stating as such is totally unnecessary. The point made was that you act like you do, not that you actually do. You coming here will not change that. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood the meaning of the word "own". In this context, it refers to an editor who acts as though they are the only one who can edit the article. So, what I'm saying is "I don't act as if I'm the only one who can edit the article". DrKiernan (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or a far more accurate way of describing it is that you don't realise that you are. Now that you do it looks like your response will be denial. Each of us have our own way of dealing with these things I suppose. Either way I don't think you will gain any karma points by bringing the discussion here. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I think I said elsewhere, I wish you luck with Jack the Ripper. What pissed me off though was this posting of yours, in which you said "I would still consider opposing because swooping in on an improved article, dressing it up, and palming it off as your own work is not in the spirit of the FA-process, nor of collaborative editing", a remark itself not in the spirit of collaborative editing. Clearly you were afraid that someone was trying to steal the credit from you, a very clear indication of ownership in my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the spirit of editing on Wikipedia was to learn something, and to educate others. Not personal glory.  I know why I edit here, and that's what annoyed me. Parrot of Doom 14:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Wife selling (English custom)
Superbly done. Not easy to write but I believe you've done an excellent job! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll second that -- great stuff! What's the weather like in Sale/Trafford at the moment? I am flying in to Manchester on Christmas Day to see my Dad. I know, inappropriate question for a talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bloody cold, with snow on the ground. Currently –1° C but feels like –4.3° C according to the weather report. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh so just like the Mid-Atlantic states then! – ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. Not even that. We're colder than that right now... -1C being 30F. We hit 8F (-12.7C) the other day with wind chills down to -30 (-34.4C). WIMP! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good work. I came across this, unfortunately, by seeing the last edit summary on your talk page, and was hoping for something a bit more well current, and maybe hoping to see some mention of special pre-Christmas discounts on some good material, but that's just the kind of sick puppy that I am. ;) John Carter (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried eBay? There are sometimes some bargains on there. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Bagioli Sickles GA review
Hey Malleus, do you think you could informally give me a bit more time on this one? I've been crazy busy all week and haven't had the time to give to this that it deserves. I should be able to get somewhere with it by the 24th I think.... I'd appreciate it. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'd rather the article was fixed than it had to be delisted. This is a busy time of year anyway, so I'd be happy to keep it open until the New Year if that helps. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going to want to have you take a look at it after I give it some effort, because I'm starting to wonder if maybe it does need to be merged... let me do some stuff and see what happens. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wife selling
Easier to ask here than on the talk page. The illustration at the top of the article - is that from Punch? The Kenny document mentions such an image, about the typical French view of the English. If it isn't, I'll try to hunt it down. Parrot of Doom 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question, but I'm afraid I don't have a good answer. What's worrying me is that having checked the source from the file's description I can't find it. It doesn't look like a Punch cartoon to me, and I'm slightly worried that the writing on the sign behind the man appears to be in French. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've come across a few comments about the French and their attitude to all this. Perhaps the cartoon is a French depiction of the English ritual? Parrot of Doom 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks likely to me. Gives us a problem now though, trying to track down the original, which might have been drawn by a nosferatu, and therefore not yet out of copyright. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the Punch image, although not in Punch. link Parrot of Doom 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a rather shit image here. Its an alternative, I suppose. Parrot of Doom 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is husbands for donation to any good takers a red link? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry Sandy, the balance of this article isn't right yet. There's one case of a wife selling the dead body of her husband, but none of live husband sales. In quite a few cases though the wife actually bought herself. In one I read about earlier today the wife had a bit of money, and when the man she'd arranged to buy her failed to show up at the sale she gave some money to the local innkeeper to bid for her. What's surprised me a little is that wife sales appear to have been quite common in some parts of the southern US as well. (Perhaps on reflection that isn't so surprising at all.) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea this article even existed. Malleus, your talk page is quite interesting.  I've read before that there were instances in the American West where unmarried women convicted of crimes could be "sold" at auction as a wife.  The money paid by the future husband would be used in lieu of a fine.  Not quite the scope of this article, but fascinating in the same icky kind of way anyway. Karanacs (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out the take-home message here. Women are too smart to pay for another woman's castoffs?  Kill 'em first so you can collect some money?  Innkeepers have a good supply of mattresses?  Or just, generally, that Karanacs and I will have to recuse if it comes to FAC, for COI?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think all female reviewers will have to recuse as well. This is man's work Sandy, you wouldn't understand. More seriously though, I think it could do with a female eye or two cast over it, to make sure that PoD and I don't go overboard with nostalgia for the days when a man was master in his own home. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * After Parrot of Doom and I have done this one, and weaseled Jack the Ripper through FAC, you can expect to learn more than you ever cared to know about medieval sanitation. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

← "In 1804 a London shopkeeper found his wife in bed with a stranger to him, who, following an altercation, offered to purchase the wife. The shopkeeper agreed, and in this instance, the sale may have been an acceptable method of resolving such a situation." I love the ambiguity of the word "acceptable" in that sentence. The transition from "altercation" to conclusion of a business transaction must have taken some delicacy as well. MastCell Talk 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I always like to include subtle jokes in the articles I edit. For instance "In 1833 the sale of a woman was reported at Epping. She was sold for 2s 6d, with a duty of 6d. Once sober, and placed before the Justices of the Peace, the husband claimed that he had been forced into marriage by the parish authorities, and had "never since lived with her, and that she had lived in open adultery with the man Bradley, by whom she had been purchased"  ;) Parrot of Doom 22:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that 19th-century shopkeeper would make an excellent RfA candidate. "Have you ever been in any conflict?" "Yes, when I came home early one day and discovered my wife shagging a complete stranger. I did what I always try to do in those situations though, discuss the problem calmly with all the involved parties." --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The wife was not "shagging a complete stranger"; she was shagging a stranger to him. (Malleus, I love it when a man reminds us delicate women of "a man's work"; why don't you use some of that to deal with that business on my talk?)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When pondering the differences between men and women I keep being reminded of the Donner party, who got stuck over winter in the Sierra Nevada. Most of the men died, but most of the women survived. So don't give me any of that "weaker sex" crap. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. If I was an American I'd be all over that article like a rash. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know just a thing or two about the Donner party :) I guess you're determined not to entertain me today, turning up your nose at all of my bait, and reminding me instead of cannibalism from my neck of the woods. Or are strong women supposed to eat the damn men when they can't sell them or give them away? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Sandy, I'm just a typical English male who wouldn't recognise subtle if it ran into me, so you'll have to hit me over the head with it. What "business on your talk page"? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone writing to me on Wiki about a "husband" I don't recall mentioning on Wiki. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. I only studied Spanish as a recreational subject for a year when I was at school, a long time ago now, but I think I get the gist of what you said. Strange. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see why your Brit status keeps you from working on the Donners... certainly my Yank status (although strictly speaking I'm much more Southern ...) hasn't kept me from editing English clergy! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I imagine that you've got many more sources over there, more readily available, and the cannibalism aspect would obviously need to be handled sensitively. I'm sure it could be done better by a Yank. But if nobody else steps up to the plate, maybe one day. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In Britain, the words "United States of America" were only uncensored in 1997. Before that, your country was referred to as "The Colonies".  Mention of the USA remained one of the few capital crimes on the statute books.  Unsurprisingly, there's little in the libraries about that "place beyond the Atlantic"... Parrot of Doom 23:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another for you... Alferd Packer, who has a grill named for him on the University of Colorado at Boulder campus. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember seeing a film of that incident on TV a few years ago. Scary. It's one thing to eat those who die before you, but quite another to kill them to eat. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what if you kill them with no intention of eating them but then, in a totally separate development, start to feel a bit peckish? Sort of a moral gray area. MastCell Talk 01:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it comes down to how much you want to live. I don't blame anyone who takes advantage of whatever resources are available to keep themselves alive, but it's just not for me. I don't want to live that much. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've toyed with the idea of working on the Donner article. (I visited the site - now a state park - years ago and was suitably disturbed/fascinated by the information in the museum.) There has been a great deal written about it, though, and wading through all that may take some time.  I figure at some point I'll get aggravated with everyone and be in the mood for reading all the gory details.  If I do, I'll remember to grab you for help. Karanacs (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I once taught a two-week course to gifted adolescents about the Donner Party and the Greek-like tragedy they created. I have some of the books at home, but I'm not sure why I never thought of working on the article. Let me know if y'all ever get the itch and I might help out. Oh, and I have eaten at the Alfred Packer grill. Mrs. Moni grew up a mile away from where Alfred Packer is buried. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think with "big articles", like the Donner Party, you really need to gather some trusted collaborators to make the task manageable. I'm not sure that either Parrot of Doom or I would ever try to tackle, for instance, Jack the Ripper on our own. I'm reminded as well of the buzz working with a bunch of other editors on Peterloo Massacre. That's what wikipedia's all about for me, not quietly head down ploughing a lonely, out of the way furrow, desperately trying not to upset anyone. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I adore working with others, but on a lot of the stuff I work on, I just don't have collaborators. Sure, there is Deacon and Angus and Mike, but we all sorta have our own little niche, and we rarely cross paths with articles. I do enjoy working with the Equine project on stuff, but generally we only work on "big" articles together there, the little obscure stuff we all go our own way. Of course, every article I bring to FAC is really a collaboration, since I so absolutely rely on others to help make my prose polished. (Usually that means poor Malleus gets to expand his knowledge of medieval England some more...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your lonely furrow is one well worth ploughing on with though Ealdgyth. Where is anyone going to find a better online account of the Gregorian mission and its members than the one you've written here? By "big" I didn't mean important, just big in the amount of material that would need to be covered to produce a plausible FA. At least you've usually only got three or four sources to ferret out at best. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you once wrote that WP is a hobby. Some editors like controversy and confrontation; some like working quietly, in their furrow, maybe not upsetting people, as their hobby.  Is there not a place for both (especially when you're retired and are fed up with controversy and confrontation)? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope so Peter, and everything in between. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers - and have a good Christmas. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

another break

 * aha! I think I found a reliable source for the article main image.  I'll copy it across and update the info, I think it should be ok.  I'll of course try and find a more original copy, from the source quoted.  Annoyingly, the pdf is password protected, so its screengrab and layer time :( Parrot of Doom 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also this image. By the way, don't whatever you do search commons for Thomas Rowlandson while at work. ;) Parrot of Doom 22:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite like that one! --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'm about done until my copy of Thompson's book arrives, hopefully tomorrow, but with the dread spectre of Xmas looming ... What do you think we have left to do? I've got a couple of concerns still, one about the structure, which I'm still not entirely happy with, and the other about the practice in other countries, perhaps particularly Scotland, and maybe even the US and Australia. Our colonies, in other words. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm adding the Rowlandson image now. I think definitely we need to sort out why the practice died, and include the last known instance of wife selling.  Also, anything about wives sometimes employing agents to get them out of a marriage, if that's available.  I'm going to ask the library for that Menefee book. Parrot of Doom 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I came across a case yesterday (I think I already said somewhere above), in which a wife gave a stranger the money to bid for her, so there's a bit still left to be said. I'm hoping that Thompson has a good account of that last (1928) wife sale. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * DYK's open as the article prose has increased x5, and it would make a much more interesting hook than you usualy get at DYK. Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good one. How about "DYK that... men used to be able to get shut of their wives, and make money while doing so (unlike today)! :D Parrot of Doom 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know, DYK never occurred to me. I think I'd like to see what SandyG and the other ladies can come up with in the way of a hook though, to sorta balance things out. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I nominated it. Feel free to offer alternative hooks people. Parrot of Doom 23:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked your offering a little PoD, hope you don't mind. Let's see what the ladies can do now. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with that although it does hide 'wife selling'. I'm wondering, should we call wife selling a symbolic divorce, or a symbolic separation? I think divorce may have been a much more prejorative and important word than it is now. Parrot of Doom 01:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it clearly wasn't a divorce in any real sense, else there would have been no prosecutions for bigamy, and divorce was a relatively new idea anyway at the end of the 17th century. I'd go with symbolic separation. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is that I can't find any mention of BARLOW in the Ashton book, which is online at archive.org. I don't think either of us put that in there, so it'll probably have to be changed. There are three cases in the Ashton book however, so it won't be a problem. Parrot of Doom 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Always a problem when you descend on an article, like we've done with this one; sometimes too easy to forget to check the veracity of what was already there. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A propos of nothing at all, I'm reminded that I wouldn't be trusted as an Autoreviewer, because my output of new articles is pitifully low. Yet I'm allowed to blow up any old established article with any old crap I like. Go figure. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sussex wife-selling
I spotted the article on DYK suggestions and I immediately remembered the paragraph in the Collins book (which has a wealth of bizarre information about all sorts of subjects, I must say). Fortunately it was to hand. She notes that it was "not infrequent in 19th-century Sussex"; apparently the three quoted examples (and another in Horsham in 1825, where the price was £2.5.-) were a small selection of the reliably documented cases! It is indeed an intriguing subject; great work on the article expansion (also to PoD). Incidentally, note the strange name of the pub in Yapton... on the preceding page in Collins, there's a whole list of pub oddities, including the White Horse in Chilgrove, whose pub sign used to show a cat because the signwriter couldn't paint horses (?!). Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  00:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

another break
Page 488, about half way down. Instance of a bloke leasing himself, to another woman. I'm not sure this is worth including, especially given the age of the book, but I thought I'd double-check. Parrot of Doom 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting story, but I'm not sure it's relevant to our theme. I'm beginning to get a bit concerned as well that the scope of the article may be creeping to include the practice in other parts of the world, particularly the US and Australia. Not sure we can avoid that. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All that's required, if this is true of course, is that the custom was exported to various English colonies, etc. Nothing more than that.  If people want to read about Wife selling in Australia, or the 13 Colonies, they can create another article for it.  Its the old "Hindley in popular culture" again. Parrot of Doom 17:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What about a short section called something like Other parts of the UK and its colonies? I've found a source that says there were rather few cases in Australia, but it seems to have been quite common in some remote parts of the US; only one recorded case in Wales, and not many in Scotland either. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends how much you're going to add. If its a paragraph, I'd just merge it where appropriate (I can't stand articles with headings for only a few sentences).  You could, as an option, rename "Cultural references" to something that could encompass the world-view of the phenomenon.  That section needs a bit of work, I was going to start merging things anyway. Parrot of Doom 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll write something then, and we can decide later if and how it needs to split up. I'm thinking now that maybe a paragraph on how widespread the practice was might be enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. What I'd really like would be if we could distribute what's in Cultural references elsewhere throughout the article as appropriate and lose that section altogether. They always seem to end up being rag bags of trivia anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a go, I don't know where to put The Mayor of Casterbridge however. The book is basically about a bloke that gets drunk, sells his wife, swears himself off the booze for 21 years, becomes Mayor, and then the missus returns years later.  A tragic novel really.  It should go in, but where.... Parrot of Doom 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an important cultural reference, I think. I'm going to put it in the lead. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the lead we have "Leeds...1913...£1, one of the last known cases (etc)", but very similar wording also appears in the body. I was going to place it at the end of the article as it would seem better placed there, but then I noticed that each sentence has different page number ranges on the citation.  Would you be able to quickly have a look at that, so I don't stuff the cites up? Parrot of Doom 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. I'm not certain why we wrap up the article with that Sheffield Sally Army sale though, it just seems to leave things dangling. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I thought it best to have the 1913 thing after that - seems sensible to place the last known/recorded sale at the end. Parrot of Doom 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"In some cases, like that of Henry Cook in 1814, the Poor Law authorities forced the husband to sell his wife, rather than have to maintain her and her child in the Effingham workhouse. She was taken to Croydon market and sold for one shilling, the parish paying for the cost of the journey and a "wedding dinner". " - that sounds utterly remarkable, and almost unbelievable. Does the author offer a source for that? A parish, paying for a fake divorce? Parrot of Doom 01:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thompson describes the same case, wasn't all that uncommon apparently. It was published in the Second Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners (1836). --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tring witch ducking
Have you heard about Thomas Colley? I've been reading a source for the Cock Lane ghost which describes the 1751 Tring witch ducking incient as "one of the two most sensational cases of popular superstitious credulity". Just thought you might be interested, the book is here Parrot of Doom 01:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I had heard of that, yes. As you say, interesting. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Was the Cock Lane ghost the other "most sensational cases of popular superstitious credulity"? Nev1 (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the source, yes. Parrot of Doom 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fanny and cock
What do you think of Cock Lane ghost so far? I have a couple of read-throughs to do, to tidy up bits and pieces, and the last section needs something to wrap things up, but generally I'm reasonably happy with it now. Parrot of Doom 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it looks great, a real ripping yarn. I noticed a few things though:


 * "Disappointed that the Ghost had not revealed itself, Moore told Kent that he now believed that it was an imposter." I don't think "imposter" can be the right word here, as it implies that there was actually someone/something acting as an imposter. The Ghost couldn't be an imposter in other words, as it didn't exist.


 * "Keen to prove that the Ghost was not an imposture ...". What does "imposture" mean?


 * I'm not sure about the capitalisation of "Ghost", particularly as it isn't capitalised in the title of the article.


 * --Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Moore believed that although the Ghost wasn't Fanny, it was a ghost nevertheless, just an 'imposter'. I'll try and clarify that.
 * "1 : the act or practice of deceiving by means of an assumed character or name, 2 : an instance of imposture"
 * I've capitalised ghost to make a difference between a 'ghost', and 'the ghost'. I think of the title as either a"The Cock Lane ghost", or "The Ghost that haunted Cock Lane", if you catch my drift.  Thanks for the ripping yarn compliment, I have a couple more good pictures to scan that should make it more interesting. Parrot of Doom 15:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I nommed it at FAC. The question is, will there be a big fight if I push for this on 1 April, and you push for Wife selling (English custom)?  By the way, let me know if you want a co-nomination for this. Parrot of Doom 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't do enough to scratching Fanny to warrant a co-nomination. I didn't even read a book, so she's all yours, good luck. So far as a fight over the 1 April TFA slot is concerned, no fight from me. Life's too short. :-)


 * BTW, I've been looking more carefully at that Duke of Chandos story in wife selling, prompted by your comment on the source. I can't find Notes & Queries, but I did find a much earlier account of the sale in The Gentleman's magazine, which is downloadable, and tells a slightly different story, probably one nearer the truth. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The older link goes to an author's page, so he's probably guilty of fiddling with it a bit. Are you going to nominate Wife selling then? Parrot of Doom 22:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not quite ready yet I don't think. Ealdgyth may object to greenbag.org as a reliable source, I haven't yet tied in The Mayor of Casterbridge, and I've still to add something about wives buying themselves. It's getting close though I think. Besides, you can't have two FACs simultaneously, so there's no rush. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax  06:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Malleus!
Here's something from Florida during Christmas. Today high of 75 F. Have a wonderful holiday. Forget about the shit that goes on here for a few days. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a sucker for luscious orbs, it'll be my downfall one day. Thanks for the reminder that it's not fucking freezing cold everywhere. Oh, and best wishes to you too Moni. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
May the beneficial power of the badnjak be with you, Malleus Fatuorum, in the coming year :-) Vladimir  (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Justus...
He still looking good to you post-Xmas binge? (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think he's ready to rock and roll. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Isabella Banks
From Nev1's talk page

Hi, this edit of yours removed sourced information from an article but the edit summary ("journalist v ournalist (1chr)") doesn't seem to explain why. May I ask what was the thinking behind the removal? Nev1 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no idea why the change occurred. It makes no sense to me what so ever. Nobody had access to my computer that evening, there doesn't appear to be a "rollback".  It is the most bizarre edit I have ever made. I have changed my password, but since no other edits were made it seems unlikely that my account was hacked. Amazing.  EhsanQ  (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the edit to Isabella Banks. I am at a complete loss as to what happened. It isn't an article I have seen in years. I certainly don't recall seeing it on Monday night. I wasn't drunk or anything. My account hasn't been hacked, as their was no other vandalism. Very puzzled and very bizarre.  EhsanQ  (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mistakes happen, no harm done. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Cock Lane ghost
More fascinating reading of Cock Lane. Thanks to you again! Ooh I really do enjoy old english scandals. Perhaps you could write a full article about the Jamaica Inn which has a fascinating history of hauntings and highwaymen? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't take the credit for Scratching Fanny, that's down to the Parrot of Doom. Jamaica Inn looks interesting though, when I've finished wife selling. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've just remembered that I've been there. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Here or on my talk page
If you wish to talk with my please do so here or on my talk page. I won't be responding to you on Ottava Rima's talk page, but I welcome discussion on either of our talk pages. The purpose of OR's talk page is not for us to disagree with each other.

I will start the discussion by saying your latest post to me, "You could have said that privately, in an email...", seems to tell me that you did not read what I had just said about why I did not respond by e-mail. You did not even respond to those reasons, but simply repeated your position and added a couple of unkind words. If you wish to convince me of anything then you need to use reason. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Chillum, you and I seem to inhabit different universes. I simply don't understand you and your civility crusade. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that I don't get it, and I never will. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Chillum's argument, if I understand it, is that he/she regrets that OR now knows Chillum's e-mail address, and so can continue to send information that is unwanted. That is, of course, easy to understand. What I do not understand is why Chillum feels obligated to read unwanted messages. An application of volition would make it quite possible to send OR's messages into the spam folder unread. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As you know, when you get a wikipedia email it's your choice whether to reply or not, and from which email address. I just don't see the point of making a big deal out of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. To my eyes it appears an attempt to inflict further damage to the reputation of a user who was unfairly banned, and who is now in a very week position to defend himself. Its deplorable, but in keeping with what I have come to expect. All the talk about WP 'collegiality' is a laugh, and as a quality it is probably easier to find it among pro-wrestles than on WP noticeboards. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that words like "unfair" really make much sense here, as the whole thing is run like a circus. I was shocked to see Newyorkbrad's proposed one year ban, and quite frankly I'd far rather see him banned than Ottava. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is my view that one person may be inflicted a wrong by the viciousness of another, but if there is harm is up to us, and entirely in our own power. I do agree with you that WP is a circus, if by that you mean a Roman circus. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was actually thinking of Fred Karno's circus, chaotic and unpredictable. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)