User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2009/May

I win!
I think I'm now the winner of the "most boring article" contest. Can you beat something whose very claim to notability is that nothing of any interest ever happened there? (Iridescent)
 * Try Chinaman's Hat (Port Phillip). Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't it Martin Gardner who "proved" that there are no uninteresting numbers? I think that by claimimg victory you automatically lose. --Philcha (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always believed that "boring" is a property of the observer, not of the subject. To paraphrase comedian Frank Carson "It's the way you tell 'em!" --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, some things are just plain boring. Heathrow Junction railway station, anyone? –  iride scent  19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was a little hasty ... :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Euclidean algorithm
I'm a tad confused why you think that the above page should be supported as an FA. Just a list of some lines that are uncited:


 * 1) A more subtle definition of the GCD is helpful in advanced mathematics, particularly ring theory.
 * 2) In modern mathematical language, the ideal formed by a and b is a principal ideal generated by g.
 * 3) For example, this style of mathematical argument is used to show that the Euclidean algorithm for integers must end in a finite number of steps.
 * 4) The remainder is equivalent to the congruence class in modular arithmetic.
 * 5) A generalization of this result is known as Sturm's theorem.
 * 6) Bézout's identity, and therefore the previous algorithm, can both be generalized to the context of Euclidean domains.
 * 7) For example, suppose that a cook has two measuring cups of volume a and b, respectively. By adding and subtracting multiples of these two volumes, the cook can measure out any volume ua + vb. These volumes are all multiples of g = GCD(a, b).
 * 8) The matrix method is as efficient as the equivalent recursion, with two multiplications and two additions per step of the Euclidean algorithm.
 * 9) The unique factorization of numbers into primes has many applications in mathematical proofs, as shown below.
 * 10) this is impossible for a system of linear equations when the solutions can be any real number.
 * 11) A finite field is a set of numbers with four generalized operations.
 * 12) Euclid's algorithm is widely used in practice, especially for small numbers, due to its simplicity. For comparison, the efficiency of alternatives to Euclid's algorithm may be determined.
 * 13) One inefficient approach to finding the GCD of two natural numbers a and b is to calculate all their common divisors; the GCD is then the largest common divisor.
 * 14) However, it may be generalized to the real numbers, and to more exotic number systems such as polynomials, quadratic integers and Hurwitz quaternions. In the latter cases, the Euclidean algorithm is used to demonstrate the crucial property of unique factorization, i.e., that such numbers can be factored uniquely into irreducible elements, the counterparts of prime numbers. Unique factorization is essential to many proofs of number theory.
 * 15) The real-number Euclidean algorithm differs from its integer counterpart in two respects. First, the remainders rk are real numbers, although the quotients qk are integers as before. Second, the algorithm is not guaranteed to end in a finite number N of steps. If it does, the fraction a/b is a rational number, i.e., the ratio of two integers

etc.

POV, peacock characterizations, etc, clearly need to be cited regardless of claims about an article's statements not being "controversial". Hell, many of the examples violate OR, including the one in number 7 or number 9. I'm surprised no one tagged number 12 as blatantly needing a citation. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Much of it seems to be self-evident, not requiring citations. Take your example of #7 for instance; hardly OR, just a practical application of the algorithm, wouldn't you agree? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Self evident? OR is very, very clear. You cannot take one thing and "apply" it. We are a tertiary source. We are only allowed to -summarize- other sources, not create our own information. It is right at the beginning of WP:OR that this is 100% not what Wikipedia is supposed to have. And phrases like "A more subtle", "efficient", "widely used", are clearly needing to be cited. Finally, even Wikitionary would require someone to cite a source when defining words. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may well be right, in which case I don't agree with the present framing of WP:OR as it's being applied to mathematics articles. I don't consider it any more "original research" to invent an example like #7 than it is to invent a graphic showing the basic structure of a virus. In any case, I've seen the example of the cooks and their measuring jugs elsewhere, and it not infrequently appears in one form or another in IQ-type tests, so it's not an invented example anyway. But my fundamental position is that anyone who has followed the exposition of the algorithm to that point would have no difficulty in perceiving the truth of the statement, so a citation would only be there to reassure those who haven't understood what's been said. That's surely not the purpose of providing citations. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want, I can scan you copies of Euclid textbooks that go to great lengths showing sources and verification for what they say, which is not even close to happening on the current page. Every other scientific field has to prove that what is said is verifiable. Every other scientific page has to have citations. Every other FAC needs to be fully cited. Why the double standard? I'm not pointing out the formulas. I'm pointing out secondary material that is phrased as either definitional or subjective. Citations exist to prove that Wikipedia is a legitimate tertiary source. How can we have such a reputation if we have phrases like "The matrix method is as efficient as the equivalent recursion" without any verification? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may well be right Ottava, and certainly I don't find your position untenable. It's just that I don't see the same need as you do for citing what appears to me to be self-evident. Luckily it's not my FAC, but if it was I'd now be forced to buckle down and provide the citations you're looking for. I don't see it as a "double standard" though; literary articles, for instance, obviously require copious citations, as they're almost entirely descriptive or expressions of critical opinion, but I see no particular reason to so densely cite material in a mathematical article, in which the propositions are developed logically one from another. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be hard to put one citation at the end of a paragraph. But I'm not asking for the equations or formulas to be cited. I'm asking for the descriptive terms that are thrown in that talk about things of a subjective nature. Statements like "widely used in practice" are subjective. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not my FAC Ottava. I've supported it and for better or worse I won't be changing my mind. You must surely have noticed that once my mind is made up I rarely change it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just figured that your support was showing that you were going soft, so I needed to chastise you a bit to make sure that you are on your game when I start making demands for our pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I reviewed another FAC today as well as this one you're concerned about, so I don't think I'm going soft. Time will tell though I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you have grown soft. If I was reviewing that page, I would have opposed because that page read and acted as if it was simply a header for a category instead of actually providing something more encyclopedic to justify why it would even matter. I just looked up German American and realized that this is a growing trend. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did oppose it, but I didn't see any need to be confrontational about it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See! Soft! Oppose it with descriptions like "strong" in front of it and make sure to put many exclamation marks!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Response from WT:RFA
"I don't think that position quite makes sense. I imagine it's rooted in the assumption that an editor who lodges a support vote without rationale is implicitly agreeing with the nominator's statement. But equally an oppose vote without rationale could be taken as implicit disagreement with the nomionator's statement."

You are correct on the assumption that I'm working on. However, my attitude towards RfAs is that its purpose is twofold (if you care, you can read my ramblings about RfA); the secondary aspect of RfA is to serve as a sort of "enhanced editor review" for the candidate, with (hopefully worthwhile) feedback being provided, even on successful ones. Because of that attitude, I don't see the no-rationale RfA !votes as being helpful; there's nothing for the candidate to work with (disagreement with the nominator's statement? I can buy that, sure, but what exactly are they objecting to?).

Perhaps it's a bit idealistic of me to hope that others consider the process for its self-improvement aspects, but that's at least why I consider the burden of evidence to be on the shoulders of those that oppose. (and sorry for bringing this to your talk page, but the thread got archived before I could get back to it, and I felt you deserved a direct response) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 10:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to reply. I can understand that if you think of RfA (at least in part) as some kind of editor review your view is not an unreasonable one to hold. My own opinion though is that it's an enhanced form of bear baiting, where the unpopular spectators get mauled along with the bear. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel any better, I don't think your take on the process is entirely without merit. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know from personal experience that it's not without merit. I also know that I'm one of those the baying crowd wants to see mauled. But do I care? Not a bit. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean you don't enjoy being told how much you suck by dozens of people with bold adjectives? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a time when it bothered me a little, but that was a long time ago now. There's no way I'm going to give the bastards the pleasure of a third mauling though. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, I at least respect you, even if I don't always agree with you. Sorry I couldn't whip out any bold adjectives for it. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

2nd opinion, admin and non
Star and Malleus: Can you look over the section on my talkpage called User talk:Keeper76? Am I totally in left field on this one? I haven't "adminned" in a few months, was clearing CSD (a no brainer), and now this otterathome guy is insisting that I'm a complete idiot and about to crash Wikipedia. Your opinion, regardless of whatever it is, will not result in a block of your account :-) Keeper  |  76  17:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously you made a mistake initially in deleting the userpage, but you quickly corrected that when it was pointed out to you. Otterathome's point, so far as I can understand it, appears to be that because you also deleted the user's subpages you in some way destroyed valuable evidence of something or other. But as the content of those userpages is still available to any of the many thousands of admins we have here on wikipedia I really can't see what there is to get excited about. As an administrator though your hands are tied in how you can respond without causing that "dramah" that so upsets the children. For myself, I'd just tell otterathome to fuck off and come back when he's grown up. You may of course prefer to tone that down for public consumption. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Input appreciated. The content was trivial bits and pieces of his userpage that he subst'ed around, plus some copies of existing articles.  Nothing at all really.  And not that you asked.   Keeper  |  76  20:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto what Malleus said: a lot of hoo-hah about nothing. You are not nuts. Except perhaps for coming back, but we won't hold that against you :) Maralia (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GAR template removal
Surely you cannot think that it is all right that User:Jennavecia removed the GAR template from the article talk page, so that only the involved FAC editors and their followers can comment. Do you? Plus I cannot contact other editors, else I am accused of violating WP:CANVASSING, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Do you really think that is fair for an admin to use admin powers to protect certain editors? And one of the editors, it turns out, is being viewed by Arbitration for the very POV I complained about in the article. How can you possibly think that is right? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I see that you do not have it in you. Too bad. I will not comment again. And again, I ask you to refrain from posting on my page. It brings no good to me. Please stop. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ... and once again you demonstrate very well that you have an unfortunate tendency to personalise every disagreement. Another recent example: "I now realize that I have a 'dispute' with Awadewit. I will no longer consider myself on good terms with her or you, since that is the way you want to frame it." Such reactions are not rational. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was quoting User:Cirt's as that is what he said. I now see that Awadewit is just like the rest, no better and no worse. About on your level. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You just can't help yourself, can you, or even recognise what you're doing. But please take it somewhere else, I've seen quite enough of it already. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really believe Mattisse that this kind of thing is helpful then I'm afraid that there really is no hope for you. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy
I would like to restore Conversion therapy to GA status. Can you help? Questions:


 * Were Born Gay's major changes the reason that GA status was lost?
 * Now that months have passed since your review, what areas still need work?
 * Is significant work still needed or is the article far from GA status?
 * What, if any aspects of the GA version could be used to restore GA status to the current version of the article?

I would appreciate any feedback on the situation. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the article in a while, but I'll do so later and let you know what I think. I've no idea what changes Born Gay made, but the review gives all the reasons why GA status was lost. It's worth bearing in mind that the reason this article was reassessed was because it was listed as a GA before August 2007, when the good article criteria became significantly more demanding. I haven't checked, but in all probability the article has never met the present GA criteria.


 * Anyway, hopefully the work you and Born Gay are doing will bear fruit, and the article can be relisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme
Thanks for your help getting this up to GA. When you get a moment, could you put those thoughts you mentioned you have on the article talk page, now that the GAN is over? Thanks,  Majorly  talk  19:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the GA, the article deserved it I think. Next stop FAC? I'll dump a few thoughts on the article's talk page asap. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Any article can become a GA
So, I take it from your response to me above that you agree with User:Jennavecia, User:Awadewit and User:Cirt that any article can become a GA? (See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1) In the past you encouraged me to open a GAR if I felt an article did not meet the requirements. Now, an AN/I thread is opened because I dared to do so. That is my only sin, plus disagreeing with User:Awadewit that Michael Moore is a modern day Thomas Paine, more so that others mentioned in that connection, and so should go into an article on a work by Thomas Paine. That is the total of my current sins. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Look Mattisse, it's no secret that I think you've been behaving like a complete prat, and are continuing to behave like one. Everything is always someone else's fault, never yours. Now get the hell off my talk page until you have leaned how to conduct yourself rationally. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please join the Arbitration against me at Requests for arbitration. I believe your attitude shows that your comments would be welcomed. I want to be sure that nothing negative is omitted.  Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked, Thomas Paine wasn't whiny, fat, or unable to form proper sentences. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR
It would be relatively easy to narrow the gap between FA and FAR with little time spent as the detail of scrutiny currently used in there is not that high.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest I'm rather shocked at what you're saying about FAR. I'd automatically assumed that the same standards were applied as at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the toughest guys only stay at FAC.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * cough* Really? Because I tend to split between the two 50/50 and I don't think there is anyone legitimately tougher than me. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Chat Moss
I'll put this here rather than the article's talk page as its a bit naughty. I have a scan here of this book:



which may be of interest to you regarding Chat Moss. I'm building an article for Carrington Moss and a local resident emailed it to me. It'll be gone in a couple of days so make sure you save it if you want it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PS, I've been pinching bits from the Chat Moss article (rewording slightly) and wondered if you had a saved copy of this source? It has a section on Carrington Moss which would be useful. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the scan. I've downloaded a copy and I'll certainly add something to the Chat Moss article. There's quite a bit of information on Carrington Estate in Robert Nicholl's book Manchester's Narrow Gauge Railways which I've got a copy of. It was one of my primary sources for the Chat Moss article. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the paper you asked about, I guess I must have downloaded a copy, else I wouldn't have known what the paper's conclusion was—unless I made it all up, of course. :-) Just got to find where I put it though ... --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the article so far. I think I'll make it live soon.  I only live a mile or so away so will go up when the sun is out to get some nice pictures.  I must do the same with Chat Moss, that's only around the corner too. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking good, definitely ready for the mainspace I'd say. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a present for you. A whole load of statistics about Chat Moss, from Manchester's Dept. of Cleansing.  Do you want them?  Let me know and I'll shove them on Flickr. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oooh, yes please. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Doneski. Click the 'all sizes' button to embiggify them.  here.  Let me know when you have it all.  They're all from this book:



Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Got them, thanks. Some great stuff for the Chat Moss article there, have to get cracking on it soon. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, Chatemosse is mentioned on here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I took a while to respond since it's quite funny to read some of these back-and-forths on your talk page. Anyway, for the sweeps, I really hope that the open-ended list will improve the amount of reviews/reviewers. I know that there were some singular articles that I wanted to complete, but then somebody would take over a topic, and then several months down the line, complete only three of the 40 articles in that topic. I really would like sweeps to be over, so I can go back to reviewing GANs, but at our current pace its going to take several more years. I'll be training my grandkids how to review articles so they can complete the last 100. Hopefully you do past me, it means more articles will be done! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As OhanaUnited pointed out on my talk page, you haven't been awarded yet for your contributions to Sweeps. I thought you already had, but not matter, here it is now. I really do appreciate your efforts, and hopefully we do conclude Sweeps soon. Unfortunately, with this new increase of new reviewers, I may feel nostalgic, and start revieweing again. So you may have to review a few more to catch up to me. :) --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Jennaveccia gave me one a little while ago, but I'm perfectly happy to accept another one, thanks, :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, per GA Statute, paragraph 16, point 54, you are required to review another 200 articles to retain this award. Otherwise, this award will be re-gifted to another user. I'd hate to be that guy to do that, so enjoy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of debate from Malleus's oppose brought to talk as it is no longer about candidate

 * Malleus, if I'm brutally honest, I've seen more mature behaviour from Jamie than yourself. I think I'd know who I would trust more with my car... Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What leads you to believe that I have even the slightest interest in your opinion? As you must know, I think you're a disgrace as an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At least I had the ability to become one. At least people trust and respect me. I would rather be a disgrace as an administrator than you. You have no sway over anyone's opinion on this Earth. You hold no respect or dignity. You are just this sad little man that goes around Wikipedia thinking he's big and hard just because he can type. Big fucking deal. You can't hurt anyone with your little insults, jibes, and quips. You're a fucking nutcase if you derive some sort of sick sadistic pleasure from insulting someone. Get the fuck off of Wikipedia. You don't give a fuck about this project and no one, I swear to God, no one would give a flying fuck if you left. Have some self-awareness and LOOK at yourself and how you portray your character on this website... Do you think you've ever been nice to someone? Do you know what altruism is? Every day I check my e-mails and write out explanations and answers to new users who have gotten stuck and needed help. Every day I answer questions on my talk page to people requiring administrative assistance. Every fucking day I come onto here and I do my best for this project. Every single action I do improves this encyclopaedia. And for what? So you can be a fucking prick to anyone you want? I'm actually sick of people like you. I'm sick of spending my free time building this encyclopaedia when LUCK PUSHERS like you can just go and say what you fucking like. You are not important enough to even waste time on. You are the bane of Wikipedia. That's not an opinion. That's a cold, hard fact. Scarian  Call me Pat!  05:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What a distasteful display. Should I judge you based solely on that, as you appear to have so summarily assessed Malleus? I suspect that would be unfair. I disagree with Malleus' opinions a fair amount, and wince at the ways he approaches things often, but he certainly does valuable work here. I imagine that you do too, but you will not convince anyone that you do—or that Malleus doesn't— by such low means. Even at his most disagreeable, I have never seen Malleus presume to speak for the entirety of Wikipedia. Maralia (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing, as you say, "good work" does not negate constant bad behaviour. I am utterly convinced that you cannot be +2 in good work and then -5 in constant rude behaviour. If you find my liberal use of profanities to be "disgusting" and/or [an example of] "rude behaviour" in itself, then compare my talk space contributions to Malleus'. While two wrongs don't make a right; I think you'll find, overall, I've been quite timid in comparison. Scarian  Call me Pat!  07:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Physician, heal thyself. --Philcha (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Hi folks. Hi Scarian, don't think we've met. Hey.. uh.. I'm no wilting pansy or anything, but it might be getting just a little too hot in here... don't you think? Maybe a day or two of disengagement? Forgive me if I sound like Net Nanny, but a breather would probably be a Good Thing. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 08:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If I had to guess your age from that childish little diatribe, I'd say about 15–20 years. If posts like that are representative of admins in general, then I think I'll stick to editing articles only.  I don't think I've seen much that demonstrates that Malleus is anything but a very good editor with little time or respect for opinions such as yours.  "At least I had the ability to become one" - you must have lower moral standards. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'm not a big guy, I'm about 5' 10", so if I imagine the Wikipedian I'm arguing with to be bigger than me, it sorta stems the urge to call him names. It also stops me from telling him what recreational activities his mother and I engaged in last night." quote from [] Ning-ning (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Total butt in here, but someone asked above "Do you think you've ever been nice to someone? Do you know what altruism is? " and quite honestly I can answer that indeed, Malleus is nice quite often .. to those who in turn treat him with respect. Take a long look at what you wrote, it's not that much off from some of the things you're excoriating Malleus for. As for no one giving a "flying fuck" if Malleus left, I for one would be quite disappointed and upset. As far as "You are the bane of Wikipedia"... that's your opinion, not a fact. Personally, I don't share it. I prefer Wikipedia with all its less than perfectly civil folks (especially when the folks insisting on civility feel free to leave screeds like this on someone's talk page) than a Wikipedia where we can't be ourselves. I am here to write and research an encylopedia, which I do believe the goal is, correct? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I am a wilting pansy, and I respect Malleus Fatuorum's opinion, even when it is served with barbs. He's usually right. Language peppered with swearing or incivility does not necessarily mean the person who is giving it is incorrect. I am also an admin, and a very inactive one, but all my interactions with Malleus have been civil and pleasant. He is intellectually challenging and has article quality at the heart of his comments and edits. It is Malleus' voice that steadies my hand over the mouse when the question of blocking comes into my mind. Not that I am afraid of his disapproval, but his voice represents a valid view. Discarding it is dangerous and foolish. I don't know where this argument came from - some RfA somewhere that I'm not watching, I guess. But you do yourself no service, Scarian, to devalue Malleus' contributions in such a manner. --Moni3 (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What an astonishing and extremely unedifying outburst Scarian, but I'm struggling to see why you wasted your time simply to confirm the legitimacy of the already low opinion I had of you. For anyone who cares, Scarian is upset at my opposition at this RfA, but obviously no amount of this sort of nonsense is going to change my mind. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WTFWJD? Scarian, I have to say I am absolutely appalled at your response above.  it is completely uncalled for and I don't think I've seen a more childish outburst from an admin in a long time.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What I find quite amusing is that Scarian's childish outburst was triggered by my opposition on the grounds of age at a current RfA. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! --Malleus Fatuorum 13:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Scarian asks if I've ever been nice to someone; my answer is yes, frequently. As here, for instance, where JamieS93 displayed a great deal more of this elusive "maturity" everyone thinks is so important than did this disgrace of an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is your final warning if you continue to be nice, I am going to have to block you as it would be proof that your account had been hacked.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm between a rock and a hard place now. Catch 22. The real way you'll know my account's been compromised though is if you ever see me wasting my time by taking nonsense like Scarian's above to the children' playground that is WP:QA. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am hardly Malleus's biggest fan (mandatory start when I'm about to stick up for Malleus :)) and while I agree he could tone himself down sometimes, to say "You don't give a fuck about this project and no one, I swear to God, no one would give a flying fuck if you left" is completely beyond the pale, in my opinion. Just how many featured articles/good articles has Malleus slaved over in two years? I have, in the past, gone a bit mad at Malleus, but have always made it clear I find his article work his greatest asset, and wouldn't want him to leave at all. Saying "get the fuck off Wikipedia" and "You are the bane of Wikipedia" are utterly disgraceful. You are, unfortunately, proving Malleus right when he says there are abusive admins. Abuse does not always involve misuse of tools. It can involve abuse of other editors.  Majorly  talk  14:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Majorly. I think that people like you and I maybe look at disagreement a little differently than some others, which is partly why I have the bias I do against young administrators. Children are apt to believe that you're either a friend or an enemy, and that friends have to agree on everything. But of course I'm quite happy to simultaneously disagree with you, for instance over this kiddie-admin thing, and try to help with an article you're writing. In truth I hope that I never meet with someone either here or in RL who agrees with everything I say or do. That way lies stagnation, moral flaccidity, and death. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed... I rarely agree with either of you... and often think both of you are... well, you know ;0 and I'm sure you both think the same about me sometimes... but I have respect for both of you. Just because we disagree doesn't make us enemies.  (Which is why I can oppose people at RfA's an it isn't personal, or be opposed at my RfB and not take it personally.)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shhh! I have a little black book with the names of every editor who opposed me at my last RfA, and one day ... --Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Scarian's statements above are more incivil than what I have seen from Malleus over the past two months. So, where is the block? It would be nice for hypocritically incivil people to be blocked, as they are clearly destroying this encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt Ottava that you or anyone else has ever seen an outburst on that scale or vindictiveness from me. But civility blocks are only applied to the peons, not their masters, as you know. Besides, in this case it would now be a cool down block, something that we're both very much against, as Scarian has not continued his attacks. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, for what it's worth, I'd be one more who'd be sorry to see you go. I have rarely come into contact with you here, but with the tripe above appearing on my watchlist I thought it useful to point out that it's not just your friends who value your contribution to this project. If there are those who can't see that beyond occasionally incivility then it may be them who are "the bane of Wikipedia." Aptery gial  14:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to write that Apterygial, I very much appreciate it. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's the block, indeed. Malleus, I'm sure you already know this, but I'll say it again, just in case. I find you to be far more valuable that many people on this project. A much greater asset than Scarian. I would be, as I'm sure you know from past dramas, be very disappointed to see you leave. Your content work and contributions to the GA project are brilliant and we would surely feel the loss of your efforts. Ignorant comments from a petulant child surely won't get you down, but I'm fighting on principle. Regardless of how this drama ends, I commend you for the way you've carried yourself in this situation thus far. لenna vecia  15:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jenna. Sticks and stones is all this is, the thought of leaving over it hadn't even entered my head. I'm far too arrogant for that. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubted the possibility, but his comments stated as fact that no one would care. Clearly I'd throw him off the ship to save you, and so would others. لenna  vecia  15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone, please stop and think. When mud is slung around, it hits the candidate unintentionally (as it did the last time round). Let's keep this RfA drama-free. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Who's slinging mud? I suggest that you addrees your comments more specifically at the mud-slinger. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But what If I don't want him to address me? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have him undress you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna be sick--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Maybe you'll find this interesting. If not, sorry to bother you. -- Noroton (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I admire anyone who steps into the battlefields that articles like Martin Luther so often seem to degenerate into. Much safer to write about obscure historical computers or 18th-century English mummies. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert Foliot
Hey! I think one of the longer bishops I've ever done is ready for the prose to be ruthelessly pruned and polished, if you have the time and inclination? As usual, I would be forever in your debt. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Blimey, that's a big one! --Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he's a big boy. Big player in the Becket problem. Probably one of the longest bishops I'll write for a while... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He's up. Next up ... even LONGER ... Wilfrid! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed that you can find so much material on a 7th-century bishop! "Most agree that he was neither humble nor afraid of controversy." Sounds like a man after my own heart. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured you'd like him. (Heck, *I* like him, even if he's a bit pompous) I'm still finding bits and pieces of research on him (nothing really big, but still tidbits) so it's not a high priority just yet. I think he's at what... 7500 words? Something like that. Until I get to Anselm or Thomas Becket, he'll probably hold the record for a biography article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! old Gilbert THAT's what it looked like when I started serious work. 372 words. Oh, my. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The present article is almost unrecogniseable from that early one, a great job. I notice though that you dropped that vitally important information about Donald Wolfit playing the part of Becket in some film or other. Do you think that was an altogether a good idea? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it's of vital interest somewhere. Somehow. Maybe. (You are of course welcome to add it back in ...) I will admit that one thing I'm very proud of is that none of the articles I"ve shepherded through FAC have a "Cultural references" section. That may be my lasting monument on Wikipedia... Another good thing about medieval bishops, they are unlikely to have been mentioned in either a Simpsons episode or a Family Guy episode. (I can see them in a Dr WHo though.. (although I'm not a Who fan, which is odd in someone who reads more sci fi than I do history...) Anyway, I need to run shortly, farrier is coming for the mare that's due to foal next. And as usual, when the farrier comes, it's raining. Muddy hooves in the rain. Blech. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there has been a new copyedit on the boy, and someone has gone through and removed some of the capitals for various Priors/Bishops/Kings. Also changed "canonization" to "canonisation". I can't ever keep track on BE which it is, so could you check it over and see if anything needs switching back? I'm a big fan of capitals for specific offices (I'm such an old fuddy duddy that way) but the article needs to be consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look now. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor switched back most of the capitalisation changes (s)he made and everything looks fine to me now. Either canonization or canonisation is allowed in Br English, but I agree with the copyeditor that for consistency canonisation is preferable in this article. So everything's fine. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
I have e-mailed you. Scarian Call me Pat!  16:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should I take the trouble to read it? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Post it for everyone to read. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read quite enough from Scarian for one day. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scarian, I think it might be best if you and Malleus refrained from interacting altogether.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm idly wondering how long it'll be before this unseemly episode becomes all my fault, because I goaded poor misunderstood Scarian beyond the limits of human endurance. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the general outlook is that Scarian's behavior was egregiously out of line and nothing more than immature petulance.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wisdom, you've been hanging around Malleus' talk page too long... "immature petulance" those are the types of well picked barbs that I was talking about... how did you ever learn them ;-)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I cast aspersions with the best of them. : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Show us the email Malleus. Give us all a laugh at the expense of this so-called 'admin'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a defender on both sides here Parrot - but I'll have a few more balls than I should have had this morning and tell you the comment above is right out of line. If you think gloating is productive you can think again. Pedro : Chat  20:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not gloating. I'm interested to see why an admin thinks that its acceptable to go on a rant on a user's talk page, and then to respond to the criticism with only a private email to that user.  For "out of line" read the initial post by Scarian. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For "out of line" read "please post a private email here for the lulz" Clearly you have no clue about these types of matters - Malleus does. What's so hard to understand? Pedro : Chat  20:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not going to argue more for the sake of not hijacking a talk page, so I'll keep my (fairly toxic) thoughts on the matter to myself. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm done Pedro, as I've no intention of reading the email anyway, much less reposting it here. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I would automatically accept you would not repost as you have a true level of decency. As I noted on ANI I should have dissuaded Scarian earlier. The 1 hour block was a pointless posture. The resignation from sysop for the best. Banging on about it endlessly now is symptomatic of the MMORPG attitude we both detest. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat  20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't happy about the block either, but nothing to be done about it now. I can understand the reasoning behind it though; regular editors have to drag their naughtiness log around behind them while administrators get off Scott free for far worse behaviour. Still, a block isn't the right way to address that disparity. BTW, don't beat yourself up over not acting this morning. I'm really not in the slightest upset by anything that Scarian said, or could have said; water off a duck's back as far as I'm concerned. The only cause for concern is that he appears to have a history of such tantrums, but I strongly suspect that the "admin-for-life" brigade will be quite happy to overlook that and welcome him back with open arms whenever he asks. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your kind words. I like Scarian, we've emailed - he's a sound guy..... except when he blows up like this and goes mental. I think he's better off not being here for a while - and that really hurts me because I do like him - but it's better for him and better for Wikipedia. It's a shame. Looking at the edit times, the fact Scarian is in the UK, and other stuff I think he was over tired and just lost it - had a kip and came back contrite. Let's be honest I've acted like a dick recently but this was a whole new level. If it was an IP it would have been blocked on sight. I've a heavy heart over this, and I wish Pat well, but these blow-ups need to be dealt with properly (and not via post action 1 hour blocks) Pedro : Chat  20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been subjected to at least one block hours after the alleged incivility had taken place, and there's just no way to interpret that other than as a punishment. It certainly does absolutely nothing, to say the very least, to cool a situation down. One of the ironies of this whole unhappy episode is that pretty much my entire opposition to youngsters becoming admins concerns the use of the block button. Yet here we have another abuse of the block button not by a youngster, but by someone who like me opposes childen as administrators. I feel like I've stepped through a mirror. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Little green dot
I thought I'd continue this conversation here. You mention the little green dot and Ohana's optimism. What is the reasoning behind not having some GA symbol on the article as they do with FA? Is it because only one reviewer determines GA or not, rather than a consensus as it is in FAC? I would love to see the green dot on GAs as most cursory WP readers don't even think to click into the talk page. GA covers so many more articles than FA and I think really represents the best means of improving article quality. Unfortunately the GAC backlog is another issue that makes it prohibitive for editors. I'm reviewing an article that has been nominated since 3/15! Nearly two months is unacceptable but the few GA reviewers can only do so much. I guess I'm preaching to the choir though. H1nkles (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You can see one of the most recent discussions here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh God, is Ohana starting that old argument up again? He may win, eventually, but only because everyone else will be sick of arguing about it. As for a shortage of reviewers, I hope to return in a few weeks. We'll see. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No he isn't. Hinkles was asking about my reaction to this suggestion. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if that debate gets started up again, then I'll sit this iteration out. Which may be a good thing for the pro-dot folks, since I was against it last time. But now I am weary of it all, and if the pro-dot argument prevails, then more power to 'em. :-) Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and I'm adding fuel to the fire, muhahaha. No, I really do think we have a strong point here (only if we finish the sweeps) OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent, free the indentured colons of Wikipedia!) May the Force be with you, then. :-) Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion] may be of interest. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Giraud
If you are going to review Giraud, I wanted to note that it has had a history of some dust ups, but most were minor and many affected outside things. The current page is mostly agreed upon by everyone with a few minor wording issues. So far, it seems like Haiduc and I are to a point of compromise. The talk page is glorious if you are bored. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not afraid of a little controversey Ottava. ;-) I noticed that Giraud had been hanging around for a while when I went to put Underwire bra on hold, right underneath it, so it seemed only fair to take him on as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Took a stab at fixing the lead some more. I try to avoid touching it as it seems to be the hottest item. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stick with me; we'll see it through GAN or die together in the attempt. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I desperately wanted to slip in those wikilinks. Ha! Three images now. I have two more sources that I could add a few lines or two, so it might be over 20k and almost worth cleaning it up enough for FAC after. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FAC is a whole different ball game, as you know. I think the article's probably there or thereabouts for GA, but because you nominated it I'm going to be extra tough, to avoid any suggestion of bias on my part. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect anything else. FAC is definitely a different ball game, but one that is far more fickle. I will most likely drop a note on the LGBT project and find some people to do a thorough look-over for a peer review post GAN. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In five minutes or so, I'm going to add a few lines to the body of the page. I am warning you so we don't edit conflict. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm finished. That should be just about every major source on the poor boy. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The name Nicolo with an accent mark has been there since I rescued the page from AfD. I don't know why it was put there, nor do I have any sources that confirm the accent. Most of the time, I forget that it is there. Nicolo without an accent currently redirects there. If the name is going to change, it will need to be moved over the redirect and the GAN related material will need to be updated appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We ought to ask as admin to move the page to Nicolo then. We can fix the GAN stuff ourselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? Eh? Pretty fancy, eh? Turns out, it didn't have enough edits on Nicolo to prevent the move. However, that bit of code is very fickle. Maybe it likes me today. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I am done tooling with the details now. I went to check if MacCarthy really had an accented o and it turns out that she didn't even have the first sentence. Blah! I fixed it. I added some stuff in the relationship section to make it more clear that it is a chronology/account of various critical viewpoints over time that should help demonstrate the debate that goes on about Giraud. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's enough for me now, I've just listed Nicolo as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is enough work and editing to keep off Giraud from being dragged into the historic pederasty couple fighting for now on. I'm going to put it through a peer review with the LGBT group coming up next month and see what is suggested for further improvement. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a nice piece of salvage work, well done Ottava. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 08:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch...
Tell me if I'm wrong to wince at John Carpenter (bishop)? That's what I left it looking like... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's truly dreadful; I much prefer your stub. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are Patent Rolls normally used as evidence? Or, at least, in that manner? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be a primary usage, and it's not entirely sure that this is the same guy. I'd like a historian and a secondary source to back that up. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing "Carpenters' Encyclopedia of Carpenters 2009 DVD, which contains Carpenter Family genealogy by John R. Carpenter of La Mesa, California, USA" listed as a source kind of puts the Arbuthnots in perspective. – iride  scent   00:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've made laugh out loud for the first time today Iridescent, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a reason I said "ouch" at the top. Oh, and it's the subject of an edit war too! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now one of the edit warriors is commenting on the other's baldness (and outing his real-life identity). As Joseph was a Carpenter, do you think that genealogy DVD goes back to the year Dot?Ning-ning (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen a genealogy trace back to Adam and Eve though. While researching my spouse's family, I found one printed genealogy that claimed that he was descended from Pocahontas and John Smith's child (that never existed). I just have collateral connections with Davy Crockett, thankfully. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a coincidence, I'm distantly related to Davy Crockett as well; we share the same great-great-great ... great-grandmother, Eve. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 12:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilfrid...
I think I'm done. I honestly can't think of anything else to add, and any other sources are beyond my current reach. He's ready for pruning (He's 7700 words or so right now...) After him, i'm finishing up Gregorian mission, which will be next up in the queue. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A new challenge?
Wikipedia_talk:Notability (19:26, 12 May 2009) might appeal to your ... creative side if you can spare the time from your current FAC. --Philcha (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm temporarily somewhat worn down by the nursery school atmosphere here on wikipedia, so I doubt if I could manage to be civil to anyone who apparently believes that every sourced fact in a deleted article ought to be moved into another article. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a bit of stress to-day with a recalcitrant reviewee (you're not the only one!), so I took it out on some deletionists at some policy Talk pages. Remember what I said about the joys of being polite, concise and ruthless?
 * Back to the challenge, I was hoping you could ... surprise some particpants in that discussion with something along the the lines of your vicus turpissimus. How's the FAC going? --Philcha (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Old Gilbert looks like he might make it, but I'm less optimistic about the vicus. Sorry to hear you've had some problems with a review, that can be quite dispiriting. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the vicus, check my recent comments. As far as I can see, there are only 2 live opposes:
 * re history of usage of "cunt", for which I think I've got a decent ref and a search string that may find others.
 * Bishonen's objection claims to be about lack of "thick description". I've asked Bishonen to be more specfic. However Bishonen's most recent comment seems to fall back to "it's too short". If so, you may wish to cite Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_statistics and / or Wikipedia_records. With a little gentle probing you may disclose that the objection is based on prudery. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Three supports and one oppose - I think that should be enough, don't you? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about your arithmetic, Parrot of Doom. It looks to me like Johnbod's objection is unresolved, and that's why I searched, finding a thorough-looking ref. --Philcha (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I would find it curious if that comment was upheld - after all, if a blog cannot be used as a source, a blog should not be used to object either. The blog in question is the first google result for 'etymology of cunt'. If someone has access to a university computer or other such system that gives better access to the results on Google Scholar, more material may be included - but I already spent a tenner on the Holt-Baker book, and I ain't spending any more :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC the point at issue was how "cunt" moved from normal vocabulary to the ultimate obscenity, and I think the source I found covers that fairly well. I think if you use it, you've shown willing to deal with even a minor reservation, and that leaves the other objection looking very isolated. --Philcha (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the source - I've used a bit of it to expand upon the change in meaning. Others may wish to copyedit it, or add links where available.
 * I've found someone on another forum who has access to Jstor - so hopefully I may be able to find something that will discuss the etymology of the word, and its source, as that blog does. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think "Toponymy" has enough etymology, especially as the meaning of "cunt" is uncontroversial. OTOH the chang ein the word's status is relevant to the disappearance of "Gropecunt" in street names. However if you need help with accessing artciles I may be able to help. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

knock knock
Hey, you two (you and Philcha) didn't answer my question at WT:FAC (the one with 5 options). Just curious. If you don't wanna answer, OK. If you wanna answer here instead of there, OK too. Later Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 22:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That Philcha's a lazy bugger, isn't he. :-) For myself I didn't see your question at at WT:FAC, too busy being abused by various children who probably ought to be in bed by now. I'll take a look and answer as honestly as the arcane and inconsistently applied rules of wikipedia allow. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So I guess Ling.Nut's the bear and I don't have run faster than him, just faster than Malleus. --Philcha (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's about right. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I welcome your presence at FAR  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been at FAR in the past, but I found the system too tiresome, and quite different from FAC. Too much reluctance to be critical. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's changing...Obviously I can't be firm in an activist sense and then close as well.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, obviously you can't, but I really don't get on with the present staged process and have no patience with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * you can just pop in at the end. That's when the decisive action is. All of the troublesome FARs usually happen by the authors ignoring the FAR until the FARC stage  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ainsworth
I wanted to get the Ainsworth stuff started with the 7 works in the dispute with Cruikshank, the illustrator. So, why not start with Jack Sheppard. User:Ottava Rima/Jack Sheppard is my small start, with 1/3rd of a reference put in and some odd bits from others. The plot would be the hardest part, as I am putting forth what some of the references say, but I would like to have about 50/50 plot and secondary source for both the three plot sections and the character entries (each major character given a small paragraph of 3-4 lines). This would be fun for you, and if you could parse it for anything interesting it would be helpful. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just plain wrong. By the way, did you read any of the Church of England document? lol. Great stuff. The authorship dispute is also interesting, but I need a better title. I will be putting some more together for the other novels coming up. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't read any of it yet, but I will as soon as I've recovered some enthusiasm for the project. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh oh, you will be enthused. The books are great. The first one is Jack Sheppard. You should know his name. :) Guy Fawkes will be following him. I hope to have the prep work done (for all 8 pages in the Cruikshank dispute) by the end of the week for us to really work on before pushing it into mainspace for DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've heard of Jack Shephard. It's an interesting take you've decided on, starting with the Cruikshank controversey; only a pity that Cruikshank didn't also claim to have written The Lancashire Witches. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. I wanted to include that on a DYK hook saying "... that William Harrison's Ainsworth's most popular novels focus on: a famous bandit, a wife slaying king, greedy old men, imprisonment at the Tower of London, something about Crichton, and murderous witches" and some others thrown in. :) But the first hook would be about the Cruikshank stuff, the second about his early works, and this one would be all of the miscellaneous novels characterized by some scandalous or exciting description. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm almost half done the non-plot sections at Jack Sheppard in my user section and its already up to 12k in size. I have a feeling these will be meaty and interesting pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff
From Jack Sheppard - (about Jonathan Wild being a total jerk)

"[Mendez] darted swiftly and silently behind Sir rowland, and flung a cloth over his head; while Jonathan, rushing upon him in front, struck him several quick and violent blows in the face with the bludgeon. The white cloth was instantly dyed with crimson; but regardless of this, Jonathan continued his murderous assault. The struggles of the wounded man were depserate-so desperate, that in his agony he overset the table, and, in the confusion, tore off the cloth, and disclosed a face horribly mutilated, and streaming with bloom. So appalling was the sight, that even the murderers-familiar as they were with scenes of slaughter looked aghast at it..."

After fighting some more

"Disengaging his right arm, Jonathan struck his victim a tremendous blow ont he head with the bludgeon, that fractured his skull; and, exerting all his strength, threw him over the rails, to which he clung with the tenacity of despair.

'Spare me!' he groaned, looking upwards. 'Spare me!'

Jonathan, however, instead of answering him, searched for his knife, with the intention of severing his wrist. But not finding it, he had again recourse to the bludgeon, and began beating the hand fixed on the upper rail, until by smashing the fingers, he forced it to relinquish its hold. He then stamped upon the hand on the lower banister, until that also relaxed its gripe. Sir Rowland then fell. A hollow plunge, echoed and re-echoed by the walls, marked his descent into the water. 'Give me the link,' cried Jonathan.

Holding downt he light, he perceived that the wounded man had risen to the surface, and was trying to clamber up the slipper sides of the well.

'Shoot him! shoot him! Put him out of hish mishery,' cried the Jew.

'What's the use of wasting a shot?' rejoined Jonathan savagely. 'He can't get out.'

After making several ineffectual attempts to keep himself above water, Sir Rowland sank, and his groans, which had become gradually fainter and fainter, were heard no more."

Enjoy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the above is great stuff. Being one of the "cruelest" scenes in a narrative for over 300 years is awesome. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy
I would politely like to ask that you cease all your interactions with Warpath. You are both behaving like petulant ninnies; we do not need this sort of nonsense. I will be leaving a similar message for Warpath. DS (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would politely like to ask that you leave me alone and deal with crazies like Warpath in the appropriate way, not by pandering to their inanities with this sort of nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus is a ninny! Mwah ha ha ha. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It really is disappointing to see a discussion between two very established Wikipedians sink to that level. Durova Charge! 03:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Look on the bright side, Durova  - if they're having a go at each other, at least they're not having a go at 2 other people. --Philcha (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not much of a bright side. Durova Charge! 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no bright side, only blackness ... "Black! Black! You lock me in the cellar and feed me pins!". Let's all go and hide in the wardrobe of darkness. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I see you followed me over to an unrelated discussion after I stepped in here. If you aren't already aware, I posted exactly the same comment to the other party you were quarreling with.  That was done in the good faith hope that two productive editors having a disagreement about wiki matters had strayed out of character briefly and posted in a manner they normally wouldn't have.  The only reason I haven't followed up with Warpath to express continued disappointment with his subsequent responses is that he stopped posting not very long afterward, and hasn't undermined my input at unrelated discussions.  If you have a problem with my input, tell it to me straight.  You'll find I'm a reasonable person, but I have a low tolerance for nonsense.  Durova Charge! 19:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait wait, a low tolerance for nonsense? If that was the case, you would have ran screaming from Wikipedia a long time ago. : D Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Check how many arbitration cases I've been named in. You guys might join me in one sometime. ;)  Durova Charge! 19:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is a scary thought. Why couldn't you be a good wiki witch, like Glinda, and bring us presents and happiness and shoes! Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Be careful what you accuse people of Durova; I haven't followed you anywhere, and nor would I bother. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think she may have meant this, but you were also involved in the matter prior. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also been in contact with Nancy before, particularly in relation to her RCC FACs, and her talk page has remained on my watchlist. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec, to Ottava) I can be a delightfully good wiki witch. Unfortunately Nancy Heise broke the "Calm" spell I cast on the ANI thread about you and Everyking. People are at each other's throats again. So if I send a flying monkey to give you a mango milkshake would you be an angel and chill? Best, Durova Charge! 20:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as no one attacks my faith on my talk page, then I have no real problems that I feel are urgent. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi
It was one minor typo. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Is the incorrect use of verb tense in "Two shorts are known to be completed by Bakshi at Paramount ..." also a "minor typo"? The article needs the serious attention of a good copyeditor, and it most certainly, in my opinion at least, does not currently meet the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the copyeditors that I contacted to work on the article suggested that it doesn't need any more work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC))


 * He's entitled to his opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 Monaco Grand Prix
Hi, Malleus. A few months ago you commented on the FAC of 2008 Japanese Grand Prix, and also did a little copy editing. I was wondering, if you have any time free, if you could take a look at my latest attempt at FAC, 2008 Monaco Grand Prix, and fix any of the minor problems you might find. I'm reasonably confident in it, but I don't want it to get mired down in the same sort of problems Japan's FAC created. Thanks in advance for any help you may offer, Aptery  gial  10:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try and get over there when I can, but I've got quite a bit on my plate right now. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I'm not in a huge hurry with it. Aptery  gial  23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Balls
I would think "balls" wouldn't have someone instigate and attack another person in that manner. Instead, I think "balls" would be working your ass off content building and then defending other content builders from admin that happen to have short tempers, love to insult, and use their admin authority in a manner to protect them while they do said insulting and attacking. So, I would think the one whose testicles you admire would be more likely to block someone like you than to stick up for someone like you, which would require real courage and an actual belief in doing what is both right and what is best for the encyclopedia. But that's just my opinion, and we all know that no one really cares about what I have to say nor do they ever really agree with me. Call me Cassandra. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about this Cassandra? One more or less admin looking for a reason to block me wouldn't keep me awake at night, even if I believed what you say is true. I've seen LessHeard vanU defending Giano on many occasions now, and that's good enough for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW the Ottava, don't forget that I was one of your staunchest supporters at your own recent RfA, and I still would be if you decided to put yourself through that wringer again. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would definitely not see myself as anything like him. And, as I made clear at my last RfA, I have no real need to be an admin as I am doing everything now, including opposing abuse and problems. And defending Giano takes no effort and it's almost trendy to do that now a days. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much....
Gilbert made it today... here he was on 27 Sept 2007, and here he is as promoted. Never, ever could I do it without your help. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great news Ealdgyth. You'd hardly recognise those as the same article. I guess that Wilfrid's next up to the plate? --Malleus Fatuorum 09:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He is, but no great hurry. Don't wanna overwhelm FAC or something... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

SECR N class
Dear Malleus,

As I had mentioned a few months ago, I wanted to work on improving the Maunsell mogul steam locomotive classes. I have done work to all four classes, but wish to request a pretty thorough peer review of prose on the above article. As you did a superlative job on the SR Leader class article and a few others along the way, I felt that I should come to you first, as you seem to know your stuff when it comes to third-party prose checking. I realise that you may be pretty busy at the moment with other peer reviews and FA processes, but is it at all possible for you to take a look at this article? I would be most grateful! Thank-you, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been through the lead, but I'm reluctant to spend much time on the body of the article while it's being peer reviewed, as it may substantially change during the process and need to be copyedited again. Let me know when you think it's ready for FAC and I'll take a look at it again. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your continued support. I shall hold you on that!!! Will let you know once the peer review is over. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

John Douglas (architect)
I have written a big expansion of this article and am considering offering it as a GAC in a couple of weeks. If you have time, inclination, etc. I should be grateful for your comments and invaluable copyediting. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

James Bond
Thanks for the link. I remembered reading about this in the past, but I haven't worked on any older films myself, so I never had to use the trailer. I provided the link to the contributor of the article so that he can upload the images. Thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

a query
Would you consider being a "mentor" or a resource person from whom I could get advice when I am under duress or uncertain and fearful? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think that would be helpful to you, then of course. I have to warn you though that there are probably many who would say I'm not the best choice you could make, as I do have a tendency to speak my mind. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with that aspect of you. I want to consult you on "judgment" issues, as I used to do. I don't want to post on your page with complaints. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, I've got no problem with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Blah
Blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah. Blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah-blah blah.

I felt that I would have to join in with 100% what everyone else is doing right now. But on a lighter note - the Coleridge stuff came out of no where and I am doing a crash edit run with it. There are three sets I am working on, and I should be able to have it done by the end of next week. Then I will start harassing you about Ainsworth. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I started reading Ainsworth's Guy Fawkes earlier today, a real ripping yarn. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the next Ainsworth novel page for me to put the background and criticism for. Guy Fawkes was always my hero, and I especially liked the anarchist slogan - "Guy Fawkes was the only man to enter Parliament with honest intentions". :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble with encyclopedias is that one article leads to another, and another ... I visited our Guy Fawkes page earlier and I was horrified. I stripped out most of the worst of the trivia, but already there are stirrings of mutiny on the article's talk page about some damn silly mask. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So when are you guys going to collaborate on a comedy script? 20M TV licence payers need you! --01:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What leads you to believe that I haven't already written a comedy series for the BBC? I can't speak for Ottava of course, but I'm sure that if we put our minds to it we could come up with something. Do you have a favourite genre? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I only have two scripts, and one is for an artsy Samurai film. The other isn't a comedy. By the way, Malleus - I thought I could breeze through Coleridge's juvenilia. Apparently, one of his poems had 6 editions with a complicated history, versions with differences slight enough to make it impossible to find online editions (the ones I have are approximations and I can see errors) and the rest. What's up with that? I was hoping to have most of it done by tonight, but now I'm into source 23 of about 40 trying to piece things together. Blah! And someone acted like his childhood was meaningless! Ottava Rima (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A comedy based on an artsy Samurai film? Hmm, there are over 100M Japanese, it's a decent market. --Philcha (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking. With LessHeard making a new trend at RfA, why not make a new trend out of FT's short lived adminship - people are given the mop for a few days and go down burning with a whole mess of random blocks following it. I would nominate you as the next person to be given the privilege, but I will make sure to be on vacation while the random blocking happens. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The irony is that I'd have been about the least likely of any administrator to block an established editor. That's why I object to so many of the unnecessary and punitive blocks that are thrown around like confetti here. The skill of a good administrator is to avoid the need to block, and only to do so when absolutely necessary and for the shortest possible time. This idea of increasing block lengths is absolute anathema to me; I well remember how I felt after being blocked for three days, didn't help me to cool down at all. I'm still steaming about it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your lack of blocking is what would make you a good administrator. It is one thing to attack people, but you also expect to receive. I loathe administrators that block people for attacks and get involved with disputes like that which are better left to burn out. But we tend to approach the system in opposite ways with the same basis. I'm sure you can understand this but probably feel the opposite in the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen something of that dispute, and others, and it saddens me to see you and Ceoil at each other's throat. The problem (for wikipedia) with my attitude towards blocks though is that it demands straight-talking, which too many see as that mythical beast known as personal attack. To them I have only one thing to say: rearrange these words into a well-known phrase or saying; "off fuck". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind Ceoil's comments. He has the right to say whatever he wants about me, and I would be damned if anyone blocked him for it. Words are words, unless there is a power difference and then words become a threat. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Words are still just words nevertheless. I was struck by something I saw Mattisse say recently, about being afraid of some administrators. For myself I couldn't care less whether someone is an administrator or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish culture during World War II
Thank you for copyediting this article. I've renominated it at Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II/archive3. Feel free to comment, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck! I think you'll stand a much better chance of getting it through this time; it's a nice article on a subject I knew almost nothing about before reading it. So whether it passes or fails you should be feeling pleased with your efforts. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I think I've probably done a bit too much to the article to be able to offer an unbiased opinion, but I'll watch the FAC and help where I can if any more prose objections are raised. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

FlyingToaster's talkpage
FlyingToaster has just done a very honourable thing, and resigned the mop, voluntarily. This is what you wanted. Could I ask, on my own behalf, that you at least do her the courtesy of not making personal attacks against other editors (Roux) on her talkpage? That was a thread started to make tributes to a good editor hounded from the site. If you disagree, you don't need to desecrate it. I'm sure that Roux is more than happy to receive such insults on his own talkpage.

Please be as mature about this as FT has. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Roux was using FT's talk page to attack those who thought FT unfit for adminship. I hope you issue Roux a similar warning. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Roux's use of the talkpage was more in line with FT's wishes, and was probably a bit more fair, and certainly not retaliatory... And he wasn't aiming anything directly at another editor on the page. Anyway, it was just a request, ignore me if you wish, Malleus. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * By not naming editors, Roux cast the net indiscriminately. FlyingToaster resigned for the good of the project and to avoid further drama, Roux calling people bullies and tyrants doesn't de-escalate the situation. Nev1 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you issued a warning to Roux? If not why not? He explicitly categorised me as one of the "bullies and tyrants" in his edit summary. And please, can we cut out the maudlin hyperbole? "Desecrate" indeed, don't make me laugh. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<< I have not warned Roux as I am not concerned at his use of FT's talkpage. I only asked if you would refrain from making personal attacks in a sensitive area; I commented that you may ignore me if you wish to. I needn't get involved in any futher discussion. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right, it should be used as a forum to vaguely called people petty tyrants. Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case consider yourself ignored TreasuryTag. Please go and find something useful to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) HEY! Don't insult my favoritest copyeditor! Or I'll make you read my prose... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So Malleus, my record on RfA's is about a 2% rate (if you include those that resigned or lost the mop after). Perhaps my supports are now the kiss of death, and my opposes are a sign that the community wants them wholeheartedly. At your next RfA, I'm going to super oppose in order to make sure you pass. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It'll be a cold day in Hell before this goes blue. I already know what a shit I am, don't need a couple of hundred over-excited teenagers edit-conflicting in their haste to tell me how loathed I am and how wikipedia would be a much nicer place if I just did the decent thing and fucked off. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Skipped in line) Hahahaaha. I lol'd. Thank you, Malleus. <3 Funny because it's true. You don't want adminship anyway. It's a bitch most of the time. Handy, but a pain in the ass. لenna  vecia  05:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you ever did run, your RFA would run under your current username. So that link will indeed always be red.  Majorly  talk  21:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right of course, forgot about that. On the subject of usernames though I long ago accepted that the only chance I would ever have at RfA would be to leave, come back as a completely new user, keep my head down for the first few months, and then go for RfA before anyone realised it was me. Once an administrator I'd be given my cloak of invulnerability, so I'd be free to resume my rampaging all over GA and FA with complete impunity ... actually I may try that ... ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'd be free to resume my rampaging all over GA and FA with complete impunity" How is that different from now? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually your prose isn't all that bad Ealdgyth, that's just false modesty on your part. You manage to get plenty of articles through GAN without my help anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * GA is one thing. FA is another. GA just wants to make sure it's understandable. FA and that silly "brilliant prose" thing... Speaking of FA... look at Urse d'Abetot, think it's too short for FA? He sorta appeals to me with that lovely curse Ealdred pronounced on him... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not too short at all, I don't think. What it has made me wonder though is whether I'm too tough as a GA reviewer. I wouldn't, for instance, have let it through with an obvious spelling mistake in the lead (now corrected). But I don't see any reason why Urse couldn't be an FA. After all, look at some of the cyclone FAs; a bit of a strong breeze was forecast far out to sea, but it came to nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Spelling isn't my strong suit either (laughs). Well, I'll file Urse for later. Wilfrid, Gregorian mission and Robert Burnell are the next three up. Well, as soon as the freaking mare drops her foal! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

British people
Hello there! Long time no speak. I hope all is well.

Following my long WikiBreak I've returned in the last few weeks and been working on the British people article. It's been a interesting little (massive) project for me. After much work it's looking better than [[?title=British_people&oldid=272716127 it did a few months back, and most definately a huge improvement on how it looked at the start of the year!!

That said, I'm thinking of taking this article through GAC, and perhaps even FAC (but I'll see - it could prove to be too devisive a topic on WP to achieve this), and so I was hoping to employ the services of the best copyeditor on WP - yourself (of course) - at some point in the near future. That is, if you're interested??? Hope you're ok. I should be back to WP:GM very soon. --Jza84 | Talk  14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice to hear from you Jza84, I was starting to get concerned about your prolonged break. Of course I'll be happy to take a look at British people. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you; and I was beginning to get concerned myself! I nearly pulled out entirely. --Jza84 | Talk  17:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you didn't. I think you may be pleasantly surprised when you check back in at the GM project. We got Sale through FAC at last, and Parrot of Doom has been going at it hell for leather. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed. His work on Worsley, Eccles and others is truely awesome. And Sale should've had it a long time back really. I may tackle Rochdale some point over the next few months - and do a bit of an improvement drive to Oldham (it's missing page numbers - old requirements of FA I'm afraid). Thanks for taking a quick look at British people too. That it hadn't been improved before now was something of a national horror and a scandal of WP - it was totally embarrassing. I'm sure I want it to become a GA. --Jza84 | Talk  18:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made one comment at the article's talk page. There's no doubt in my mind though that Parrot of Doom's pièce de resistance is Gropecunt Lane. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How prophetic
. How right you were. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can take much credit for seeing the bleedin' obvious.--Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but you certainly can take credit for highlighting that administrators behavior is treated very differently from the behavior of editors (not that you are the first, or the last by any means, person to note this). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! That's it. Your clairvoyant powers shall redub you the Counselor Troi of Wikipedia! All hail mood rings! --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think of myself more as a cross between Worf and Data, probably a bit more Worf than Data. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I introduce a "and the second time is seen on Star Trek Nemesis' bonus deleted scenes where she is mentally raped again in the turbolift." LOL to this discussion? Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never been in a turbolift, so that rules me out. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fool! Wikipedia is a turbolift. You're being cranially violated every day. --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit I had to laugh when I saw Jimbo's pompous comments when he blocked Bishonen for three hours last night—without warning, naturally, as he's above all rules—for calling another editor "a little shit". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane part 2
4 supports and 1 oppose. Things are looking better. Johnbod in the FAC describes one or two issues that should be addressed. What do you think we should do about that? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can only see Bishonen's "too thin" objection, is there more? I don't think Bishonen's argument holds water, but we may need to underline that I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You could try:, [], , etc etc etc. Also, if you are interested in street names, then this is fab: . I'd love to know why it was called this....--79.64.162.21 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the main one is some way of pointing out that "Francis Grose's A Classical Dictionary of The Vulgar Tongue (1785) lists the word as "C**t. The chonnos of the Greek, and the cunnus of the Latin dictionaries; a nasty name for a nasty thing: un con Miege."[17]" may be wrong. Not the quote, but that Grose may have mistakenly confused the words - and for that, a reliable etymology of 'cunt' would be required. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Earliest Appearance in English: In his 1954 book Street-Names of the City of London, Eilert Ekwall, a great linguist who studied English place names, produced evidence of a “Gropecuntelane,” that is, Grope Cunt Lane, a shady lane indeed frequented by prostitutes and their customers. The year? Around 1230 anno Domini . Also try:, --79.64.162.21 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the contributions, but some of what you have posted is already used in the article. Most of the other links you've offered would probably not be considered wp:reliable, and cannot be used. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've found this, which basically says that the etymology is unknown, but probably predates chonnos and cunnus mentioned by Grose. Shall I add something to that effect? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. It only needs to be a short note.  Perhaps leave it a little ambiguous? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a sentence following the quote from Grose. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hiya Parrot/Malleus - are these old books any good?, , , , ...more if you need 'em.--79.64.162.21 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Some of those might be useful for the cunt article. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, it passed :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yippee, progress towards a less po-faced WP. --Philcha (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, well done to you! I must admit I was having some doubts about that FAC. I wonder if we'll ever see it on the mainpage? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 12:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the disproportionately high number of video game articles on TFA, I think it would be hysterically funny if we could start working on articles with inherently rude content. ;) I think that Cock Lane ghost article might be next for me... Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Get thee behind me Satan! I've been thinking of something on 19th-century spiritualism, not sure what yet. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Their findings indicated a close association between Gropecunt Lanes and the town's principal market-place or high street." - this seems to suggest that some towns had several GC lanes. Can you think of a better wording?  I can only think "Lanes and each town's principal..." Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Easy. Next? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okey Dokey :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations – all the beavering away and fannying around paid off –  iride  scent   14:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You just couldn't resist eh? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just surprised that no-one's taken the ball and run with it regarding "Cocks Lane" :) -- Web H amster  14:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PS. I just noticed that you got Richmond Bridge, London through as well, well done. What is it, only 32 more to do? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 33 in total, or 20 if I stick to the road bridges; assuming Wandsworth Bridge is unexpandable and assuming Vauxhall Bridge passes, that makes 30/17 to go. This may take a while – no time to pussyfoot around. –  iride  scent   14:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think that the lane in question is wide enough to get a Vulva Estate down it? -- Web H amster  14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they have to go up the back passage –  iride  scent   14:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that size mattered during the medieval period. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I reckon the landlord of the back passage may disagree ;) -- Web H amster  15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Conduct
Cool it, please. We all know how this ends, don't we?--Tznkai (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes we do. It ends with all unpopular opinions being suppressed by whatever means are necessary. Not something that anyone ought to feel proud of. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh god, a new round of drama? I find it laughable that people blame me for things. I mean, where exactly are they looking? This is all proof that there are too many admin. Cut the corps randomly by 1,000 members and then maybe the drama will end as the ones remaining are trying to save their asses. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, oh gesh. Please remove your comment at ANI at 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC). Please? Don't confuse Shankbone and Jimbo. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of the Bomis thing. What's that got to do with Shankbone? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of the porn on Wikicommons has come from Shankbone. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and it's regrettable, but I wasn't thinking of Wikicommons. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed that the recent thread on Shankbone's pictures inspired the comment. I didn't realize that your mind would go far back instead of the recent glaring problem. :) But yeah, I would advise you to strike some things. You made your point and just about everyone has seen it. Time to end it before the drama keeps continuing. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * People may make of it what they will, I'm not interested in what anyone else thinks. I've got nothing to add to what I've already said, so if anyone chooses to construct another mountain out of a mole hill they're quite welcome to try. I really couldn't care less. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is best to level that molehill before anyone comes by to make anything out of it. Remember, leaving it up would give the appearance that you intend to take the fight onwards, whereas striking it means that you have stated what you need to state and you think it should end there. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I know you mean well and I thank you for your good advice. Right now though I'm wondering whether I really want to be a part of this project any longer, so the prospect of another arbitrary block by Jimbo or whoever else really isn't a factor. If the only people welcome to contribute here are those with brown noses then this most certainly isn't the place for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think about this whole RfA thing a lot. So... just as an experiment... just run your eyes down the list of folks who !voted one way or another for FlyingToaster... now... how many of them do you have even the vaguest, tiniest, microscopic idea who the hell they are? Out of 126 Supports, I see 16 people I know or know of (about 13%). Out of 32 Opposes I see 15 folks I know or know of (about 47%). Now what does this little survey tell me? First, a heck of a lot of people who don't go anywhere I go &mdash; and I mean nowhere, no content review, no forums, nothing &mdash; find the energy to go to RfA. Where O where do these folks come from? Second, the percentage of folks I know or know of who Oppose is much higher than those who Support. What do I take home from all this? I have no evidence that would lead me to to support the results of the RfA. I suppose it's fair to say that I also have no reason to disrespect or distrust them... but... crap, there really does seem to be something wrong Wikipedia's approach to selecting admins. Folks can just come out of nowhere to !vote... and do. If you think I'm fullofit, try for yourself. Count 'em up. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you would prefer candidates be vetted by resident RfA junkies rather than a encompassing sampling of the community?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 08:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that RfA does not reflect a broad sample of the community. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On that, we agree.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, when did I become Mattisse? Because Casliber's comment was only about you and Mattisse and never mentioned me. I also find it odd that people say that I would be a horrible admin when I already am one and never had a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * People say far worse about me Ottava, who cares?
 * PS. I'd have been a brilliant admin, far better than you could ever have been. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, did you forget that I've offered you the chance to jump ship, work at Wikiversity, and be admin there over 3 times so far? If you are willing to put in the work and dedication, the mop is always ready for you (for at least 30 days, as I would definitely vouch for you under the 30 day mentor program that prepares sysops). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Wikiversity, so I hardly think I'd be a great choice. Appreciate the offer and your faith in me all the same. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have many people just wander in there. I tend to be the only one that performs busy work (CSD, cleaning up double redirects, and the rest). After Moulton was removed (and then stopped socking), everything slowed down and the pace is quite easy to get use to. Adminship isn't really that great, and it can sometimes be a nuisance. Sure, the status thing is nice, but people can have status here without it and some admin don't get the status at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you know what I think about the status of administrators. Besides, when I write educational material I want paying for it, and anyway, I've got a book to write. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha. You don't really write -material-, you host interactive classes. A lot of school teachers and professors like to use it to get out of class interaction and the completion of tasks/homework. When I finally get through some of the heavy content editing, I will be putting forward my series of reading projects on the site, which I have been meaning to do for a while now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Citations
I dislike citation templates as they scare away new editors, but if they are the best we have.... I am not going to object to their use. Thanks for the help, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I like them because they enforce consistency. Anyway, I'll make the change, and if you don't like it you know where to find your revert button. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Consistency is good, but they scare the new users. Check my comments here. It's either a bad choice, or a bad choice :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Perhaps, but what we need to be concerned about right now is what will scare your FAC reviewers, not new users. FAC is a tough gig, and right now the citations in that article won't pass muster. At the very least they have to be formatted consistently, which means standardising on things like "last access date" or "retrieved on", not mixing ISO dates with their textual equivalents, making sure that your Google print citations include last access dates, and that the links still work—which they don't; on at least one I checked the link took me to a page that was unavailable. I expect you probably think these are all pretty minor points, but I promise you that unless they're fixed this article will not get through FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Point them to "my preferences>gadgets>reftools", makes things very easy for them Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In fact I think it's very much easier even for a beginner to use a template rather than to hand-craft a citation. Hand-crafting citations is for the brave. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I may be offline for a few days, if you could help address the reference objections, this would be great! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep.
 * Hi, Piotr. The refTools gadget (the one Parrot of Doom just mentioned) makes about 95% of citations pretty easy - just fill in a form and click its "Add citation" button. This tool's biggest problem is that, like most of Wikipedia, its documentation is poor - I hadn't realised that myself until I started trying to think like a new user, because I was used to hand-coding citation template calls. However I can produce something that will help fairly quickly, if you're interested. The first step would be to agree an outline that shows the user guide's scope and the arrangement of sections. --Philcha (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you are right. I agree with expanding the background section, and with standarizing the citations, but I will not remove useful lists of names from the article. Referenced lists are preciously rare as they are anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The most important thing is that you produce an excellent article, the subject deserves no less. FAC is secondary to that. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Malleus, it's been a while since we've actually had a conversation, but would you mind giving me some feedback on Gareloi Volcano? I've just about dried up all my sources, but I think that we might as well tighten the prose while I'm trying to get it to FA.  ceran  thor 14:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll make some comments at the article's talk page when I've a good look through, but one thing that screams out immediately is the lack of material on flora and fauna. The threat section mentions that it would be susceptible to an eruption, but nowhere that I can see does the article say what it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Carrington Moss
Feck. Fastest start class to FA ever tbh. Cheers for all the help :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You just copied the Chat Moss article and changed a few names didn't you? You're putting the rest of us to shame PoD. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured Topic?
Think we're ready to give "Towns in Trafford" a go? Nev1 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Faint heart never won fair lady, I'm up for it if you are. What do we have to do? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the articles are all in place and fit the criteria. I've started the nomination page, and if you add a nominating statement I think it will be ready for transclusion to WP:FTC. Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No need for me to add a nomination statement is there? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not mandatory, but I don't think it's right for me to be the only nominator; it would feel like I'm claiming credit for someone else's effort. Nev1 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All these articles have been worked on by a lot of people, so I don't think anyone would see you as claiming credit for them. I certainly wouldn't anyway. In fact I feel that adding my name would start to look like we were trying to claim credit, instead of just making a nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair eonugh, I've transcluded the nomination, now it's just a matter of waiting. Nev1 (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine
It's not often that a blind revert makes me actually angry but your recent edit to this article certainly did. Not the revert so much but the comments in the edit summary. Did you consult the talk page before reverting? If you did you would see that there was a pre-existing comment about this that has received no opposition. I've just now added my support and additional points but even before that the existing consensus on the talk page was in favour of deletion, albeit only by a margin of one. Please don't tell me to take things to the talk page that are already there. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need reminding that this is just an encyclopedia, and what's being disputed here is one fairly nondescript image. I don't see the point in getting angry about that. That said, a note in the edit summary that an explanation had been left on the talk page would probably have spared your feelings. I reverted Tempshill's initial removal as no edit summary was provided (although I later noticed there was a rationale on the talk page). Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you had discussed your proposed removal before removing the image then your anger would have been averted, as I could have then have explained to you why I object to the removal, as I have now done on the talk page. "Consensus" isn't two comments made within a few hours of each other without consulting the article's main author, me.


 * I admit that I neglected to check the talk page before undoing your removal, which I ought to have done, but I initially believed it was a repeat of yesterday's unexplained deletion, which I see now that it was not. For that please accept my apologies. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

a note
Wondering if you spotted my clarification here. I'd hate for you to go on "drawing your own conclusions" just because I'm sometimes a bit unclear. Let me know if you discover any further gaps in what I've said. &mdash; Dan | talk 06:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your clarification. Let me simply say in addition that I am no more happy about being accused of an inability to understand the English language and of deliberate pedantry (*groan*) than you are of being accused of fudging. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ohlone Clean-Up
Hi, Malleus. Thanks for copy and structure editing the Ohlone article. I, a new editor, have recently finished a 300 page study of Ohlone/Costanoan ethnography and history for the U.S. National Park Service. It has given me insights which will allow me to make modifications and additions (with published citations) to a number of statements in the Wikipedia article that I believe to be factually off-the-mark. I am choosing to work a bit at a time, in order to maximize positive support from editors who have worked diligently on the article over the past years. Please drop by Ohlone again over the next few months, to repair my copy if nothing else.Middle Fork (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. Out of curiosity I've been looking through most of the DYKs over the last couple of days, and I've found some of them to be in a quite shocking state. Not the Ohlone article, of course, but whenever I come across something I think can be eaily improved I just can't help but meddle. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a new Wikipedia editer. I do not know what DYK stands for. Can you fill me in?Middle Fork (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, DYK stands for Did You Know, which appears on the main page every day. Ohlone was featured there on Saturday I think? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, at least not as an article that's been expanded as Ohlone seems to have been over 50kb in size since at least 2007 and there's been no recent spike in visits to the page I'd expect if it had been on the front page, even as part of another hook. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Then how the hell did I stumble across it? I was certain it was when I was looking through all of the main page DYKs ... perhaps my memory is not what it once was. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it, memory like a bloody sieve! Ohlone is at GAR, that's where I came across it, not DYK. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second
About this - it seems as if you are implying that you somehow trusted ArbCom before this time, and that they would need to act to restore your trust. I highly doubt that you ever trusted, confidence in, or had high expectations for ArbCom, or anyone at admin level or above. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're quite right Ottava, I was just trying to sweeten the pill. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. I learned not to put yourself in a position where you have to trust others, and to compensate for those who are probably rigging the system. It makes things easier in the long run when it does actually happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also believe that robust systems minimise their dependency on trust anyway, and I'm sick to death with this vapid "trust of the community" cant I see so much of. Was it Oscar Wilde who said "I can resist everything but temptation"? Robust systems don't present opportunities for temptation, bugger trust. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, just make more hurdles. I like the idea of separating blocks and deletions. Having someone go through two different RfA systems with people judging two different sets of attributes would be nice. It would also take more time and slow things down (I like the idea of slowing down processes too, rushing allows things to slip by). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If I ruled the world I'd remove the block button from every one of the administrators, make it a separately assignable right, and make anyone who wanted it go through some kind of formal process to request it. Unfortunately though I don't rule the world, not yet anyway.
 * On a completely different topic, you may like to offer your comments here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Making sure you don't miss it
Kinda fast-moving thread (though it's slowed down some), so I figured I'd do what I could to make sure you saw my apology, given that rudeness wasn't my intent. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, I don't get upset when people are rude, I'm quite used to it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Similarly, usually I don't care when people get pissed at things I say except for when I actually am not trying to be rude. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a loss
Just let them get on with whatever machinations they have; you're an excellent editor and not this project, but the people who read it, would suffer as a result of your withdrawal. Besides, when I've finished it The curious tale of Scratching Fanny and the Cock Lane ghost will need copyediting :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In a way that's also a small part of the problem. I never had any intentions to spend so much of my time copyediting anything, which is a largely thankless task anyway; just moving a few words around as it's been put to me in the past, anyone can do that. Perhaps I'm just at a low point in one of my biorhythms, time will tell. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you'll get no shortage of thanks from me - you reword things I've written in an entirely agreeable way, and have actually taught me quite a few things about grammar I didn't know.


 * Maybe you should just go out on a mountain bike like I do, risk a few broken bones and a few grammes of skin - it certainly seems to make my life easier :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'll look out my mountain bike and do as you suggest, blow away some cobwebs. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's spring. Surely even in England it gets springish, right? (I'm remembering your comment about "weather" on Sandy's page.) Go hike/bike/find a beach. I'll be right here, staring at my mare, chanting "foal, foal, foal" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's blumming awful weather here. I made a mistake coming out of hibernation. Ning-ning (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It keeps raining here. I feel almost British. Rain, rain, rain. Muddy paddocks, muddy horses, muddy yard. Blech. Here I was hoping someone was having better weather... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture yourself in a boat
That scene from The Natural with the team psychiatrist who lectures the losing Knights about picturing themselves on a boat, gently rocking, rocking, rocking, comes to mind.

Barring any logical factors, let's say I can remain relatively unstressed because of my proximity to beaches that look like this. By that line of thought, this tiny image should shed all kinds of light and joy into your life. I, for one, would miss you and your copy editing and other edits that improve the riffraff. However, I understand the need to get the hell away from that thing that brings you down. I appreciate what you do, but I also appreciate how you feel. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would leave brownies, so that you would have a nice happy stomach while lazing away in the boat, my doctor has forbidden me to eat sugar for now. I have zero willpower, so the sight of brownies would make me head to the nearest donut shop. But I am thinking brownie thoughts at you anyway.  Wikibreaks are very, very good, as long as you don't forget how to find your way back :) Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentoring Mattisse
Are you willing to be one of the editors mentoring Mattisse according to Moni3's proposal? Geometry guy 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be; I'm not afraid of submitting to a checkuser if that's what you're asking, I've got nothing to hide. My only reservation is that I'm not certain I'd pass Moni's "trusted by the community" criterion. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the checkuser criterion did not cross my mind for a moment: in my view a checkuser for you would resemble the massive wastes of time I have to deal with in my day job. I do believe you are trusted by the community: in particular, I believe you are trusted to be critical of Mattisse. I believe she also understands that your criticism is meant with the best intentions. Geometry guy 23:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked under "mentoring" in the dictionary and couldn't see anything referring to ammunition or pointy metal things. -- Web H amster  23:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest I'm no mentor, except in the sense of "Watch what I do, and make sure you don't make the same mistakes". Or "I tried that, and it didn't work out well". Bit like you really. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, a community is what? A group of people. I can list at least 15 people that trust you. That is being trusted by a community, no? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably that's discounting care in the community members? -- Web H amster  21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the deceit that there's a community here to be quite hilarious. The best that could be said, I think, is that there are many communities here who manage—most of the time—to coexist in an uneasy truce. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamen! Ling.Nut (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bosworth Field
Hey, I was fooling around with the PR of Battle of Bosworth Field, and some of the grammar struck me as odd.. but it may be britspeak. I dunno. Do you have time or any inclination to have a look at it? Thanks, either way... Ling.Nut (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It reads rather oddly to me too, so it's not a Br English thing. I think it's the unusual and rather clumsy constructions, like "Henry had entered the custody of Francis II, Duke of Brittany, in 1471", or "activities that were identified to be manly", neither of which seem even idiomatic to me; you get taken into custody, for instance, you don't enter it. Some of the choices of word seem, at best, archaic as well, like "desposal" in the lead, and "Although he was raised in Pembroke Castle for fourteen years since his birth ..." doesn't even make sense.


 * The article content seems good, but there are an awful lot of rough edges in the prose. It might just be good enough for GA I suppose, although if I was the reviewer I wouldn't pass it until at least the worst of the prose issues were fixed. As with so many other articles, it needs some serious tlc from a good copyeditor. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll put a link to your comments on the PR. Thanks again Ling.Nut (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked up on deposal, only to find it's a correct 14th century term. The author self-identifies as Singaporean, so the prose might be a confection of Singlish and medieval English... Ning-ning (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked on "desposal" too, as it seemed to stand out like a sore thumb. It's not in the OED, although that does list the verb "despose" as an obsolete and rare variation on depose. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I see it here: deposal. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking a look and cleaning up the writing. I am aware my writing, though considered competant in my country, is not up to snuff for professional standards.  Any corrections and pointers for improvement are greatly appreciated.  Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you didn't take any of my comments personally. I couldn't do even a fraction as good a job as you've done in any language other than English. I'm please to see that Graham has agreed to help with a copyedit; you'll be in safe hands with him. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well he's not in safe hands with me! Too many arcane discussions over sources, and the upstanding nature of English Heritage; not enough fact checking (e.g. the fate of the Princes in the Tower), reverts my edits with a claim that they're from primary sources (I have medieval scrolls next my keyboard??). Can't work with that editor. Ning-ning (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that. Has Graham not been able to help? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, he's done a lot of copyediting. What Jap needs is an editor who knows a bit about the battle or can get to the written sources (and not just the online stuff and general history books that he's using). Ning-ning (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies- Graham has been a great help. Ning-ning (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just realised that Jappalang has got confused between primary and secondary sources. As he's using tertiary sources which he thinks are secondary sources distortions are creeping in. I mentioned I could probably find some proper secondary sources, but now he wants me to go take photos instead (and has instructed me on the correct copyright tags). Ning-ning (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Incivility
Given your history on this project (especially multiple failed RFA's) I suggest you re-think making comments like this, especially given that you either misread, misunderstood, or ignored the actual discussion. Take the time to aim before hurtling insults at editors in good standing; the only adversarial comments in that whole exchange came from you. Best of luck. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing uncivil I could see is "as well perhaps growing up a bit". The "perhaps" shows that it is not a complete idea and the "growing up" could be a supportive comment that everyone would need, as I doubt all of us are old giants, so there is always room for growth. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Blaxthos, maybe you should heed your own advice before pooping templates and warnings all over the Talk pages of "editors in good standing". -- Laser brain   (talk)  21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think people have to watch out today - apparently Barcelona won. That is a major WTF. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava - that's not useful. Blaxthos - that really is not an uncivil comment. Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Pedro, I demand to see anything useful on this talk page (besides all of my amazing posts on this talk page). :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might as well demand to see something useful at Wikipedia Review my friend ...... :) Pedro : Chat  22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who know me know that "Fuck yes" is a very rare "Strong support" from me at RfAs. I am not uncivil. Swears on their own are not uncivil unless blatantly directed at one person in my opinion and I have never, with profanity or otherwise, attacked another user or been uncivil.  Please do not outright accuse me of such.  Thanks,  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you frankly Blaxthos that I consider your comments to have been uncivil both here and in the exchange you are referring to. Unlike you though I don't go plastering warnings and templates on the pages of those "editors in good standing" who have no interest in your opinion on what constitutes incivility. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking through your talk page is rather revealing Blaxthos. You're apparently a one-man crusade against incivility. How many editors would you estimate you've managed to antagonise with your prissy warnings? Apart from me, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The group that frequents this page, I think all will find, are unsympathetic to the Civility Police and their cause. Expletives are not automatically uncivil. So someone saying "FUCK YES!", while it might offend one's delicate sensibilities, it's not uncivil. People really need to learn the difference between incivility and offensive comments. No one here has the right to be unoffended, so suck it up. لenna  vecia  18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I'm not as "unsympathetic to the Civility Police" as some (but then I don't frequent this page, so..) but there's uncivil and there's bad mouthed - very different.  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bad mouthed would be the phrase. CIVIL has too many on wiki connotations that have no relevance to real life for me to be bothered with arguing. However I doubt if most people, on being offered a cup of tea by their mother, would reply "fuck yes" and think they held a civil tongue. Pedro :  Chat  19:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was expressing my feeling over a candidate for adminship, not a tea.  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. I don't care. Do what you want. Pedro : Chat  19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, I've not fallen out with you again have I? Please, Pedro, be reasonable.  I did change my "fuck yes" to "fudge yes" for you if it makes you feel better...  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * People can be very quick to get hold of the wrong end of the sticke here on wikipedia, and ferocious in hanging onto it despite all the evidence. Let me make it very clear that it was not me who voted "Fuck yes", and I very much doubt if I have ever voted "Fuck yes", or ever would. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me back you up. Sorry for overloading your talkpage with shit about me.  This'll be my last post here.  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, but this thread will get archived in a few days, and there will be many who will only skim through it looking for the "evidence" they want to find. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fuck yeah! -- Web H amster  20:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been a great defender of the word "fuck" when it's used appropriately as an intensifier, and I'm not in the least offended by seeing Garden's "Fuck yes" vote. It needs to be used sparingly though, else it loses its impact, and there are certainly occasions when it's best avoided altogether, as Pedro pointed out above. I can fully understand that more delicate flowers may prefer to close their ears to such profanity, but I simply don't give a fuck. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there was a book or similar entitled "on the use of the word fuck and the English language" many years ago. And indeed, the thrust was that the versatility and impact of the anglo saxon is slowly degraded with every use. Cunt is apparently the only truly impactful English swear word these days, and yet many forget the origin - I believe Malleus you did some seriously stunning work on one of our island's more aptly named streets in this regard? My take has never been that "fuck" = "UNCIVIL" in wikipedia world but in the real world .... It is really is hardly a word one would use over dinner (unless perhaps dinner was in a whorehouse (acknowledgments to Blackadder)  . Maybe our American cousins disagree and yet another cultural difference can be set to rest. M - apologies for using your talk over this and Garden apologies for my poor phrasing. Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do take some pride in Gropecunt Lane, even though I didn't do all that much to it really. I had serious reservations that FAC reviewers—many of whom are American—might be offended by it, as their sensibilities do seem to be a little different from ours. In the end though Parrot of Doom and I decided to plough on regardless. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So you decided to take a crack at it? –  iride scent  22:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Malleus isn't too shy about taking enough grope to hang himself with. -- Web H amster  22:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought we'd been fannying about with it for long enough ... wait, I'm beginning to get a feeling of dèja vu. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it has to be said that you don't just sit there flapping your lips... unlike some of the, errrr, errrr 'gropes' at RFA.-- Web H amster  23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You know what hammy? If you ever retire again I'm going to come round to your house and kill you. Slowly. Got that? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Admit it mate, what with all the work you do here, it's really a labia of love for you isn't it? -- Web H amster  09:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * O, mai. My delicate "sensibilities" are tingling. You are a bunch of dirty, naughty people! لenna  vecia  13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what's going on here, but there seems to be something a bit fishy coming out of this. –  iride scent  19:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well spotted that man, here's a clitoris allsort as a reward. -- Web H amster  19:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aw, Iri... don't be so hard on yourself. We don't judge here. لenna  vecia  19:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find that a bit hard to swallow –  iride scent  19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me you're licked already? - Web H amster  19:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any chance of another copy of that picture of that bloke kissing that birds arse? (note to non-Viz readers / colonial type people - you will not understand this - but I suspect Malleus "gets" Viz humour) Pedro :  Chat  20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am disgusted by your humor, Pedro... just beat it. لenna  vecia  20:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd advised me of that four years ago Jenna - it would have saved the vast expense of two children :) Pedro : Chat  20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No beating around the bush with Jennavecia. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True – she doesn't pussyfoot around. –  iride scent  20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe a Camel's phalange is more accurate? -- Web H amster  20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Too much of a mouthful. –  iride scent  20:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

← I've just received an email from one of the wiki admins, Hugh Jaynus. He respectfully requests that you all get back to serious work here, and make an effort in future to conform to a more professional demeanour. And if you don't I'll get blocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell him to butt out. –  iride scent  20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry but it's been overridden by 'crat Mike Hunt. -- Web H amster  20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but he'll be outvoted by Ben Dover and Phil McCafferty. (Apropos of nothing, but this is what happens when good civility blocks go bad) –  iride scent  20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds painful, he should probably see a doctor. Nev1 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All the more reason for sysops to have more roughage in their diet, otherwise that happens and they get full of shit! -- Web H amster  21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one great block log entry Iridescent. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, can this guy's name be reverted as a BLP violation? (What were his parents thinking?) –  iride scent  21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Microsoft's OneCare service come a pretty close second, but nothing beats my all-time favourite stupid name, Wang Care. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Please request renaming to "Master of all know Universes". Once you do that, please include this with your rationale: "Opposers are hereby given notice that the penalty for opposition to my will is annihilation." I can just assume that the ArbCom case to follow would be absolutely hilarious. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This reminded me of something you would say. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your day of fun...
Ha. I'm still cleaning up. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd forgotten all about that. Ah well, the subject deserves its place in the sun; perhaps it'll even have improved a little by this tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Paulinus survived mostly unscathed. I got to fix references, when folks add in stuff willy-nilly, as well as getting hit by the great AWB fixers who insist on removing blank lines in the editing (I prefer the blank lines, it makes it easier to see things when in edit mode)... all in the joys of main page day. Now he can go back to slumbering with few page views. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't forgotten about the other svg needed for Wilfrid btw, I should be able to get it done tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No hurry. I just returned from the U of I library with 25 more books to digest and about 100 articles in various forms. I'll be busy for a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

GAR query
Although none of my GA queries ever result in anything good, I'm stubborn or dumb enough to try one more time :))

In cases like Featured article candidates/Kevin Youkilis/archive1, wouldn't it be possible for the FAC review to be a proxy for a GAR, and for the article to just be delisted immediately, without another process? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That could work(ish). As I'm sure you know, there are two different kinds of GARs now, community and individual. I think this article does fall short of the GA criteria, and questions were already being asked about whether it really ought to have been listed anyway. Immediate delisting is frowned on though, except in the most obvious cases, and often causes unecessary friction, what I think I'll do is open an individual reassessment myself, with the review incorporating relevant points brought up at the FAC. If the issues aren't addressed in the following few days then I'll delist it. I've watchlisted the FAC, so when that's closed—I'm assuming it'll be withdrawn—I'll open the GAR.


 * Glad to see you're feeling well enough to start reading at FAC again. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Malleus ... I'm just wondering if we can find a more efficient way of dealing with similar when they appear at FAC. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Malleus, do you think one of us should draw this discussion to the attention of the GA reviewer, JHawk88? By giving the article such a superficial review he's just set the editor up for a double disappointment. If this were on my Talk page, I'd contact the reviewer without a second thought, but this is your Talk page so I think it's your call. --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea Philcha; if you're happy to do that then please go ahead. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Malleus: I think your approach the best way to proceed. Changes of GA status need a review, I believe, as GA does aim to provide suggestions on how to improve the article to meet the GA criteria.
 * It could be useful to establish a clearing house at GAR for unsuccessful FACs and FARs which are or were GAs, so that they can be reevaluated against the GA criteria. Geometry guy 21:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a clearing house might be a good idea, and I expect that SandyG would approve of that idea too. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside I also think that forging this kind of working relationship between FA and GA could only be a good thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would be very easy to implement as well. All that is needed is to add any unsuccessful FAC which is also a GA into a maintenance category. (Either the article talk page or the FAC discussion page could be placed in the category - that's a minor detail.) I could then instruct my trusty friend VeblenBot to list this category, as it does with community GARs, and arrange for this information to be automatically added to appropriate locations such as WP:GAR and the GA tasks box. Geometry guy 16:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like that, or similar, could be very useful ... mentioning the CIA article at one of the GA talk pages wasn't successful, and as Karanacs and I come across these cases, we really can't/shouldn't be initiating the GARs. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trialing an approach and will bring this to WT:FAC and WT:GAN tomorrow. Geometry guy 23:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi...
Have I done something to offend you? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm aware of. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine your question is triggered by my comments at the ANI thread discussing DougTech's block/ban/unblock. I quite simply view that indef block as a thinly disguised trick to get rid of an unpopular editor, and the demands for contrition rather sicken me. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have any problem with DougsTech in general, and I have a history of opposing his detractors. I support his RFA participation. I think I've been saying something very uncontroversial: that people are blocked to prevent continued disruption, and a commitment to end the disruption is grounds for immediate unblocking. Is that really a position you disagree with? I'm not the people you're upset with. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, I'm not in the slightest upset with you, and I'm a little puzzled as to why you apparently believe that I am. I have to say though that your various pronouncements in this topic do not always appear to me to be consistent, but that may be as much down to my misunderstanding as to your lack of consistency.
 * Well, I'm under the impression you're upset with me because your posts have seemed very critical of what I've been saying. You said that the "kindest interpretation" of my words was that I'm voicing a "desperate scraping of the barrel" for excuses to "silence" an editor. I hear those as criticisms, and unfair ones, I would say. I think I've been quite consistent, and I am very willing to explain my position, in as much detail as necessary. I think we should let DT particpate in RFAs as he wishes, but I think that he should agree to follow WP:NPA, just as any other contributor is expected to. Until he violated it (rather egregiously, IMO), I had nothing at all against him. Is that a "desperate scraping"? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care one bit about "contrition", I will never mention it, and I agree that such is sickening. I agree with you. I think contrition demands are terrible. I would be very happy to see an agreement from DT not to engage in further personal attacks, and that's the only thing I've been suggesting in that ANI thread. If that's a "demand for contrition", then I'm a lungfish. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually - I'll stop after this post - I don't think I've ever seen DougsTech voice an opinion with which I've disagreed. Ever. I really don't think I'm an example of someone trying to silence the guy. I'm his cheerleader, until he stoops to making personal attacks. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the threading of my replies made it seem that I was suggesting that you were the one demanding contrition, which was not my meaning. It is though, difficult to interpret a comment (not made by you) such as "We generally expect blocked users to understand the reason for their block before we unblock them, so as to make sure that they will not continue with the conduct that caused their block" as anything than a demand for the heretic to recant. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's just unclear threading. I saw you saying that you, unlike I, don't have a crystal ball, and I saw you referencing my "moral high ground" statement to him, and I saw you characterizing my position as being overly punitive. Maybe I misunderstood, and you were directing those comments to someone else. When I block a vandal - which I've done many times - it's for one reason: prevention. If such a vandal indicates that they'd like to contribute without vandalizing, then I unblock them. Does that mean I'm conditioning their unblock on "recanting"? I don't know, maybe so. What's a better way? I'm all ears. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be quite happy to deal with your points one at a time if you've got any concerns. For instance, my "crystal ball" comment was prompted by this: "if he won't agree not to engage in future personal attacks, I don't think we should unblock him. It's not about Ruylong now, it's about the next person he decides to kick while down, and then the next one, and then the next one." Have demands been made that you don't engage in any future "personal attacks"? You also said: "That's different from saying he'll refrain from doing it to the next admin who's de-sysopped." Why would you apparently assume that "personal attacks" on desysopped admins are any worse than "personal attacks" on regular editors? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't assume that attacks on desysopped admins are worse than attacks on others. Not at all; not remotely. I'm not sure how you get that out of what I said. It might be better to ask what I mean that to assume I mean anything as ugly as that. I repudiate it so utterly. If I ever think that, shoot me. I mention desysopped admins in particular, because DT has made it very clear that he is engaged in an attempt to get "bad admins" desysopped. That tells me that he's got a bee in his bonnet about "bad admins" (which is also what his RFA opposes are about), and he has given us an example of how he reacts when one is de-sysopped. I think his reaction was terrible, and likely to undermine anything good about what he's doing. I told him so. If I have engaged in personal attacks previously, and if someone asks me about it, I will be quite willing to apologize, and to assure them that I do try to participate in this site in a way that is respectful of everyone involved. If someone needs assurances that I won't be attacking people - no problem. As an admin, I consider myself a servant of Wikipedia, and I am absolutely willing to provide assurances regarding my intentions. Does that seem fair? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PS. There is in my mind, and I'd like to think also in yours, a vast difference between blocking an established user and a straightforward block of a vandal. For instance, if you block an IP for 24 hours for repeated vandalism, he's back in a few days. Not quite the same punishments handed out to regular editors though, who do not have the protection afforded by the administrator's cloak of invulnerability. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see vandalism only accounts, and IP vandals, as very different from established users. In this case however, I see an established user who has explicitly declared his intent to get admins de-sysopped, and I see that as different from most other cases. I'm willing to support his aim, unless he's going to make it personal, and to be obnoxiously rude to those he considers "bad admins". At that point, I'd like to know that he's not going to do that anymore, because it's terrible. "Once bitten, twice shy", as the saying goes. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "I see an established user who has explicitly declared his intent to get admins de-sysopped ..." I'm fully prepared to believe that your heart's in the right place, but you're really not expressing yourself either clearly or consistently. DougsTech's aim isn't to have every admin desysopped is it? I thought it was only the bad ones; who could have a problem with that, except the bad admins? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... "get admins de-sysopped" ≠ "get all admins desysopped". I did not say, nor did I imply, "every" admin. I would never say such a thing, because it's absurd. I guess I assumed nobody would go with the absurd interpretation, when there's a sane one sitting right there. Namely: that he declared his intention to get [some] admins desysopped. If I'm feeling celebratory, and decide to go out to a bar, and say to myself, "I want to get people drunk," because I want to buy my friends drinks, and make them drunk... does that mean, "I want to get [all] people drunk"? Hell, no. If I want to "get things done", does that mean I want to get all things done? Hell, no. Nobody talks that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't "have a problem" with him wanting to get bad admins de-sysopped. I support that, whole-heartedly. However, it is relevant for me to mention it when you ask why I specify personal attacks against de-sysopped admins in particular. Those are the ones against whom he has a (VERY ADMIRABLE) grudge, and that's the category of person against whom we saw him make a (VERY UNADMIRABLE) personal attack. Therefore, it is relevant to note that de-sysopped admins seem to be the target of his incivility. It is also reasonable to expect him to do it again, since it's the mission he's on. That you would leap to the conclusion (a) that I think he wants "all" admins de-sysopped, (b) that I think de-sysopped admins deserve special protection, (c) that I have a problem with his opposition to bad admins... absurd. None of these conclusions is justified by anything I typed, except by the most tortured and ridiculous of interpretations. If I were to mean any of those stupid, stupid things, I would say them. I did not. Your skill at reading between the lines - even at simple reading comprehension - is abysmal, and yes, I have taught English composition for a living, and yes. I have been paid for my copywriting, and yes, I have worked as a text editor for the BBC, with no complaints, in any of those contexts. You have been bringing some serious preconceptions to your reading of my words, and those incorrect preconceptions are impairing your ability to understand English. Think about that.... and before you reply to me, read again, and check whether I actually said anything you think I meant. So far, everything you've thought I meant, I didn't say. At all. Think about that. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bacchus, please stop with your confused rambling. If you think that I'm likely to be even the slightest impressed or intimidated by your claims to a competence that you clearly do not possess then you are delusional. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm disengaging now. I'm going to communicate with people who understand things I say. I can find them quite easily. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually like and support his project of taking out bad admins. I think it's great. I love seeing bad admins desysopped... but I won't gloat about it, and I will disagree strongly w/ anyone who does. That's really all I've been saying, and I'm a bit puzzled that you keep suggesting that I'm saying these ridiculous and outrageous things. Special protection for bad admins? Do you know who I am? I've helped take out several. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See above. It appears that what you mean and what you write are only the vaguest of acquaintances. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anything above indicates that. In my experience, many people have given me feedback that my written communication is clear and satisfactory. It is clear that this is not the case for you, and I'm sorry for all the misunderstandings. I can't say that I've ever experienced quite this, where someone believes that I'm saying nearly the opposite of what I'm actually saying, over and over and over again. I have no idea what you'll think I'm saying now, so I should probably shut up. I'll try to remember in the future that you and I don't share a language, and I'll be very careful if I say anything around you. I apologize again, for what you might imagine I just said. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Calm down. I favour making admins more accountable and easier to remove, but DougTech's actions on Ryulong's (? sp) Talk page were tactically dumb beyond belief. I've commented at WP:ANI on the bad smell this case is likely to produce. --Philcha (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with you Philcha, very dumb. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think it would be good to have established editors who seek to get admin desysopped. Thankfully, we have community approval of such people, which includes ArbCom. They happened to do exactly what their job is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine - formatting
Hi!

I notice you undid my change to the formatting of the headers in the References section of the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine article. I made my change so that the section would conform to Manual_of_Style, which says: Unspaced multiple equal signs are the style markup for headings. The triple apostrophes that make words appear in boldface are not used in headings. The nesting hierarchy for headings is as follows: * the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title; * primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on.

There's nothing in the MOS that I could see that supports the use of semicolons to produce headings. Would you mind explaining your reasoning, please? Kay Dekker (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Using the section markers causes Notes and Bibliography to be added to the table of contents, which is just noise. This article and many others uses the style of References that you are objecting to, and which it had when it was promoted to FA without any objections being raised there. The MoS's pronouncements on section headers are not relevant in this specific case. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Editors are free to use any method; no method is preferred", from CITE --Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the prompt and courteous explanation of your reasoning. Kay Dekker (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
...for lurking at the Allocator GAN. I hoped you were still around, and it's reassuring to see that you were and would (I'm sure!) have chipped in if there was anything getting past me. As I mentioned before, these articles aren't really my area, and though it does me good to get out of my comfort-zone once in a while, it's still nice to know that you concur with the GA pass. All the best, EyeSerene talk 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm an incorrigible meddler anyway. :-) I did have serious doubts about the article initially, particularly about the accessibility of the lead and the modified reference code example, but I'd say that the improvements made since then have been verging on the spectacular, and it now well deserves its listing. It's good for us all to stretch ourselves by leaving our comfort zone every now and again, and I think articles often benefit too, from a fresh eye. Heck, I never expected to become one of the UK's leading authorities on medieval English bishops, for instance. :lol; --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, find a niche and scratch it :D Congratulations on the front page today btw (I'm assuming it's one of yours) EyeSerene talk 18:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is one of mine, yes, and I've been watching over it like a broody hen all day. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had it watchlisted too, but my trigger finger must be slowing. Not a single revert all day :( Incidentally, I've greatly enjoyed browsing your talk-page, and you might be interested in a supplier of lab equipment we used at uni (it afforded much simple amusement to a bunch of bored students) EyeSerene talk 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Iridescent gave a different Wayne Kerr an honourable mention last night. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Typical, thunder stolen. I swear she keeps lists of this stuff somewhere. EyeSerene talk 19:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Either that or she's got a photographic memory. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed (and while I was typing my last, I missed the latest vandal on TFA. Bollocks.) EyeSerene talk 19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be standing down for a while now, got a curry to make, so I'm leaving you in charge of the SSEM. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I could assure you it's in safe hands. All the best, EyeSerene talk 19:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

← I just saw that you blocked an editor after (s)he'd vandalised the SSEM article EyeSerene—I didn't realise that you were an administrator! Coming from me that's high praise indeed. Don't worry, I won't be holding it against you. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks - that's actually one of the most encouraging things that's been said to me about my use of the tools :) Glad I was finally able to make a miniscule contribution to SSEM's upkeep too. EyeSerene talk 09:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the front page spot! --Philcha (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think the subject deserved it, and the exposure has even improved it slightly. At least now the Yanks know that they didn't invent the computer. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shhh, otherwise de.WP will wax even more indignant. --Philcha (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pulled ripcord...
Hey, Malleus. I'm not sending out a bunch of thankspam, but I did want to thank you in particular for your comments at my Rfa. I very much appreciated you "parachuting in" to respond to other commentary. Your opinion is definitely highly respected -- by myself and others. I mean, honestly -- may your parafoil always deploy. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  06:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you made it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Manchester OS map
Hi- I've got an original of the 1842 Manchester Ordnance Survey one inch map- would scans of any particular area be of any use? Ning-ning (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in the area on the border between Stretford and Sale, around where the the A56 crosses the Mersey. Does it cover Salford as well? If so a scan of Chat Moss would be good. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, if it just covers the centre of Manchester then Deansgate would be good. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be worth asking WP:GM if scans could be used in any articles. Nev1 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Covers quite a wide area. including Salford and Chat Moss. Can't see the A56 on it though :) Ah yes, Watling Street- Sale's a small hamlet. Should have the scans done by Monday. Ning-ning (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great, thanks! --Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Sale map is here and a closer look at the Watling Street crossing is here. Date on the margin is 2nd June 1843. The whole map is made up of four "quarter sheets" mounted together, with the margins trimmed, covering the area NE corner Shaw Hey Moss, SE corner Combs Moss, SW corner Little Leigh, NW corner Roscoe Low. Top left sheet is No. 88 SW (Huddersfield)- I've checked the edition of this, and it's either state 1 or state 2 with a date of 1843, which means that probably the other three maps are first or second states. I can't confirm this until I work out what the map numbers are, but the date of printing is most likely 1843 or 1844 (the 1842 date is on one of the other sheets). More tomorrow! Ning-ning (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Manchester [] LHS and RHS are two different maps, and the join doesn't match exactly. Ning-ning (talk)


 * How much is there to scan? The links above look pretty interesting.  Do any of them, particularly those south of the city, indicate the presence of turnpike roads, or toll gates? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Physical size of the map is about 2 foot 6 by 2 foot. Toll gates are shown by "TG", the letters being a milllimetre in height. Roads don't appear to be named, except where they have Roman names. but the major roads and some of the smaller roads are distinguished by heavier shading on one side- I've got a vague memory that that's how the turnpikes were shown. The J. B. Harley series of books on the Old Series contains a comprehensive key which would give the answer. Ning-ning (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Chat Moss is here []. Toll gates are marked at Rixton Mill and Lower Irlam, on a road that's shaded on one side. Them little lines sticking out from the sides of the roads I think are indications of field boundaries. Ning-ning (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If
that other place is so great and able to be a source of criticism, how come the cowards there have ignored the fact that DougsTech had a one week block moved to indefinite with a community "consensus" lasting less than a day or any time to really get feedback from the community and yet the guy he was disputing with can say "eat shit and die" in two edit summaries and get off without a problem? I guess it doesn't serve any of their agendas, as standing up for the little guy and fighting is something few actually care to do anymore. I honestly believe that if I would go to Jimbo I would get something more appropriately done. That is why I can never trust that other place. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was "great", I just think it's necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, if they stay silent on things like this. Look at the hypocrisy towards FT and plagiarism and yet no notice on WR about the recent RfA dealing with it. Also look at the real members of the community that care about such things make an appearance and seek to have it corrected properly without the drama. Obviously, the "necessary" system is broken, and there are just people like me running around here trying to do what is right without support, obnoxious threads, and such attention. I guess people are too busy trying to figure out how to bash Coren over a porn site instead of looking at problems that affect the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the last oppose - my intuition about it was correct, and BuddingJournalist dug deeper. You can see where one group came in after the fact for the most drama and where another group came in out of integrity for the sake of the encyclopedia. I hope this can show how the same problem can be addressed and that one has a far better response than another. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Im not here to be an apologist for WR, or for anything else for that matter. I simply believe that there's room for a range of views, most likely none of which is completely right.


 * I've been quite critical of DYK's low standards recently, and I'm beginning to wonder whether statements like this in an RfA nomination: "X is a valued editor who has created valuable content, racked up 25 or more DYKs in the process ..." ought not to send up immediate warning signals. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DYK is a hot bed, but so is GAN and FAC (as I have dealt with people in both committing the same problems). Regardless, I just want to point the above out to make sure that you don't drink the kool aid. We need as many people as we can get that are willing to fight here at all times and for the right reasons instead of just talking about it in some remote place or coming over just to cause drama then "retiring" after. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt that anyone would accuse me of that Ottava. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)