User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2009/October

My thoughts
Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What were you responding to Ottava? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster
Wikipedia talk pages are not a soapbox to use to give the finger to people you disagree with. Please reverse your restoration of the content I removed from WebHamsters page. Chillum 14:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop trying to impose your rather primitive views on "civility" on those who happen not to agree with them. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus, you know that the image is used to inflame a situation. WebHamster should not have it there. It is clearly there to antagonize. There is a difference between defending what is right and simply wanting to upset one's opponents. As someone who works to defend him, you should clean such stuff out and bolster mature responses instead, as that would be the only way for him to return from these problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not being a mind reader, I know no such thing. The image wasn't added recently, just seems like yet more unseemly dancing on the grave to me. Is everyone to be prohibited from expressing a view that Chillum doesn't agree with, or just WebHamster? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Already under discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard. Friday (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that if people feel WebHamster's 'finger' image is aimed at another user, then they contact that user to see what's what. If he doesn't care, then leave it alone.  Really, why are people so interested in patrolling Wikipedia with their Civility Police "NEE NAW NEE NAW" cars and uniforms, and sticking their noses in other people's business?  Besides which, the image isn't necessarily aimed at a person.  Why can't people just go and edit articles? Parrot of Doom 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up
Without stating my position on the issue what you've said here shows remarkable compassion and sensitivity, and I salute you for it.--Tznkai (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Didn't work though, Lara's bits are clearly off limits. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * <3 Lara  05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

the sock rot
How about an RfC on the removal of one word? Tony  (talk)  03:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Moors murders
re the car - the book says "Myra hired cars from Warren Autos twice more: on 27 November, the Wednesday after John died, and again on 21 December. They needed a vehicle for reconnaissance trips, to check that their handiwork had gone undiscovered.  It was cold weather, and the back of the motorbike was no place for long treks up to the moors, even without worrying about needing a spade." Parrot of Doom 21:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There seemed to me to be a bit missing from the sentence. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain there's much more I can add to this now, other than a photograph of the flats at Underwood, or perhaps a period photograph of Gorton if we can find one (the market perhaps). The book will undoubtedly now go on to Hindley's time in prison, and that will only go to 1988 - time for FAC? Parrot of Doom 09:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I suppose it could do with an 'end of innocence' legacy type of section. Parrot of Doom 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How about something like this:

"Few crimes have since possessed the same power to shock as those committed by Brady and Hindley. The murders of Pauline Reade, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey, and Edward Evans, might have remained a footnote in criminal history, but for the fact that one of the protagonists was a young woman.  In addition, the photographs and tape recordings of the torture of Lesley Ann Downey, demonstrated in court to a disbelieving audience, and the impassionate responses of Brady and Hindley, have helped ensure the lasting notoriety of their crimes.  Brady is rarely mentioned in the news, but until her death Hindley's repeated insistence on her innocence, and attempts to secure her release from prison, resulted in her becoming a figure of hate in the national media.

The case has been dramatised on television twice; in Longford (2006), and See No Evil: The Moors Murders (2006). A BBC television debate in 1977 discussed arguments for and against the release of Myra Hindley, with contributions from (parent of girl killed), and a telephone call from (another parent of child killed). Since the case, Hindley's name has been mentioned in relation to other female criminals, including Rosemary West and Maxine Carr. "


 * I realise the first paragraph isn't referenced, but I don't think it will be particularly difficult. All the material I've read has commented on the enduring legacy of the case, and I doubt anything there is particularly contentious.  A case in point would be Fred and Rosemary West - more killings, but less mention.  What do you think of that as a basic outline? Parrot of Doom 13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's pretty good PoD, rounds off the article nicely. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll put it in and attempt to source as much as I can. As I say, I don't think any of that is particularly contentious.  I'll of course add more later. Parrot of Doom 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Ritchie book covers just about that entire paragraph (except the obit which is obviously post-1988). I'd nominate it for FAC but the honour should be yours, you've done far more work than I have.  Go for it :) Parrot of Doom 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "In September 1964 Hindley and Brady went on holiday to Scotland, where they visited Brady's foster family, the Sloans. On one occasion, Brady went out alone. He later told Smith: "I have killed three or four and I'll do another one, but I'm not due for one for three months. But it will be done and it won't count." - there's a hint there that Brady may have killed someone in Scotland, something that might tie in with his future 'confessions'. It could probably use a little expansion but I didn't want it to disappear without further consideration.  I haven't thought much about it though. Parrot of Doom 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Brady claimed in his letter to Peter Gould that he'd killed someone in Glasgow IIRC, but the police didn't find any matching victim. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The ONDB entry for Hindley states that in the committal proceedings the defence wanted the magistrates to sit in private, but that this was rejected. Right now the article says that they did sit in private (in camera), from an edit I made. I'll have a read through The Times articles, to see if I can figure that out. Parrot of Doom 08:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorted, prosecution opening statement heard in private, defence heard in public. Parrot of Doom 08:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One other thing, would it be better perhaps to save the judgemental comments on their performance in the trial, until after the verdict? There are only a couple of lines. Parrot of Doom 08:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I lied, another thing - they didn't commit the murders in and around Greater Manchester, as the lead says. Lancs and Cheshire surely?  I just know someone will pick that up at some point. Parrot of Doom 08:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea; I've moved the two comments about their performances in court to the end of the section. I've also changed the lead to say "in what is now Greater Manchester". --Malleus Fatuorum 11:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering also, if it isn't worth elaborating on the pair's relationship while incarcerated. There's some interesting stuff about letters between the two while on remand, and an attempt to get married—despite their nihilism (married prisoners are allowed some access to oneanother).  There's also a coded letter promising the death of the Smiths, Patrick Downey purchasing a gun (given up to the police).  The newspaper that paid Smith was the News of the World, and of course there's a fair bit still to insert about Hindley's education inside prison.  I must have been tired when I said there wasn't much else to add... Parrot of Doom 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we need to be very careful. This is an encyclopedia article, not the definitive account of the Moors murderers. We could add all sorts of additional detail, but we don't need to, because those who are interested can read the cited sources for themselves. We're trying to provide an accessible summary in less than 100Kb of readable prose. I wouldn't be happy with adding more than a few additional facts such as that the pair hoped to marry, if indeed they did. Hindley's education inside prison beyond what's already said seems irrelevant to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ""Within months", Hindley said, "he [Brady] had convinced me that there was no God at all"." - right now it reads as though this was in the letter she sent to her childhood friend, but that obviously isn't the case. When was this said? Parrot of Doom 12:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an extract from her parole plea, written in 1978/79. I've clarified. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Does Topping elaborate on the search at all - with particular regard to the first search on the A628? Didn't they initially believe that W.H. in the notebook stood for Woodhead, until Pat Hodges clarified it as Wessenden Head?  I think the W.H. needs pointing out. Parrot of Doom 09:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the article says that Maureen died in 1977 - but I think that's a mistake, and the actual date is 1980. Parrot of Doom 09:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that is definitely wrong, so I've corrected it, and also added a bit more about what happened to Maureen and David following the case. It seems fair to do so, especially as Maureen's future ties in with her funeral, and the actions of the victims. Parrot of Doom 10:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Topping does mention "WH" on what he calls the disposal plan that was produced in court, and a "PB", but what he says makes the story of Hodges telling them it was Wessenden Head look a bit dubious: "She [Hindley] said she thought that 'PB' on the disposal plan ... stood for Penistone Burn ... I [Topping] asked her what 'WH' stood for on the plan. She though it meant Woodhead, which is on the way to Penistone. I asked her if, in the light of developments, she now thought it stood for Wessenden Head on Saddleworth Moor. She did not think so, since she and Brady did not know the names of specific areas there: they just knew the whole area as the Moor." (p. 120). He doesn't say anything about Hodges telling them about Wessenden Head, just that she showed them the lay-by close to where Kilbride's body was found, and the places where the three of them used to go digging for peat. I'd be surprised if Hodges would have known that the area was called Wessenden Head. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have said, by 'clarified' I didn't mean that Hodges told them of Wessenden Head, I meant she did that by her actions in taking them up there. I think it just needs clarifying why initially they searched on the A628. Parrot of Doom 11:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I see what you mean now. I'll check again. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is very strange. Topping doesn't mention any search along the A628; he says that they went straight back to Saddleworth Moor, searching 100 yards either side of a 2½ mile stretch of the A635, around where Kilbride's body had been found in the initial investigation. Given that the police had by then known for 20 years where Downey and Kilbride was buried, and that the disposal plan had "WH" on it, it seems rather odd that they'd resume their searching somewhere completely different. I don't believe that they did search along the A628, because it most definitely doesn't match Topping's account, and he was in charge of the police operation. Does anyone else mention this supposed search except Ritchie?


 * On a different subject, I found a map showing where the three bodies discovered on the Moor were buried, and the area where the search for Bennett was focused, which would be good to redraw and add to the article at some point. I hadn't realised they were so close to the Dove Stone Reservoir you've mentioned before. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me have a copy and I'll do the map. They weren't far from here, right?  IIRC all the bodies were found within a few hundred yards of the A635, which makes sense as its a horrid surface on which to try and walk. Parrot of Doom 11:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That picture looks to be about the right place. Shall I scan the map and email you a copy? --Malleus Fatuorum 11:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, although Virgin email is down today for some stupid reason. You could always create a free account at Flickr and I'll grab it from there. Parrot of Doom 12:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try and get that done this afternoon. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, missed a bit. See No Evil definitely makes a point of them presuming that WH meant Woodhead, which is along the A628 - although it doesn't actually show scenes of a search.  Perhaps they initially presumed that the bodies were near Woodhead, and went up to have an informal look, but before the proper search then realised that it was the A635? Parrot of Doom 11:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Scratch that - the programme (a drama but accurate) does spent significant time on the two areas searched, and the "We've been searching in the wrong area". I find it hard to believe they'd manufacture that. Parrot of Doom 11:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At about this time I was working in Sheffield, and I used the Woodhead Pass almost every working day. I don't ever recall seeing any kind of police search up there. If there had been a search, why would Topping not mention it? He's very clear: "The search began the bext day, 20 November, with thirty men and dogs provided by Lancashire and West Yorkshire police forces. It was a very misty morning, the first of many I would see on Saddleworth Moor". --Malleus Fatuorum 11:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but clearly something isn't quite correct. I'll have a look through The Times archive. Parrot of Doom 12:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering whether, if there was a search along the A628, it wasn't by the Greater Manchester Police. Topping had to get the agreement of the Cheshire police to open his investigation, so maybe the Cheshire police had/were searching along the A628? Sounds a bit far-fetched though. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Times mentions their visits with the Smiths to Woodhead. Ritchie says "The search had been concentrated in the WH area on the A628...largely because of the initials WH on Brady's carefully written sheet of instructions for himself, and also because it was an area David Smith remembered visiting.  But Pat, sitting in the back of a police car with a policewoman next to her and a policeman in the front, didn't want them to go that way.  She took them somewhere else, a route that came back to her turn by turn..." Parrot of Doom 12:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to make of this. Does The Times talk about a police search olong the A628, or is it just Ritchie? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing I've found, and I don't think I will find. The newspaper only reports on the finding of things up at Saddleworth - the body of Downey, clothing (socks) presumably from Kilbride.  Woodhead is mentioned in the court transcripts but only in relation to the Smiths' visits up there.  Maybe they only searched for a few hours, or a day? Parrot of Doom 12:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The weather forecast is good tomorrow, so chances are I'll be walking up there. Can you get that map to me before tomorrow? Parrot of Doom 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My internet connection was down for much of the afternoon, and I've been out this evening, only just got back. I'll get the scan done now and let you know where to download it from asap. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Searching for Keith
I asked for input on that website, and got this reply:

All the victims were sexually assaulted; not just three.


 * How can anyone possibly know whether or not Keith Bennett was sexually assaulted? I suspect that he was, but that's not the same thing. We currently say in the lead that four of the victims were sexually assualted, which is all that can be said with certainty, I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The police always suspected Brady and Hindley of the five murders, but did not pursue the disappearances of Pauline Reade and Keith Bennett as fully as they could have done.


 * I'm not certain I believe that. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A question mark must still hang over whether or not the ‘full extent’ of Brady and Hindley’s crimes have come to light.


 * Agreed, but who says so? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Brady did not attack Pauline Reade with a shovel. There are several variations on the exact sequence of events leading to Pauline’s death, as there are with each victim. And all Myra Hindley's 'confessions' should be treated with caution.


 * I think there does seem to some reasonable doubt about the attack with a shovel, and we probably ought to rewrite that. Topping says that Brady told Hindley to stay with Pauline Reade's body—whose throat had been cut—while he went to fetch a spade he had hidden somewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten that account of Pauline Reade's murder. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

John Kilbride was approached by Hindley and Brady together.

Keith Bennett’s grandmother lived in Longsight, on Morton Street, not in Gorton.
 * Ritchie doesn't say where, but she does say Stockport Road, and that his gran was a cleaner at Victoria Park - and Morton St is between the two. Parrot of Doom 23:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

David Smith did not call the police simply because Maureen insisted; they both knew what had to be done.


 * We have to go with what our sources claim. If Smith knew what had to be done, them why did he go home and tell Maureen, instead of going straight to the police? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hindley may have replied sensitively to Mrs Johnson in her letter; in private correspondence, she was a great deal less compassionate.


 * Quite possibly, but who says so? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ian Brady was indeed cruel to animals when younger but the stories recounted here have no known basis in truth. Whether or not he was deliberately brutal to other children during his own youth is also a matter of conjecture.


 * Conjecture it may or may not be, but it's the conjecture of the author of the ODNB article, not ours. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it perhaps worth then noting in the article that this is conjecture, and may not be factual? Parrot of Doom 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who says it's conjecture? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

After serving as a butcher’s assistant Ian Brady’s next job - according to one contemporary source - was as engine cleaner with British Rail, then an apprentice plater and afterwards as a tea-boy at the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Glasgow.

Ian Brady’s stepfather, Patrick Brady, was an ex-Army man working at Smithfield Market as a meat porter when Ian arrived in Manchester. Pat found his stepson a job at the market with Howarth’s Fruiterers as an errand boy.

In November 1955 Brady was convicted of stealing 44lbs of lead seals from banana boxes at the market after a driver asked him to load some stolen lead on to his lorry; on being caught, the scrap dealer gave the driver away to the police and he in turn implicated Ian.


 * We already mention the theft of the lead seals from the market. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Brady began work at Millwards on 16 February 1959, not 1958; your source here is mistaken, as he is on a number of occasions.
 * Ritchie says 21st birthday, suit bought, applied and won a job at Millwards - 21st birthday would confirm 1959. Parrot of Doom 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Myra’s ‘brutal’ childhood; it was neither as vicious as has been suggested nor as uncommon in those days for children to get a ‘clout’ from their parents, and indeed, teachers.


 * I'd rather believe the opinion of the forensic psychiatrist. It clearly wasn't common even in those days for 8-year-old girls to be taught how to fight, and forced to do so. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Higgins was himself a good swimmer, as his father later told the inquest into his son’s death.

Hindley’s colleagues at Lawrence Scott and Electrometers did club together to replace her lost pay packet but were less than impressed when she told them she had lost another soon afterwards.
 * Ritchie says the same, but its a bit of a nit-pick really, so I'll not add it. Parrot of Doom 17:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hindley had a pink ‘rinse’ - it doesn’t have the same effect as dying one’s hair block pink.
 * Confirmed Parrot of Doom 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The first film Brady and Hindley saw together was not Judgement at Nuremberg, as is commonly recounted.

Ian Brady saw the film 'Compulsion' because it starred one of his favourite actors, Orson Welles. He did not read the book.

Myra Hindley broke off contact with Ian Brady in early 1972, not 1971. Her decision to do so had nothing to do with Dorothy Wing's decision to take her to Hampstead Heath.
 * Ritchie says that she broke off contact in 1971 - "Earlier in 1971, after Carole left and stopped providing letters to him, she decided to break with him" - she wrote to Longford telling him how painful it was. "But although she broke off the relationship, she still corresponded with him sporadically."  I'll change the text to reflect this.  Ritchie also says nothing about Wing being impressed by this cutoff - rather, that Hindley successfully had her Category A status repealed, and that allowed Wing to take her out of the prison. Parrot of Doom 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we know and already suggest that it was Hindley's relationship with Patricia Cairns that prompted her to break off contact with Brady? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hindley did not die as the result of a heart attack. The inquest into her death, which was held at Highpoint prison, founds she had died of natural causes: bronchial pneumonia, brought on by hypertension and coronary heart disease.
 * this and other online sources confirm this. I'll make this change now. Parrot of Doom 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

David Smith's 'murder' of his father was a compassionate act to end Jack Smith's extreme suffering. David Smith did rebuild his life; he was awarded custody of his children and married very happily the second time around. The policemen involved in the original investigation have pointed out that had it not been for David’s phone call on the morning after the murder of Edward Evans, more children would very probably have been murdered and those who had already disappeared may never have been found.

Maureen Hindley also remarried. She did not die in 1977 but on 9 July 1980.

Hindley’s mother insisted she should die in prison because she feared for her daughter’s safety if she was released and for that reason alone.
 * Correct, so I changed this. Parrot of Doom 18:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No sources given, but its probably worth rechecking what we've entered, to see how the above fits. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Always worth double-checking, but it's very evident that different sources are telling slightly different stories. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, and I agree some of the above isn't factual, but all the same its obvious there are some minor errors made by the sources, that warrant rechecking. It'll not take long, and none of them are major.  I'll try and get through as many as I can. Parrot of Doom 23:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the things I've found very striking about this case is that apart from Evans's murder there are no accounts of any of the murders other than Hindley's. No independent witnesses, and Brady won't talk. Like Topping, I find it rather strange that she was always somewhere else when the actual murders took place, or at least she claimed to be somewhere else. I think it's clear that she wasn't always telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", as she herself admitted later in life. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The irony is, had she offered a guilty plea and 'fessed up earlier, she'd have saved herself a good deal of time in prison. Parrot of Doom 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One gets the very strong impression that "the truth" was a foreign concept to Myra Hindley. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Before I create this map, I wondered how we're going to phrase the text. The image of the moors, from the rocks of Hollin Brown Knoll, roughly encompasses the burial sites, and I think that once the map is done it'll be worth mentioning in the image text. The photograph was taken from these rocks, looking west-south-west. I think all three sites are in there. There's also a scene in See No Evil, which shows a very similar shot (although not from the rocks, but across the road). Parrot of Doom 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the question is. Are you asking about the image caption? I don't see that it's necessary to say anything in the article's body about the map. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean, the image of the moors - you can see all three of the burial sites in that image. By the way, I just found out that Hindley authored an unpublished autobiography.  I'm trying to find out where the papers are. Parrot of Doom 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably with Patricia Cairns, or handed on to Staff. I think for the moors image we can say something general like "... showing the area in which the bodies of X, Y, Z, were discovered". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * book Parrot of Doom 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That could be an interesting read when it's published. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's an early draft. I'm not completely happy with it, let me know what you think. I can't do it in svg format, it buggers up the texture (the reeds). I also need to add in the river through the valley to the west, and I maybe need to put a few peaks and troughs in there, to reflect the geography. It all takes time though. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know it takes time, that's why I didn't want to do it. I wouldn't bother with peaks and troughs, but I'd like to see the locations of the graves, and whose graves they were. The SVG problem is probably because you're using a gif for the background. I'd suggest dumping that and keeping it simple. Also needs a scale of course. So, close, but no cigar. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, its just the the svg format doesn't handle opacity, the texture isn't a bitmap. I can't be specific with the graves, unless I 'zoom out' to a much larger scale.  The map you gave me, if you look closely, is actually rather poor on detail.  That's why I just made two ellipses - to be general.  I could change them, and create a general 'area' north of the road, and a smaller 'area' south of the road - that might be better.  It does however need a key and a scale. Parrot of Doom 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What software are you using? SVG handles opacity so far as I'm aware. The two ellipses are fine, so long as we label them as X and Y found here, Z found there I think. The map I sent you wasn't great, I agree, but it was the only one I've found. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it bloody well wasn't good enough. I expect better from my acolytes! ;)  I'm using Adobe Illustrator.  You can see the svg version if you browse the category the map above is in on commons. Parrot of Doom 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you put a source, or reference on the map, since its inspired by the scan you provided? I changed the burial sites slightly based on information from the Keith Bennett website.  Not enough that it constitutes OR I think. Parrot of Doom 13:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll do that. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This, abridged from Staff's book, says that Reade knew Hindley. This would make sense as Reade went to the same school as Maureen.  Do you have the Staff book?  I think this is important - that even though Reade was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, Hindley didn't have a problem driving her up to the moors for what we know then happened. Parrot of Doom 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hindley certainly did recognise Reade, can't remember why, but I do still have Staff's book, so I'll check and add that in. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Staff says that Hindley recognised Reade because the latter was a friend of her sister, Maureen, and an ex-girlfriend of David Smith. Checking through Topping again, it appears that Reade wasn't Brady's first choice victim, he'd picked a young girl called Marie Ruck, who lived next door but one to Hindley's mother. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This backs up everything Ritchie says, although she doesn't really go into detail on the details of each murder. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't suppose the Topping book says if the infamous mugshots were taken at the same time, or on different days? Because the caption suggests they were arrested together, which initially wasn't the case. Parrot of Doom 22:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Topping doesn't say anything about the Brady mugshot, but he does say that Hindley's was taken at the time of the trial, not when she was arrested. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Email
Sent you one.  Majorly  talk  21:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains why I kept getting that captchit thing, or whatever it's called. Thanks for letting me know, but no worries. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

spam
I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ?  04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a time when I might have been interested, but right now I don't see the point of yet another talking shop. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tropic Thunder
Hey, hope you're doing well. It's good to see that you are still reviewing the Sweeps articles, maybe they'll all be completed by the end of the year (I love wishful thinking). Anyway, thanks to your very helpful copyediting of Oklahoma City bombing to get to FA, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at Tropic Thunder. I'd like to take it FAC soon, but want some outsiders to take a look at it. I've gone over the article several times, and have asked a few other people to review it but they've been busy. If you're willing/able I'd appreciate it, if you can't, no worries, I'll keep up the search. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, here's hoping Sweeps gets finished soon. I don't think I'd ever volunteer for anything like that again, it's been a massive effort. Sure, I'll take a lok at Tropic Thunder, but probably not for a day or two. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I almost want to recommend shutting down GAN until it's finished, but I'm pretty sure I'd be tarred and feathered for suggesting such a crazy idea. Take your time with the article, I'm in no big rush. Thanks for helping! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the cleanup, I really appreciate it. I'll probably head there later this week, so I also hope there aren't any major issues that arise. Thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy happy happy
Well done :) I feel particularly pleased with that one, moreso than Mary Toft I think :) Parrot of Doom 18:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we did a good job with that, and I can at last take my books back to the library now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might find this image of interest, as well as this poignant picture. Parrot of Doom 21:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A shame we can't use those. Ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Language
This was inappropriate. There are ways to disagree with someone without resorting to name-calling. If you continue with that kind of language, your account access may be blocked. --Elonka 00:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Telling the truth often results in an account being blocked. Try telling me something I don't already know. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus, just be happy that you got a warning. Come on, you were supposed to leave Chillum alone. -I- made the point to Chillum already knowing what would be said by more hostile groups. That should have been enough without having to jump in. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like you and I are being singled out as the bad people here Ottava, and I'm not happy about that. You and I are like chalk and cheese; about the only the thing we have in common is a sense of decency and fair play, something that's sadly lacking around here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, don't worry about it. You went aggressive and got your digs in, and cost us both Chillum talk page editing privileges. Are you happy? :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither happy nor unhappy. I just find it curious that the deception of an administrator who is quite happy to support the blocks of other editors doing exactly what he's doing is tolerated, but that when that discrepancy is pointed out—albeit in somewhat colourful terms—we get warned off. How could anyone be expected to feel happy about that? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now now, remember to AGF - he could be acting deceptively for the best of the Wiki. :P But seriously, you were supposed to -not- post on his talk page. If you have the urge to do that again, just link to his talk page in a new section here and rant away if you have to, but just leave his page alone. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, I shouldn't have posted on his talk page, mea culpa. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did you choose to single me out? I thought that Roux was far more presssing in his criticism. I'm getting more than a little fed up with all of these double if not at least triple standards around here. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to when Chillum asked you to stop posting on his talk page and that you would leave him alone a while back. Remember when we had that Cold War going instead of a Hot War that you sparked up? It was a little nicer that way. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Was that before or after Chillum promised to be an honest administrator? Do me a favour! --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I joined a Facebook group that said "Impeach Obama" before he was sworn in as a President. The explanation on the page was that "The very moment the President opens his mouth and begins to act, he is lying to the American people and destroying the Constitution." It is that old "How do you know a politician is lying? He is speaking." joke. You can apply that to administrators. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 110 + 110 = 210. mwahaha... J.delanoy gabs adds  02:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that just proves that there is the rare admin who is not a liar, but merely an uber nerd with too much time on his hands that he has to make math related jokes. :P 03:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that I "can use an alternate account to work in contentious areas where harassment is common"? This is wonderful news! If someone accuses me of foul play and asserts that my new account is a sock will, it be enough to let them know that Chillum said it was okay per long standing consensus? I've tried to invoke the ignore all the rules policy, but that one seems to be more effective in its application for some editors than others.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Best to wait until you manage to finally get your administrator's cloak of invulnerability. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A cloak of invulnerability is needed before a cloak of invisibility? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're invulnerable, who cares if anyone can see you or not? Personally though I'd probably go for winged-sandals first though. --Malleus Fatuorum
 * From my understanding - winged sandals help, but the Helmet of Hades is -very- valuable, and the Aegis Shield is just absolutely awesome. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot
Hi Malleus - I've left you a reply on my talk page Richerman (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you see something I don't...
I think Ursie is ready for the big leagues tomorrow or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Good luck to the old boy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Gross distortion"
I'm not sure entirely why you choose to use this phrase which itself is far from useful. I also note that you seem to overlook the more central, directly and clearly relevant point, which could itself be seen as "distorting". As I remember, as per the ArbCom page Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence it was pointed out rather frequently that Mattisse had been rather regularly abused by a sockpuppeteer, among others,specifically the previous RfCs on her. While it is true that Mattisse's conduct has been negative, I also wonder whether her posting one comment in support of OR and making a few of what she believed to be jokes regarding Bishonen/Bishzilla can be seen as having been as you put it a "conspicuous failure". And, if it comes to that, how are we then supposed to deal with the relative failure of other measures, perhaps including the at least 2 ArbComs specifically called to deal with the editor on whose page you posted tha above quote? Maybe your own judgement is, shall we say, less than neutral? John Carter (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I chose to use the phrase "gross distortion" because I believe it to be an accurate description of the facts. Why else would I have used the phrase? Rather than question my judgement I would suggest that you look carefully at your own. We all get regularly abused here, often by administrators like yourself, it goes with the territory. What we don't all do though is go crying to Mummy about it, and using it as an excuse for our own bad behaviour. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that having half of my block log directly attributed to the actions of that corrupt group and being harassed by them for over a year that it is more than just "regular abuse". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't excuse anyone on the basis that someone else behaved worse, and neither should you. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In this particular incident, it was Bishonen going on many pages attacking me, Slim Virgin defended her, I pointed out the history, and Mattisse stepped in to simply verify. This later brought on attacks by Bishonen and Giano. It is very onesided and indicative that Bishonen should have been blocked and desysopped for her actions before. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PS.I really am very surprised to see you defend sockpuppetting as a few "jokes" in the light of recent events. Well, actually, to be truthful I'm not. Honesty and integrity seem to be in pretty short supply around here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Malleus. I think that there are 2 perspectives on sock puppetry. Ideally there should be none, and I'd favour alternate accounts to be forbidden unless a dispensation for very good reasons is gained in advance, and reviewed periodically. Sounds like our views on this are very similar. OTOH the standard set in practice is rather hard to discern - in fact the amount of misconduct condoned by some sockpuppet-masters justified your "Honesty and integrity seem to be in pretty short supply around here". By that dismal standard, Mattisse's use of socks was totally insignificant - and her block for sockpuppetry another piece of evidence that connections appear to matter more than conduct. --Philcha (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't disagree with you. Mattisse ought to have known better, none of us would have advised her that sockpuppetting was a great idea, and the punishment outweighed the crime. Sadly though such dishonesty appears to be endemic. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to Malleus's comments to me, I would say that I am probably privy to some information and conclusions based on it which he is not, having had some private conversations with one of the parties. I actually came here to indicate that I was going to post him an e-mail making reference to some of it, because, as it is based on material which isn't public, I didn't think it would be reasonable to post it publicly. However, in light of his comments above, I regret to say that I honestly cannot trust his own judgement or how he would act if he were given the information. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite, So what I suggest that you do John is to rearrange these letters into a well known phrase or saying "kucf fof". How dare you come here and make these kind accusations. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus, your comment above is very inappropriate. John has done nothing even close to attack you or critize you. Your hostility is inappropriate, especially when it is in defense of two people that are actively harassing multiple people. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottava, give it a rest, John has repeatedly claimed that my judgement is impaired. You may not take that as criticism, but I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how you are defending Bishonen who happens to be one of the most corrupt and abusive admin around here, and seeing as how you are some how claiming that Mattisse is the one currently causing a problem, I would say that your judgment is impaired. Did you forget that Bishonen is having her friends actively trying to get rid of Jennavecia? Perhaps you didn't realize that she has been actively harassing the people who have stuck around here for a while defending you. I'm surprised that you would bother defending such utterly corrupt admin like her. So, yes, your judgment is impaired or you suddenly became a hypocrite who doesn't care about admin abuse and protecting this project. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look a little more closely you may see that I've not defended anyone, and I certainly haven't called for Jennavecia to be desysopped. It is true though that I couldn't find it in myself to argue that she ought not to be desysopped. GlassCobra is a different case, and he ought to have the book thrown at him. If you believe that my judgement is impaired, then so be it. Repeatedly telling me the same thing isn't likely to change my mind, quite the reverse in fact. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reread what I said. This started because Mattisse verified what I told Slim Virgin about Bishonen's harassment, and Bishonen started harassing her more about it. You are defending Bishonen here, which is highly inappropriate especially when Bishonen and her corrupt lackies have spent a lot of time attacking those who defend you. Bishonen has spent the past two years destroying this project and if you want to work against those who merely point out this fact, fine. But don't cry about someone contradicting you over it on your talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not defending anyone, nor am I attacking anyone. All I'm doing is asking those dickheads who can't tell their arse from their elbow to ply their sanctimonious bullshit eleswhere, 'cos I ain't buying it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Describing his words as a "gross distortion" in the context was definitely going after him, and not the defensive innocence that you are trying to claim in the above. And if you don't see how going after him is defending of Bishonen, then I guess you don't understand how tripping someone during a fist fight would give the opponent an edge. There is a time and place for everything, and right now you are making it so Bishonen can slip away yet again, even though her desysopping is at least two years long overdue. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was merely telling the truth, despite knowing how unpopular that is here. Whatever beef you have with Bishonen is nothing to do with me. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you have some kind of typing based TS, you do realize that you don't have to say everything that comes to your mind simply because it is the "truth" and you don't want to change anything for anyone else. :P My beef with Bishonen is the same beef that John Carter has and the same that Mattisse has, because she did it to all three of us. I know the only beef you care about is the Roast Beef of Old England. By the way, I hope to entice you with a nice Flitch of Bacon sometime. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, would you mind holding the "typing-based TS" jokes? If for no other reason, no such thing exists.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottava, I find your tone insulting. Please go and insult someone else.--Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Take care. This is the last you'll see of me here. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll survive. Or not. Don't much care. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy walls of text Batman. Is there a cliff notes version to that evidence page? I don't have anything against Mattisse per se, although I don't especially care for fat line drawings. I would also like to note, in the interest of honesty and integrity, that I regularly point to admin misbehavior in order to justify my own actions. Mea culpa. Good luck y'all. I'm hoping the missing encyclopedia building project turns up soon! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What "encyclopedia building project". I'll give you a clue; compare my contributions to those of John Carter. Wikiwonkery is all that matters here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * John Carter's contributions involve putting years worth of effort into organizing and working on various projects including WikiProject Anglican and WikiProject Christianity. I have worked with John Carter for a very long time and he was one of the first people that stood up for me when Geogre began his harassment campaign with Bishonen's help. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. Then let him continue with his good works elsewhere, because I don't want to see any more of his sanctimonious claptrap on my talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Malleus had a reasonable point at the beginning. The typical pattern for this "mentorship" goes like this: Mattisse repeats an unproductive behavior for the umpteenth time. Someone complains about it to her "mentors". The decision tree then branches out:
 * If the complainant used uncivil language, the complaint is dismissed as harassment and Mattisse's actions are tacitly or explicitly condoned.
 * If the complainant used civil language, the complaint is dismissed as frivolous and Mattisse's actions are tacitly or actively condoned.
 * If the complainant has interacted with Mattisse before, insinuations are made about their motivation; they are attacked for availing themselves of the very mentoring process which was supposed to address their concerns; and Mattisse's behavior is tacitly or explicitly condoned.
 * If the complainant has no history of interaction with Mattisse, the complaint is dismissed because they obviously cannot understand the intricacies of the situation. Mattisse's behavior is tacitly or explicitly condoned.
 * At best, this "mentorship" has led to an occasional through-clenched-teeth, empty, forced, clearly pro forma placation from Mattisse, who as best I can tell is behaving more or less exactly as she did in the period leading up to the ArbCom case. No matter how you interpret the Proposed Decision or the "plan", I think we all agree that ArbCom found the status quo unacceptable - yet it remains unchanged. Every second one spends on this, on trying to provide therapy for someone who doesn't want it and who is surrounded by a coterie of protectors ready to enable a well-entrenched persecution complex, is a second wasted. The "mentorship" has proven ineffective as a means of actually addressing concerns about Mattisse's behavior. Some of that is probably due to the way concerns have been raised. Some of it has to do with the unaccountably popular idea that mentorship is a get-out-of-jail-free card at Arbitration. A lot of it has to do with a profound lack of insight on the part of many of her mentors. Lacking the interest to return the case to ArbCom, I'd suggest just ignoring it. MastCell Talk 21:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the particulars of the dispute, but Mattisse appears to create good articles and article content. Is there a way to let bygones be bygones? Is there overlap in the areas of interest that makes interaction necessary? I suppose it's related to the FAR process?
 * Various editors seem to be raw and worn down by the latest dramas. So allowing some room for error would be good. I don't think Ottava meant any harm and neither did I Malleus. Sorry about my lack of discretion. I just thought the comment was funny and wanted to share it with someone. Being that it was a puzzle, of sorts, I reached out in good faith and the connection was a coincidence. But I take responsibility for my failure of judgment and restraint. My bad. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * MastCell summarized it well. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so too. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
Most Haunted are filming up on Pendle Hill in the near future, so expect lots of nonsense postings on the witch articles about this once aired. Parrot of Doom 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be interesting after that's been broadcast. Presumably they're filming on Halloween again? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea, never worked for them. I know people who have though.  A right nasty lot. Parrot of Doom 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Derren Brown may be an irritating overhyped prat, but his book (complete with rather rude commentary on Acorah and his boys) is one of the best introductory guides to the magic business, the current British TV industry and the controversies swirling around mediumship-as-entertainment, and I'd recommend it to anyone. Incidentally, Malleus, you may appreciate this discussion, which has taken over from "Oh noes, a sockpuppet ran for admin!"* as my current favourite piece of Wikipedia idiocy. – iride  scent  19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * * Yes, I knew who Law was at the time of the RFA and voted support anyway. Sue me. Oddly, I probably wouldn't have voted for the_undertow at the time despite them being the same person, due to the drama-magnet factor. However, I'd certainly vote for him now, as I think he's handled the onslaught from the "Ignore All Rules applies to me, not you" lynch-mob in an exemplary fashion. – iride  scent  19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see a significant difference between supporting knowing and nominating knowing. I also understand though that for anyone with a dodgey past who has aspirations to become an administrator here, starting over with a new account is a very sensible option. I'd wager a significant sum that Law is by no means unique in his deception amongst the current administrator corps. So I don't blame Law and I don't think that Lara (or you) did anything egregiously wrong, even though I wouldn't have supported had I known (I didn't vote anyway as it happens). The present system of governance is so endemically corrupt that the only way to succeed is to mirror its corruption, so its unfair to blame individuals for behaving rationally.


 * Surely that discussion you linked to on the Stirling engine was started as a joke?


 * I quite enjoy a little bit of Derren Brown from time to time, certainly a lot more than that nutcase David Blaine, and I also enjoyed watching that TV series presented by the masked magician, who demonstrated and explained many of the well known magic illusions. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Block
Actually, you're right. I doubt I would have directly extended the block, although I would have contacted someone else to do so. And about us always being right and others wrong, did you see the other disruptive edits in the past day or so done by this editor noted at ANI? I realize you have a belief that, somehow, all editors who have been elected to administrator status, in my case unopposed, somehow, are all evil, monstrous creatures out to defend each other and anyone else they might like, but I think simple logic would indicate that it doesn't really happen that way, particularly not those open to recall. We are human beings, despite the various names we take (barring the bots, of course), and we do act like, well, people, just like you do. I do know several editors who have turned down adminship, and others who have resigned it, because they find the tasks are often ones they would prefer not doing. However, I have to say that your appearance of absolute distrust of anyone who has been counted as being reliable by the commnity, as per winning an election, comes across very much like something from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and I doubt it does anything to enhance the opinions of any others of you. You might yourself be qualified for the position if you sought it, and, personally, despite your recent comments about me and others, I might even support you myself, although I haven't been that involved over there lately because of other demands on my time. But I'm not sure that such statements really enhance your own credibility with many people. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I take people as I find them John, and I found your comments on Com's talk page to be objectionable. Please don't presume to tell me what I think about administrators. I think that there are many good ones, but too many poor ones. As it happens, I'd put you in the good category, but rather like the curate's egg. The standards you apply to others you must first apply to yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec - in the same vein) :Excuse me for butting, but I don't think John Carter presented the real problem with the admin system. There are several admins I respect and like. Unfortunately there a few whose conduct has given the admin caste a bad reputation - some unpleasant authoritarians, some who display frequent incivility that would get a non-admin blocked, etc. Above all, there's a strong tendency for admins to support other admins and / or their friends right or wrong - which is what the current scandal at ArbCom is about. The unpleasant fact is that some admins act as if they're above the law, and other admins are reluctant to criticise or sanction them. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Butting in too, but as one of the few admins who has resigned without an accompanying cloud, I'm unusually qualified to comment here. Philcha hits the nail on the head; perhaps only 5% of admins are bad apples, but of the 1500 admins that makes 75 petty-tyrants with a school bully mentality. Given that it only takes one bad admin to drive someone off the project, those 75 can and do do an awful lot of damage, especially given their tendency to hunt in packs and back each other up whenever they're challenged. There's also a general "No people do so much harm as those who go about doing good" problem with the remaining 95%; there are certain admins (everyone can name one and we'd probably all come up with someone different) who has no malice at all and is honestly working in what they believe to be the project's best interests, but doesn't really understand what they're dealing with or the subtleties of particular points of contention, and end up making the situation worse. That Wikipedia admin is a technical position like sysops elsewhere isn't true; it's a unique mix of social worker and school prefect, and people who would be fine as a traditional moderator flounder when arbitrating complex disputes. Individual admins aren't a problem; the us-and-them mentality certainly is. – iride  scent  22:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A problem that could easily be solved by the suggestion you've often made, and that you had the courage and integrity to stand by when you resigned. John boasts about his unopposed RfA. Would he be unopposed if he stood again today? I somewhat doubt it. Adminship ought not to be for life. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The real problem is the pattern of admin abuse as demonstrated by John Carter. He insisted on having the last word so blocked me for making a comment in an ANI thread. There was nothing preventative about it, there was no disruption stopped, it was just bullying, plain and simple. Admins live by one set of rules and the rest of us live by another. See for example the ANI discussion where Black Kite's edit warring on a userpage is defended by reference to the wp:not page, even though numerous editors have suggested it's a gray area. If it were a regular editor engaging in that behavior they would be blocked. Since it's Black Kite doing it he not onyl gets away with it but gets to be the one to do the blocking. It's shitty schoolyard politics. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. I'd invite John Carter to stand for RfA again and see whether he'd even get through, much less unopposed. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I think we'd be wasting our time. Not because the idea is a bad one (admins should all go through a reconfirmation RFA at some point), but because John is actually one of the better admins. There are more appropriate people who should be running for adminship again.  Majorly  talk  17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This was interesting, over at Meta. It's for inactive admins, which aren't nearly so much of a problem as abusive ones. But it should be as easy to propose a deadminship request as, say, a normal request, an AFD, a DRV, or whatever. It's the only functionary decision that cannot be reversed easily.  Majorly  talk  17:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing that John should go through a reconfirmation RfA. I made the point simply as a counterpoint to his self-satisfied "I got through unopposed" remark. He certainly wouldn't get through unopposed today. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I got through unopposed too (only one particularly perceptive editor divined my true motivations). But I'm not insane enough to think I'd go through unopposed now - I'd probably be lucky to crack 50%, and then I'd have to swing a backroom deal with a 'crat to get promoted. :P MastCell Talk 03:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Something totally different..
I'm doing the GA review for Suwałki Agreement. When I started the review, the article was fairly stable, no signs of edit warring, just the normal editing, etc. Since I've posted the review, an edit war has sprung up. I'd like your advice on when it hits the point where it fails the stable criteria of GA. I've posted a note on the review page pointing out that the edit war isn't helping it's nomination, but it's being ignored, near as I can tell. I'm not really in the mood to get attacked for quick failing the article, but this is getting kinda silly.... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look ... --Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ... OK, and now here are the votes of the Manchester jury. Iridescent is quite right, that articles often balloon up just before an FAC or GAN, and that's fine in my book. What isn't fine is edit warring over some of the basic facts during the review, as is happening here. Adding to that the contentious nature of the subject would persuade me now to close the review as failing the stability criterion. I see no signs of potential agreement between the combatants, so I think they're best left to sort themselves out away from the spotlight of a review, with its inevitable time constraints. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Well, it produced a reaction. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I reworked that comment, there was some discordance between the underlying "message" that I intended and what could be "read" in the words. Sorry about that. Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing to apologise for Pyrotec. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuff
I think I tied myself in knots last night. When I mentioned cliques, I was thinking of the supporters of the block, only. I'm well aware of the differences between you and Ottava, and the nuances of yer relationship. I suppose I backed myself into a situation on his talk, and fucked up. Malleus, I agree with 99% of what you say here, and though this might sound a bit streached, we were on the same side last night. I was trying to climb out of a corner, but was very inelegant about it. Re: "Let me give you a clue. I don't give a fuck what you think. About anything" - well, it does matter to me what you think. etc, Ceoil (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. Feelings have been running high around here lately. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum?
Hammer of the foolish/fools? WookMuff (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool WookMuff (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

c/e request?
Hey Malleus, if you have the time, do you think you could go through 1997 Qayen earthquake's prose? I just recently got back to copyediting it, but it needs malleus fatuorum-esque. ;)  ceran  thor 14:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a look through and left a couple of questions on the article talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, you took like all day on the article. Thanks a ton. I've starting expanding the article a bit more for a future threats section. Once I'm finished, would you mind looking through again? I'll ping you when I'm done (probably tonight).  ceran  thor 15:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Overman Committee/archive2
Hi — I don't know if you remember me from this thread on SandyGeorgia's talk page. There, I was complaining that a FAC I had nominated had been closed simply for a lack of input, even though it had one support and no opposes. You and others advised me to "get some good reviewers". I have since nominated the article again. Your advice sounded reasonable, so I figured I'd ask you: If you have time, would you be kind enough to review the nomination? Bsimmons 666  (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course I'll take a look. Better luck with the FAC this time. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a million. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to take a slow and careful look through this again yourself as well. For instance: "Others that were accused had their names in the notebooks of suspected German notebooks". --Malleus Fatuorum 05:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I swear I had read through the article at least twice before nominating it the first time. Thanks for all those fixes. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion
Am I right in assuming that hardly any of this addition to the 'concept' section of The Wall is encyclopaedic? I hate to denigrate the work of another editor, but I look at that and see original research. I don't think its badly written or even incorrect, but I can't see how it has a place in that article. Parrot of Doom 20:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That section reads to me like it was largely copied from a music magazine. An awful lot of what appears to be personal opinion there. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It could well be. I've asked him on the article's talk page, if he doesn't respond by tomorrow then I'll remove it. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For your very intelligent and thoughtful opinion posted on my talk page.  Nancy Heise    talk  21:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't do "thoughtful and intelligent" Nancy, I do "kick ass ". :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's favourite socialist fascist
What's the 'thinking' on putting articles up at FAC purely for constructive criticism? I don't think that Nick Griffin would pass FAC without a fair bit of work, but its such a toxic article that nobody else really wants to touch it. Is such a thing frowned upon? I was happy just to get it to GA, but with this QT thing on the 22nd I know it'll probably get a few thousand visits. Parrot of Doom 21:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, it's frowned on. Peer Review exists for that sort of thing, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Ealdgyth. Peer review's the best place to go next. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you drop a note on my talk page when you put it up for PR, I'll try to do something on it. Just... remind me. (And yes, Malleus, I'm wrong quite a lot. Just look at my dismal record at the betting window at the track...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only ever bet (on the track) at dog races, where all you have to do is to watch the Tote display and then rush to make your bet at the very last minute. Hard to lose really. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Just for clarification, I'm the high-roller who went to a casino in Lake Tahoe fully prepared to lose $10, but quit when I was up $2. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ealdgyth. I'd leave the article alone now tbh, but I have this genuine feeling that for quite a lot of people, on the 22nd October Wikipedia is about to be tested.  If it can deliver a reasonably neutral article on such a controversial politician, I'll be quite happy.  I'm just keen to get feedback now, so we don't end up with a tonne of editors making changes on the day/night.  Of course I may be completely wrong, and the article may not get visited much.  To be honest after reading so much about the bloke, I might just go and work on Ghandi or Mother Teresa to cleanse my soul.  Or Shipman. Parrot of Doom 22:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the lack of attention it gets. This kind of right-wing crankery may be unusual in Britain, but (as Moni can no doubt tell you) parts of the US and Europe have far noisier lunatic fringes, and their Wikipedia articles generally survive in relatively good shape. The article histories of David Duke, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and Alessandra Mussolini - all far higher profile in their respective countries than Griffin, and in the latter case with (ahem) additional name recognition - are all no more than you'd expect for that of a reasonably high profile political figure of any persuasion. – iride  scent  23:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * David Duke is an assclown. --Moni3 (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV, please. David Duke is alleged to be an assclown. (I have a lot of family in Metarie. It's always a weird feeling walking about there and thinking "60% of these people saw fit to vote for him".) – iride  scent  23:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of David Duke until just now. What an assclown! --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've nominated it for Peer Review here - Peer review/Nick Griffin/archive1 Parrot of Doom 12:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion...
Can I get a second opinion (anyone else, feel free to join in) on whether I'm being too harsh with this revert? To me, it looks like fixing a lot of non-existent problems, rewording a sentence so as to be misleading, coupled with a piece of style-nitpicking at its purest (the attempt to shoehorn citations to books into an "every word is capitalized" format – I haven't checked if that is in the MOS, but if it is then as far as I'm concerned the MOS is wrong), and removing links for no obvious reason – however, as you may have noticed my tolerance with the "oppose, misplaced comma" brigade is not high at present and I may be overreacting. – iride  scent  22:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You were a little harsh. The "also" should definitely go, but the capitalisation of "Modern University" was obviously wrong as well. A bit like that curate's egg I guess. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the "also". To me, "while [vicar of Embleton] he was appointed Rural Dean of Alnwick", sans "also", implies that it was a promotion, and the "also" is necessary to clarify that it was an additional job. – iride  scent  23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair point. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent comments
And might I suggest you perhaps "wise up" and actually confine your comments to the subject at hand, and maybe go through a bit more effort to have them be clearly applicable to the discussion? Unfortunately, I regret to say that your comments on the present thread seem to indicate that perhaps you yourself might benefit from "wising up" and refraining from yourself engaging in comments which could reasonably be seen as perhaps violations of WP:NPA? John Carter (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you go and bother someone else of equal intellectual stature to yourself, if you can find anyone else that stupid. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The person who is I thnk even more stupid is the person who cannot seem to be bothered to make oommnts which actually make sense and indulges in personal attacks immediately after being warned about same. Specifdically, you. If you cannot behave like a reasonable adult, then please absent yourself from discussion, otherwise people may wonder whether the "Hammer of Stupidity" is something that attacks stupidity, or whether it is stupidity hammering on something. John Carter (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okie dokie. Now both have called each other stupid.  Call it even?   Can I make a plea that both go to your corners for a bit before anyone actually does something, well, stupid?  Two good editors here, going at it.  The war is that way, two doors to the left.   Keeper  |  76  02:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.
So, Bonfire night. Is that when #3 goes live, Guy F. day? Keeper |  76  01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey hey hey... keep the sarcasm and jokes to AN/K... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:AN/K is dead, per MFD bureaucracy. :-)   Keeper  |  76  02:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt that #3 will ever go live. There's very little I want to do that I can't already do, so what would be the point? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * either way, I'll be sure to check in on the 5th. If not, for sure the 6th.  I don't think it wise to wait until the 7th, it might be SNOW closed by then.  :-)  Keeper  |  76  02:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah! AN/K's not dead... It's just no longer recognized by The Man... Those of us in the resistance know better... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be snow closed within 10 minutes, or at least it ought to be. If I really wanted to be an administrator I'd have done what many others seem to have done, create another account and start again. Honesty doesn't pay on wikipedia though. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to pick up the bit a few months back and do some mindless admins stuff. It's drivel any way you slice it, and when it's not drivel, it gets you a shitstorm on your talkpage.  I don't need any bluelinks to prove that to you.  It might take a frosty night in the netherworld, but I'm all for de-bundling.   Keeper  |  76  02:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've learned what it took me a while to realise. PastorHorseLeetage, of all people, actually made one of the most sensible comments I've ever seen on the matter. OK, the complaints about "driving away people who want to make a positive contribution" might be more credible coming from someone who wasn't blocked for stalking editors in real life over Wikipedia arguments, but there's not a word of this post I disagree with. – iride  scent  02:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a staggeringly accurate summary.--Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with the "ultimate anti-climax" part. And I use my bit a lot more than most do. Adminship really comes down to what you are looking for in it. If you are looking at it as the "ultimate prize", then it is definitely not worth it. J.delanoy gabs adds  03:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But you can block me, yet I can't block you, even though your claim to "community trust" may by now be historical, and if you were to go to RfA again today you might get a stoncking. I'm not commenting personally, just generally. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true, and you are likely right about what would happen if I stood for RfA again. Most admins probably wouldn't be able to pass again. Still, for what little it is worth, if you were to run for adminship, I would support you without any hesitation. J.delanoy gabs adds  03:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem that both administrators and long-term editors have is that they've been around long enough to upset too many people. Administrators seem to think that they're in some way unique in having to upset other editors, but I can promise you that they're not. The only difference is that they're not punished for it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last sentence, if not just a titch of an overgeneralization. When admins get "punished", it makes WP:signpost, that would be the difference.  Kinda like how whenever a cop gets arrested for Driving while intoxicated - it makes the local news.   Keeper  |  76  03:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Debundling is far too sensible; it'll never happen. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bah... admin or not, doing the right thing gets you a shitstorm... look at my talk page sometime, especially the recent "I'm going to make you an award for the worst admin ever"... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Green Child
See if you can find these (apologies if you have used them already):


 * Martin and the Green Children By: Clark, John; Folklore, 2006 Aug; 117 (2): 207-14. (journal article)
 * 'Small, Vulnerable ETs': The Green Children of Woolpit Citation Only Available By: Clark, John; Science Fiction Studies, 2006 July; 33 (2 [99]): 209-29. (journal article)
 * The Green Children of Woolpit: A 12th Century Mystery and Its Possible Solution Citation Only Available By: Harris, Paul; Fortean Studies, 1998; 4: 81-95. (journal article)
 * Peake and English Fantasy: Some Possible InfluencesCitation Only Available By: Manlove, Colin; Peake Studies, 2002 Nov; 8 (1): 35-45. (journal article)
 * Nocuturne Montrealais: Une Lecture de la nouvelle de Hugh Hood, 'A Green Child'Citation Only Available By: Vauthier, Simone; Recherches Anglaises et Nord-Americaines, 1993; 26: 151-74. (journal article)
 * Worlds of Darkness, Light and Half-Light in The Green ChildCitation Only Available By: Brown, Richard E.; Extrapolation: A Journal of Science Fiction and Fantasy, 1990 Summer; 31 (2): 170-186. (journal article)
 * Irony in Herbert Read's The Green Child By: Murayama, Mariko; Journal of the English Institute, 1980; 11: 1-26. (journal article)
 * Sources of Herbert Read's The Green Child, II By: Barker, Robert; Notes and Queries, 1980; 27: 531-33. (journal article)
 * Sources of Herbert Read's The Green Child By: Barker, Robert; Notes and Queries: For Readers and Writers, Collectors and Librarians, 1977; 24: 455-57. (journal article)
 * The Interpretation of Herbert Read's The Green Child in the Light of Its Sources and Their Transformation By: Locke, Frederick W.. pp. 247-254 IN: Crisafulli, Allessandro S.(ed.) Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Helmut A. Hatzfeld. Washington, DC: Catholic U of America P; 1964. (book article)
 * The Green Child: Herbert Read's Ironic FantasyCitation Only Available By: Wasson, Richard; PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 1962 Dec; 77 (5): 645-51. (journal article)

I have access to any of the below in PDF format and I don't know if they are all about the novel:
 * # The Green Child: Herbert Read's Ironic Fantasy Richard Wasson PMLA, Vol. 77, No. 5 (Dec., 1962), pp. 645-651
 * # Folk-Song and Folklore R. L. Tongue Folklore, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Winter, 1967), pp. 293-303
 * # Review: Murder Most Fowl: Butler's Edition of Francis Godwin Robert M. Philmus Reviewed work(s): The Man in the Moon by Francis Godwin; John Anthony Butler Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jul., 1996), pp. 260-269
 * Charles W. Chesnutt's "Future American" SallyAnn H. Ferguson MELUS, Vol. 15, No. 3, Discovery: Research and Interpretation (Autumn, 1988), pp. 95-107
 * Crystal Source: Herbert Read's "The Green Child" Worth T. Harder The Sewanee Review, Vol. 81, No. 4 (Autumn, 1973), pp. 714-738

--Moni3 (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks very much Moni3. The one thing (one of many) I don't quite get yet is the crystal reference at the end of the book (I can be be very slow), so I'd be grateful for a copy of that last pdf. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sent. --Moni3 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I was looking for Moni, thanks ever so much! --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Brady
I have an image of Brady up on the Moors, with Topping to his left. I think its worth including, as both are important to the story. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 21:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Have we got permission to use it? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It'd be non-free, from the Ritchie book. Ideally it should appear along with an image of Hindley on the moor, but I haven't yet found one with a credible source. Parrot of Doom 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * /edit - the reason I hadn't mentioned it until now is that the photograph pages were loose, so I'd tucked them away elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 21:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we'd get away with another non-free image, we had enough trouble with the one of Hindley and her dog kneeling over John Kilbride's grave.


 * It's a funny thing, I almost feel like someone else worked on that article, not me at all. I feel quite disconnected from it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't a bad thing. It doesn't do to dwell on such matters.  I will however get a better shot of Ashworth one day, and I may be able to get Underwood Court tomorrow evening. Parrot of Doom 21:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the image stuff on wikipedia to be a complete pain in the ass, so I generally play it ultra-cautious. I've sometimes found though that places like the Manchester Museum can be quite generous, as with File:Worsley Man.jpg. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should be cautious on using that image from Flikr. I'm not sure that the WP:ENC on that justifies NFCC. From memory that image relates to later searches of the moors for bodies. Is there a substantial enough element of the article on the searches to justify that image? I'm not sure it meets WP:NFCC number 8 - Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding otherwise. Pedro : Chat  22:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right Pedro. I don't think we could make a plausible case for using it. The difference with the Hindley and dog over Kilbride's grave picture was that it gave an idea of the kind of photographs the police were using to target their search for bodies. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bah. Underwood Court was demolished in 2001.  No wonder I couldn't find it today! Parrot of Doom 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

William of Tyre
Hi Malleus, Ealdgyth suggested I ask you to have a look at William of Tyre - another medieval bishop! And we aren't even in collusion or anything! More importantly of course he is an important chronicler of the crusades. I'd like to bring it up to FA status soon, and Ealdgyth has already made a lot of very helpful suggestions at Peer Review, so if you have anything to add, it would be welcome. Thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking we need to recommend that Malleus receive an honorary degree in medieval ecclesiastical history sometime. Poor guy! As an aside, to any TPSs here, I'm heading to University of Illinois' library next week, it's one of the bigger university libraries in the US, and has some of the older obscurer journals moldering away in its stacks. I delight in making them dig them out for me, so if anyone wants anything academic they haven't been able to find, take a gander at their catalog here and if they have it, get me pertinent details and I'll endeavor to acquire it and get it to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to soft soap me Ealdgyth. I know you come to me because of my profound ignorance of medieval ecclesiastical history, so if a poor sap like me can understand what you've written then anyone can. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely you're learning SOMETHING though? (blinks in astonishment). If you're not, I'm obviously not writing well enough... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I know more about the Gregorian Mission and the history of Mercian/Northumbrian Christianity than I ever thought it was possible to know. To the extent that (as I think I said elsewhere) I sometimes find myself shouting "No, it wasn't quite like that" when watching history programs on TV. You've got a lot to answer for Ealdgyth. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * An interesting article, I'm looking forward to reading it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Ottava has also gone through 1997 Qayen earthquake and thought it ready to start an FAC. Do you feel the same? I'm in no rush, as I won't be editing much this weekend, and so I wanted to ask you now when I could. 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why not. It looks pretty good to me, and if Ottava's satisfied as well that's a good sign. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaws 2
Thank you for reassessing Jaws 2, and particularly for just doing the minor MOS corrections yourself. The JPS talk to me  23:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. It's a good article, happy to help. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Score
Iri, 1; Malleus, 2 (sentences). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess this is about Arbcom. Am I right? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps next year's ArbCom can benefit from an editor who has the qualities of TFM: a finely tuned BS detector, puts up with no nonsense, and can deliver an effective message in two sentences or less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that such an editor would make the cut. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Too bad. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Slipping slightly to a tangent, another problem I have with Arbcom is that it's a closed shop. Have there ever been any non-administrators on the committee? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument that's always made is that to make decisions, Arbcom members need to be able to see all deleted revisions otherwise it's too easy to distort the evidence; thus, anyone elected to Arbcom would automatically be given admin powers (along with checkuser and oversight). I think that's a valid point. I think Kelly Martin was on Arbcom as a non-admin at the time, but I may be wrong about the timings. – iride  scent  23:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Which reminds of a deleted FAR that I can't access. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not trusted. And neither am I. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Who is saying Sandy is not trusted?  Majorly  talk  23:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Godwin. Only administrators are allowed to see "deleted" content. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Which affects my ability to present evidence in an Arb case, unless I drum up an admin and ask them to do a lot of work to find a deleted FAR, since I can't recall the article name. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I always did think that was completely nonsensical. That those who manage to pass the RfA popularity contest are somehow suddenly trusted to view deleted content, but those who aren't as popular, or choose not to run, are never allowed this privelege. As an admin/checkuser/oversighter on a sister project, surely I should be trusted with all those rights here too? Certainly as I have the ability to view people's IPs, deleted content (which, for 99% of the time is vandalism or a plain old deleted article) should be no problem. What was his argument, if any, that only admins should be able to see deleted content – and that it would be impossible for a system to be set up so that those like SandyGeorgia could ask for that the user right? I am certain we don't want any old person viewing deleted content, but what possible reason is there for long-serving editors in good standing to not have access to deleted revisions? I mean, SandyGeorgia is one of the people who is almost like the bureaucrat of FAC, ultimately making the decision on featured content. Yet, there is apparently no way she can view deleted revisions? It's ridiculous.  Majorly  talk  11:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to put too fine a point on it, I think that argument is bollocks. As is Godwin's argument about who ought to be allowed to see deleted revisions. Entrenched stupidity is all that I see. (Oh, bugger, that's three sentences ... four now.) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to settle for a finely tuned BS detector, and puts up with no nonsense; hence my concern that we not evaluate arb candidates only on writing ability and content contribs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd go so far as to say that writing ability has very little to do with the Arbcom position. BS detection does though, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you ever try to decipher FT2's writing? Or how about some of the long ramblers on the aforementioned Arb request ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Life's too short to waste time trying to decode deliberately non-commitall statements from Arbcom members. They're only there because they succeeded in fooling enough of the people for enough of the time, bit like administrators really; they've got no special powers, abilities, or authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just revisited User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Not to put to fine a point on it", but, having caught up a bit now ... Why was the Zeraeph ArbCom blanked, while derogatory attacks across numerous Wiki pages against various editors are allowed to stand, further evidence and full discussion is discouraged at ArbCom, and wild inaccuracies will remain on record in the Request for clarification (and there was plenty of that in the original case as well)? Must editors resort to threats of legal action (as in the Zeraeph blanking) to get this addressed? Are there no longer any forms of dispute resolution where the issues can finally be fully aired? I'm no longer wondering why issues get aired and finally resolved at external sites. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite. I'm rather disgusted by Vassyana's overt threats of "sanctions" if Mattisse's mentoring doesn't go as he wants it. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See here....
I reviewed Cornish people for GA....and mused here...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PS:Iridescent you can throw your 2p in it too, as I can see you've posted above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good, well worth a shot at FAC I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On a topic too simillar to warrent a seperate heading, what do you think about England's chances at FA? It's recently become a GA! --Jza84 | Talk  03:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Content-wise I think it's fine, but I think it still needs quite a bit of prose polishing if it's going to stand a chance at FAC. For instance, "In tennis the Wimbledon Championships are the oldest tennis tournament in the world and is widely considered the most prestigious", or "The European population totals at 89.90%, including Germans and Poles." I don't even understand what that last sentence means. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, how'd I miss tha..er, oh we're talking about a different article. Should have realised Wimbledon wasn't in Cornwall...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fred Dibnah
After a few weeks on murderers, racists, and egotistical bass players, I've just started on something with a bit of a lighter tone. If you come across any material in the library that could help, I'd be most grateful. Fred was a man who deserves to be featured. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I met Fred at a steam engine rally once—might have a picture somewhere that could be used. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Peckforton Castle
It's been accepted today as a GA. Thanks for your help in achieving this. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. And well deserved. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, or trying to be helpful?
Hi. You reverted saying that it was vandalism, and left a "not constructive" message at User talk:90.215.232.208. I'm curious - why did you count this as vandalism? It struck me as an attempt to add information that the user thought was useful/helpful, but that doesn't fit with Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Nico was also the name of a singer in a band called The Velvet Underground. Whether she based her name upon this sometime "underground" culvert / earthwork in southern Manchester is up for debate, as she actually lived in Prestwich, and that is a mental home in north Manchester." I'm surprised that you have to ask. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, The Velvet Underground shows that the text MF reverted was an attempt at humour. --Philcha (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the first sentence, "Park Grove in Levenshulme hosts a set of houses, one of which has the plaque / sign "Micker Brook Terrace" on the front elevation.", and also the user's contribution here. Those struck me as attempts at being constructive - although in need of citations. Mike Peel (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And did you read a citation for that piece of trivia? Did you read beyond that first sentence? It was clear vandalism. End of story. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Trivia is not vandalism. Given that the user provided a reference upon request for Platt Fields, I'd say that they were a newbie just starting to edit Wikipedia. What happened to Assume Good Faith? Mike Peel (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Its a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone says that Prestwich is a mental home. Prestwich once contained a mental institution. Parrot of Doom 20:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The two sentences I quoted from above, which you have studiously ignored addressing, are vandalism—unless you really do believe that Nico lived in Prestwich and that it's a mental home that is. AGF doesn't mean switch your brain off and trust whatever stupidity you come across, at least not to me it doesn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was most offended by the fact it said Prestwich was in north Manchester.... don't these people know it's in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury? Sheeesh. --Jza84 | Talk  00:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mathew Hopkins
hello again, it has been some time. anyway I have been researching and beginning to compile some referenced information (the little known) about Matthew Hopkins. I see you are doing the same; excellent he is a person who deserves a better article than he has had. I was going to add the citation / notes system (as per Bury St. Edmunds witch trials) with publications such as witchfinders by Gaskill - witchfinder general by Deacon (a few) and books by Professors Thomas and Hill. I will enjoy working on this, once again an opportunity to learn. Hope all is well. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've not really been seriously working on it, just a bit of tidying up and adding citations. You're right though, Hopkins deserves a far better article, and I'm certain there's enough on him to write one, at least for the years he was actively hunting witches anyway. I don't know what sources I can get hold of, but I'll be glad to help where I can.


 * BTW, I'm pleased to see that you've managed to get Bury St. Edmunds witch trials to GA; it's good to come across a fellow enthusiast of 17th-century witch trials. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Forthcoming RFA
"AGF doesn't mean switch your brain off and trust whatever stupidity you come across, at least not to me it doesn't" Yep, that's my view and something I intend to expound upon as a virtue in my nomination of your good self - whether you accept being another matter..... With a not unnoticed level of irony it will also be a handy diff for opposers as well. Pedro : Chat  21:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm full of admiration for your willingness to undertake the Herculean task of finding something positive to write in my nomination Pedro. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to make it entertaining, get Pedro and Lara to jointly nominate you. Between them there's probably not a single user they haven't annoyed at some point. – iride  scent  21:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather similar to myself then. We ought to form a cabal club. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The positive stuff is not an issue. It's the political spin to convice the MMORPG team, the CIV crowd and and the "under 15 year old wanabee admin so vote per popularity" contingency that creates an issue. As we say in my industry - it is what it is. And Iridescent - that is an idea worthy of considerable contemplation. Pedro : Chat  21:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going for serious pass - rather than making a point - the best nominators would be three from Pedro, Karanacs, Majorly, Lara. That covers the four bases of the Wikipedia pyramid quite nicely, and they're all people you've had run-ins with in the past so demonstrate that, contrary to belief, people don't take a permanent dislike to you. You'll get 20 opposes come what may - probably within two hours of transclusion - but I suspect you'll be surprised how many supports you get. Given what happened to Pastor Theo, the Civility Police are in serious disarray at the moment. – iride  scent  21:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst I am fascinated as to the four base Wikipedia pyramid (four base side and one point I would think) Iridescent makes a rounded and sound (...........:)) argument. Pedro : Chat  22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Big" content-writers; stub-writers and cleaner-uppers; vandal-reverters; policy-wonks. All supporting a wobbly jelly pyramid with the admin corps embedded in it at varying heights and varying placements like raisins in a trifle; occasionally, too many drift to one side, the jelly pyramid becomes unbalanced, and a few of the admin-raisins fall out until the balance is restored. I can't understand why they didn't invite me to write Wikipedia – The Missing Manual. – iride  scent  22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm interested, with some trepidation, as to where I sit. Clearly not "Big content" writers. Unlikely but possible stub writers and cleaners. Possible and probable vandal reverters. Likely policy wonks but I hope not. Of course the point is we need the first three of your list to be credible as a project. The fourth, well, no. Pedro : Chat  22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sitting, rather uncomfortably I'd imagine, between Blofeld and Betacommand about halfway between columns 2 and 4. I used to be in about the same position but have drifted more towards 1 over the years. Simplest way to look at it is to think "who would be happiest to see me indefblocked"; chances are you're on the opposite side of the pyramid and at about the same height. – iride  scent  22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. Pedro : Chat  22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of of you Plasticspork.
 * I didn't even ask Pedro, Iridescent, and I certainly don't want anyone else to feel even in the slightest obligated to take part. I'll not be trying to make a point, other than that I seriously do believe that I've done enough here to prove that I'm not some dangerously unstable maniac who'll go berserk once granted the admin tools. In truth, my only reservation about going through it again is that I'll probably make rather little use of the admin tools, as my focus will remain on writing, so answering Q1 wil be problematic. If there is a point, it would be to prove to other editors (SandyG and Ealdgyth come to mind) that RfA is still a possibility even if you've been here more than a couple of years and pissed off a few other editors along the way. --Malleus Fatuorum
 * I'm still trying to figure out WHY I'd want to be an admin? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, here's one thing that I find irritating. Can you delete your own sandboxes? Don't you find it irritating to have to ask one of the big boys/girls to do it for you? Don't you think you should be trusted to do it yourself? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a researcher and writer, not a janitor (grins). Let someone else do the dirty work, I slap a tag on it, and it goes. Of course, I dont use sandboxes much either, I just write in the mainspace. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandboxes are good for testing templates, for instance. Sometimes as well it would be handy to be able to see deleted content. But pass or fail, it'll make very little difference to what I do here, except that I'd be able to do some of those things I now have to ask others to do. Like moving over redirects. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (re Malleus) There is actually a reason for that; because of the way the software's configured, you could otherwise move any page to your userspace and then delete it. As our friend Jeremy has made clear, the MediaWiki software is not good when it comes to preventing pagemove vandalism. – iride  scent  22:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind asking the "big boys and girls"; I know plenty of 'em who are actually nice :), and it's well worth it not to have to deal with buttons I may mess up. I haven't yet figured out how to move a page over a previous move!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But only yesterday you were complaining that you couldn't see deleted FARs. It's not just about what you can do, but about what you can see. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, I know, but if it was worth it to bug an admin for that, I could easily get it, too. Actually, it may be back on the old RfC that preceded the ArbCom; I just haven't had time to check.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be great if there were a "rights level" that allowed viewing of deleted content. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It'll never happen. It's in the nature of the admin beast to keep all but the most basic "rights" to themselves, and to dangle the most useless as pretty baubles to dazzle the admin wanabees. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be good if RfA ceased to exist and functions were given out, a bit like rollback and taken away if they get misused. Get rid of all the silly voting and popularity contest rubbish, and make the whole thing actually practical.  Majorly  talk  22:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rollback is handed out like sweeties to a child, but I take your general point. It should be easy in and easy out. Certainly not an appointment for life. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedrito, make sure you notify me so's I can co-nom! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not wishing to look a gift horse in the mouth, but...
Following your excellent work on Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford, and your recent comment (dodgy connection, can't find diff) that all you're trusted to do is sort out commas for people, would you mind awfully having a look at Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford for not just comma complaints, but MOS mistakes, textual taboos, stylistic sins, grammatical gremlins and prose problems? (2 down, 36 to go...!) I was planning to ask you anyway once GA-status was reached; that the green button was awarded by an editor who awarded 3 GAs in 15 minutes is no skin off my nose, but might mean that some more things than usual need to be looked at. As ever, I'd be very grateful, and there's no rush either to answer or to look at the article. Regards, BencherliteTalk 22:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Spoke too soon; easy come, easy go... BencherliteTalk 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah well, at least it demonstrates the robustness of the system. Presumably it's been put back into the GAN queue? If so I'll review it, but probably not for a day or two. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your c/es and review. I'll check the typo (I tend to keep my Oxford books at work, to hide them from User:Wife of Bencherlite... I'll try and get a few more photos, then try my luck with FAC. See you there! BencherliteTalk 20:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a lovely article. Let's hope that someone doesn't come along now and remove the listing, like they did yesterday. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Current FAC
Hello Malleus. I have recently nominated Makinti Napanangka at FAC. You have a critical reviewing eye and comments at the review page would be welcomed. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a difficult subject you've picked there, but a worthy one. The obvious objection at FAC, apart from the shortness of the article, is going to be the lack of any of images of her paintings. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Copyright in a creative work is held by the artist and retained by them when a work is sold. It is therefore, as I understand it, always a copyvio to photograph such a work, even if held, for example, by a public gallery and exhibited in a public place. There is essentially no chance of works by living Australian artists being included in WP articles. I rate the chance of securing artist agreement to release such an image as close to nil (even if I could get in touch with the artist). The only possible exception (which I may try to make use of in some contexts) would be a fair use rationale applied to an image of a detail of a work, to demonstrate technique or similar. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so I don't think, so long as you crop the frame. Certainly that's the freedom of panorama law in the UK anyway. I'd be surprised if Australian law was so different. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No; FoP in Britain (and Australia) only applies to three dimensional work (see this explanation). Works with "a highly textured surface" qualify if they're in a public place; you presumably know better than me whether there's any work which would qualify. I'd advise running any image by User:Jappalang, who can issue de facto definitive rulings on image copyright in the FAC context (as he's the voice Sandy will listen to on the issue). – iride  scent  23:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point about the 2D vs 3D distinction. I have at the back of my mind some fairly recent dispute about images from the National Gallery, but I can't recall how it turned out. In any event, I really couldn't consider an article on a painter that didn't include at least one image of a painting to meet the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confident of my statement of copyright law in Australia. See this summary, for example. The fair use thing I'm happy to take advice on, but in the case of Makinti's work, I do not in any case have a relevant image. However, there are additional ethical issues in dealing with Indigenous art works, and in such cases using an image would in my view be inadvisable without artist consent (which, as I mentioned, will be unlikely to be able to be secured). I have however been prompted to add an additional external link to one of her works. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec, re Malleus) The National Portrait Gallery case was a different matter; that was about whether the professional photographs of their paintings on the NPG website constituted "works" in themselves (the NPG didn't dispute that the paintings were out of copyright, but complained that the photographs were themselves works and Wikipedia would have to take their own photos of the paintings if we wanted to use them). AFAIK the NPG lost - at any rate, one of the images in question is currently illustrating Mandell Creighton and the wiki hasn't vanished in a puff of smoke yet. – iride  scent  23:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Elcobbola is great for this sort of thing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise the copyright issue isn't quite the same, as Makinti is still alive. But we needn't be afraid of making a free use claim. I'm not certain what the cultural issues that Hamilstone's referring to are, but if there are any, then obviously they need to take precedence over whatever laws may apply, or wikipedia's rules. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who or what is Elcobbola? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Jappalang is also good, so are others, but EC is really good on tough cases). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that Elcobbola is very good (and also conservative, i.e., more likely to say "leave the image out" in close cases). Elcobbola has given saying that a photo should be OK under Australian law and Wikipedia policy. Eubulides (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I'd have said as well. :-)


 * My impression though is that hamiltonstone was suggesting that there might be some cultural resistance to a photograph? Or is that just to a photo of the artist? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, its both. I'm concerned about ethical as well as legal issues, in an environment where for years - decades - centuries - people keep taking stuff from Indigenous people without their permission. In addition, their artworks can reflect not only their individual intellectual property but that of their community. It's all fairly complex and I am jst trying to work out the best way forward, given the practical difficulties in involving the artist directly. I'm corresponding with Eubulides and Elcobbola, and we'll see where it all ends up. I'm hoping this image issue doesn't distract from the main substantive question at FAC of the article quality. Thanks for your input - i will get around to responding to your other points at FAC in a day or two. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I already mentioned this
..or not, but just in case, a new book on Hindley. Parrot of Doom 23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you did, but to be honest I'm about done with that pair, other than to watch that our article doesn't descend into the farce that too many others do here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. Mary Toft was apparently of Welsh origin, and people used American English, according to the changes over the last few hours.  Thank God for the undo button Parrot of Doom 08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I know the party line is against protecting the featured article of the day, but I think it's just madness. Much of the time an article's on the main page it's been vandalised by some crazy or other. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's because the people most vocal about the "don't protect the TFA" never write them, so thus have no concept of how hard it is to fight the main-page day vandalism. Or, they are hoping to gain the bit and need vandalism reverts to up their edit count... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is more likely that the "anyone can edit" ethos is more important to them than the quality of one of Wikipedia's featured articles.  Majorly  talk  13:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of course this is so valuable. (Granted, it's not on an TFA, but it was the first bit of vandalism I ran across in my watchlist this morning...multiply that by about 12 for a TFA day...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, today's TFA seems to be a real vandal magnet. It's an insane waste of everyone's time having to continually revert complete and utter rubbish. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But but... you might scare off a newbie by locking it from them! They might have something valuable to add...! Best leave it open just in case.  Majorly  talk  13:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a couple of newbies been messing about there that I'd love to scare off. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, I'm fairly certain a woman that allegedly gave birth to rabits is likely to appeal to more school kids than... synthetic diamond, yesterday's FA. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 127 edits since I last looked, and only a very few of them constructive (I never knew that protagonist was a fictional character for instance). Thank you for keeping an eye on it while I was at work. Parrot of Doom 21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Here, I'll make you a deal, Majorly - next time an article I nom'd for FA is at TFA, you can watch it all day and spend most of the day fending off "helpful" edits. Note that they'll get more "helpful" right after school lets out in the US, for some reason. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Majorly wasn't being serious. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you could do what I did. Get the wrong day and log on late in the evening and discover I'd missed nearly the whole thing. Then I panicked and reverted what looked like some weird stuff only to discover they were improvements to my referencing system and get roundly slapped on the wrist by SG. Overall though, much less stressful than watching the damn thing for 24 hours.Fainites barley scribs 21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

GA prose query
Hi Malleus, your copyediting of Oliver Typewriter Company was invaluable and I was wondering whether I might get your input, or even assistance, with another article I'm beginning to put through its paces - Sholes and Glidden typewriter. It's undergoing a GA review and the prose has been called "quite personal and chatty". My prose has been called "circumlocutious" before--and I'd agree--but I'm not sure what to make the current comments. Any thoughts on why what's written is inappropriate for GA level and/or how to remedy it? Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a nice article, I'll be happy to help. I see what the reviewer's getting at, but I don't think it's a general criticism of the prose; there are a couple of places early in the article—in my opinion—where it's arguably a little chatty, but that's easily fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's
Hello Malleus, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here Thanks!  Nancy Heise    talk  01:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheeky sods
Well I shouldn't be surprised. Recognise the photograph used here, anyone? They could have at least got the original and cropped it themselves! Parrot of Doom 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You should be feeling pleased PoD. You got ripped off by one of the world's leading news agencies. We can't all say that. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It would have taken them about 5 minutes to grab the source, make their own 16:9 crop, blurring out faces, and reducing the noise! I should complain but I'd be cutting my nose to spite my face... Parrot of Doom 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since Realist is no longer with us to point it out, recognise this entire article, anyone? – irides cent 2  19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a nicely written and well researched article though, attributed to wikipedia. I doubt that the BBC could have done any better themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. You can't complain PoD; everything you do here you do for free, and anyone else is allowed to do as they like with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'll be keeping my beady eye on them, to see if they ever use my photographs. No accreditation = SPANKY TIME. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While you're here, when does Question Time start? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They're recording now, it'll be played out at 22:35. Parrot of Doom 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm off out now to get some beers and crisps so I can watch this circus in comfort. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I enjoyed that. I think that Sayeedi Warsi has persuaded me to vote Tory next time. Griffin's performance was pathetic. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Her brass neck was scary. Should go far.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope she does go far, she's a very impressive lady. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think he got his arse handed to him. I don't think Jack Straw came out of it particularly well though, he rambled on a fair bit. Parrot of Doom 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, after many suggestions that the article demonstrated a clear bias against Griffin (hence the GAN, GAR, and PR), and despite all the work trying to make things even, it seems that Griffin's mum wrote the article, and that Wikipedia should give Griffin a hard time. I despair, I really do.  I can see how people can be moved to leave this project tbh. Parrot of Doom 23:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You obviously must have expected that kind of bollocks. Who cares what the idiots think? You wrote a great article. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well frankly it just pisses me off. You work hard, do your best, and despite hating the cunt for what he is, people can still somehow assume that by trying to make the article neutral, you're somehow a supporter!  I try not to take these things personally but it makes me angry that someone can look at hours of work, and brush it all away as rubbish just because it doesn't include enough criticism of the man.  Jeesus, looking around print sources and online sources, you can't find anything but criticism of him! Parrot of Doom 00:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess many of us feel like that. There's very little thanks here, just abuse for doing anything. All you can do is to shrug it off and continue to do whatever you know to be right. I long ago gave up caring what people I don't know think about anything; what's important to me is what I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I might just have to update the notice on my userpage, outlining my feelings on the matter, and re-iterating my objection to the man and his views. I may just spite the above person(s) by working on the article and getting it to FA.  I can just imagine the shock and horror if his face was ever to appear on the front page (although as its protected, I wonder if that would be possible).  I can be incredibly stubborn, when pushed to it. Parrot of Doom 10:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can surely hold your head high for your diligent work. Many people use Wikipedia as a political football. Editors who recognize that it is actually supposed to be an online encyclopedia (as in, erm, Pillar One) and understand what this means in practice are few and far between. We can be very very stubborn about it – lets stay that way. Geometry guy 20:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. The article by the way got 175,000 views over two days.  That's significantly higher than I ever expected.  By the way Malleus, Mary Toft got just shy of 80,000 views - not bad methinks Parrot of Doom 08:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback?
Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Followup there ... blurb away :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You dork :) Samlesbury witches has already been on the main page :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Has it? Ah yes ... I remember now! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I got to call you a "dork", so it was worth it! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ! But could you look at the "Suggested formatting" section of WP:TFA/R (things like, we need an article link in the first line, add the image that Smallbones put on the talk page, things like that)? If you're out of time, I could work on that sort of stuff, but not sure how to work the title in to the first line ... Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Malleus; too tired to review, I'll peek at it tomorrow. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Castle
Hi! I notice you up to your usual improvements! Have you finished? I'm about to do a major on the alt descriptions and sizing. The article is looking very good and should be put up for promo. Do you think it's worth the hassle?Amandajm (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just can't help myself. I think it's pretty good, and well worth the hassle. I've not finished yet, so let me know when you've done. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It'll take a while. Sorry to get in your way! But my time will be limited after today. Amandajm (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving up on alt texts for the time being! It'song past lunchtime! Need coffee......Amandajm (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad someone else decided to tackle the alt texts, they're not my favourite thing to do! Thanks for the copy-edit Malleus (although I had intended it to be more fleshed out before I asked for your assistance, I'm a little embarrassed as the article's only half done); I intend to completely re-write most sections (as most of them are unsourced, there's not much that can be kept), so unless there's something really grating it's would probably be best to confine your edits to the origins and early castles and construction sections. The definition section is also more or less done, I just need to prune the unsourced info. Nev1 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll wait until you and Amandajm have finished. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the content is about 90% there. I just need to finish of the Defining characteristics section (hopefully toorrow), then re-write the section on revival castles and then it should be a case of polishing. I'd like to take the article to FAC next week, but I'll seek some input from other editors before I go for it and when the FAC is will depend on their replies (ie: are there any gaps). Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Makinti Napanangka, hopefully for the last time
Hi there, thanks for your support, and your suggestion about the lead. I've had a first shot at doing what you suggested and wondered if it was what you had in mind. Also, i've left the wikilinks in the last section that are now also in the lead. Do you think that's overlinked and I should take the second lot out? It isn't exactly a long article. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I had in mind, and I think the linking is fine as it is. Shame I just missed being the first support, I was so looking forward to that leap into the unknown. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

More witches!
I know you have a fondness for curious articles, so how about Long Meg and Her Daughters? Parrot of Doom 15:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks interesting, although sadly it appears that the stones aren't named after the witch. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Pendle witches were mentioned in tonight's Countryfile. Catch the repeat sometime, or on iPlayer if you didn't see it. :) 81.154.10.44 (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just watched it. Since when did the Pedlar John Law become a nobleman? Didn't even mention the two families involved. A pretty poor account really. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire
Hi Malleus Fatuorum. About a year ago you de-listed the 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire article. I made some changes to the article, and think that it complies with GA guidelines. Unfortunately the backlog of the GAN is very long, so I wanted to know if you would be willing to check the article again? Thanks. Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the least I can after delisting it. Nominate it at GAN and I'll sign up to do the review. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have listed it in the Miscellaneous section. Thanks, I really appreciate it! Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  14:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Malleus. Thanks for the review. Currently I have some business to attend to in real life, could you please hold the article while I am busy? Thanks. Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  17:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Isles in oblivion
Sir Malleus, I wonder if I might ask for some advice? Some time ago, Islands of the Clyde was a "Collaboration of the Month" during which some progress was made. However it still resides in B-Class oblivion and I think these dreich little isles deserve better than that. The problem is that the article is a mixture of prose and lists, and whilst a contender for improvement it might fall somewhere between a GAN and an FLC. My hope is that with more attention to the text it is a possible GA, but any comments would be appreciated. Ben  Mac  Dui  14:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I never. I remember as a kid going on school trips to Rothesay, which I always thought was an island. Now I see that it's just a town on the Isle of Bute. Another childhood illusion shattered! My suggestion would be to prepare the article for FLC rather than GA by condensing and merging the History section. I think you're right, it does fall midway between GA and FLC right now, but I think it's more naturally a list. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - thanks. Ben   Mac  Dui  16:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC) PS I see your trip is still recalled fondly in the Celtic world.

Castle
Ok, the article is now ready for your perusal. There are a couple of points that still need addressing, for example Scottish and Irish tower houses need a mention, but I believe the content is 99% there. Any help making the page meet 1a would be great. Nev1 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at this sentence from the lead for a few minutes, but I can't quite get the sense of what it's trying to say:"Initially, castles were adapted to use small artillery and until the 15th century when they became powerful enough to breakdown walls, castles do not show adaptation to deal with bombardment by cannons." Castles used small artillery? Small artillery became powerful enough to break down castle walls? Castles were initially adapted to use small artillery? None of those make much sense to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was trying to do too much with that sentence and have trimmed it to "Castles do not show adaptation to deal with bombardment by cannons until the 15th century when artillery became powerful enough to break down walls". The fact that small cannons were mounted in castle before castles were actually adapted to being shot at by cannon can stay in the main body of the article. Nev1 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

William Longchamp
He's up next. He's had a PR, so any comments/concerns/copyediting is welcome. I'll be gone this upcoming weekend, so not planning on putting him up until a week from today when I'm back home. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look, of course. I'm beginning to wonder if the game's worth the candle though. No matter how well written something is there's almost always someone claiming it still needs a good copyedit—by which they generally mean it's not written the way they'd have written it—or, perhaps even worse, making a big song and dance about having had to slightly rewrite a couple of sentences where the commas were in the wrong places. There, I feel better for having got that off my chest. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's probably worth it. Even if it's just that you and I know we made the article better.. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Guess I should have warned you it was one of my earlier GAs, huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A bit late now. Anyway, I know that it can sometimes throw some sensitive souls into a tizzy, but I think it would be a really good to give at least some idea of what the value of £3,000, and 100,000 marks, was at that time. Was it the equivalent of the country's GDP, for instance? Where did Longchamp get 3 grand from? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The inflation template starts at 1254ish, so that won't help much. It's really hard to say at that point, honestly, other than it's a LOT of money. Where he got it, he would have actually pledged that he'd pay that much, and would have paid for it out of the profits of the office after he was in office, most likely. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just checked out the UK's National Archive site, but that only offers inflation adjusted figures since 1270, when, would you believe it, £3,000 was the equivalent of about £1.6 billion today. Serious money. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still wondering whether the fisherman was drunk, desperate or extremely short-sighted. Ning-ning (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * MF, I think you meant million :-)
 * The converse calculation is interesting, e.g. $3,000 in 1270 would be 300,000 man-days of craftsman labour according to National Archives. But MS Calculator suggests that £1.6M would now buy about 6,700 man-days, at £240 a day (plumbers are expensive!). Index problems are hard enough for a few decades, since baskets of goods and services change composition (no most buggy whips), relative price change (electronics cheaper, food more expensive in the last decade) - and Longchamp was probably not a typical consumer, as a rising courtier. Might be best to avoid spurious precision and see if you can get a contemporary cost for e.g. a nice manor or castle, or the earnings of a similar office. --Philcha (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, I did mean million. Your suggestion about comparing with the cost of building a castle is interesting. Orford Castle, built in the 1160s, cost £1,400, at a time when Henry II's annual income was £10,000. That kind of comparison does give some idea of the £value of £3,000 then. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And that sort of comparison is worthwhile in this time frame. I've been reading a lot of economic history lately (it's helping with the insomnia) and most of the historians I'm reading aren't willing to say that a "wage" economy existed much before the middle 1200s, which makes figuring an inflation figure a bit more difficult. I'll try to dig out some comparison figures next week. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes
Noting your hard work on this article, it reminded me of a classic piece of graffiti... "Guy Fawkes - where are you now that we need you".... Pedro : Chat  21:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd love to be allowed to do some real work on Guy Fawkes, but all I'm really doing is trying to hold back the flood of V for Vendetta fanatics. Perhaps though if I keep up the whack-a-mole it might just be possible to see Guy Fawkes on the main page on 5 November next year. We can but dream. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a quick skite through the page history indicates some, shall we say "fun and games" with the article. Joy. Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility blocks
I've never paid close enough attention before, I guess, to understand why this is such a concern of yours. Now I do. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottava's an easy target for the pompous, overly officious, out of control administrators like SarekOfVulcan. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pompous? Me? Hmmph. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the rest of it, that's for the community to decide. See User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria if you think I'm that far out of control. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why anyone bothers with that risible recall idea is a complete mystery to me. It's just embarrassing watching administrators trying to wriggle out of their moral obligations. I note, for instance, that you reserve the right to alter your recall criteria at any time, presumably including during a recall, as other administrators have attempted to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that nobody has tried to initiate a recall to date, there's only one way to find out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That nobody has tried simply demonstrates that nobody takes it seriously. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * but i do--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well as you're here, do you believe that Chillum is an appropriate person to be reviewing civility blocks? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know his history well enough to answer that question, and I don't have the time to go research an answer at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I'll tell you. The answer's no. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got to smile when you see Chillum arriving for an impartial look at the civility block of another admin........? Block review has to be one of the worst WP processes ever. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you wish to discuss my review of this incident then you are welcome to bring it to my talk page. Or you can just talk behind my back, whichever you are most comfortable with. Chillum  14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Behind your back? You're here aren't you, obviously having watchlisted this page, which you promised a little while ago you would take off your watchlist. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I took you off my watchlist, then you followed me to my page and continued trying to fight with me. You got back on it because even when you are not on my watchlist your behavior draws attention. I did not really come here to talk with you, but if you want to my talk page is always open to civil discourse. Chillum  14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Name calling is a nono here
Please do not resort to name calling such as calling other volunteers "Pompous". Nobody here gets paid and we are all here because we are donating our time to this project, as such none of our volunteers deserve to be abused(not even if you disagree with something they did). No part of you making your point requires name-calling, everything you are trying to say can be said without being abusive. You are welcome to criticize actions without name calling.

As you know from past incidences personal attacks are against policy and you have had a full set of warnings in the past. Further warnings are not likely to inform you of anything you don't know so they are not likely to be presented to you. Chillum 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Go away. You know I have absolutely no interest in your opinion on anything, but most of all on this twisted notion of "civility". --Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * shhhhhh. here's chillum riding in with the stalwart sword of civility on high, glinting in the bright morning sunlight. be afraid!!!! be couth!!!!! be most of all ....... be beige!!!!! Do let us know when the shuttle has landed. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Malleus, I shall take him elsewhere...... --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be afraid, just be nice to people. Chillum 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How would a valid criticism of actions be presented if using an adjective such as "pompous" is not allowed? I feel like I have to point out here that name-calling is by definition ascribing a noun to an individual, such as assclown, doofus, idiot, choadlicker, and on. "Pompous" is an adjective, and not a name. If one thinks that certain admins are arrogant, that they think themselves above the opinion of general editors, would this not be an accurate description of that sentiment? --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be helpful if Chillum were to produce a short dictionary of those words he considers to be acceptable. Shouldn't take him too long, as there don't seem to be that many of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not afraid. Why should I be afraid? Any more than I should be nice to people who don't deserve it? I'm no Christian missionary, turning the other cheek. If you behave like an assshole then I'll tell you that you've behaved like an asshole, like it or lump it. I consider honesty more important than being nice. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually do try to turn the other cheek (although I'm not so much the missionary), but I also believe there are prime opportunities to change what is faulty so cheek-turning is no longer necessary. Criticism is an effort to change what is systematically faulty. It is often difficult to take criticism as an attempt to change what is wrong to make it right. I am concerned that blocks are placed on editors who offer valid criticisms, invalidating them by labeling their opinions as crude or uncivil. Even riots happen for a reason. --Moni3 (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been happening for a long time here, Ottava's block is just the most recent example. I've been blocked for making a general comment about "sycophantic admin wanabees", not directed at any particular individual. There are far too many administrators like Chillum who interpret incivility as anything they don't like, and IMO there needs to be a root and branch clearout of the admin corps to get rid of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. It just needed to be said. --Moni3 (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Civility is one thing. He claimed that I wasn't assuming good faith. When you make such claims, you have to cite where the other person mentions motives. Without any mention of motives, there is no assumption of faith good or bad, and a claim of not assuming good faith without evidence is a direct violation of AGF as spelled out clearly twice. Chillum dropped the ball there. But I am simply stating this here to clarify that he was not discussing civility but AGF. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Chillum supported Sarek's block, which was for incivility was it not? And he refused your unblock request did he not? And he pranced around here waving his big block hammer because I dared to suggest that an administrator was pompous did he not? Don't try and tell me what Chillum is, I know what he is. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just going off of what Chillum said in his unblock statement. It is the only time I've ever seen AGF used as a justification for a block, and it was a bad use of it at that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We can agree on that. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago
I see you rightly delisted Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. Do you know what happened with the talk page template that it never showed up at WP:CHIAA while it was on hold? This is the second Chicago article that has not shown up while on hold.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Tony, I've got no idea. All I do is to put the GAR template on the talk page and transclude the review. Is there something else I ought to be doing? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that she made it. The first of many on Indigenous Australian artists? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Mummy at WP:TFAR
There looks to be an opening at WP:TFAR for nominating the Mummy for Halloween, but the window of opportunity may be closing soon. Or perhaps I should say the coffin lid may be closing. I suggest 3 points, 1 date relevance + 2 for no mummy articles in the last 6 months. You might want to do the nominating, but if you wait too long I might try to grab the opportunity. Smallbones (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do the nominating. I'm useless at doing TFA requests. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Sandy's already suggested it to Raul I think, and I've already written a blurb here. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok - I nominated it, just copying from the talk page. I do hope you'll support it. Smallbones (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm as likely to oppose as to support; it's vexatious having to deal with all the vandalism on mainpage day, so I'll let others decide. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Recall of Admin Sarek
You have expressed before that you wished the recall of User:SarekOfVulcan for his abusive and completely false interpretations of policy that have resulted in the destruction of this encyclopedia. I have started official proceedings User talk:SarekOfVulcan as per the actual criteria User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria (as he can ignore any statements about it on other talk pages). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, not being funny but talk about putting words into people's mouths - "you have expressed before....for his abusive and completely false.....destruction of this enyclopedia". I think you need to rewrite the above as I doubt Malleus has said (typed) any thing in such inflamatory language. Pedro : Chat  21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just above he stated - "Ottava's an easy target for the pompous, overly officious, out of control administrators like SarekOfVulcan." I think my statement is a rather mild and factual summary of Malleus's statements regarding Sarek on my talk page and his. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I said, but I've never wished for Sarek's recall. In fact I recall specifically saying that it would be a waste of time if you look up. Neither have I ever suggested that his actions have "resulted in the destruction of this encyclopedia", and nor would I ever be likely to use such a hyperbolic turn of phrase. I've no intention of asking for Sarek's recall over this one incident, even if I had any faith in the recall process. I think that Sarek made a mistake in blocking you, but it was soon rectified. Anyone can make a mistake. I would encourage you to think again, and to put this bad block behind you. It isn't necessary to fight every battle, better to choose which battles to fight. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can quote you posts on WR where you have gone on and on about how bad admin destroy the encyclopedia. However, if you believe that someone who persists in pushing something that is 100% directly stated as completely wrong and actually a violation of our policy in a manner that would block content contributors shouldn't be challenged through the system, then fine. I choose to fight battles, instead of making derogatory remarks about them and doing nothing about removing them. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote away, but can you quote me anywhere as having said that I believe that SarekOfVulcan is destroying the encyclopedia, as you claim that I have done? Or that I believe his interpretations of policy are "abusive and completely false"? I very much doubt it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you, Ottava, seriously believe that your recall request will result in the removal of SarekOfVulcan then you are sadly mistaken. It's far more likely to boomerang back on you. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At least I can say that I tried. I take pride in following the rules, following the process, and actually -acting- instead of sitting on a talk page throwing out random insults without ever actually doing anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Leave it Ottava, I'm not worth it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, seeing as how you were right. Apparently, I can't count as certifying it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't you take the trouble to read the recall criteria? You've had four blocks in the last four months, one of which stuck. Surely you've got better things to do than this? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Three blocks and none stuck. Plus, I am working on a 9 part DYK and 10 GANs, plus I have my FAC up. I still have plenty of time to work on a real life article, a lecture presentation, and to pretend to read Daniel Derronda. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't this one stick? "11:41, 31 July 2008 Nandesuka (talk | contribs) blocked Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 days ‎ (Disruptive editing)". --Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Nandesuka was a close friend of Geogre and Moreschi. 2. It was going to be an indef block but he blackmailed me in return for it not being one, and I wont get into that. 3. It happened in 2008. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, my mistake. Three it is then, and none of them stuck. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel I need to say this
Comments by several over the last few days supposing that they know what I think about certain issues, like Ottava's block and what ought to be done about, and my attitude towards "civility" here on wikipedia leads me to believe that my position is widely misunderstood. So I'd like to clarify it.

David Hume said that truth springs from argument among friends, an idea with which I very much agree. Friends sometimes disagree, but a disagreement on one issue, like say a bad block, does not mean that there can't be agreeement on other issues. What I object to on wikipedia—strongly object to—is the facile notion we're all either enemies or friends, and that those who don't agree with us, or who describe one of our friends as "pompous", must be chased away as uncivil pariahs. I find that childish, just as childish as the idea that we all have to be nice to each other, all of the time. Life ain't like that. What we should be aiming for is to be friends, in the sense that Hume used that word, unafraid to speak the truth as we see it, yet adult enough to acknowledge that we will never agree about everything, and it would be unhealthy if we did. And if we can't be friends ... well then we can always strive to avoid each other. Let's try and behave like adults, not like squabbling children. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said, sir. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility blocks again
Any proposed wording I can add to User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me as it is. I don't think anyone takes my views on civility or civility blocks seriously anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Malleus; feel free to copyedit that page if you see any of my ... ummmm ... usual :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, feel free to correct any of my typos anywhere you encounter them (which is just about everywhere, except on pr/aring :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Buildings and architecture of Bath - help with GAN comments
Hi, I put Buildings and architecture of Bath up for GA and a reviewer has started the review, making several comments (at Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1) about the structure of the article and areas for development. If any of you had any time to take a look and make any edits or comments you feel are appropriate that would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look as soon as I can, but probably not until tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again.&mdash; Rod talk 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you had a minute could you take a look at the latest criticisms re grammar at Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1 and offer any edits or comments re: "The lede as currently written is awkwardly written and difficult to parse. It's too long and there are too many commas, most of which are grammatically incorrect.", "The third sentence is also awkward and tortured and seems to be missing a verb, unless the article is claiming that the buildings themselves were sentient and actively "formed" the streets.", "There are numerous basic spelling and grammatical errors in the body of the article. For example, "however" is misused in the very first sentence of the body. The word doesn't mean "but"; it means "on the other hand". It's a common mistake in UK English but it's still a mistake." etc.&mdash; Rod talk 09:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum North
Hello there. I'm sure you're busy, but was wondering if you'd be interested in GA reviewing Imperial War Museum North? I think it's come along a fair bit in the last six weeks or so. Best regards. --IxK85 (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd love to yeah. I've seen you doing some great work on it over the last few weeks. Let me know when you've nominated it at WP:GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Duly nominated. Look forward to your comments. --IxK85 (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be right along. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, just a line to say cheers for taking the time - much appreciated. --IxK85 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Did yer like that?
I'm about to nominate Fred Dibnah at GAN (the waiting list is long enough for me to tidy up the last few bits), and wondered if you wouldn't mind having a quick read and telling me your thoughts? Parrot of Doom 00:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I can't imagine you'll have too much trouble at GAN with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think my main concern really is the amount of text that's sourced from the Hall book. I use Amazon a lot to buy books for £0.05, I'll see if they have any more Fred books I can nab.  What do you think about the bit at the end, where his estate is valued?  Bad taste?  I'm not sure its relevant unless I include the stuff about his last wife being cut out of his will, and since nobody but Fred knows (or maybe he wasn't thinking straight) about that, I can't see it ever being included. Parrot of Doom 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm always on the lookout for cheap books at Amazon as well. Can hardly remember the last time I paid for a new one. I don't see a problem with giving the value of his estate; it's even given in his ODNB entry, which you could also use as a source for his mother's maiden name of Travis, which I notice is currently commented out as uncited. It's probably in the wrong place though, better as the closing sentence of the Death section I think. I don't see a problem with the reliance on Hall either; it's not as if any of this stuff is contentious. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)