User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2010/December

Thistle, Utah
Malleus, I am debating nominating Thistle, Utah again for FAC. To refresh your memory, I nominated this a couple of months back. Yours was the only review of any depth the article received during the nomination. (Thanks for reviewing it, BTW!) If you remember what your major concerns were, would you mind doing a quick scan to see if those concerns are still present? I'm not asking for a thorough review; I've asked others for that. I understand completely if you don't recall what concerned you last time; no worries if that is the case. Regards, Dave (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I remember that, the ghost town. I can't remember what I said at the review but I'll certainly check and get back to you. Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, I see you have started on Workhouse at last and its looking better already. I am a bit snowed in and can't get to my coal mining books so I am a bit bored.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still not entirely happy with the organisation, there are large uncited chunks, lots of gaps, not sure how much (if at all) to go into workhouses outside the UK ... so if you feel like rolling your sleeves up and pitching in you'd be very welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I decided to "reorganise" Prestwich a bit, which is turning into quite a lot but I need to look for some refs. As far as workhouse goes I think I'd stick to the UK as its huge enough and then where would it stop....? When I can get out, we have a foot of the white stuff I'll look in the library and hope I can collect my books soon. It is hard reorganising someone else's stuff especially if you can't find refs.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is. I was stuck over the way the article started out by talking about the Poor Laws in England, Scotland and Ireland for a while, but Ironholds helped me clear that logjam and I'm fairly happy with the Legal background section now. But trying to find citations for someone else's work is really tedious graft; I think I may quietly drop some of it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What I do is sling stuff onto the talk page, and let anyone else cite it. Very often, nobody can. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just considering what to do with the dreaded Notable people......--J3Mrs (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a thought, are you going to include something on the architecture? They were rather ....imposing.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! That phrase of Dickens' – paupers' palaces – needs to be put in context. I'm thinking as well that it's rather a surprise that so few of these places have articles. This is all there is on the Huddersfield workhouse for instance, one of the most notorious. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: Notable people, I always favour the blitzkrieg approach. Mercilessly chop out all of the uncited trivia and then take it from there. It sometimes seems to upset another editor when you do that, but the end result is always worth it nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Somewhere in the depths of my memory I think they were called "Bastilles" but I can't remember where. I expect Pevsner has a view on some.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, they were, something else that needs to be included in the as yet missing Architecture section. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, nice to see this article getting some attention. 31 workhouses in Cheshire in the 1770 is quite an astounding number. I suspect once you start digging you'll find quite a bit on information. It already looks much better than the last time I looked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was rather astonished to discover that at any given time probably about 6% of the population lived in workhouses. I was even more astonished at the idea that it all began with the vagrancy laws introduced after the Black Death. It's a very big story, I only hope I can do it at least a little bit of justice. Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel guilty making your orange bar go off when you're working, but ... yeah, this is a big subject. Once you start digging, you'll run into the Reformation, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the establishment of parishes, and finally workhouses. Actually Ealdgyth would know quite a bit more about this than I. I'll dig for you a bit though - I do have some books lying around and limited database access, so might find a paper or two. It's an interesting topic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is far too recent for Ealdgyth, she switches off after about 1200 or so. The real history here is 19th-century history I think, but that may just be my perspective. I'll be grateful for any help, as I'm by no means an expert on any of this. I was just trying to improve a topic that tugged at me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I really switch off at about 1300, a bit of an extension out to the Black Death, but I know very little about workhouses. I'll read history about most anything (bedside reading this week is The World Turned Upsdide Down - which is (surprisingly) about medieval and modern Japanese society (It would make a great title for a book about the American Revolution also, given what the redcoats played when Cornwallis surrendered, but I digress)) but actually knowing where to find things and knowing a lot about something, it's pretty much gotta be between 600-1300 and English. Well, except for horses. I actually have a pretty extensive library on the Holocaust and the Third Reich, but I won't touch those articles with a ten foot barge pole. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a book to the talkpage, and I know I should have something in the books about the industrial revolution on my shelves - though I do seem to remember reading something about the social upheaval starting during the Reformation - will have to look for that. I'm busy this week, actually busy this month, but will add as I have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is perhaps a rather unusual case where it may become a better summary of the topic than any other written or online one. I've yet to come across any account of workhouses that mentions wife selling for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so unusual. Several of Iri's articles are probably better than any other treatment of the topic, and I know that Urse d'Abetot is better than anything published. Several of Deacon's articles are also the best available coverage of their topics, and certainly your green children is quite impressive also. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. My context was wikipedia's 3.8 million articles. It's a strange thing though, perhaps you have this as well, but when I look at The Green Child today I have no sense at all that I wrote it. I just think Wow! Who wrote that? Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting to look at articles from before I started on them and how they are now. Here's Wilfrid before I started, and then of course we have him now, in all his verbose glory - Wilfrid. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an extraordinary difference. I really like that graphic showing King Oswiu's family tree. Who did that? :lol: Thanks for all the sources you posted on the workhouse talk page btw; I can see this is going to be a bigger job even than I'd imagined. Malleus Fatuorum 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can't get any of those, I pulled them from the U of I library catalogue so they are available there, if needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We had a copy of Engels, "The Condition of the Working Class in England" but I can't find it anywhere, I expect it's been "borrowed". There might be some good stuff in there.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Only just spotted you're working on Workhouse. It would be interesting to discover the fate of the 37 in Cheshire. But the book by Fielding seems to have been "lost" from the Bibliography.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see I'm not perfect after all; how vexatious. I was working on hangmen when I added the Fielding citations, but his The Executioner's Bible has nothing to say about workhouses unsurprisingly. I confused him with Fowler, now fixed. A little bit like your abandoned churches project, I think that many of the individual workhouses could deserve their own articles, or at the very least a List of workhouses in Cheshire or wherever kind of article, something that you've become very adept at (hint). Malleus Fatuorum 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * D'you know, I thought of that too, but it will have to go on the waiting list. And where to get the info?  A quick look at Heritage Gateway came up with only around half-a-dozen.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The National Archives looks like a good place to start, although it might need a bit of ferreting out as the records are by Poor Law Union, not county. They've also got an interesting podcast by Simon Fowler if you've got an hour or so to spare. Do we even have a list of Poor Law Unions? If not, that might be the place to start. Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a map. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That web site is a great resource, thanks. I just added a bit to the article that brought a little tear even to my jaded and cynical eyes, about Charlie Chaplin and his mum (he spent some time in Lambeth workhouse). I think it's important to include a few human stories like that. Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Soft centre? I might have guessed.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for information wikipedia does have a very basic List of poor law unions in England.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just been looking at that; it's a start I suppose. When I've got workhouse into some kind of shape I might see what I can do with my local workhouse, in Chorlton. I've got no idea even of where it was exactly, much less whether the building is still there. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a start. . I suppose I could do Leigh if I ever finish the coal mines.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Thanks J3Mrs for the link to the workhouse site. It's now in my Bookmark file. But there's a few hundred articles yet to write on redundant churches.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Drop me an email through Wikipedia and ...
I can ship some articles your way. I also ran across Clark "Martin and the Green Children" Folklore 117 (August 2006): 207–214, which relates to your little green children so I picked it up also. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do, thanks. I've been checking my local libraries, and there's obviously quite a bit of published material on workhouses, more than I'd imagined. I'd really like to get the green children finished as well though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Route Trident
Hi Malleus, I'm about to pass this article as I feel it is compliant with WP:WIAGA. It has (and had) some horrible grammar (and .... and ... and). I've cleaned it up a bit, but if you have some "spare time" it would benefit from your attentions. Pyrotec (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes. I'd be a bit concerned that the article doesn't say anything about whether the extension, which ought to have been completed last October, is actually open yet. Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Very nice work. I missed that. I'll change my mind and make the review a "Hold" (I'd "passed" the review, but not changed the talkpage). Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This weeks poser...
Because my brain is fried from digging for information... Council of Reims (1148). Anything DYK worthy in there? I suppose we could go on the fact that the German bishops objected to the prohibition on the wearing of fur cloaks by clergymen... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm chokka with Poor Laws and related stuff, so I'm going to clear my head by scraping off some wallpaper. I might pop out and get a nice bottle of red wine as well ... I'll have a think later and let you know, assuming I'm still sober by then, but I expect that someone else will be around shortly with some better suggestions than I could come up with. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty much dead-brained myself. Theological research always leaves my brain exhausted. Wine sounds good, although a good Strongbow sounds better. Unfortunately, I still have RL stuff to do before I can have that well deserved Strongbow later... We're due to get a snowfall this evening, so a nice cider, a fire and watching the snow fall sounds wonderful later... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bulmer's Strongbow? That's very 1970s :) Ning-ning (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The fur cloaks is a definite possibility, but this is what caught my eye:
 * DYK ... that Gilbert of Poitiers was tried by the pope at the Council of Reims in 1148 because his convoluted vocabulary and style of writing were considered heretical?"

No ideas on hook, so I've given it a copyedit instead. Decided it looked better using the modern spelling of Reims consistently throughout. Hope you don't mind. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine
FYI: Watch the date.--Ben Ben (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a very strange edit, not sure how that could have happened. My objection to your change though was that you moved the footnote in the fifth row of the SSEM instruction set table from the first column to the fourth, not that you fixed the citation templates, for which thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My motivation for this edit was to keep the wiki syntax as readable as possible for everybody. Your template programming syntax isn't readable for non-techies. I'm aware that you did this to realize a ref inside a ref, which is not possible with the standard set of instructions. So with the standard set I would have gotten two reference notes in the first row, which would have looked that "ugly" that I decided to move them into the fourth row, like the first two refs in the table. My questions is, is it worth that?--Ben Ben (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My answer is that I want the citation inside the footnote because that's where it belongs. If the syntax required to do that is "ugly" that's no concern of mine, or the vast majority of people who will be concerned just to read the article, not to edit it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Your ANI comment
Thanks. Clear and incisive, as usual. Anthony (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I often feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. Some people just won't see no matter what you say, because they don't want to. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm finding getting people to follow simple reasoning here is a lot harder than I expected. It may have something to do with my expression, but there is also a kind of smug inertia, which is a challenge. Anthony (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop being so smug and agreeing with each other. Right, Malleus, let's consider this properly, not as a "oh look a content contributor got blocked for some perceived nastiness" bullshit issue.  This is how I see it - Warden did identify a group of editors - read it again, it's clearly aimed at those who wish to delete these Judaism-related articles (whatever they are, I haven't paid attention).  Now, with that as a given, how utterly fucking crass is it to relate those people to that particular Wikilink?  Seriously?  And especially - yes I know this shouldn't make a difference - the utter fuckwittery that's seen him at ANI multiple times recently?  Yeah, OK, I know you see yourself as the poster boy of content here, but if I was you I'd seriously not want to be associated with this idiocy. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So who was the subject of the personal attack? Specifically?  Idiocy does seem to be the right word, though. Parrot of Doom 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed you could read, clearly I was expecting too much. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So here you are, complaining about a matter related to a personal attack, while making a personal attack on me. Is it acceptable for admins to make personal attacks on uninvolved editors? Parrot of Doom 21:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've certainly been blocked for less. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been blocked for everything, though. To Parrot: I'm not sure if you're actually taking the piss or not, but just in case you're not, I'd suggest that it's not a personal attack when I outline who the subject of the previous personal attack was, and you respond by asking who the subject of the personal attack was. Perhaps that's just me, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No I am not taking the piss, and I am not about to let the matter drop. "Sorry, I assumed you could read, clearly I was expecting too much" - that was directed straight at me, and clearly means "you're unable to read", which is by any definition a personal attack.  For most editors (certainly as Malleus has found to his cost) these things are a blockable offence.  So what is your explanation for attacking me for asking a perfectly reasonable question?  Are you going to subject yourself to the same "punishment" as you so keenly meted to another? Parrot of Doom 21:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not paying attention; what I was suggesting was that I've repeatedly been blocked for nothing, certainly for far less than you've already said here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I completely agree that you've been blocked for nothing. Meanwhile, I was trying to make the comparison between playground insults and CW's equation with Nazism.  Not the same thing. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly there was no subject and there was no personal attack. CW was just making a comparison between a couple of approaches, one of which happened to involve Adolf Hitler. I note the irony that "smug" and "fuck wittery" are incontrovertible personal attacks on the other hand. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. I figured that since everyone else has a free pass, I must be allowed a couple after 4 years here. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then go figure again. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh really, is it worth arguing about? I'm pretty sure that if we sat down over a pint and talked about it we'd probably end up agreeing on a large amount of things and disagreeing on others, but my daughter wants me to help her fix her laptop now, so I'm going to do that.  The rest is for another day. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is what worth arguing about? Your block, subsequent wheel-warring, or your personal attacks on this talk page? Perhaps not worth arguing about in the sense that nobody really seems to care very much about that kind of low-level admin abuse, but worth keeping in mind in case this is indicative of a pattern in the way you conduct yourself as an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum
 * That's fine, if you want to take it that way. Myself, I'll keep ignoring the playground insults and blocking people that deserve it.  If someone else decides I'm wrong, then maybe I'm wrong, I don't pretend to be perfect.  Otherwise, I hope I'm improving the experience that people have here. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone else did decide you were wrong and unblocked, but you decided to wheel-war did you not? And then you decided to come here and issue a series of personal attacks, which you are still doing. Block-happy administrators certainly haven't improved my experience here, but YMMV. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice Black Kite, arbiter of what is and is not a personal attack, has twice removed my comments on his personal attack on me, from his talk page. All's well I guess, if the dirt is swept under the carpet.  I'd take it to ANI if I didn't already know the result. Parrot of Doom 20:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You know all this anyway, but don't waste your time at ANI; it's choka-blok with admins and their hangers-on, so you'll get little joy there. And don't restore your deleted comments on Black Kite's talk page either, as that'll just provoke some trigger-happy kiddie-admin to block you for harassment or something equally absurd. There is no fair play here, just hard graft for no pay and even less thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

On a more positive note, how are your plans for an English degree progressing? I've pretty much decided myself to start on an MSc in statistics next year, but I haven't quite signed up to it yet, as it's a fair amount of work. Especially as I've probably forgotten more maths than I can now remember. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My course will start in February. I'm still undecided on English or History, I don't want to be stuck doing the Romans or something equally boring, 18th-century English rogues are where its at for me.  Maths, God, there is a subject I hated.  I'm perfectly happy for others to be clever at maths, so I can have my nice Android phone! Parrot of Doom 21:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Maths has always scared me a bit, but I've always thought that anyone with a maths degree must be a genius, so I want to be one of those people who are so clever that they scare even me. :-) I did loads of stats during my first degree, but I really have forgotten most of it, so it would be hard slog to get back up to speed. I even realised during an assessment test the other day that I'd forgotten how to divide fractions! Duh! Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Will it impress people in the pub, though? Parrot of Doom 21:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitely not, but that's not the point. Have you ever been skiing, stood at the top of a black run and thinking "there's no way I can get down that without hurting myself, or even at all unless it's on my arse"? It's about facing the fear. It's what lets you know that you're still alive. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Many times I've looked at some of the black runs on MTB trails, and thought "well if they can do it so can I". And then noticed the huge lumps of granite scattered around, the 2 foot drop from the northshore onto those lumps of granite, the bits and pieces of bicycles scattered around each hazard, following which I've turned back to the easier red run, and done that instead.  Fear keeps me alive, ignoring it doesn't... Parrot of Doom 22:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing about black runs isn't just that they're hard in and of themselves, but that they tend to be rather unforgiving of mistakes, as you say. I did once shoot off the side of a mountain after I couldn't make my turn in time, but that's a rather distressing (to me anyway, my wife thought it was hilarious when she found me) story I'll keep to myself. Faced with the choice between English and History I think I'd go for History every time. English is a tool; I wouldn't study spanners or torque wrenches. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I once managed to crash at about 1mph, while cycling across a wet piece of northshore (wood). I still have the frame, big dent in the downtube...  I'm a much better road rider than I am an MTB'er... Parrot of Doom 23:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I went through a phase some years ago of trying out everything I thought I might be interested in, all in one year: windsurfing, water skiing, mountain biking, scuba diving, helicopter flying, parasailing ... too many to remember. My hope was that I'd hate most of them and then move on. Unfortunately I just loved flying the helicopter. Anyway, to digress even further, I've just received a bill from HMRC for unpaid taxes of £0.00, with an additional daily charge of £0.00 if I don't pay up promptly. Maybe God does have a sense of humour after all. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll swap you my bill for 3 grand if you like... Parrot of Doom 23:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had those bills as well, just not this year. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I get them every six months :( Parrot of Doom 11:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably you're self-employed then. I used to operate as a limited company, but Gordon Brown made that a less and less attractive option when he was chancellor. And the bloody paperwork! My last accountant's bill was two and a half grand just for preparing one year's accounts, even though I'd kept all the books myself, everything balanced, and I supplied a Sage database backup. Never again. Malleus Fatuorum 11:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I hated being a ltd company, so went back to being a sole trader. Much, much easier.  No faffing around with mileage claims or anything like that.  I leave all the tax stuff to my accountant, I really can't be arsed with it all. Parrot of Doom 11:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty much forced into becoming limited, because one of the companies I did a lot of work for was paranoid about Brown's IR35 rules. But it's very unsatisfactory, because none of the money you earn is yours, you've got to make expense claims, pay dividends, operate a PAYE scheme, pay corporation tax ... and then you've got to worry about your own tax. A nightmare if you're a small company of just two people, as we were, just trying to make a living. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

George Murray
I have went and fixed all the ODNB discrepancies. The only two 1894 refs that remain are information that you said was listed differently in the new version; I went and put those facts in the article, so both pieces are in. Not sure why some of the stuff was in 1894 but not in 2008; was either odnb trimming the bios a bit or new info springing up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take a look later today, and hopefully we can then wrap up the review. Malleus Fatuorum 11:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive1
The Borodino class battlecruiser article has been copyedited and I hope you can take another look to see if there are any remaining infelicities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, later today hopefully. Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again
for your help with 1949 Ambato earthquake. It passed FAC yesterday. As usual, your copyediting was excellent.  ceran  thor 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's good news, well done! Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I don't know what they are paying you but it's not enough. Thanks for keeping an eye on Painted turtle. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

FLs
You may have noticed that with your help List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England has just achieved FL status. You also probably know that Rodw and I have been sort of working together on the format of lists of this type. My efforts have produced a sister list, List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands. The format and the first two paragraphs are identical to the other list, but the rest of the prose may need a bit of brushing up. Would you be prepared to do this (and to add any other necessary comments)? Incidentally the Churches Conservation Trust entitled the area covered by this list as "Heart of England"; not sure how accurate this is, so I changed it to the English Midlands, which I think is more or less OK. Do you agree? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on that. I live in Manchester, so I know where the Heart of England really is, so your change sounds good to me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. Another nice addition to the set. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your contribution. It's now nominated at FLC. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Very nice edit summary
In nominating William the Scabby. --Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * On reflection perhaps it wasn't so smart in the present "block first ask questions later", as I expect that some over-zealous administrator could easily jump to the wrong conclusion. Ah well. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was of course tempted to block you on the basis that you were probably thinking evil disruptive thoughts under the cunning disguise of improving Wikipedia's coverage of half-dead 13th-century Welsh rebels, but decided to leave some comments at the FAC instead (particularly as I seem to be temporarily joint 2nd in the list of edits to the article!) Incidentally, the Welsh dictionary sources that I've looked at online (Cardiff Uni and Trinity St David) say that the Welsh for scabby is "Crach" not "Cragh"; if I can persuade the Geriadur Prifysgol Cymru (Welsh equiv of the OED) website to open the PDF, I'll check there in case "Cragh" is given as a variant spelling. Verifiability not trurh, I know, and in Welsh linguistic terms the difference between "c" and "g" is minimal (since "c" often mutates to "g") but just for the sake of completeness, I'll see what I can find.  BencherliteTalk 21:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be great. "Cragh" wasn't his real (Welsh) name of course, so maybe it's some English bastardisation of crach? Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably - not much of a nickname, is it?! To avoid cluttering up the FAC page with minor points as I think of them: (1) "Cragh is identified in the commission's records by his Welsh name, William Ap Rhys" - "ap Rhys" elsewhere in the article, and the more usual form, but I wasn't sure if the source says that the records used "Ap"; (2) I don't think the accessdate in reference 1 can be right! (3) Worth mentioning that Llanrhidian, where he was born, is near Swansea (Lordship of Gower might be a usable link)? BencherliteTalk 21:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake, it was "ap Rhys" of course. My Welsh is just about as strong as my Martian. It looks like I buggered up the accessdate when I moved an external link to an inline citation, now fixed. I'll check out Lordship of Gower. Thanks for taking an interest in this insignificant historical backwater. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at ...
Royal Maundy and give me your thoughts? It is not quite ready for prime time, I am tracking down some images, but it is just the sort of quirky British odd custom you like, and I thought you are the go to guy to look it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. Are you prepping this for FAC? Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm trying to get hold of an image of a Maundy leather purse, but if it takes me too long, I'll let it go and just put it up at FAC, once I think it is sufficiently polished.  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to do a bit of work on the last paragraph of the Post-Restoration section. I count seven "attend"s in the first five sentences. I also think that "queen" ought not to be capitalised in sentences such as "The Queen views the service as an important part of her devotional life ...". Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps change to Queen Elizabeth. After all, her fellow monarchs that were did not seem to view it as particularly important, since they never bothered to show up.  Thank you for the impovement I'm seeing in the article, I'll make that change and look at that paragraph when I see you've finished.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done now. One final observation, I think there's a slight surfeit of commas throughout the article, for instance in sentences like this one: "In recent years, approximately 1,600–1,900 sets have been struck." The comma just seems superfluous, almost in the way. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work. I think Americans use more commas than Brits.  I will look at it again.  I think it reads well, but I'm too much in love with my own writing to be a fair judge, like most people.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a comma would be used there in American, but not British English. Similarly, American English would have "In 1901, someone did something", and British English "In 1901 someone did something". Ucucha 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't terribly worry me. I try my best, and in the FAC process, the article tends to bump into the proper number of British editors so that that rough edge gets removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some might argue that the proper number of British editors is none, or it sometimes seems that way to me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that means. I always try to do my work myself, but a good FA always needs others' perspectives.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that British editors tend not to be sufficiently servile and deferential to fit in here very comfortably. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Cue the orchestra "He Is An Englishman"  For as he himself has said it ...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've written an article...
Would you be willing to give me feedback my new article, Last Exit on Brooklyn? Yworo (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but I've got to go and do some real work now, so probably not until later. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No hurry whatsoever. Yworo (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, it looks nice. Just two points:
 * The caption under the lead image says "Judging by its style, the sign was probably painted by Seattle artist Eddie Walker". It's uncited, so in whose opinion is that? If it's yours, then it'll be considered original research.
 * In 1993 the coffee house lost its lease with its landlord". I'm not sure how you can "lose" a lease with a landlord. Did the lease expire and the university declined to grant another lease? If it did, then why? Did the university evict the coffee house? Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks. That you seem to only have found punctuation to correct makes me feel really good.
 * I just copied that from the image page, uploaded some years ago by Jmabel. I'll remove it as finding a source for it seems unlikely.
 * They had some sort of provision in the lease that the University could either terminate or not renew the lease if they needed the building for an educational purpose. But I think that detail is only available on Wikia, which wouldn't be a reliable source. If I find it in a reliable source I'll clarify it.


 * Thanks for the fine-toothed comb on the punctuation. Yworo (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, found that detail again. Not even in a Wikia article, but on a Wikia talk page, from a former employee (cook I think), "In his last lease Irv agreed to a clause that he later told me was a huge mistake. This clause allowed the U to close the Exit if the building were to be used for an 'educational' purpose. They were required to give a one year notice." Perhaps the statement could be worded better that "lost"? Not sure how to modify it without a source to base it on. Yworo (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What about "repossessed", as in "In 1993 the university repossessed the building occupied by the coffee house"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think that'll work. I can add something earlier about the building being leased from the University. I've got a source for that describing the type of building. Yworo (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Angelo Dibona
Malleus, thanks for cleaning up (I'm not proud of what I produced there--typical hack job based on lots of fragmentary sources). Drmies (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I often look through the DYKs on the main page to see where they might need tidying up a bit. I just wish that the DYK reviewers put their backs a little more into their job and did the same. Malleus Fatuorum 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. Hey, in regards to this one, I just put the abbreviation "m" there not really knowing what the MOS had to say (and I was too lazy to look it up--writing the article was tedious enough). Another editor put in those convert templates. Please feel free to adjust/edit/clean up any way you like, if you have the time and the inclination; you are a much more experienced gnome than I am. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And here's another one. I'll tell you something that I think is funny: I have argued at my work that the peer-reviewing process at Wikipedia makes DYKs, for instance, akin to peer-reviewed publications--minor ones, of course, and not of the same rank as a journal publication, but also not unlike encyclopedic articles such as those put out by Gale and others. In many cases, you are the peer-review process, for which I thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's my impression, without any real evidence to back it up, that the technical quality of DYKs has risen somewhat over the last year or so. There are still lots with very straightforward problems that really ought to be caught before they reach the main page though. Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have much evidence either, but I think I agree--and I give credit to Ucucha and Materialscientist, among others. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

William de Braose, 3rd Lord of Bramber
Thanks for your copy-edit of the article I wrote. All the edits improved the article.

Coincidentally, I was about to ask you today if you would have a look at the Peer Review of it! -- Doug (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How could I resist looking at one of the de Briouze's? It seems that peer review has gone very quiet lately, so it doesn't like you're going to get much joy there. From a GA perspective the main thing that needs to be done IMO is to expand the lead to better summarise the article. Probably ought to be a couple of paragraphs I'd have thought. The other thing is that you can't cite wikipedia as in ref #7, because wikipedia is considered to be an unreliable source. Good luck at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful advice and edits. I will revert just one. The delimitation of 4 digit numbers is left to choice (MoS:Dates and Numbers). In English modern usage the comma is rarely used (partly because of its continental European use as a decimal separator). 1000 is more usual than 1,000. Doug (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right in that it's an option allowed for by the MoS where the the number contains only four digits, but wrong in saying that the comma delimiter is rarely used in modern English; it's almost invariably used and in fact is mandated by the MoS for numbers with five or more digits. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "almost invariably" is overstating it a bit. In fact the opposite is true. Try putting either 1000 or 1,000 into a Google News search. It comes up with hunndreds of articles all using 1000. I couldn't see any with 1,000 - but I may have missed some. It's not worth an argument but as a professional in the maths area I try to follow the conventions used at present.


 * On another note I saw you were not very satisfied with the picture of Swansea castle you had for William Cragh - you might want to use this one: File:Swansea castle.jpg. Doug (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We were probably talking slightly at cross purposes; when I replied I thought you were making a general point about the comma delimiter, not just specifically about four digit numbers like 1000. Thanks for the photo. I'll try it out in the scabby one's article. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sign
Would you please sign your most recent comment on RFA please, Thank you. T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 01:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, happy to oblige, how remiss of me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Walter's done and Scabby-boy looks in excellent shape so it's that time again...
Begging, pleading, doing the bambi-eyes look at you to do your magic on Alexander of Lincoln? Pretty please? I'd mail you holiday cookies, but I don't think they'd survive the trip well... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well done with Walter. Scabby-boy is one of those articles I'm beginning to look at and think "Did I really write that?" Deacon gave it a good jump start though. Alexander of Lincoln it is. BTW, my mother tells me that as a young kid I was so besotted with Bambi that when it was showing at our local cinema I demanded to be taken to see it three times in one week. What my parents must have had to put up with! Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreement
I'd not seen your comments at that RFA when I made mine. Fascinating, our concord. All the more easy for me, being the wrong side of a dubious block of course - something I have not had as much experience at as your good self. Pedro : Chat  21:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As you say, an interestingly similar viewpoint. I suspect that Rich will scrape through, another demonstration that the nonsense about bureacrats weighing the evidence rather than just counting votes is exactly that, nonsense. I count three, possibly four, "Why nots?" and at least three "I see no issues", the latter rather reminiscent of the words of Nelson. But of course they won't be discounted if the result is close; only oppose votes get discounted. The eleven "Good answers to questions" are just eye-poppingly blinkered. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the RFA will fail actually, but time will tell. I could not agree more in respect of your opinion of the "why not" supports, and indeed that the mythical "consensus" exercise at RFA is nowt more than looking at the tally. There's a good number of editors closing AFD's that really do read the discussions - somehow it all goes wrong in the admin elections. Pedro : Chat  22:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What doesn't help is the fact that RFAs have numbers, and are tallied up. AFDs, to an extent, are closed by looking at numbers too, but they also look at whether the comments mention relevant policy to back up their argument. As things are, there is no policy requiring admins to have written n FAs, made x edits or whatever, only that they are knowledgable in policy. Other than that, anyone's opinion pretty much goes, and opinions about what makes good admins widely differ. The issue with changing RFA like that though are the sheer number of people that contribute to RFAs. A well-attended AFD may have 50 people - that's probably less than average at RFA. Most AFDs have about five votes, so it's a lot easier to read the consensus. "Why not" votes only really bug me when there are issues raised in the opposition - if they disagree that there are issues, that's ok, but saying "why not" without even acknowledging the issue raised is careless. AD 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly what's been happening at this RfA. Several supporters have also lauded the candidate's many quality contributions, but when I've asked for a link to even one of them they go mysteriously coy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed as well that there are a few supporters with surprisingly low edit counts to have discovered RfA, which I have to say that I find suspicious. Perhaps their inexperience explains why they see no problems with the candidate. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

James Blyth (engineer)
Having been inspired by the recent TV programme on the History of Scotland I've expanded the above article from a stub and will be putting it up for DYK. Do you think you could have a look and make any improvements you think are necessary? I wonder if the lead is long enough and whether it should have more sections. Also I'm sure there are too many commas in places :) Unfortunately there is precious little info available about the guy and I've had to rely rather heavily on the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, so another pair of eyes would be useful to ensure I haven't strayed into copyvio territory. However, I do think Scotland should claim its rightful place in the history of electricity generation from wind power. Richerman (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been watching that series as well, although I must have missed the episode on Blyth. It's good to see these neglected 19th-century engineers getting the attention they deserve. I think you're right about the lead, probably ought to be about twice its present size. I've been through the article but I haven't yet looked at the ODNB article other than to check the citation details; I'll try and remember to do that tomorrow. Nice piece of work. Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, asked and done in less than 40 minutes - brilliant! I've just added an image of the second turbine, next stop DYK - would you like to be named as second nominee? Sorry, it was Making Scotland's Landscape. Episode 5 that includes a short section on Blyth towards the end is available on BBC iplayer for the next 12 days here. Many thanks. Richerman (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's your baby Richerman, I'll take no credit for your work. I'll have a look at that episode. It's interesting actually; recently I've probably watched almost as many BBC programmes on iplayer as I have on the telly. Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're too modest - your help is always invaluable. I tend to use iplayer more and more as well - mostly because my wife often doesn't want to watch the same programmes as me. We recently upgraded to Sky+ but I then found I also need Sky multiroom as the Sky+ box only has one output. Funny how you always have to pay a bit more to get all the flexibility you need. I'm waiting till they offer me a cheap deal on that now. Richerman (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I use iPlayer too, in fact I haven't watched my telly since May this year, so I cancelled my licence (don't need one to watch recorded stuff on the iPlayer). Now being bullied by the TV licence lot, they didn't appreciate it when I told them they couldn't come in my house :) Parrot of Doom 12:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought you needed a licence just to own a tv, whether or not you ever used it? Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No; only if you're watching live transmissions (be it via broadcast or via iPlayer), or recording programmes as they're being broadcast (which includes Sky+ and the like). If you only use your television to watch recordings which you didn't make yourself—either pre-recorded tapes, or post-transmission internet rebroadcasting—technically it's classified as a monitor and a licence isn't needed. Official chapter-and-verse is here. – iridescent  14:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's strange then that the TV licensing people wanted to visit PoD's house, as what could they possibly tell from that other than that he owns a TV set? Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that, when challenged face-to-face, most people 'fess up to occasionally watching the news/football/I'm a Celebrity live. From their point of view, it's probably worth their while pushing in cases like that, even though it costs them more than they'd raise, to avoid it becoming custom-and-practice of there being a de minimis exemption—otherwise, everyone would just put "only watch prerecorded tapes" on the form. It's the same reason banks pay $500 fees to bailiffs to repossess $200 cars. – iridescent  15:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been receiving letters for years, nay decades, from TV licensing, even though I've never owned a television or had a television license in my own name (I have an aerial socket and a computer monitor but have never been tempted to buy cables to connect them). I replied once in the early days, but completely ignore the threatening letters now. The letters seem to presume guilt until proven innocent, as if it is unimaginable that an individual can survive without the XFactor. I have never had a licensing official visit me: presumably they know the earful they will get if they dare accuse me of deceit. So, bon courage, PoD, I salute you! Geometry guy 23:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a somewhat similar conceptual problem with these SORN declarations you're supposed to make every year if your car is off the road. We've got a 1975 MGB GT that's been locked away in the garage for probably the last 8 years or more. But if you fail to tell the government every year that it's still off the road they try and slap you with an £80 fine. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I got slapped with the fine for failing to declare SORN for a car that got towed away by the scrappies, i.e. failing to perjure myself by declaring that something I can't visually inspect isn't cluttering up the highway somewhere. DVLA threatened prosecution, then they handed the matter over to a private Enforcement Officer who's now pretending to be a Credit Advisor. DVLA also sent me a logbook for my present car which shows the previous owner to be myself under a slightly different name, but living at the same address. The IR spent years convinced I was two separate people as well- in the end they paid the imaginary person's tax bill themselves. Ning-ning (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nagging
I mention the fine work of yourself and others in this discussion. You might therefore be interested. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please teach me the script dash thingie
My head is getting a bit frazzled trying to get all this stuff done and still have a life. That said, can you teach me the script thingie some time? And is there a bot that checks obvious issues (like did you wikilink the first place, did you link twice?)TCO (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.s. thanks for watching over me.  Still not repermabanned.TCO (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for this script? access_denied (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any bot or script that makes the general checks you're asking about, but Access Denied has given you the link to the dashes script I use. Let's hope you'll never be repermabanned. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I use Advisor.js which fixes a few problems, including dashes. The most useful time saving tool I've found though is Wikipedia template filler Using that you can enter an ISBN for a book and it produces the citation for you. Richerman (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par
Hey, a user at the FAC has requested another copy-edit due to changes made since you last looked at it. Would you mind taking a look at it again? Thanks. :) Ω  pho  is  23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's getting to be a busy time of year, but I'll try and look through it again. One question, what does this mean?
 * "Ticket sales in Mumbai dropped to 58 percent during its third week, but they climbed back to 62 percent the following week."
 * Fifty-eight percent of what? Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. From my understanding, it is the occupancy rate of the theaters. Ω  pho  is  23:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a very hard look at that Box office section, as it hardly works at all. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What about: "The film's theater occupancy in Mumbai dropped to 58 percent during its third week, but it climbed back to 62 percent the following week" Ω  pho  is  00:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also reordered the section a little. Ω  pho  is  00:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, do films have a "theater occupancy"? To be honest, I think that the prose needs quite a bit of work to get through FAC. For one thing it's got a rather "gangly" round-the-houses feel, such as in "Rather than encouraging and helping him to excel, his teachers and classmates instead regularly subject him to cruel acts of public humiliation." How can humiliation ever be other than public? I changed that section to this, which I think is a bit tighter, but you may disagree. I don't want to to edit too much more if you're not going to be happy with the end result though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make any necessary changes. Thanks. Ω  pho  is  01:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, your most recent edit changed part of the plot section to: "An instructor at the Tulips School for young children with developmental disabilities, Nikumbh's teaching style is markedly different from that of his strict predecessor..." Isn't that grammatically incorrect, since it implies that his teaching style is an instructor? Ω  pho  is  18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me; The sentence's parenthetical first part is clearly forward referencing Nikumbh, not his teaching style. What was there before – "An instructor at the Tulips School for young children with developmental disabilities, Nikumbh possesses a teaching style is markedly different from his strict predecessor, and he soon observes that Ishaan is unhappy and contributes little to class activities" – on the other hand is definitely ungrammatical, and probably rather too rambling. Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW. the phrase "animated animals" seems rather strange to me. What's it trying to convey? Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

new section overwritten
Please revert this one-word edit, as it also wiped out an entire new section: [diff].

Also, if you agree that the change I've proposed is minor, please make the change, as an IP cannot edit the Project Page.

Thanks, RB 66.217.118.31 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How strange. Anyway, I've restored your new section. I've never made a change to the MoS and I likely never will. Doesn't seem to matter what you propose, there's always someone ready to object to it, so I'll decline your invitation. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, RB 66.217.117.119 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

James Blyth again
James Blyth has now been featured in DYK and so has moved a bit more towards attaining his rightful place in history - another first for the Scottish engineers! The article has even been scored as a B by some kind soul, thanks for your help - Richerman (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Windsor Castle
I was wondering if you could take a look at the above article? has outdone their previous efforts and produced a monumental work on one of the most famous castles in the world. I think it's easily up to scratch for a GA, and with a bit of work perhaps could pass muster at FAC. My only concern previously was that Hchc2009's prose, though good, might have needed a little massaging, linking events together, but I think this is a step up and things flow pretty well. Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's very impressive piece of work, obviously well up to GA standard and beyond. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If this was my work I'd be very tempted to bypass GAN and take it straight to FAC. Just one thing strokes me though, and that's the rather distracting citation density. Take the third paragraph of the 17th century section for instance. Almost the whole thing is cited to Rowse, p.79, yet it's repeated after each sentence. Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know Hchc2009 doesn't have any experience of taking an article through FAC, and Windsor Castle is a hell of an article to choose as your first, although I think it's up there. The references are more dense than my own taste but I suppose Hchc2009 is choosing to be better safe than sorry. I'll mention it on the talk page and see what they say. Nev1 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting historical image of Windsor Castle at Guy Fawkes Night if it's of any use, but I agree that this is an excellent article and, on the face of it, easily a GA. Parrot of Doom 16:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It might well be a bit tough for a first FAC, but it could take ages to get an article of this length reviewed at GAN, which I think it would easily pass anyway, probably without much in the way of useful feedback. Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind getting stuck in if FAC is what people decide. I've had a lot of family matters to deal with lately and have lost interest in Wikipedia a little, but this looks like it could be a quality article. Parrot of Doom 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Gunpowder Plotter's burnout? :-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly, I've just been busy with other things. Need to find something juicy to get going again :) Parrot of Doom 09:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cragh
Wasn't really sure where to place Cragh on WP:FA. Went for Warfare Biographies, but... ? History biographies maybe? Feel free to move it if desired. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy. I'm really not sure either, but I think History biographies may be better as it's not entirely certain that he was a rebel. Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well done to you and Ealdgyth for getting this interesting article up to scratch. Doug (at Wiki) 11:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the deal
... here? Is that an imitation account? And how the heck are you? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't come across Malleus Felonious, but it's certainly nothing to do with me. I'm fine, quietly nibbling away at a few things and really starting to think that it's about time I got myself organised for Christmas. Are you back now? Things seem to have rather quiet for the last couple of months. Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am struggling to catch up, and must focus on Christmas preparations ... that account looks to be "up to no good" to me. Get busy and get in the spirit of the season!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of the season, how about assuming some good faith for an editor who, for all we know, might just be trying to bring lots of good cheer to lots of folks? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * AGF doesn't mean switch off your brain, contrary to what so many here seem to believe. Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nor does it mean we fail to check his contribs (which hopefully some real admin reading here will do). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I did notice your question to BB, about why he was by far the most prolific contributor to the admin playgrounds despite not being an admin himself. What was his answer? Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, got the tree up now, lighted and decorated, so we're getting there. Still got to think of a present for my wife though, the hardest part of Christmas as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)
Hey. You had weighed in at the first FAC for South Park (season 13), which got hung up largely because of the image. Now there is a second FAC discussion ongoing, where once again the image is dominating the conversation. At the FA delegate's suggestion, I am asking everyone who participated in the first FAC to weigh in once again, if it's not too much trouble, but please comment on the full set of FA criteria rather than just the image fair use rationale, so we can work toward a consensus on the overall FAC. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That was rather a bad-tempered review IIRC and this one doesn't seem to be shaping up much better, so I'd rather not. For whatever it's worth, my opinion that this would be better as a featured list still stands. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask your advice?
Hi Malleus :) This is prompted by a recent post of yours at ANI. If you scroll up a couple of threads from the one you posted in you'll see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Long story short, I've put together PACE Sports Management as a result of that thread. Company articles aren't really my area and I'd really appreciate some advice from someone who does write such things... which I'm hoping by your post you do. Would you be able to quickly look over the article? I'm mainly concerned about tone and focus; I don't want it to come off as a press release, but want to do the company justice based on the limited RS available. No problem if you can't though. Best, EyeSerene talk 19:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm maybe not in the best frame of mind to look at that right now. Anyway, what's the pay like? Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The pay is the standard rate for Wikipedia: no recompense and another three jobs. Never mind though, it's not important :) EyeSerene talk 19:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hollis Chair
Thanks, Malleus, as usual. And Merry Christmas. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A ho-ho-ho request
Can you look over Mount Cleveland (Alaska)? Jappalang indicated it needed a good copy-editor (*cough*). Thanks, and Merry Christmas, Res Mar 16:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season...
And thank you so much for all your help throughout the year. I should warn you, I've been contacted about bringing Broad Ripple Park Carousel up to FA status.. be prepared for carousel animals too! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you'll have your work cut out with that one. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

-- The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 03:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you and to everyone else for their Christmas greetings, and I wish all of you a Merry Xmas as well. And now I'm about to get smashed, so I'll see you tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's you getting in the Christmas spirit. Or vice versa ... Ho ho ho!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Malleus, your page is all lit up with Christmas greetings - very nice. Enjoy getting smashed & the rest of the day/night. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just the page that's getting lit up.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You hung lights? Stylish. Res Mar 16:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par
Hey, just letting you know that the article has been promoted to FA. I really appreciate all your work on it. Thanks again :) Ω  pho  is  02:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's good news, well done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Objective feedback requested
Where have we run across Basket of Puppies lately? What do you think of this and this, which remains unanswered? Is this a trend (if SG requests admin help with clear edit warring, she doesn't get it because she's perceived as having too much influence) or have I engaged in the behaviors Prodego alleges? How much of this stuff unfolds off-Wiki? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The name Basket of Puppies is one I recognise, but I can hardly ever remember where I came across another editor before. You have very high standards for medical articles, not unreasonably, but I've hardly ever come across one that properly uses review articles or other secondary sources. The administrator playgrounds aren't anywhere editors like you or I are ever likely to be treated fairly, much less with respect. How much of this stuff unfolds off-Wiki? Undoubtedly far too much. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That you don't remember is probably a good sign: I have a vague memory of something recently, but can't recall either. You are right about medical articles, and it makes some of us as upset as poorly sourced BLPs do, since people's well-being can depend on faulty info they found on Wiki.  What I'm finding is that as the perception that I have admin friends at my beck and call (incorrect) increases, and is fed by misinfo about that at WR, I seem to be less and less likely to be treated fairly by admins-- that's the trend I'm wondering about. This was obvious and disruptive edit warring, yet that admin alleges-- with no reason or substantiation-- that I was part and parcel of same, and at least half a dozen competent medical editors now have to tangle with one editor's POV and edit warring, which tends to chase them off: business as usual.  Oh, well !  Thanks anyway :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that you have to try and ignore most of the 780 or so currently active administrators and hope that they in turn ignore you. Most of them are at best a waste of space and at worst an impediment to the project. Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Which would feed a self-fulfilling prophecy about "admins at my beck and call to do my heeding": if I'm unable to use normal DR processes, like ANI or AN3, must I call on intelligent admins whenever I need help? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but I'm afraid I think it's really the only rational option. Posting at the AN noticeboards just invites the peanut gallery. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But the other trend is only getting worse; the kiddies hang together on IRC, and those of us who are attempting to save an article's featured status at FAR get no relief. That article gets 15,000 hits a day, at least half a dozen competent medical editors disagree with BoP, he edit wars, but the content contributors get no help, and it is insinuated that I was engaging in same behaviors as BoP.  Wiki is only getting worse, and this sort of thing really makes people give up.  Heck, as it is, I've been begging people to work on that article for years, and this won't help.  OK, now I'm whining-- business as usual on the Wiki.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the episode with User:Cirt over Simon Byrne I've pretty much given up on FAR. And I'm afraid that GAR is hardly any better these days, driven by nominators who feel aggrieved that their GA nomination has been failed, they feel unjustly. I've no idea what can be done about it, except to simply ignore it and get on with whatever we can in the short term. In the longer run wikipedia will either have to sort itself out or it will be replaced by something else. How long will that longer run be? I'd guess not much more than a couple of years, perhaps less. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that a couple of years is a good bet now that things are really trending down and wrong, with the kids, POV pushing and paid editing increasing. I find myself wondering what will replace Wiki though, since the kids will continue to populate it out of interest in power.  My answer to maintaining some sanity and interest is to focus on page view stats, and let the rest of the 99.9% garbage slide, which means watching POV articles go through GAN and sitting on my hands. But schizophrenia gets 15,000 views a day, and will whether or not it remains featured, so I guess I'll plug away at that one.  For now!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I've got nothing against paid editing, the end result is the only thing that matters. Iridescent has suggested many times that one of the big boys like Google is likely at some time in the future to step in and transform wikipedia, and the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, but how will they solve this? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of articles here you can neither defend nor improve. Whether or not this is one of them only time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Cuthbert Nicholson
Hi Malleus - have you ever heard of this guy? He was a Scottish witch-finder who was paid at least 20 shillings for each witch he rounded up. Apparently he was responsible for the hanging of 16 women and one man as witches on Newcastle Town Moor on August 21, 1650 - and scores more around Britain. Is he worth an article do you think? (He later confessed to being responsible for the deaths of 220 women and was executed in Scotland for trickery).--Hellibore and Mandrake Root (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have heard of him, yes, and I'm amazed that he doesn't already have an article. Get on it! :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How is Scotland still populated, then? If trickery carries the death penalty, that is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from the central belt, Scotland is hardly populated at all. Perhaps that's the explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Line Mode Browser's GAR
Your closing comment at this article's GAR – " "It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it" – appears to imply that the review was conducted improperly. In what way do you think it was improper? Malleus Fatuorum 14:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Malleus, that was not in my thoughts at all. My thinking was that the GAR had been called because the nominator felt the review was not satisfactory, and I was quoting the advice in line with the notion that calling a GAR because the nominator felt the review wasn't satisfactory is not best use of resources. I hadn't untangled the syntax to the extent that my quoting the text could be read as implying that I felt the review wasn't satisfactory. I confess that I do personally support the view on this guideline that a quick fail is not helpful (other than in exceptional circumstances), and there is much to be gained from waiting 7 days - avoiding conflict being one! That personal feeling may have unconsciously directed my selection of that text; though I hope not, as I would not intentionally bring up such a view on a public forum as it's not something that I think is particularly significant. I am aware that my own GA reviews are not perfect. I'm aware I have a particular trait of being rather slow, and this can and has frustrated people. So be it. As far as I'm concerned, we're all volunteers, and GA reviewing is one of those fairly demanding yet unrewarding tasks that can bring more complaints than thanks, so I wouldn't criticise or nitpick another reviewer, especially a dedicated and experienced one, unless there was substantial reason to do so. As I commented in the GAR: "A GA review took place in November during which several issues were noted and the article was failed. The nominator felt more time should have been given; however, over a month later and the article still does not meet GA criteria." That is a clear support that your fail was appropriate as over a month later the article still does not meet GA criteria. I wouldn't like to say that I support a quick fail review, but I don't want there to be any feeling that I am publicly criticising you, implied or otherwise, so is there a way you feel I could ammend my closing comment so that it doesn't read as though I am implying your review was improper?  SilkTork  *YES! 16:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added "which is a clear indicator that the fail was appropriate".  SilkTork  *YES! 16:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was just curious. I rarely quick-fail articles, largely because of the potential for conflict, so this one was unusual. But in this case I thought the article was miles away, and it still is in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Prince's Theatre, Manchester
Hello. I was going to try to see if I could get your new article on the main page as a DYK and so I was trying to verify the sources. Since I can't find an online copy of the book you used as a ref (book isn't even close to an expired copyright), I thought I might take a different approach. The DYK I had in mind was the part on the article about The Tempest first production being at the Prince's Theatre. I thought that since I couldnt verify it in your source, I could look at The Tempest article and verify it though it's sources. The articles seem to be in conflict. The_Tempest seems to say that the play was first performed in 1611 at Whitehall Palace and the Prince Theatre article says 1864 at Prince Theatre. Is there a difference between performance and production that I dont know about? I'm not a theatre or arts expert. Thanks.--v/r - TP 17:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant the first production at the Prince's Theatre was The Tempest, not that it was the first production of The Tempest; I've clarifed that. The article would need to be about half as big again for DYK, although there is a potentially good hook that I haven't mentioned, that it was the first theatre to have tip-up seats. I could easily expand it to the required 1,500 characters if you want to take it to DYK. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd love to take it to DYK. Both hooks are good ones and I could propose both.--v/r - TP 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's plenty big enough for DYK now at 1,653 characters, and I've expanded a little on that first performance of The Tempest to give you some wiggle room. Good luck at DYK. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. I've posted both DYK noms.  Thanks!--v/r - TP 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I remember White Shadows expressing surprise a little while ago that he had more DYK credits than I did. The reason is that I've never much bothered with DYK, so thanks for taking the trouble to nominate this little offering. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you can always brag that you beat him almost fivefold in edits! I've actually never been involved with DYK before.  The only DYK credit I have is one where I did a tiny bit of editting and suggested the idea to another editor.  I was surprised to even receive credit since I didn't feel I contributed at all really.  I've been interested in DYK for awhile though.  Since I already do new page patrolling, I felt I could balance out the CSDing with some DYKing.  Captured both the good and bad of NPP right?  I was really excited when I stumbled on your article, it was the first one I thought I could propose to DYK without completely missing the point.  Glad to have a veteran article writer such as yourself come up with it.  I'm horrible at creating content.--v/r - TP 00:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do a fair bit of NPP myself believe it or not, but I ration myself to no more than five CSDs a day, after that I stop. Most new articles are unspeakably bad. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I know you're not that keen on DYKs, Malleus, but (having nominated far too many myself) I do think they have a function. They can draw attention to what's new on WP; having been reviewed, they give an idea of at least the minimum expected of a new article, and they often attract people to read what they otherwise may not read, or even know is there. Most of my recent nominations have been on preserved churches. These usually attract 1–2k views on the day, rather than the single figures they would gain without DYK. So keep nominating your new articles, too; it allows me to see new relevant (to me) material of which I might not otherwise be aware. Happy New Year.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose you're right, but I don't really create that many new articles anyway. I had a splurge of it earlier in the year but that was just to prove a point. With this one I was reading about Charles Calvert and I became curious as to where the theatre he opened was and what had happened to it. One thing led to another and I ended up writing an article on it, you know how it is. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Henry J. Wood
You were kind enough to peer review this article, which is now up for FAC, where any comments you felt inclined to make would be most gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to take a look. Please feel to remind me if I appear to forget. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thank you. Who could ask for anything more? At your service for any of your PRs, FACs etc. - Tim riley (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's a great article. I do have one small question for you though: is it "The Proms" or "the Proms"? Even the Proms article isn't consistent. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A very good point indeed! I shall rummage in the press archives and see whether "the Proms" oor "The Proms" is the norm. My money is on the former, but we shall see. Thank you very much for pointing this out. I'll adjust as necessary. Tim riley (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)