User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2011/July

David Wallis Reeves
Hi, Malleus. I just expanded David Wallis Reeves 5x, but I suspect it could be expanded quite a bit more, given what the sources I found indicated about his notability as a composer and bandleader in the late 19th century. I've taken it about as far as I'm comfortable doing, but is this something you'd have any interest in? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in DYK if that's what you're asking. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I actually suspect this could be a GA eventually, since Sousa called him the "Father of Band Music in America". I just don't think I have the ability to get it there (or anywhere much further than it is) myself. It might be the type of thing more suited for a thesis after years of research than an encyclopedia article, but I figured I'd ask.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a topic that immediately captures my imagination I'm afraid. Was he ever convicted of witchcraft, for instance? Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not that I've heard, but he did get in a nice row with the Sousa Band when they started poaching his best musicians. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sousa??? Sousa??? Blech. I played enough of his music in band... and as I was a french horn player, I found it incredibly boring ... basically "B C B C B C C C C" all in quarter or eighth notes as the mood struck him. Blech! Sousa should have been burned at the stake, that'd be good! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look on the bright side, you could have been a cello player in high school... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL. Awesome. One of my best friends is a cellist. But she went to a nationally known fine arts magnet high school, then to college as a music theory major, so I don't think she had the same "wounded gazelle" feeling... Dana boomer (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lovely link =) Res Mar 20:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please to be votin' for ta Sousa Featured Sound. There is even some Giano sex-n-culture mixed in. TCO (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Very kind of you. I never would have asked anyone to do it and was prepared to make it a matter of principle, but as I have no idea how I would fill the hours if not for Wikipedia, it's for the best. I don't want to leave and I don't want to run for Arbcom which I see as my only option if I stayed but didn't write. Now I better go take down those messages, apparently they freaked my sister out. Next few times someone asks you to do something you don't want to do, send them my way, I'll either block them or do whatever it is you don't care for doing, depending.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Content is king as far as I'm concerned, the only reason I'm here. You've done all the hard work and I think I can manage to move any remaining misplaced commas around. It's too close to give up on it now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to, and I eventually would have gone through them all in detail, but 48 hours is just too fresh. And I agree on content, the rest isbackstage:  vitally important, and great honour in doing it, but it's not the main attraction.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just remember this the next time someone tells you what an unpleasant arsehole I am, and demands that I'm ridden out of town. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want you gone, Malleus, and if that isn't clear by now, I don't know how to make it clearer (well, possibly I just did). Us content geeks have to stick together, the project and our participation in it means more to us than it should, and it would hurt for us to go.  I don't want me gone either.  It gives me a sense of purpose.  I'm currently driving coast to coast, but justifying it with stops at three archives and two museums.  I always mention its for Wikipedia.  I had one person at the Nixon library who had read all my Nixon articles and liked them.  A fan!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Voltage doubler
Now at Good article reassessment/Voltage doubler/1  Spinning Spark  19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen it, thanks, and commented there. It'll be interesting to see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Table vs. graphic, and Super Science Stories
Thanks for the IE fix. I thought I'd take a look at the way it renders in different browsers and noticed a couple of minor issues, so I've added a gallery to the sandbox talk page. Easy to forget that HTML is a markup language, with all the limitations that that implies. I'm going to leave the sandbox running and perhaps eventually all the issues will be fixed; I would rather not switch to a table (though I wouldn't revert someone who did switch it) until it's all resolved.

On a related topic, I'm nearly done with Super Science Stories, the article I mentioned at WT:FAC which contains a large chunk of text from Astonishing Stories. I think if I were a reader coming to both articles I would prefer to find them with prose that appeared at least somewhat different, for variety if for no other reason. I've had a bit of a go at rewriting some of the material to present it differently but I'm finding it tough going, probably because I have the existing text in my mind as the result of previous editing (and your copyediting) and it's painful to deliberately veer away from something you know works well.

Would you be willing to make a pass through once I've finished working on it? I still have some organization to do on the Contents section, and then I'll do another copyedit and look for MOS stuff, but if you're interested I should have it ready for you to look at today or tomorrow. I ask partly because you've done some excellent copyedits on my work in the past, and because you reviewed Astonishing Stories, but if you don't fancy it that's fine -- I will just flog myself through it and see what I can manage. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The best way of thinking about HTML as far as presentation is concerned is to remember that you're really just making suggestions to an undoubtedly buggy browser, and that all browsers have different bugs. Let me know when you're done with Astonishing Stories. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and thinking about it a bit more, I think the balance has now swung in favour of the table rather than the graphic, based on accessibility issues. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would that still be true if I added alt text saying e.g. "Editor Frederik Pohl from March 1940. March 1940 volume 1 number 1.  May 1940 volume 1 number 2." etc.?  Depending on what you say I'll either add alt text to the Super Science Stories graphics or replace them with tables. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would represent a complete abuse of the purpose of alt text IMO. There was a great deal of misunderstanding on display last year when there was such a push to include elaborately descriptive alt texts, which I still see many mistakenly doing even today. The purpose of alt text isn't to describe the image but to act as concise and succinct alternative to it for those who either can't or choose not to see the image; a long alt text is therefore completely unhelpful to the reader, just so much distracting clutter. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll build the tables for Super Science Stories and add them in when they're done; once they're done I'll do it for Astonishing too.  I wish we could get rid of the cell padding -- I made the graphics as small as possible in order to avoid collisions with section headings, and to allow space for magazine cover illustrations, and I hope we don't lose too much screen real estate with this change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Increasing the cell padding is easy, but reducing it beyond what the browser considers to be the minimum required is next to impossible. Another option of course might to use SVG graphics instead of PNG, which would look crisper when scaled down. So long as the table isn't necessary for an understanding of the article (which I doubt) you could then argue that there's no accessibility issue and the graphic looks at least as good as the table; on the basis of the old saw: "When you're offered two choices, always take the third." Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really see an accessibility issue anyway, since the information is elsewhere in the article. The graphic is intended as a visual aid, not the only source of the information.  I'm not sure I follow your "I doubt": do you doubt it's necessary or doubt it's not necessary?  Yes, SVG would look better -- more of a pain to create but certainly doable.  I might try that.  But the pngs with the pixels specified to match the actual size are surely just as crisp?  I've just started on the sandbox setup so I should have something to compare shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant that I doubt the graphic is necessary for an understanding of the article, as you say, it's just a visual aid. But I'm not the one complaining at the FAC, that would be Tony1. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to be fairly agreeable to changes at FAC; I assume that others, with fresh eyes, are more likely to be neutral. On this point, though, I'm unconvinced, and I am tempted to leave the images in.  The tables (and I really do appreciate the work you did on improving them, by the way) are much better than they were, but to my eyes they don't look as good and are much more of a pain to create. I've changed the first two images to tables in Super Science Stories now, and I just don't like them as much as the images.  The caption requires a forced wrap with a   tag, which leads to additional line spacing, which I don't like either.  Maybe I just don't want to change what I've been doing.  Nobody's actually opposed on this point, and since it's just a visual aid, perhaps it wouldn't be a valid oppose. I suspect that some of the FAC comments I've seen about the images are made on the basis of things like WP:ACCESS, without realizing that the data is also presented elsewhere.  But then all FAC nominators tend to think they know the issues better than the reviewers, so I doubt my own judgement again.  Sigh.  Any advice? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were me I'd stick with the images, but probably do them again as SVGs. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's good advice; it's certainly worth seeing what the SVGs look like. I'll fire up Inkscape and try to remember how it works. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I created a draft but ran into an Inkscape problem; I've posted a note at the graphics workshop to ask how to get around it. I'll let you know when I get it fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind if I stick my little oar in, but this should be an HTML table as this is exactly what tables were designed for. If the wikicode doesn't give you what you want then perhaps you should use pure HTML with proper CSS stylings to get the exact result you want. As for your SVG problem. The black boxes are being caused by the wiki software when it renders it down to a png thumbnail. The full size version doesn't have the black boxes. Just another reason why you should go the HTML route rather than the graphics route. Just a thought. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The table already has "proper" CSS stylings, but there is no way to reduce the cell padding to the extent that Mike wants. Unless you know differently, of course. Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the tables (that I checked) have their padding set to 0, a couple have the margin set at 2em, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Just set the padding to 0 in the styles section. I didn't check each and every table and I'm not sure which particular table is the problem. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The table is here. Setting the padding to 0 makes no difference. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no padding set on that table. When it was tried did you set it for the table, row, column or cell? Has it been tried in proper HTML rather than wikitable? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not set now because it made no difference. Try it for yourself and see. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would if I knew what was trying to be achieved, the existing tables looked fine to me. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike wants less white space in each cell; compare the table with the graphic. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case he shouldn't be setting the column width to an absolute value (30px) and then not setting the row height. Likewise setting the table margin to 2em will also introduce white space. In other words artificial padding is being introduced which is countering the padding setting. Similarly setting the font size to pixels instead of a percentage along with a row height will give fine control over the vertical white space. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try it, and you'll see that it makes no difference. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus, would you give me your opinion on this? It shows a test svg at the top, as rendered on my local PC, and then below that is the same svg uploaded and rendered by Wikipedia.  There are enough differences that I don't think this is an improvement: the font has been changed, for one thing, and the text is not as well centred inside the cells as I had it.  What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Something's gone horribly wrong with that second image, looks nothing like an SVG. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I just noticed something else weird: File:Test version of Canadian Super Science Stories issues grid.svg is the test image; if you click on it to get the preview page it looks mis-rendered but if you click through so it's rendered just by the browser it looks fine. I suspect the Wikipedia renderer is to blame. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you seeing differently, just that blocky background? Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No -- it's the same as the difference shown in File:Local vs uploaded svg.gif. The Wikipedia rendering at File:Test version of Canadian Super Science Stories issues grid.svg looks like the uploaded (lower half) version in the gif -- wrong font, poor centring; if you click on that file to see the raw svg as rendered by the browser with nothing else on the page, it looks like the local version (upper half of the gif).  So it has to be a rendering engine issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The SVG rendering engine in the Wikimedia software clearly isn't up to much, so I guess you're left with two options now. Either sit tight with the PNG images (nobody's actually opposed because of them yet) or bite the bullet and use the tables. Given those two options I'd be inclined to go for the tables, but obviously it's your call. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to stay with the PNGs; the table is close but I think with the thumb displayed at exactly the real pixels you don't get a resizing problem with the png. I wouldn't bet against opposes in the future; no doubt there will be further discussions in future FACs.  Thank you for your help with this -- at least if consensus pushes me to use tables, I will know they look as good as they can be made to look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Super Science Stories is ready for you to take a look at. I'll make the alt text or table changes in a sandbox after you let me know what you think, and move them in when done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddleworth Morris Men
Your comments at this AFD discussion are in danger of becoming unconstructive. You have reiterated your view that the sources I have referred to do not, in your opinion, support notability, and I have stated, somewhat less often, that I disagree. There is no need to keep on repeating your views unless you have a new angle to present. Furthermore, I do need to take issue with this comment. Firstly, it is not in any way an argument for (or against) deletion. Adding irrelevant comments is not helpful to others trying to assess the arguments. Secondly, I dislike the way you say "You have been adding citations that do not support the material preceding them" as if I were making a habit of it, when you can support the assertion with only one example which you disagree with. If you want to discuss such citations on the article talk page, by all means take them there. But please make them accurate and relevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are behaving dishonestly and I'm calling you on it. You are attempting to derail an AfD by adding random citations that make it look as if the topic has been covered by reliable independent sources when it quite clearly hasn't. You are being disruptive and you've been caught out. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will not accept that. Your comment above and this are unfounded personal attacks.  I call on you to withdraw them or face the possibility of having your editing privileges restricted.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It matters not one whit to me whether you accept it or not, the facts speak for themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

{Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * Fascinating. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * tl;dr: "Shut up or I'll go crying to mummy". Parrot of Doom 21:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that bloody AfD; the world's gone mad! Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no faith in it, since the people there apparently believe that fictional characters were real people. Parrot of Doom 22:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to wonder if any articles are ever deleted at AfD. BTW, I struck another blow in the battle against pop culture today. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They are, but the drama levels can be high. As I have found out recently in various discussions involving fourth provincial tier Irish cricket clubs. THe daft thing with those, more of which are to come, is that the cricket project broadly agrees with the lack of notability in these instances but generally seem to refuse to actually comment at the AfD discussions. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it'll be a while before I nominate anything else there, let the crap pile up and someone else can try and deal with it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is obviously going to be kept, so I've hacked away at it to leave only the stuff that can be sourced, even where those sources are of somewhat dubious reliability. Which is hardly any of the stuff that Sergeant Cribb claimed to have sourced. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How about being another FA director?
Please don't dismiss immediately.

A. Think you would do a great job:
 * workload safety-wise, we need another person
 * holistic view of articles
 * deep Wiki and writing experience
 * some diversity of thought and not a pushover
 * in being able to 'see what someone does even if have disagreements' [per that evil other website]

B. For you, well...
 * it's something different
 * is leadership (but not another RFA)
 * allows you to have more "leverage" (spread out impact) than by helping individual authors and articles.

I would vote for you...and I'm sure you would get plenty of votes to do the job (if that's how we do it here, not sure, FL and FS did, even if it's an appointed position, you WOULD get the votes is the important thing). Only hard part would be getting you to do it...but it's got to be better than being a moderator. I mean at FAC, even the "bad" articles are "good" and the contributors trying to create real work product. Gotta be better than prowling ANI and banning shitheads. And if you think about your impact...much larger than some random bullyboy admin.

-TCO


 * "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think if Laser Brain is truly gone, the replacement process will resemble "The Lottery"--Wehwalt (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

 * You must be (deservedly) very pleased with that, well done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

AFD vote
I am not at all suspicious. Please WP:AGF and remember that wikipedia is not a place to do WP:BATTLE. Any incidents of WP:STALKing will be reported. Hungarian Jew (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wonderfully ambiguous first sentence, there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Report whatever you like to whoever you like, and please try to remember that WP:AGF doesn't mean switch off your brain. You are clearly a sockpuppet. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hungarian Jew has been blocked indefinitely.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I don't hate them, I accept that they have their place. I've just about finished my first pass through Theobald now, but I'll look through the whole thing again tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll get those two niggles in a bit. I'm teaching a class tonight in my "other job" so am putting the final polish on the presentation (no, it's NOT power point!). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Theobald of Bec
No avoiding him, I don't think. Can you work your magic of removing my extraneous commas and all that other crap I put into the articles I write? He's a rather boring guy, although he had his moments .. including a few times where he defied the king. We'll get to the archbishop accused of witchcraft next nom... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll start work on Theobald later ... got some repairs to do around the house now. Can't wait for the archbishop witch! Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it was really hot at the art festival... and then a thunderstorm blew up as we were packing up and I got soaked to the gills. I feel like a drowned rat! And tomorrow is the Fourth, so we're doing a small get-together of friends... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

How's Teddy looking? I have two more days before another art festival.... whee! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll have one final look through later. Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

ummm...
boy I've gotten a big mouth lately huh? — Ched : ?  04:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with that. Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Levin
Hi. I'm not sure whether he should be listed under Language and literature as well as Media and journalism. He's currently listed under both but I gather only one listing is permitted in the GA lists? The thing is he was very much a critic and writer, which is under Language and literature. I'd imagine this is not the first time an overlap has occurred. Maybe this category ought to be merged to include writers, journalists and critics in one?♦ Dr. Blofeld


 * I don't think it really matters which category you put him, so long as he's only in one. But I think the best fit is probably Language and literature. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe though Media and journalism should be combined with language and literature? Its just journalists and writers and critics overlap a great number of times. i'll address it on the GA talk page. I was also wondering if you could take a look at Burmese–Siamese War (1765–1767) and indicate whether you think it is good enough for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'd be in favour of such a merger, but by all means suggest it on the talk page and see what others think. Is Burmese–Siamese War (1765–1767) one of yours? Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, but as one of the most active members of WP:Burma I'd like to see more Burmese GAs. BTW to you and Giano I've created Category:Country houses in England which is intended to categorize all country houses and halls and sorts in england. Some time I intend to create a full list of country houses in England which might interest you.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be a massive list; just look at the number of Cheshire country house articles that Peter I. Vardy has created over the last few weeks. Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well 174, and he's reached S so unlikely to be many more than 200 for Cheshire. Should be possible, but if the list doesn't being to go near 200kb then a way of splitting might be sensible. But for now I'll concentrate on adding categories and see how many we are dealing with. Ideally we want what Peter has done with Cheshire done for every county.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Another 30 or so to go. Malleus Fatuorum 14:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncovered well over a hundred missing surely for the Isle of Wight too which I am am starting. See Azor (landowner). It's puzzled me on numerous occasions why there is no Category:English landowners. A landowner is a major figure in British history it should be jammed full with articles. Unless i missing the cat under a different name like Category:Feudal lords or something? Either way I think we should create this category, probably both and aim to fill it. In fact this is a category area which should be so full we should even have e.g Category:14th-century feudal lords etc. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Categories is something I've never really managed to get very excited about, to put it mildly. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, they are imporant for finding related articles. If I wanted to read articles about landowners from the middle ages where would I find them is my point. No doubts we already have hundreds of them but can't find them!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But there's no way of finding categories, so really they're not much use. Malleus Fatuorum 13:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the review of the Medieval Merchant's House - much appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a nice article, hope you didn't find the process too stressful. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not at all! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


TCO (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 

Obedient Wives Club
What, no article? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Great idea, I've just signed my wife up for that. Malleus Fatuorum 13:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

GAN virgin
Hi

You do know, of course, that you are a good role model for any new GA reviewer? If you had been on that list of mentors I would most definitely have been knocking on your door! Chaosdruid (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are still up and have 5 mins to spare while you are drinking your cocoa, any chance you could please look at this User:Chaosdruid/GA1 and tell me if you think it is going into too much detail? The "checklist" is things to fix, both those that I can and those that I would defer, the "GA1 list" is the one to go on the article GA1. Thanks, in anticipation :¬)
 * P.S. I haven't done a full prose study yet as I have concentrated on the structure refs and images. The copyvio also made me reluctant to continue without the others being addressed first. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's your choice of course, but I'd suggest that you post your review and see what the response is. There are so many problems with that article it makes my eyes water, through the hot chocolate haze of course. You could have done yourself a favour and picked something by Ironholds or Ealdgyth to cut your teeth on, but c'est la vie. Malleus Fatuorum 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I was kicking myself by the time I found the third copyvio. I initially thought it was fairly well written, then I found out why. Thanks for the &nbsp... lesson btw :¬)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I am just finishing my hot chocolate and then off to bed, though I am having a rather OCD Wikiweekend that started yesterday morning. There are four articles I want to work on, a GOCE copy-edit drive underway, the GAR and some research to do for two others. Ah well, sleep is for the weak .... Chaosdruid (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be a flame that burns bright but fleetingly, pace yourself for the marathon. Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture and other manifestations
I couldn't help noticing this recently, and it prompted some thoughts on whether a spectrum exists between trivia (WP:TRIVA), popular culture (Category:Topics in popular culture), cultural depictions (cultural depictions), and the more highbrow 'heritage' and 'legacy' aspects of articles (including memorials and museums). I'd often thought that 'in popular culture' culture sections were just organised trivia, and that 'cultural depiction' sections or articles were just a nicer way of describing popular culture, but after thinking some more on heritage and legacy, and how some topics endure in the social and cultural record even after they have ended, and how some topics get written about a lot, I'm wondering if there is more to it than that? The latter gives rise to histories about a topic, and the former gives rise to cultural legacies. Sometimes you have both, sometimes not. My main point was that any topic that has histories written about it will inevitably have some cultural impact. Whether anyone writes about that enough for it to be sourced is another matter. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't take credit for what seems to me to be a blindingly obvious approach to the "trivia" problem with many articles, as it was suggested to me by Iridescent. If the material can't be sourced then it shouldn't be there. Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, agreed about sourcing third-party commentary (though all that looks verifiable, which might be a different matter). But look at what is left in the article. The "eleven boarding houses" comment is trivia (there are probably hundreds of school houses named after Raleigh, there was one at my school). Raleigh was Right is an example of 'highbrow' popular culture. Even artwork done in later centuries is arguably somewhere on the spectrum of response to fact that Raleigh went down in history, rather than being part of his actual history. e.g. The Boyhood of Raleigh and a 19th-century depiction of an episode from his life. And what difference is there between books about Raleigh (such as those used to write the article), and artworks, plays, films (or other media) with Raleigh in them? Both are, in different mediums, retelling or interpreting his story (or history) in part or full, with greater or lesser poetic licenses. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That the spun-out article is so weak is something for the editors of the spun-out article now to address, instead of hiding in the proper article. Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'm talking in general terms here and you are focusing on the specific content, so I'll stop there, but thank you for putting up with my ramblings. Just one final comment, which is to draw a distinction between a creative response to a history (e.g. fictional work, play, film, artwork) and documenting that history (writing a book or even an encyclopedia article on the history of a topic). There seems to sometimes be a tension between the two. And I'll leave it at that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't try and teach your granny to suck eggs. Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha. I once came within a hair's breadth of being blocked for saying that to Jimbo. A young non-native speaker and admin exclaimed on #en-admins that he didn't know what I meant by it, but it sure sounded like a PA, and he planned to block me (until several people laughed him out of it and pointed him to wikipedia's fucking article on the expression). Pity, I would have enjoyed that. The delights of living in a wiki-monarchy full of little wiki-courtiers! Bishonen | talk 15:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Ick. I remember that. Looking downwards to another thread, I think it is better characterised as 'negative reinforcement'. And on reviewing the above thread that ended with that pithy comment, I think I must have mistaken Malleus for Casliber... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Being familiar with Mexican slang for laziness—se pesan los juevos [his testicals ("eggs") are weighing him down]—a Spanish-speaking Jimbo–page-stalker could have well imagined that you were suggesting that the enlightened one teach a GMILF a new trick—or perhaps an old trick. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah well. I don't think anything of that nature was weighing him down much. He's Swedish, as indeed am I, and as such we could of course teach Jimbo a trick or two. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Det är sant. Americans lag behind even Australians when the sport is impressions via using genitalia instrumentation, which appeared on the TV4's "good morning" show last year. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on your page. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

Civility
This, both comment and edit summary, was a bit much, perhaps?  --Elonka 02:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's actually you that's a bit much. Please take your sanctimonious bollocks elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you continue with language like that, and this, your account access is going to be blocked (again). Please try to moderate your behavior so that that is not necessary. --Elonka 03:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you continue with your threats then you may well find yourself in a place you would probably prefer not to be. Your choice. If I'm blocked again that's Wikipedia's loss, not mine. If you're blocked, who would even notice? Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka, your tone especially in your second note, seems calculated to provoke MF rather than pacify him, and the first statement was a smarmy comment on a stale edit, so your intervention has been a waste of everybody's time. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 05:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what Elonka does best. She thinks she knows better than anyone else, but in truth she doesn't know shit. Malleus Fatuorum 06:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This thread would have been much better if it only had one post, which was subsequently left unanswered. In my opinion, anyhow. Call me a minimalist. Or call me full of bollocks. It's your call. – Ling.Nut 09:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments such as this are not acceptable, especially on an FA review. I'm not the only one who finds it objectionable, either. Is it deserving of a block? Not at the moment, but these things do add up, especially when someone continues to ignore warnings and continues to insult other editors.  We're all volunteers here, let's try to treat each other with respect. --Elonka 13:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet, here you are, ignoring warnings and insulting another editor. Where's the respect you ask for? Parrot of Doom 13:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you must be mistaking me for someone who gives a shit what you think Elonka. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again,  Elonka, the appearance is that you came here to provoke Malleus over ... well, nothing ... and then to escalate the discussion to a point where you could threaten him with a block after apparently stalking his edits. Have you nothing better to do this week? Is perchance your undue attention to FAC editors this week related to the resignation of an arb friendly to you who referred despicably to that "pack of editors" (or some such thing) at FAC? Perhaps if you have an axe to grind, you can move along. Your first diffs show nothing: your final diffs (at FAC) are something that those of us who have some credibility can handle, sans meddling from someone who is not fond of FAC because of past interaction with copyeditors Tony1 and Jbmurray. Malleus, you could tone down a few of those FAC comments. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC) PS, I would have closed that FAC sooner, but I thought Karanacs was on duty-- I will get an SPI going later tonight when I have time. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I toned them down, then they wouldn't make the point. I'm not the crazy Californian touch-feely moron that so many here seem to be. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus, please consider joining California civil-ization on Halloween?
 * "What I'm hearing is ...."
 * "When you ...., I feel ...."
 * ;) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you need a hug, Malleus?   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For California-themed stuff it doesn't get any better than this, but this sums up perfectly for me what it is to be English. Malleus Fatuorum 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus is a tease - his "California-themed stuff" is stamped " Made in England". --Philcha (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Infantilization
We agree that positive reinforcement is wonderful. However, negative reinforcement is also beneficial. Read Paul Meehl's Presidential Address to the American Psychological Association, "Why I do not attend case conferences": Reward everything—gold and garbage—alike. The tradition of exaggerated tenderness in psychiatry and psychology reflects our “therapeutic attitude” and contrasts with that of scholars in fields like philosophy or law, where a dumb argument is called a dumb argument, and he who makes a dumb argument can expect to be slapped down by his peers. Nobody ever gives anybody negative reinforcement in a psychiatric case conference. (Try it once—you will be heard with horror and disbelief.) The most inane remark is received with joy and open arms as part of the groupthink process. Consequently the educational function, for either staff or students, is prevented from getting off the ground. Any psychologist should know that part of the process of training or educating is to administer differential reinforcement for good versus bad, effective versus ineffective, correct versus incorrect behaviors. If all behavior is rewarded by friendly attention and nobody is ever non-reinforced (let alone punished!) for talking foolishly, it is unlikely that significant educational growth will take place. (pp. 228-229)

...

The obvious educational question is, how does it happen that this bright, conscientious, well-motivated, social-service-oriented premed psychology major with a 3.80 average doesn’t know the most elementary things about psychotic depression, such as its diagnostic indicators, its statistical suicide risk, or the time phase in the natural history of the illness which presents the greatest risk of suicide? The answer, brethren, is very simple: Some of those who are “teaching” and “supervising” him either don’t know these things themselves or don’t think it is important for him to know them. This hapless student is at the educational mercy of a crew that is so unscholarly, antiscientific, “groupy-groupy,” and “touchy-feely” that they have almost no concern for facts, statistics, diagnostic assessment, or the work of the intellect generally. (p. 280) Spare the rod and spoil the child, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Over There (Fringe)
Don't need to worry; I still have have all the spirits in the world. And absolutely, the FA process is indeed rigorous, but the results make it worth the wait/pain (haven't yet come across an FA that I didn't find interesting/well-written). Here's hoping this time around marks my first FA! :)  R uby2010   comment!  02:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I sense that you might make it this time, so stick with it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally went through the article's reception section, so that should do it for the punctuation issues (i.e. placement of commas, periods etc). Thanks again,  R uby2010   comment!  03:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fyodor Kulakov
I'm considering placing this at review. In my view it is not of adequate quality for GA. Am I mistaken?♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't be a GA, but apparently to say so is a personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Stavropol mispelt 3 times. Anonymous sources "state" that Andropov had Kulakov killed. Gówno. Ning-ning (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) TIAYN wrote Fyodor Kulakov. I have tried in the last few weeks to do damage control on the editor, TIAYN, who has been collecting GAs. TIAYN's edits to Socialist Party of the United States of America (SPUSA) were grossly incompetent and partisan. (I asked Fletchcomms for help with an even bigger problem, of plagiarism and apparent copyright infringement of partisian delusion/"history" on that article, which was due to another editor. Fletchcomms will be out of editing for a few weeks, so any help would be appreciated.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement "Socialist Party of America dissolved when Max Shachtman got firm control over the party" is made from pixie dust. Shachtman died in November 1972, and the SPA changed names in December of 1972. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that the GA reviewer commented "Grammer and spelling are correct and article is stable." Well, if the reviewer could not spell grammar correctly then is it any wonder that Stavropol was overlooked? - Sitush (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've taken it to review, it should never have been passed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Email
Sent you one. Best. Pedro : Chat  20:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it the one with the subject "P .o r_ n P i.c t .u r ,e _"? I do hope so. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas Mrs. Pedro seems to get awfully upset about me sending those ones out ;-) Pedro : Chat  21:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it seems bizarre to me that Wikipedia gets so hot and bothered when an editor uses an innocuous phrase like "teaching your granny to suck eggs", or quotes from "First they came...", when anyone with an email account is bombarded with far worse stuff on a daily basis. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that's not an aside when it come to the illustrious WP email system. The regularity of abuse (including the current pop favourite of spoofed email headers it seems to me) is all part of the "enjoyment" of editing. Mind you the entertaining throwaway sock that emailed me the word "cunt" about nine hundred times in a single message recently was more fun. Alas they forgot to mention what I'd done to offend them so much, but there we go.... Nevertheless a Canadian reputable pharachem appears to be offering me the opportunity to extend my manhood by a few inches for a few dollars so I guess I'd better crack on and sort that out. Must be legit ;-) Best wishes. P. Pedro : Chat  21:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry about that. I'd had one Stella too many that night. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 13, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 13, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors or his delegate, or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  05:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

 

Somerset is a county in South West England. The county town is Taunton, which is in the south of the county. The ceremonial county of Somerset borders Bristol and Gloucestershire to the north, Wiltshire to the east, Dorset to the south-east, and Devon to the south-west. It is partly bounded to the north and west by the coast of the Bristol Channel and the estuary of the River Severn. Somerset is a rural county of rolling hills such as the Mendip Hills, Quantock Hills and Exmoor National Park, and large flat expanses of land including the Somerset Levels. There is evidence of human occupation from Neolithic times, and subsequent settlement in the Roman and Saxon periods. Farming of sheep and cattle, including for wool and the county's famous cheeses (most notably Cheddar), are traditional and contemporary, as is the more unusual cultivation of willow for basketry. Apple orchards were once plentiful, and to this day Somerset is known for the production of strong cider. (more...)


 * It would be good to see that large pic of the Victorian stately home replaced by one of the medieval church towers the article rightly mentions. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nowt to do with me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But you did help with it & are 2nd in the list of editors making most edits to it. Anyway another editor has just changed southwest -> south-west. I'm fairly sure it was you that changed it from south-west (or south west) to southwest. It's not something I'm going to loose sleep over but it is going to be TFA in a couple of hours so I wondered if you had strong feelings over it?&mdash; Rod talk 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mind whether it uses "southwest" or "south-west", so long as it's consistent. From memory, what I objected to was "south west". Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure who wrote this, looks like Rodw wrote the vast majority. Difficult to write about given its regional scope but I have some issues with I brought up on the talk page, particularly to do with the missing page numbers of books and the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

City populations
I though POD and yourself might like this I just came across: this little population comparison gem and my subsequent comment, though I am sure it will not get the response I expect.

It seems that the figures are a little off?!? How people can make these sort of ridiculous comparisons and get away with it is beyond me.

Anyway, my main reason for posting was to see if you knew the name of the "horseshoe" shaped council block of flats that was demolished a couple of years ago? I cannot for the life of me remember what it was called, nor its proper nickname. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I see from the list that the most ethnically mixed city in Europe (2010) decreased in population by 50,000 between 1981 and 1991. My household wasn't given a census form until this year, and this year's census seems to be the first in which a semi-serious attempt has been made to chase up non-responders, so I'm expecting a jump in population, or maybe some massaging of the figures. Is the "Byker Wall" horseshoe-shaped? Ning-ning (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be due to Maggie's wonderful plan to help us - I imagine a lot of people would not have completed the census forms in 1991 for fear of being taxed £10 per brick, hence the New Age travellers and the ridiculously high numbers of Poll Tax absconders - How dare they not pay! :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the 1960's Crescents that were built in Hulme? Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, cheers for that! I seemed to remember some link between that and Rolls-Royce, it seems that there was a blue plaque in Charles Barry Crescent:
 * "In Cook Street on this site in 1884 Frederick Henry Royce (1863 - 1933) opened an engineering workshop and built there the first Rolls Royce car in 1904."
 * I used to deliver bottles of pop there in the early-mid eighties, that round was the only one where we went with an extra man in the lorry, three instead of two. Never had any trouble, though I did run over a shopping trolley when someone decided to throw it at us off one of the roofs!
 * Ah! Rolls Crescent that makes more sense ... Chaosdruid (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal
So why is it referred to as a "long river navigation"? I assume you are aware there is a difference between a river and a canal. Regards. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't referred to as a long river navigation, it's referred to as a 36-mile-long (58 km) river navigation. Are you aware that there's a difference between a canal with an entirely man-made route and one that follows an existing river? Or two rivers in the case the ship canal. And do you really see an opening such as "The Manchester Ship Canal is a ship canal ..." to be anything other than absurd? Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not absurd. I did not post, "The Manchester Ship Canal is a ship canal." actually. My rationale for putting ship canal in the opening sentence was that there is a page on Ship canals which I believe is useful as it differentiates the Manchester Ship Canal from an ordinary canal, normally small and only for barge-type boats. So don't go wagging your finger as if I've done something wrong, I'm here to improve pages, something which I have done for years now on Wikipedia. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You did actually, here. We can either work together or you can fight me, but it's a fight you won't win if you choose to go down that path. Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Fight me"? Really? You're either getting the wrong end of the stick or need to grow up. When did I ever ask for a fight? And I actually posted: "The Manchester Ship Canal is a 36-mile (58 km) ship canal in North West England." I think I deserve an apology. "Fight you"? On Wikipedia? Pathetic. All I've done is put ship canal in an opening sentence and you've gone and thrown a hissy fit. I've been nothing but polite (as regards in my opening message suggests), yet you are being needlessly abrasive. And of course I'd work with you, I already do as I notice you do edit Manchester pages quite often. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So you did post "The Manchester Ship Canal ... is a ship canal", as I said. Now I suggest that you go and cool down before you come back here. If you continue in that vein I doubt you'll like the consequences. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Grow up mate. Your the one with the abrasive and pompous attitude with silly threats - not me. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who actually wrote a substantial amount of that article, and I do not take kindly to seeing it trashed by "the ship canal is a ship canal" kind of nonsense. If you consider that to be "pompous and abrasive" then so be it, I'll live. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Trashed? Lay off it, don't be silly. As an ex admin yourself this has gone too far. And WP:OWN before you start "I did this article" etc. You said you wanted to work together, I offered a olive branch stating that I know you contribute to Manchester pages quite often and you continue to throw needless nonsense back at me. Are you willing to make up or continue to hurl pointless rubbish at me? Stevo1000 (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Where on Earth did you get that "ex admin" idea from? I'm just a regular editor like you, trying to do the best I can in the face of overwhelming odds. But your phrasing implies that you're an ex-admin. Are you? Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Jeez, you never give it a rest do you? You really do have a bad attitude, dare I say, immature attitude and one of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm quite shocked considering your an ex-admin from Nov 2007 to May 2008. This is how I see it: you come across as a flawed editor - brilliant at creating, building and nurturing articles but absolutely no tact whenever it comes to disputes and little respect for many other (hard-working too) editors. Looking at your second RfA, now I understand what sort of editor you really are. If you want to continue going on with yourself: go ahead - but I've had enough and have got more important things to be getting on with that having unwanted exchanges with an editor with an attitude. Stevo1000 (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't take the trouble to post here again, you'll just be wasting your and my time. Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What about something like "The Manchester Ship Canal runs for 36 miles between Liverpool and Manchester, following the courses of..."? That would get around having to describe it as a ship canal. Parrot of Doom 19:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I could go for something like that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Parrot of Doom for injecting some maturity into this. Its ambiguous as a ship canal (or a canal even) because it is part man-made, part natural river. Like I say I added ship canal in good faith with a link to the page as there is a difference between an ordinary canal and a ship canal. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol - its name is "The Manchester Ship Canal" - unless you want to persuade the whole world to change its name, you have to accept that's what it's called. You know I really think that your assumption that people are stupid is only going to cause trouble, I suspect you knew that though, and suggesting that someone would not know there is a difference between a ship canal and a canal is like saying do you know there's a difference between a knob and a door-knob "The brass door-knob is a 2 inch diameter door-knob ....

What next? "The Manchester Ship Canal is a ship canal, meaning it is for ships rather than the smaller canal which is for boats, and has man made parts and natural river banks and is 36 miles long."

Anyway, just to let you know you can put links in lower case and the software is clever enough to work out what you mean. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You have Protected the Ferrets

 * You're too kind, as it remains a pretty rubbish article. But working on any article that attracts a significant number of Americans is never easy. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to work out if you think Americans as a group are worse writers than others, or more prone to vandalism. Perhaps both? Lady  of  Shalott  00:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The total number of US-based edits that are vandalism may be higher, but on a per capita basis, editors from the UK are 87% more likely to vandalize an article than editors from the US. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah. I read the same ANI thread and Dilbert cartoon. Lady  of  Shalott  00:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, you spoiled it, I was hoping to yank a chain or two first. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, F! Lady  of  Shalott  01:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd best keep my thoughts to myself. But having said that I've just finished watching an episode of The Apprentice, in which one team thought that Christopher Columbus was an Englishman who introduced us to the potato. In general though I think it's that there's a preponderance of juvenile American editors for whatever reason, so naturally most of the crap comes from them. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I could argue that but... Lady  of  Shalott  01:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance (2)
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 20, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 20, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  03:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 

The painted turtle is the only species of Chrysemys, a genus of Emydidae: the pond turtle family. It lives in slow-moving freshwaters, from southern Canada to the Louisiana Gulf Coast and northern Mexico, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Fossils show that the painted turtle existed 15 million years ago, but four regionally based subspecies (the eastern, midland, southern, and western) evolved during the last ice age. The adult female is 10 - 25 cm long and weighs 300 - 500 g; the male is smaller. The turtle's shell is smooth, oval, and flat-bottomed. Its skin is olive to black with red, orange, or yellow stripes on its extremities. Reliant on warmth from its surroundings, the painted turtle is active only during the day when it basks for hours on logs or rocks. During winter, the turtle hibernates, usually in the muddy bottoms of waterways. The turtles mate in spring and autumn; between late spring and mid-summer females dig nests on land and lay their eggs. Hatched turtles grow until sexual maturity: 2–9 years for males, 6–16 for females. Adults in the wild can live for more than 55 years. (more...)

Thankyou
Thanks very much for the review and copyediting on Peter Hesketh-Fleetwood. -- Beloved Freak  11:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Thanks for writing it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1
Hi, thanks for the comments which I have now addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to have been a bit of a roller-coaster that FAC. Anyway, I've cast my vote. Whatever the outcome, well done to you for writing on one of the "big" subjects. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Kennet and Avon Canal (again)
I put the Kennet and Avon Canal up at FAC some time ago & have been dealing with minor referencing issues etc. Today Brianboulton has added oppose/comments suggesting it needs "a full copyedit." and commenting "When this has been done I will be more than willing to reconsider my oppose". I will attempt to address some of his concerns but would you have the time/inclination to look at this again?&mdash; Rod talk 16:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's like painting the Forth Bridge! ;-) I've made a start, but for some reason Wikipedia pages are loading very slowly for me this evening, so I'll pick it up again later. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Various changes have been requested & made at various stages of the various review processes - one of my worries is the "stability" requirement but so many people have suggested changes it never stops.&mdash; Rod talk 20:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you let me know when you've finished as User:Brianboulton requested a ping so he can take another look.&mdash; Rod talk 19:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a first run through the back end of the article from where Brian left off, and I've made a few changes. I need to look through it again though, hopefully tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While you're here, on the face of it this seems inconsistent: "Here, between 1709 and 1859, there was an active brass and copper industry ... The remains of Kelston Brass Mill, which was working until 1925, are next to Saltford Lock." Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Swineford which is a few miles from Kelston/Saltford Lock operated 1709 and 1859, while Kelston brass mill (which is confusingly next to Saltford Lock (and a very nice pub if you are ever in the area - but that is OR)) operated until 1925. Two different mills a few miles apart.&mdash; Rod talk 19:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. I should be done in an hour or so, just having another look through the article again now. As a general point, I think that some subjects lend themselves more easily to sparkling prose, and I think it's difficult to write engagingly about geographical features without introducing OR. But we do what we can. Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I will ping Brian & if you ever get to that pub the drinks are on me.&mdash; Rod talk 06:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A quickie (hopefully)
Hi

I just wondered if you could advise me on how you would treat this:
 * "... of Western countries ..."

Should it remain like that, or should it be:
 * "... of western countries ..."
 * "... of The Western countries ..."
 * "... [from/by/etc.] countries of The West ..."

I think that "The West" is probably in caps, but am unsure how adding "ern" affects the phrase and how it should be treated. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sans context, "of Western countries" seems fine to me. I don't think that "the" should be capitalised as in "The West", as "the" isn't part of the name. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I have rectified my "corrections" *blushes*. I did tell them I was seeking the help of a more experienced editor as I was not sure if I had it right. After looking at an article from The Independent where it was clearly "the Western" in the body of the article, The West was stuck in my brain for some reason, probably from looking at all those google searches which only show the headlines - though I still do not know why I thought that it was both caps or no caps. Time for bed anyway, goodnight and thanks again :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

HEY! How come your encyclopedia is missing content?
Was blown away finding "Flat panel display". I mean this is a topic of immediate interest. It's a computer topic! Huge industry. Recent. Not that hard to find sources. And we have a few paras of poor English and a pic of someone's deskspace saving monitor.

Did I search wrong? Is there another article hiding somewhere? Would think this thing would be Manhattan Project sized, full of applications, specific technologies, manufacturing, growth curves...all kinds of juicy goodness.

TCO (reviews needed) 04:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not complaining about the English or any of that...but there is just nothing there! And we are in 2011!TCO (reviews needed) 04:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When did it become my encyclopedia? If it were mine things would be very different. In my experience almost all of the computing-related articles are crap, so what's new? Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Surprised a computer topic like that would be poorly covered (not even a mess, but just not really anything there even...for a huge conceptual topic). It's not like we are talking swanky culture.  I figured computer stuff would be what the Wiki would do well.TCO (reviews needed)  04:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As said, the overwhelming majority of computing articles are complete shite. Why? Because most of the kids who write them are still wet behind the ears. Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought all the kids liked computers and were total hacker smarties? P.s.  OLED has lots of content.TCO (reviews needed)  04:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They think they are, but they have no context and don't know spit. That's why they're in school. Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it's not like we're missing some "when I fed the punch cards into the FPD". I mean there isn't anything about whole huge current subject.TCO (reviews needed)  04:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Flat panel displays is a topic better dealt with in an electronics context; that many current computers use them is irrelevant. I'm led to believe that most of the computers on your Earth also use mains electricity, which I find difficult to believe given the preponderance of positronic technology elsewhere in your galaxy. Malleus Fatuorum 04:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Coffee break is over, back on me head.TCO (reviews needed) 04:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Except are you saying the electronics articles are shite as well as computing ones?


 * In my limited experience, even though I failed one at GAN recently, the electronics articles are way better than the computing articles. Malleus Fatuorum 05:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks man. I take it back about the 'pedia.  Just must have hit a bad apple.  Back to "spooning" me metal fluorides.  ;-)  TCO (reviews needed)  05:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My theory is that most of the computing articles are crap because those of us who are computer people would rather write about something we don't deal with every day. Hence why I concentrate on Texas history. Karanacs (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's also my view. I've done a few historic computer articles, but I've got no stomach at all for tackling this abortion for instance. And the battle over the very evident POV in this article was partly why my first RfA bombed. There is very little honesty here, but when you find it, it's worth hanging on to. Malleus Fatuorum 05:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, now. I just took back dissing your cyclopedia, but there's nothing there again!TCO (reviews needed)  05:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well there, better be a good article on TI. I'm just sayin'.  P.s.  I got some 'tronics manufacture snuck it's way into my F article (I didn't even try to find the connect).




 * TCO (reviews needed) 05:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The young uns of today have no idea lol, this was the Star Trek game that the mainframe admins had when I was first at college (though even that looks better than our version), they would occasionally let us play it. Someone hacked the system at the beginning of the year and broke the text editor so we had to program on punch cards it was a real pain in the arse, bloody COBOL...grrr :¬) They wouldn't let us learn MS-DOS (or Windows when I went back four years later) I really did know more than they were teaching. This was the "mainframe" we used, check out page 5 for the huge memory core ... yup, that's 3MB main memory on a mainframe that served 2 rooms of 30 monitors!
 * The first computer I saw was at UMIST around 1973, heady days. My TV remote control has probably got twice as much processing power as that mainframe lol. Anyway, a valve just went in my TV set so I am off to bed for real this time. Night all... Chaosdruid (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the topic, current IT topics are a nightmare to maintain, as the technology changes so quickly - but some of the "breakthroughs" will be forgotten in a few years. Safer to stick to historical IT topic, don't you agree, Malleus :-D --Philcha (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure I do agree. It seems to me that the only thing that changes quickly is the hype, not the substance. Take the current Cloud bollocks for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 07:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jargon for a central server. God be with the days when people said what they meant and did not dress it up with faux sexy terminology. A bunch of servers in a small room, how do we make that sound exciting. Call it a cloud. Oohh. Ceoil  07:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The irony is that it's turned full circle. When I was typing at my maxi-mop terminal in the '70s I had no idea, nor did I care, which of the six mainframes in the computer hall I was actually interacting with. Malleus Fatuorum 07:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a fair few pitches at work from companies recently whoes main thrust is that they have cloud technology. Right, so we ceed control of the data to a company that may or may not exist in 12 months. The other one is interface; doesn't it look pretty. Yeah but what can it do? Ehh we havn't though about that yet - or no sorry anything you want!  Ceoil  07:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion of a real and physical separation between interface and implementation may be the lasting legacy of the object-oriented programming (I hate to use the word, but here goes) paradigm. So yes, interfaces (behind the scenes) can do whatever it is that you want. Malleus Fatuorum 07:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * At least you had a terminal, Malleus. I tell kids today about my experiences with punched tape and punched cards and they think I'm something out of the stone age.  Oh, wait ...--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey! I resemble that remark. I remember programming in FORTRAN and having to send it off to be punched on cards. And oh the excitement when we got our first MOP. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you been listed, Wehwalt? I started off on DOS and VAX. Not quite the abacus, but not far off either. back slash this back slash that. Ceoil  11:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just barely avoided learning to use a slide rule! Ah, those memories of tossing packets of cards in the basket just before the acolyte comes out to bring in the offerings, and telling by the length of the output that I had not cleared all the bugs.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * grumble grumble. Ceoil  12:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When I was in Girl Scouts, there was a a computing badge that I earned. My dad took me to the university - his department was housed in the same building as the mainframe - and got his buddies to show me around and how to use the punch cards. At home, he taught me to count in binary. I'm pretty sure I was the only girl in my troop to get that particular badge. Lady  of  Shalott  12:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Burrough Hill
I recently cobbled together an article on an Iron Age hillfort in Leicestershire. It easily passes the five-times expansion necessary for DYK but I can't see anything that particularly stands out as interesting to the general public. Can you or anyone else watching (your talk page has a lot more watchers than mine) see an interesting hook that would make going through DYK worthwhile? Nev1 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The bit about "on Whit Mondays the hill was used for social events such as dancing and games" looked DYK-ish to me... Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you know that Burrough Hill has over 400 maculae? Creepy. All those eyeballs...looking at you. Someone been drinking Baz's Bonce Basher? Ning-ning (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The image in the lead seems strikingly like a supine woman's breasts to me, so I'd hope to be able to source something like "... Burrough Hill is considered to be one of the most erotic of Britain's hill forts". But realistically I'd probably go with Ning-ning's maculae idea. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help folks. In the end I went with the maculae hook and hoped that readers wouldn't be too disappointed when they find out what a macula really is. Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The witch-bishop...
I think Gerard is ready for dismemberment .. err. copyediting. I'm sure I've left lots of flabby bits and plenty of extra commas for you to unearth. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dismemberment is probably about right. I always have a slight tinge of guilt when hacking away at someone else's prose, as inevitably the result isn't what they wrote. It may be better, it may be worse, but it's no longer what they wrote, and the more copyeditors have at it, the more it tends to lose any sense of coherency and stylistic consistency. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Presumably we're punting for FA with Gerald? I've been struggling a bit with the lead, which says that "He [Gerald] possibly was with the king's hunting party when William I was killed, and is known to have witnessed the first charter issued by the new king, Henry I of England." Firstly, shouldn't that be William II, and secondly it seems rather arbitrary to jam together in one sentence the king's death and Gerald's witnessing of a charter. I can't quite get my head around what's being implied by that conjunction, if anything. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Ceoil noted the issue with that too, I'll whack at it tomorrow and see if I can improve it. Yes, he's heading to FA, I hope. And you've never once changed my meaning of my prose so drastically that the message didn't get through. I'm not trying to write poetry, where the exact word choice is vital, I just want to make things clear to other readers... if that means someone ruthlessly edits my prose for the better.. so be it. As long as the meaning is the same, I'm not normally that bothered by your copyediting... you ask if you're going to change the meaning... which is the important part. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess if I had you wouldn't still be a customer. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The charter thing is that he was with the new king within days of the old king's death, so he was a very early supporter. Some conspiracy theorists think Henry had Rufus killed, so that's an important datum (My own opinion is its extremely dodgy, but we'll never know for sure...) See if that makes a bit more sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Case of the Dean of St Asaph
Now replied; as always, much obliged, squire. Ironholds (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that if you got hold of Shipley's book you could get this to FA. It's a nicely constrained subject just missing a few important details. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Super Science Stories
Malleus, if you're still willing to take a look at Super Science Stories and try to lessen its similarity to Astonishing Stories, I've finally dealt with the remaining issues. I had to remove the covers as they are copyrighted, and I don't really have enough critical commentary to justify fair use. I finally figured out how to get the grids to work as svg files -- it turns out that a font not possessed by the rendering engine is rendered instead as the nearest available font, which is why it looked different on Wikipedia than in Inkscape. The solution is to convert the text to a pure shape rendering, which prevents further editing of it as text, but forces it to render exactly as designed. All that is now done. If you're no longer interested, no problem -- just let me know. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Mike, I completely forgot. Tomorrow, I promise. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries; it's a favour, so there was no obligation. I doubt you need my prose skills but I'd be glad to copyedit or review something of yours if you ever need a review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I may or may not need your prose skills, as you may or may not need mine, but four eyes are almost always better than two. What I'll almost certainly need though are your reviewing skills, as I'm thinking about working on a few more historic computers like the LEO. And Filetab has been long on my list of things to do; I still have my programming card from the NCC dated November 1974. And then of course there's all those witches ... in short, I can offer no expert knowledge of sf magazines, but I can say whether or not I understand an article and whether or not it engages me, as can you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a deal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your comments at Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1 which helped in the process of getting this article to FA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm very glad to hear that you made it, congratulations. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The livers of dogs
If you could find time to have a peak at Far Eastern Party for me, it would be much appreciated. It's a bit of an epic, but I think it's a story that benefits from a fairly detailed telling. I can't claim to be an authority on old computers, but as ever if you need a hand in return I'm always available. Thanks, Apterygial  talk 10:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's getting late here now, but I'll try and take a look tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Apterygial  talk 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus...
...would you mind taking a gander at the prose in the Iranian Embassy siege article? I don't think there are any serious issues, but I'd like to take it to FAC in the near future and it could do with a once over. Y'know I'd appreciate it! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of Arrival in London starts off by talking about seven men, but by the end one's been lost and we're down to six. I've got a couple of other questions as well, where would you like me to post them? Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Milhist A-class review would make sense, to keep things together. Thanks for taking a look. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't help but note that there were two supports at that A-class review even though the article was confused about how many hostage-takers there actually were. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I wrote the bloody thing and didn't realise I was contradicting myself! I tend to think of A-class as a good way of getting feedback before I take something to FAC and it usually catches most things that would likely be an issue at FAC. Btw, this edit summary made me laugh. It suddenly made me picture somebody saying "you're not an adjective; NO HYPHEN FOR YOU!" Thanks again for your help, you're the best. But you knew that already. ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those non-adjectives can get ideas above their station. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Feologild/GA1
Am I wrong in thinking this is something I need to take to GAR? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The only justification for a quick-fail could be that the reviewer believes that some major aspects of the subject haven't been covered. But given that your article is about five times the length of the ODNB entry, and that nothing very much seems to be known about Feologild I don't buy that. So yes, I'd take this to GAR if I were you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll try the diplomatic approach on the reviewer's talk page first, see if that resolves the issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you're done whacking commas on the witch-bishop, so I can duck in and do my adjustments. I'm in hiding from the heat - the heat index is 40C right now and heading towards 46.1C or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I should be done later this evening. It's about 15°C here now, feels slightly chilly but not unpleasant. 46°C is unreal. Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well. Apparantly I'm awful at research because there are apparantly "He is known in historic sources under many other names which are not mentioned here. Searching for documentation under these names provides additional detail that can be incorporated into this article." Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw that, extraordinary really. Wikipedia is a strange and discouraging place. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I'm pretty much done worrying about it. The only reason I'm nominating these more obscure archbishops at GA is to eventually go for a Good Topic with some of the chronological sections of the ABCs. I've replied again, and we'll leave it at that. Maybe eventually I'll renom him. (I do have to contrast that review with Talk:Bregowine/GA1, where we're not working with much more information but I have an experienced reviewer who has a grasp on what "broad coverage" really means.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not exactly GAN's finest hour. Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * I'll do what I can to review a few more FACs and GANs Quadell. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Colonists" stepping up
Not to nag, but there are certainly items related to British history in the US National Archives, especially related to conflicts and treaties. Give it a go. :-) In fact, the National Archives' Rubenstein Magna Carta is one of the most famous exemplifications (and now I am somewhat surprised that there are no individual articles on any of the exemplifications, considering how noteworthy several are in their own right...). Dominic·t 03:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Our colonial history is certainly an important topic, and it certainly deserves better coverage, but I'm sure there are others more qualified to undertake the big tasks than me. I prefer to build from the bottom, rather than optimistically trying to pile bricks on top of clouds. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Request
I know you are not always in the mood to review, but I am trying to get as broad a range of opinions on Richard Nixon, presently at PR here before FAC for obvious reasons. I'll take whatever you are able to give.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems like a pretty substantial piece of work, I hope someone will do something similar for Maggie one day. I've got a few other things yet to do today, but I'll try and look in later. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's been in the work for a while, often delayed, finally got off the ground a couple of months ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

heart and mind

 * In my heart, I am exactly as you are: I want to tell various eejits to go stuff themselves (I am NOT thinking of anyone in particular here!!! I am NOT referring to recent threads!!). in fact, I often do just that, alas... In my mind, I concede defeat: we must find a way to harness the enthusiasm of the Cookie Crew, and at worst, we must find a way to redirect that energy into productive channels rather than PITA ones. My heart and mind are conflicted, but I think my mind is winning...  – Ling.Nut 03:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're both losing, the grey goo is everywhere. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

FAR citation styles
Hi

I think I might be misinterpreting criterion 2c from the FAC.

I took it to mean that either footnotes or Harvard should be used in an article, not both. The problem is how I see the usage. The article I am having difficulty with uses

I thought that these were incorrect, as they had commas and were a Harvard style ref, but it seems I may be mistaken. Any chance you can clarify with links to other discussions or your own experience? (I have already been pointed to Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 10)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly OK, a lot of editors don't like the citation templates and prefer to format manually. Ealdgyth does it somewhat like that, see Gerard (archbishop of York) for instance. I'd prefer to see either the year or the title included in the citation, as in "Owen 1983, p. 3", or as Ealdgyth does it, but so long as the style is consistent and there's no ambiguity as to what "Sammon, p. 211" is referring to there's no problem. The important point is that the citations all have a logical and consistent style, however that's achieved. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I also had to query my use of a couple of templates, at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles, as I was uncertain as to how best to link the pages to the ref. - something I am still unsure of. It seems silly to have 30 refs to the same book listed separately under "References" when it is just the page numbers that are different. I started using the {{rp template but have run into a couple of instances where editors feel they are no good, or even detrimental. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer the shortened refs format .. see WP:CITESHORT. That way you only repeat the huge bibliographical stuff in one spot at the bottom, but are able to specify exact page numbers. You can either do or or Besides the examples above that Malleus mentioned, you can also see Maximian or Richard Hawes. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not that fond myself of the {{tl|rp}} style of citations, but I can understand that some prefer it, and I've got no problem with that. One thing you have to learn Chaosdruid is that whatever you do here there will be someone jumping up and down shouting that you've done it wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * AKAIK there are 6 ways to give page numbers for books or long journal articles:
 * etc. forces readers to search manually for the work. IMO that's horrible.
 * {{rp|n}} has the risk that the ref name and the page number(s) are split by a careless editor.
 * Using different refs for different parts of the same work. Becomes unusable for both editors and readers if there many parts of the same work.
 * Cite with {{tl|r}}, where each use of {{tl|r}} links to a citation and also shows a page number (range) in the main text. Disadvantage: shows page number (range) in the main text. Advantage: gets the reader to the work in 1 click rather than 2.
 * {{tl|Harv}} etc. Advantage: does not show page number (range) in the main text. Disadvantage: gets the reader to the work in 2 clicks rather than 1,and 2 more clicks back to the text; (I think) equivalent of a ref name= appears after the 1st click, and can be as long and obscure.
 * {{tl|sfn}} etc. Advantage: does not show page number (range) in the main text; sorts page numbers in the same work so that each group of refs to the name page(s) appear as {{sup|abcdef...}}, as in the output of  - while AFAIK {{tl|Harv}} does not sort and group page numbers, and you get a longer list of "refs". Disadvantage: gets the reader to the work in 2 clicks rather than 1,and 2 more clicks back to the text; equivalent of a ref name= appears after the 1st click, and can be as long and obscure.
 * Are there other choices? --Philcha (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS If you want realistic examples, I used Cite with {{tl|r}} at e.g. Phaeacius and {{tl|sfn}} at Robert Rossen. --Philcha (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS I current use Cite with {{tl|r}}, as IMO the page numbers in the main text are not obstructive and this method uses fewer clicks; YYMV. This method also plays nicely with the basic , which is most editors learn first, and avoids a mixing of citation methods, which Cite does not like. --Philcha (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

 * Just in time for your holiday, that's a stroke of luck! :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger
As one of the opposers of the first nomination, do you think Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger is ready to be re-nominated for feature article on July 30? --Boycool (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Featured article candidates/Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger/archive2 for a list of some of the improvements on the article. --Boycool (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I wouldn't rush back to FAC with this if I were you, I still don't think it's quite ready. One of the big problems was the Plot section, which although it's now been improved, is still barely comprehensible to someone who's never seen the series. There seem to be some errors of fact as well, for instance; "based on the misconception that the CIA forced her father (Timothy Dalton), an MI6 scientist, to upload a government computer called the Intersect to his brain". You can't upload a computer anywhere, it's programs that are uploaded. Take some time to look through the whole thing again before re-nominating,, else I fear it'll just be failed again. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you tell some parts of the plot you found particularly confusing? --Boycool (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't find it confusing, I found it incomprehensible. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huff... What parts of the plot did you find difficult to comprehend? --Boycool (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, how do you upload a computer into someone's brain? Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The Intersect was, at one point in the series, a computer, but it was the program within "uploaded" to the character's brain. What else?
 * Look, this is your article, not mine. You asked me if you should nominate it again tomorrow and I've offered you my opinion. I have neither the time nor the inclination to help with copyediting, which would be a substantial task IMO. There are other things I want to spend time on. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should give straight answers, instead of ambiguous hints. If you wanted me to leave, all you had to do was say so. --Boycool (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should work on the articles that interest you, and allow me to work on the articles that interest me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When you continue to act like such a dick about this, it makes one wonder why you reviewed the nomination in the first place. --Boycool (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think gives you the right to come to my talk page and abuse me? I don't get paid for this, and I am most definitely not your fucking slave. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick look
Hi Malleus. I've provided a bit of suggestions for the CVTC article. Would you mind checking out the lead and telling me just how much more work the context problems need, for the nominator's sake?  ceran  thor 19:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a quick, five-minute glance would be appreciated.  ceran  thor 19:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this the Cliff article referred to above? Where are your comments? Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Belay that, I've found them. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It would certainly be a good start to address the points you raise, some of which I brought up in the FAC. There's basically too much of an assumption of background knowledge in the Plot section that most of us don't have. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what I assumed was the problem. I think the context has been improved quite a bit by the new addition to the lead, and that a lot of the problems now are just with fine-tuning the prose. Thanks.  ceran  thor 20:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal
Hi Malleus Fatuorum, I enjoyed reviewing that article, it was quick easy to do (I usually have two browser tabs open: one with the article on and one with the /GA1 page). Some DKYer had caused strong irritation at the time, so I had four browser tabs open, with venom on one (not your two by the way). Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for taking it on, it's not the most glamorous of subjects. I usually end up with three or four tabs open per review, the extra one or two being Google Books and/or an online source that's been cited. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. As I didn't write all of the article I've listed it for CorenBot to take a look at, something we should probably consider doing for all GANs. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm currently reviewing Nibiru collision at /GA3 so I've asked VM to suggest 10-minutes worth of Duplication detector checks just to see what can be done in that tiem frame. Yes, I see Manchester Ship Canal waiting to be done at Corenbot - I will look at that with interest (not that I expect to find intentional matches). I've done a fair number of geo/place articles, so I suspect that some of them might appear at User:Volunteer Marek/GA copyvio spot checking with copyvios. I do try and check verification but I'm not too good at finding my own errors (other peoples' are far easier to see): and at GAN backlog drives things tend to slip through. Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We can each only do what we can Pyrotec. What I'm finding interesting is the emphasis on the reviewers who didn't spot these copyright violations, as opposed to the editors who introduced them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

GA question
I nominated Chester A. Arthur for GA and another user who had worked on it with me started the review. I told him that it was meant to be reviewed by someone who was uninvolved, so he blanked it, but the page still exists. Are there any admins associated with the GA project who could delete it for me? I thought at first that you were one, but your userpage disabused me of the notion. Thanks, --Coemgenus (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do it.  ceran  thor 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You must be the only person on Wikipedia who thinks I'm an administrator Coemgenus. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
I was surprised just now to see that your new pages are not "autopatrolled". I'd be glad to change that. Shall I? Lady  of  Shalott  00:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but no thanks. I refuse to have any right that can be taken away capriciously by any individual. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. If you ever change your mind, you can hit me up. Lady  of  Shalott  01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I won't be changing my mind. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Got it. Lady  of  Shalott  01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hey. I have been watching the edits to Mavis. You really are improving it and I need to learn from someone. I have always stuggled to make prose concise. I have a request, which is, can we forget our previous conflict of interest. I actually want to work with you and come away from this review, having learnt how to better my writing. If you have any advice or tips, I'd be happy to hear them. I think a select people on here do not like to ask for the help and just see criticism as an attack. So I'd like to turn into something constructive, because you are older and wiser, I need to learn more. Rain the One  BAM 13:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, water under the bridge. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Salvě! Malleus Fatuorum. Do you wish to do some last minute tweaks to Manchester Ship Canal before I start? Pyrotec (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm about to go to the library to pick up a book that'll allow me to add a sentence or two to the history section about Manchester Corporation giving up its controlling seats on the board of the ship canal company in the mid-1980s, but that's it, so please feel free to start whenever you're ready. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The comment I made on Mavis Wilton's GA review, it wasnt anyhting mean, so you dont need to stab me in the back ;( Mayhem  Mario  19:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't stabbed you anywhere. You asked a question and I answered it. That you may not like the answer is no concern of mine. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I know you havent stabbed me anywhere (duhhh.....) . Look I just thouyght the answer was a bit harsh and mean, so personally I did not like it. Would you? Mayhem  Mario  19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I'd stuck my nose in with the kind of unhelpful comment you made then I'd just have to take it, as you do. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's get something straight here. I've spent a lot of time copyediting Mavis when I could simply have failed it. I've asked for second opinions when I could simply have failed it. What have you done exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Malleus, soaps-related articles can be a nightmare, as I found at Talk:Steph Cunningham/GA1. Your patience is extraordinary. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mario no need to try and "stick up for me" - He's been great with the copy edit. When I do my next big contrib, all the edits I'm observing atm will be in my mind. Like with the Steph one, Frickative really helped me improve things, where writing is concerned. Malleus - would you coaching me sometime, I need concise writing skills. Rain the One  BAM 12:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Lever Brothers is a particular example that's in need of improvement. William Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme is slightly better, though far from perfect. He looks a bit crazed in the picture. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I will look at the outstanding issues tomorrow. I've been out but I have felt like saying for days that... I could kiss you! Eek, that attitude is allowed with your super edits!! I wish everyone could be as clear as you!  Rain the One  BAM 23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruby2010
Hello there Malleus, I don't mean to be probing, but was this really necessary? I'm not going to throw a Wikipedia civility link at you because I know for a fact that you've read it and understand everything on it, but really that sort of thing is just uncalled for. We're working towards an encyclopedia together, let's not fight. Thanks.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 01:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just who the Hell do you think you are to come whining to me about your sanctimonious civility claptrap? Was it necessary? Very few things are ever "necessary". Was it helpful? Well, it was if the dickhead keeps out of my face in future. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you issued a similar warning to your friend for this? No, of course you haven't, because like many others here you can't tell your arse from your elbow. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one has appointed me God, I have not acted in a godly way, I was just trying to get you to ask yourself whether that was the best thing to say... but I guess I wasn't listened to. I'm sorry to say that I've put a note about you on ANI. Please believe that I really take no pleasure in it, you seem like a very competent editor.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 02:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have at it. With any luck you'll find yourself blocked for being tendentious, childish, disruptive, and unbelievably sanctimonious. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A block for personal attacks is far more customary. Please stop them.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 02:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't begin to imagine why you might believe that I have even the slightest interest in what you think Cheesy. Go enjoy your "reluctant" ANI report; what will be will be. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

<--Hey Malleus, at least you seem like a competent editor--that's already half as good as being one, and no one's ever paid me that compliment. For the record, let me add that I think that you smell like a competent editor. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I decided to ignore that very obvious slight from the faux heroic cheesykid. While continuing to find it strange that so many complain about what they themselves are at least equally guilty of. Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It really wasn't a slight. I was trying to sneak in a compliment, I've seen you around and thought only good things of you until today.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 02:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thecheesykid, Malleus is a very competent editor. He's quite blunt, but people value his contributions. I just don't understand why you would make a report to ANI if you truly value his contributions as well. Do you really think his comments are that out of line?  ceran  thor 02:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 02:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If your intention is to rile me even more then just carry on posting here. The results may not be pretty, but don't say that you weren't warned. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Butting in - Cheesykid let me try to explain: someone submitted a page to FAC that still needs work; that editor is having a hard time listening to the suggestions being offered. Malleus is often extremely patient and helpful, but at some point any sane person has to pull the plug. He reached that point. You'd do better trying to help your friend (?) figure out what needs to be done to make the page FAC worthy. I tried to read it and became confused after the first few sentences, but I don't know the show. Try rewriting for an audience who's never seen the show and is basically stupid. Give it time and elbow grease. That's my suggestion - oh and leave Malleus alone. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Malleus, I apologize for posting. I should have foreseen that reply.  ceran  thor 02:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing for you to apologise for Ceranthor, but TK is quite right. I'll help to the point of hopelessness sometimes, but other times a few eggs need to be broken. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's now got to the point where I can set my watch by the monthly "mummy, mummy, Malleus said a BAD WORD thread. As my people say, "oy gevalt" :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the cheesy one ragequit. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? That's such a shame, Wikipedia really does need more prissy arseholes like him. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The admin equivalent of Echelon is watching... Parrot of Doom 23:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * beeeeep beeeeep beeeeep* Oh, my popcorn is ready. Hold on.... Okay, go! Lara  13:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are only subject to one of these a month, might we see one on Monday, or are you clear until 30 August?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess we can always stir some dramah before then if we get bored. Quick, somebody poke Malleus with a stick! Then we can complain and pretend we didn't know what would happen. Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I should be flattered I guess...? Tanthalas39 was the last person to do a copy too. How unbelievably egocentric of me to make this thread about me, and even more so to comment on the fact that I have just done so, and make this post even more longer and prominent.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably just me being dense, but I don't understand any of that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose Cas is referring to the resemblance between his userpage and Ruby's. Ucucha 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is, if you're the sort of person who hangs out on people's userpages?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I should not really butt in here, but I feel I have too. Just realise that behind the bluntness... is a genius. I am hot headed, but even I can see Mallues is someone who has the best interests of an article. Rain the One  BAM 00:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The caloric value of what was just slathered on would feed a Somalian province for a week. ;) --Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never understood why some people get so agitated when you tell them a few home truths. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Raintheone, if possible I'd really like to close this review in my lifetime. Would you have any objection to me commenting out the couple of unattributed quotations in the Storylines section? I realise that plot sections in general don't need to be sourced, as the series/novel/whatever is its own source, but I make an exception to that guideline for quotations. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure Malleus. Go right ahead. I think a lot of the storyline section was left present from before I edited the article. I hate storylines - to be fair I would much prefer them not to be there anyway. People in general, love nothing more than writing an acount of what any said character did in the previous week of episodes. Rain the One  BAM 03:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dates
Hi, another greasy-pole-climbing child here. (I've been called worse.) Congratulations on your patience with the Mavis article. I saw that a lot of work had gone into it, and thought I'd help; but the quotidian subject matter meant that I ran out of patience even more quickly than I usually do. You're made of much sterner stuff.

One little question, though. Among your edits, I kept seeing such transformations as from "26 May 2011" to "26&amp;nbsp;May 2011". This puzzled me. I have no problem with


 * Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem 26
 * May 2011 accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam

"26" doesn't look lost without "May"; "May" doesn't look lost without "26". Indeed, on the (dodgy) assumption that the lengths of that pair of lines are more or less balanced (which of course would depend on your particular choice of font), I prefer that pair to


 * Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem
 * 26 May 2011 accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam

Why lock date with month? -- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Because I like to keep the number and the thing it's the number of together. Consider the example of "The theatre was closed by the authorities on 10 ..." What are you expecting to see after the number? A date? But it could equally well be "The theatre was closed by the authorities on 10 separate occasions". Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * True, but I thought that this was why God gave Man the glorious gift of the following line. If this mystery is too great for it not to be solved within the same line, then, well, how about these others:
 * "The theatre was closed by the authorities on ..."
 * time(s) or safety concerns?
 * "The theatre was closed by ..."
 * authorities, management, earthquake damage, something else?
 * "The theatre was ..."
 * closed, renowned, resplendent after recent restoration? -- Hoary (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer to keep numbers and units together; you may of course prefer something else. "The theatre was ..." sets up no similar expectation that seeing a number does. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

 * I think it's probably me that should be certified, not the article. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)