User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2012/April

Thanks
Thanks for the copyedits to Brothers Grimm. It was a sprint, I had a very busy week at work, and honestly reached the point where I needed to step away before I could see errors. So thanks for stepping in - it's very much appreciated. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'm in awe of what you guys have achieved in the Core Contest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's quite a compliment, thanks a lot. I'm quite in awe of the other articles, so I guess it's been a success. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Roger Norreis
I think you'd like this guy... and especially his nickname... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(mutters)
Why did I bother? Apparantly actually using a talk page or conforming to the citation style in use is too much trouble... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you're talking about Middle Ages? Big articles like that are almost always too much trouble; even many of the little ones are. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Middle Ages. I guess it's too much bother to actually use the talk page... The thing is ... I worked hard to incorporate as much as possible of the previous wording ... when I could find support in teh sources for the information (and when it wasn't undue weight) but... it looks like it's easier to just edit war your own preferred version in and damn the improvements to the referencing or anything like that... that's for someone else to worry about. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've often agonised over trying to preserve whatever was there before I started serious work on an article, particularly when the referencing is dodgey or non-existent, but it's often easier just to start again. That's why I doubt I'll ever do what you've tried to do with this one; life's too short. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is little that can be done that won't kill the GAR. I think that Biondo refers to Flavio Biondo. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What GAR? Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he means GAN. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your attention is appreciated
Dear Malleus, I understand that you're the best reader and writer around, and a nice human being to boot. Would you, or any of your friends here, care to have a look at De zwarte met het witte hart? There may be matters of style that I don't see (should it be an English title?). Also, I cannot upload a cover image (as an IP), and I do not know if the original or the one from the English translation would be appropriate. Can one of you all maybe do me that favour? Thank you all very much. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Try User:Ucucha for this one if you haven't already. As far as I know, he's the only Wikipedia regular who is both familiar with Wikipedia custom-and-practice at the high end of the quality assessment scales, and also a fluent Dutch speaker. 188.29.152.50 (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Malleus for your edits. IP 188.29.152.50, I thank you for the suggestion but judging from his edits on the Dutch Wikipedia Ucucha is not Dutch--he's from Friesland, so Dutch is a foreign language for him. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How's that? I've created a redirect for the English title, but I think it would be better to rename the article with the English title and redirect from the Dutch. A sad story. Depending on what you decide the title should be (Dutch or English), then upload the respective cover page. I'm pretty sure that User:Drmies is a Dutch speaker if that's important, which I don't see that it is in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Drive by thanks from the random bystander who happened to have yanked it from AfC space: Thanks Malleus! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What's AFC space? Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for creation. A way (the only way maybe?) for IP editors to create articles. Martijn moved it into article space. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, another of Wikipedia's dusty corners I had no idea existed. How the Hell do IP editors find it? Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, actually. I'll log off and see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you type a page name into the search box as an IP editor, and the page doesn't exist, you get the message: The page "Silver backed flying chipmunk" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably IP editors can't rename articles either, so assuming that 66.168.247.159 doesn't object I think that the article ought to be renamed to its English title and redirected from its Dutch title? I'm not even sure I'm allowed to do that though. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, he can't move the page. I believe you'd be able to, since the target is a redirect with only 1 edit in the history, but if not, ping an admin; that's what we're for (well, that, and blocking you for looking at us the wrong way). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm so used to finding things I can't do here that I just tend to assume I can't do anything. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I love these little articles; Wikipedia needs lots more of them. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's really nice and I do appreciate your work. Yes, IP editors can't create or move, unfortunately, and AfC is totally backed up. What sucks is that I added the title to a few articles but since it wasn't created yet it was a red link; I hope no overzealous New Page Patrollers undid those edits (I have two IPs, as you can see in the article). Alpha Quadrant has helped me before with an article and a DidYouKnow so I went to his talk page, and then to another editor, and then I saw that Martijn Hoekstra was in the office. Last time I looked there was a backlog of 168 articles. I don't know if Chzz is still working in that area; I think he's another editor who got disappointed with the process. So it goes. Thank you all for your assistance: not everyone cares for IPs. Oh, Malleus: please do what you think is best with the article title. You have all these Featured Articles; you know what's proper. Thanks again. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do, and I already moved it, even without your permission. ;-) If you've got an image of the cover page of the English edition you'd like to upload then email it to me and I'll upload it for you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. Now I know what AFC is, please feel free to ping me to move any other articles you write into mainspace, unless that's something that only administrators can do. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can do it for just about any page, Malleus. The only restriction we peons have in moving pages is that we can't move pages to an already existing title unless it's just a redirect with a trivial edit history (to avoid losing attributions, of course). AFC is actually an interesting area to browse around every once in a while because you often find some little gems, and a bit of encouragement can sometimes lead to us gaining another good editor. --RexxS (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not for me then, as the consensus within the WMF as expressed at my recent ArbCom case is that I drive new editors away. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's easily fixed. We'll just get a new WMF. Problem solved and you can go back to encouraging new editors again. It's not fair on the youngsters to be denied your inspiration just because somebody came to a daft conclusion in an ArbCom case - again. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Malleus et alii, I have another one for you, this one not nearly as exciting, I'm afraid: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libris Prize. That page tells me there is a backlog of 269 articles waiting to be reviewed... I think mine is good to go, though; there isn't much to it anyway, just a Dutch literary award. Oh, again I am not entirely sure about the title: "Libris Prize" is used in a few WP articles (I got it from Arthur Japin), but the literal translation is "Libris Literature Award". Thank you all very much. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I accepted the submission and moved the page into article space as Libris Prize. If you think Libris Literature Award would be a better title, just let me know and I'll move it there and leave a redirect for folks searching on the current title. Happy Editing! --RexxS (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you RexxS. If you could make the redirect for Libris Literature Award to point to Libris Prize I'd appreciate it. By the way, I noticed that there's a Libris Award also, a Canadian award. If you want to bump up your "Articles created" count...I can't write it since I don't care for Canadian literatue, unless we re-categorise Malcolm Lowry. Thanks again. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect done in passing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda Arendt, that is very kind of you. One more request and then I'll leave you all in peace: please create Category:Libris Prize winners, with the text "Winners of the Libris Prize, a Dutch literary award" and the categories Category:Writers by award and Category:Dutch literary awards. Thank you so much. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Category created. There's a certain pure joy in collaboration, and this thread is a charming vignette to that theme. I must admit that I've no interest in any count bumping, but I'm sure there's a talk page watcher who has an interest in Canadian literature and so it continues ... Many thanks to Malleus for hosting these conversations. May your archives never overflow! --RexxS (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I once had a dream
My dream was that just like Jean Luc Picard on the Enterprise we would all be able to ask our computer questions like "Who is Edmund Sharpe?

It may seem like a small trigger, but the fuss over Jim Hawkins has convinced me that Wikipedia will never be what I thought I'd signed up to. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That show exists in a setting where they have matter-energy conversion technology and go around in spaceships powered by nuclear reactions with the ease as we do with burning oil. That is, it's way advanced from what have now. Wikipedia is to that computer like the Model T car is to warp drive. And having warp drive centuries in the future wouldn't justify running people over with cars now. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of us aren't still driving around in Model T Fords though, and my patience has worn thin with those who still (metaphorically, as I love old cars) are. Particularly if they're Californians. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But if you type "Who is Edmund Sharpe?" into Google, you get this: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Who+is+Edmund+Sharpe%3F - the Wikpedia biography first, followed by the list of his architectural works. I can get decent voice recognition from the Opera browser sometimes, and considering that a friend of mine who only has one-sixth vision can control his entire PC with "Dragon Naturally Speaking", I'd suggest we're a lot closer to Jean Luc's experience than you might think. --RexxS (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's hope so. I visited a visually impaired sister of a friend a few months ago, and she invited me to use use her computer to book us in for lunch at a local restaurant. I was amazed at the speed at which she could hear with her browser software! Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What DID you think you signed onto, Malleus? ;-) An escape from human nature? Dreamer! Montanabw (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
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. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else think that Jim Hawkins is just out for a bit of Streisand-like publicity? Parrot of Doom 10:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Jim Hawkins Ltd- a commercial vehicle for the marketing of his abilities and personality. Note the section on JH Ltd's website for his personality. Ning-ning (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that the BBC, no less, tells us "He loves riding his bike and playing guitar, and is also a keen photographer ... You can also hear Jim on Saturdays, weaving a web of eclectic music from 6pm .... Text during the show: 81333 and start your message with shrop." Note Malleus. that's "shrop" not "strop". But, um, not sure I feel like adding that info to his article just at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I sure as Hell don't, I'm sick to death of him and his pusillanimous cronies. Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That must count as progress in some quarters, surely. All we need now is for dear Jim to play a classic album track request or three, for his dedicated wiki followers, on his Shropshire home show. I often drive my taxi to Shrewsbury, just to listen. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

All Saints' Church, Shuart, anyone...?
Hello Malleus – I wonder, would you fancy having a look at another article for a non-existent church for me? I worked it up over the last couple of weeks and made it live yesterday. No-one else has looked at it yet (that I know of), so I'm wondering if it's the right shape, covers the right sort of stuff, or is even any good. If it passes muster, obviously it would be nice to have it as a GA, so I'd appreciate any opinions...! Trusting you're well, Nortonius (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What was that report criticizing FA writers for producing articles on bullshit topics that only dogs and geeks would be interested in? This looks like another one of those--well-written, on a historically relevant topic, with proper references and all. Congratulations Nortonius, but don't let the Foundation know. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Next stop FA as far as I'm concerned. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha! You're too kind! :o) I've seen your edits, and they're just the kind of thing I was looking for – a fresh pair of eyes, etc. –  but I'm very touched by your comments, they've made my day, cheers! :o) Nortonius (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anglo-Saxon...you know you're in a dying industry, right? Best to shift toward business and professional writing, or maybe the cultural history of . Thanks, BTW. I try not to impose too much in terms of punctuation. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not too bothered about being in a dying industry with Anglo-Saxons, they've been around a hell of a lot longer than me, and will be long after I'm gone! Somehow, the alternative doesn't appeal too much, but thanks for the advice. ;o) Punctuation's a funny thing sometimes, and I appreciate both your changes and your efforts not to change too much! Nortonius (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "... the division of the Isle of Thanet into two eastern and western parts in the 7th century". That can't be quite right; surely there weren't two eastern and western parts but two parts, one eastern and the other western? Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "... these parts of the church were connected by a recessed passageway". What parts? The chancel and the nave? Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's yes to both – thanks! I'll have a tinker... Nortonius (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you're busy, I'll leave it alone for now, in that case! :o) Nortonius (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nearly done, but here's another: "But by 1723 the settlement was a matter of historical record". I don't think that's quite what you mean to say. Only a matter of historical record perhaps?
 * Yes, sort of: there's no settlement any more, just a nice farmhouse! Maybe the sentence needs re-writing...? Perhaps it could just say that the settlement had disappeared leaving only the "good farm house", or something? Nortonius (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd probably say something like "the settlement was a matter of historical record only". But over to you now, I'm done. Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When visiting Prof. Malleus (Tarc: this position still needs to be confirmed), be prepared to take the medicine. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Always – I'm quaffing mine now! [hic] Nortonius (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I may join you. Another nice article BTW. I'm amazed what you can find to write about something that doesn't exist. You may even inspire me to see what I can dig up on Malkin Tower. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's fabulous Malleus, thanks so much! I'll see if you've left me anything to do. ;o) I suppose I've just spent too much of my life trying to penetrate the murk, must be something wrong with me! Senra doesn't seem to be around (hope he's ok, he said something about real life issues back in February...), so I might be touting for a GAN reviewer ere long...! Nortonius (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever you like. Obviously I haven't checked the article against all the GA criteria, but I'd be very surprised to find it wasn't a walk in the park. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're on! I've got nothing better to do right now, apart from to continue taking my medicine! ;o) Hmm, what section to list a GAN under, though: places? I can't see anywhere more suitable, unless it's just that the medicine's working already... Nortonius (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd list it under Art and architecture. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll do that now, and keep an eye out for you! Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm about to pop out for some essential supplies now (wink, wink, say no more) before the shops shut, so I'll pick it up later. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Art and architecture for sure Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod. 'Tis done – fortunately I already have supplies, probably more than is wise! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, the GA review is done, just a few little things for you to iron out, or persuade me that I'm wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why but I love reading British articles on British topics. It's always so green and old. I want to go to Kent now. By the way, Malleus, I hope you didn't mind my dropping comments on the GA review; it didn't occur to me until too late that this wasn't a free-for-all FA. Obviously this article has my full support, and all my comments are minor. Speaking of articles, ehhh, I wrote another one...Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frida Vogels...and that meanie Jasper Deng won't move it... 66.168.247.159 (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it's their quaintness? ;-) Your comments are very welcome, and you made a few good points. Some people have the wrong idea about GAN; any editor is free to voice an opinion, just like at FAC. The only convention is that the reviewer opening the review makes the final decision whether or not to list the article. Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found it strangely satisfying ferreting out info on this deserted place, as I did with the related and similar Reculver: green, old and pretty much forgotten! Maybe something to do with faded glory... I've responded and commented at Talk:All Saints' Church, Shuart/GA1, and made related changes to the article, plus some further changes that occurred to me along the way – when you're ready! :o) Nortonius (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why won't Jasper move it? Seems fine to me. Malleus Fatuorum 04:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on this subject, and therefore am not good at assessing notability here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a buzzard after my own heart 66.168.247.159, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone asks for an SPI on us. I'm going to move your new article into mainspace. Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ... Or I would if I had even the faintest idea of how AFC works. Click what "accept button"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's tricky; if the article's ready for publishing, simply move it to the mainspace, no accept button necessary. The hard part is when a rejection occurs...--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just done that and removed the AFC tag. But where's that accept button? Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I've heard of, unless you're using a script of some sort...--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just quoting from the instructions for accepting an article, which make no sense at all. But I think everything's OK now? Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now it's time to WP:G6 the created redirects. I'll do some of that for you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I realise I left a trail of redirects behind me trying to get my head around what was going on. Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * [ec] I've never seen an 'accept' button, Malleus. Maybe you can give it another go? Try it with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Rosenboom. Jasper, here's a consideration: click on the references to see if the name is mentioned and if the reference is indeed in something that has an article. Then click on Libris Prize. You win a 50,000 Euro prize in the Netherlands, you're automatically notable. It's not that hard. Malleus, Frida doesn't have a talk page yet, and I need to put a translation template up there before the GFDL cops come knocking on my door. You know, Moonriddengirl and her troupe of leather-clad, long-legged women. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just a person whose notability assessment ability is very confined... I don't think there will be licensing problems there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CWW. Rosenboom and Vogels are translations of parts of the Dutch article, plus added references and text derived from those references. But attribution is mandatory. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There's an "accept" button if you install the script located here. It's a bit like Twinkle for AfC, there's an accept, a decline etc, with pre-made reasons and stuff. I'm personally a big fan of AfC, it really gives new editors a chance to work at their drafts and learn about various policies etc as they go, instead of them creating a bad stub and having it instantly CSD tagged. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 04:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'll try that out tomorrow. AFC looks like a very good idea; strange I'd never heard of it until yesterday. Malleus Fatuorum 04:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea! There's often a lot of submissions that will never be passed, for notability reasons, but some just need working on and the users taught about sources and neutrality etc. I'm not sure how long it's been around for, not that long that I know of. My familiarity with it comes from hanging out in the IRC help channel. There's a link to that channel in a few places around AfC so most of the people popping in are looking for advice with their submissions. They're usually very determined to get the submissions accepted, so very willing to read all the links to sourcing guidelines etc. I think it's a really good way to improve and filter the new articles coming into Wikipedia. ..I think I'm done singing its praises now, heh. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 05:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to have buggered up moving Thomas Rosenboom from AFC. Can you sort it out, or does it need an administrator? I thought I'd got my head round it, but obviously I was deceiving myself. Malleus Fatuorum 05:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've gone ahead and G6'd those redirects.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A kind admin fixed the Thomas Rosenboom page. Just forgot to remove the "Articles for Creation/" prefix, I think? Anyway, all fixed now. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 05:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a fair swap - MF turns my plodding prose into poetic er... poetry, and I do the occasional admin-related favour for him (delete his accidental redirects, block his enemies, protect his articles in his favourite version, etc...) BencherliteTalk 05:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the script that OohBunnies drew my attention to will ease your burden in cleaning up after me. Malleus Fatuorum 05:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If only there was a script that would ease your burden in cleaning up what I write! BencherliteTalk 05:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you all, again. Bencherlite, your name triggers the word "Belcher" in my brain, for which I apologize. Malleus, I don't think I care for this Rosenboom dude, but I am going to get my hands on Vogels' trilogy. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

why I read ...
puss ... poossa ... pussel ... ... pusillanimous .... whew! Great word!!! — Ched : ?  21:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a good word. I'm also quite fond of "ineluctable", which I probably overuse. Strangely though I don't think I've ever used either of those words in speech, only in writing. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

GA for All Saints'!
Thanks so much Malleus, I was busy answering a question from 207.157.121.92 and didn't even notice you'd already given it GA! The medicine must've worked then...! I'll be off in a bit as a mate's coming over with more BEER, but I'll be sure to offer a toast to you! :D Nortonius (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've run out of medicine, time for another trip to the shops. Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. Don't be afraid to drop by any time you've got another article on a non-existent church. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've had my medicine for tonight, feeling quite chipper by my standards thanks in no small part to you! I'd be rubbing my hands with glee and cackling ominously, but I don't have another non-existent church up my sleeve right now! I wonder... ;o) Nortonius (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Block party for Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Salvio has announced he's going to block me, after the usual searching discussion at ANI by the usual suspects, some of whom sighed that they had wished I had learned from my RfC and my two previous blocks....

Scottywong chastised me at Design of experiments, explaining to me that "we repeat reliable sources but don't need to be experts"---this, after I removed unsourced material from the lede (that had many problems).

Nice knowing you! :)

You all are too good for this place.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Apart from those "usual suspects" there doesn't seem to be much support for a block. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was in a foul mood 2-4 April over the ridiculous Peter Orno. Am I such a shallow person that I really cared about 10 thousand more readers and possible media coverage...? Yes---but not Yes (band) or Yes (band) album covers or---"my masterpiece"---~Category:Yes (band) Yes Album album covers, which does serve a purpose  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see I spoke too soon. Ah well, enjoy your break. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

South Stoneham House
Thanks hugely for your review of this article and for the substantial clean-up job you carried out to the article itself. I've now responded to all your comments at Talk:South Stoneham House/GA1 - there are still some things I need to address by going away and finding some more sources, but I'd appreciate it if you could check you're happy with the things I've marked as done. Thanks again, waggers (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm quite happy with what you've addressed so far. The only thing holding us up now is that Interior section. Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

 * How...ironic.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? Are you saying that Malleus's opinions don't matter, or that Steven shouldn't be trying to identify why Wikipedia's dispute resolution process aren't working? – iridescent 2  15:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just happen to find it ironic.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way? Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It just happens to hit my sense of irony, in part I suspect because of the dove graphic. Nothing more. Actually, I do hope that there are some useful outcomes from such a survey.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Interestingly and quite appropriately the dove is flying out of the image. Which is entirely consistent with my own experiences at venues like ArbCom and AN/I, where the main agenda seems to be to punish and exact vengeance in pursuit of some long-standing vendetta or other. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just how the image was rotated. If I had placed it on the left side of the message, it'd have been flying into it. Purely unintentional, but a little ironic. I've offered the survey to around 1,100 people (with another 800 to be offered depending on response rate) so I do hope some decent responses come out of the survey. Early results look good, this was exactly why I wanted to survey the community. I'd appreciate your input on the survey Malleus, as I would appreciate everyone's comments. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 00:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could just rotate it back. Anyway, I've completed the survey for whatever that may be worth. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 02:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Proper English
Hey Mal, I've been pondering an English situation that I've seen mentioned several times on Wiki. I recently ran across an article I thought would be a good example to ask about. Yes (band); the first sentence: Yes are an English rock band who achieved worldwide success with their progressive,... My question revolves around the use of "is" vs. "are". Now, my own personal thought is this. "Yes are an English rock band..." simply feels awkward to me. Now I grew up with a mother who was an American grade school English teacher, so perhaps that has some influence on my views here. My thought is that "Yes" as a collective group is a singular entity, and the word "is" should be used. If the sentence were along the lines of "The members of Yes are such and such" .. then I agree with the use of the "are", but as it is, "is" feels more comfortable to me. I've been told that there are different views on proper English between British vs. American speech, and I wanted to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks. — Ched : ?  16:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to chime in on this one, but as I recall under British English "are" is correct because in this instance the band is viewed as a collective, and thus plural, entity. In U.S. English we tend to view the band as a singular entity, hence the use of "is." I agree that to U.S. ears it does sound awkward, but I've had enough experience with the British use to recognize the difference. And if I'm wrong, I'm sure Malleus will smack me upside the head with a cricket bat.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Either could be correct, so long as it's used consistently. The same issue crops up frequently with football (soccer) teams, which it's common to refer to as plural here: "Manchester United have won the Premier League title 19 times" for instance. But it starts to look a bit awkward when later the same article says something like "the club is ...", as the "the club are" is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
 * The strict rule is the one you'd apply to a decision made by your local council: was the decision made by the council or the members of the council? If the former, as it would usually be, then "the council has decided ..." would be correct. To put another perspective on it, would you say "the family owed its wealth" or "the family owed their wealth"? The distinction there is that in the latter case the family's wealth is distributed among the members of the family, rather in some central pot. So, to come back to your example of Yes, it depends on whether you're talking about a conglomeration of the individual members of the band, or the band as a corporate entity so to speak, and in your specific example you could probably plausibly argue for either. My slight preference would be to consider "Yes" to be a corporate entity, and in that case singular, but as I said, the trick is to be consistent throughout the article whichever side of the argument you come down on. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The real trick is not to worry about it, as somebody will eventually "fix" the issue for you. A minute's quick browse reveals a slight lack of consistency within and among our articles:
 * Genesis are an English rock band ... The band currently consists ... Genesis (band)
 * Blind Faith was an English blues-rock band ... Blind Faith
 * Family were an English rock band ... Family (band)
 * Malleus is absolutely right about whether we are thinking about several individuals or a corporate entity to decide between plural and singular. Of course, anything that depends on context will inevitably been seen in different ways by different folks. Diversity is good. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for the clarification(s). 28bytes also pointed me to WP:PLURALS and WP:ENGVAR.  I probably should have searched through the mounds of MOS stuff first, but I was looking for a quick reply.  And I agree that consistency is the key here - but like Diogenes, I suppose I better fill up my lamp and not count on it.   As cynical as I've gotten though, I do enjoy it when I learn something new here - and once again, that's what just happened.  cheers. — Ched :  ?  20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Prenatal Care in the United States
My name is Allyssa Abacan, a student from Rice University. I see that you have done a number of edits to the article Prenatal care in the United States.

I am writing this article for a course.

I would love to hear your feedback so I can improve my writing and editing skills in the Wiki format for this particular article. Any feedback or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Allyssa.abacan (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll have a proper read through later today or tomorrow and leave any observations I may have on your talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppet
Mr. Malleus, your love for ferrets has gotten the better of you: User:Larrythefunkyferret? 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging only by a quick look at the user page, it doesn't strike me that Larry resembles you in the least. It's not that surprising to find more than one ferret-lover on Wikipedia, is it? Lady  of  Shalott  02:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno: "This user is an out of control renegade editor who's thought of by some Wikiprojects as a...loose cannon." But it's definitely not me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And wouldn't say that I love ferrets exactly, any more than I'd say that I love cats or dogs. I love individual ferrets, cats, or dogs, but ferrets have many unappreciated good qualities, and they've had a consistently bad press for far too long. They're domesticated animals and they deserve our respect and friendship. So if anyone visits they have to be prepared for the possibility that they'll be kissed and licked by little furry animals with big teeth, which they might previously have thought of as being nasty, bitey, and smelly. Seems to have worked so far, as there's tumbleweed blowing down the drive now. :lol:  Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "nasty, bitey, and smelly" sounds like a lot of the Recent Change Patrollers that ran into me recently. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ferrets smell truly weird, like a jar of honey that's been fermenting in an "off" way in an open container in the middle of a summer day. How else do you describe it? Doc   talk  03:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not spent any time around ferrets, though I suspect I'd enjoy changing that. You're right that that the description you quote could be applicable to you - I was thinking more in terms of editing interests. In any case, I think 66 was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the socking accusation, and if not, well, I'd enjoy seeing the response of the SPI clerk who turns down the case.  Lady  of  Shalott  03:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a bit, yes. However, I wasn't kidding about the patrollers. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How they smell depends on their reproductive state, which will obviously vary throughout the year. Intact males can smell pretty rank when they're in season, but neutered ferrets don't really smell of anything except their bedding; our first ferret spent so much time sitting in my wife's lap that he smelt of her perfume. In general though I'd say that ferrets have a "biscuity" smell, and the darker ones a very slight smell of chocolate. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I must have smelled too many of the males: the last "business" of ferrets (I looked it up '>) that I encountered was a group of six in Maine, mixed males and females (half of them "albino"). Only one of them was "bitey", BTW, and she'd sneak up on the unsuspecting. Nice animals, nothing bad to say about them. I haven't found a good replacement for a nice loyal cat though. Doc   talk  03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with you there. I had a beautiful black cat I'll never forget. She was passionately in love with me, and me with her. Whenever I was packing to go away on business she'd try and get in my suitcase, and she'd mope until I came home again. I was devastated when she had to make that final trip to the vet, couldn't stop crying. Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a dog that's getting old. I don't enjoy looking ahead. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I had noted....
Yes, I noted you'd held of commenting at the RFA (I was waiting for it!), and as ever you're being consistent. No arguments from me at all. Best. Pedro : Chat  08:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

1740 Batavia massacre
Hi Malleus, it looks like (for better or for worse) Featured article candidates/Chrisye/archive1 will close within a week. I was thinking of putting 1740 Batavia massacre (an A-class article) through FAC next, but the prose could probably using a little polishing. Last time user Dank opposed due to prose issues. I'd appreciate if you could look at the article and let me know if anything is unclear for someone unversed in Indonesian history, as well as put it in accordance with British English standards (I'm not a native BrE speaker, but CaE). If you could help that would be greatly appreciated! Also, thanks for the help with Chrisye Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're a real glutton for punishment. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh geez, just saw the below thread. Well, hope you don't quit for good... seems several editors rely on you to ensure they don't rape and pillage the Queen's English Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Tidying up
I applied for Highbeam access here, so could someone please remove my application. Same goes for my JSTOR application here.

Also, I have an open GA review for South Stoneham House, so if someone would take that over it would be good. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * HighBeam & JSTOR applications removed per request. Nobody Ent 03:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Malleus. Could I suggest that you take a breather and not do anything precipitate in the heat of today's events? Your editing and insight are an inspiration to many, and WP will be rendered a poorer (and more difficult) place by your absence. In a few weeks, today's events will seem dim (as already the recent arbcom stuff does); and while I'm not suggesting you'll laugh at them, I am suggesting that they will have faded to obscurity—especially when dwarfed by the many other wonderful editing activities that I know you enjoy performing. When I feel overwhelmed by WP events, I rejuvenate by retiring to a quite corner and working on articles that I know were the reason I was drawn to WP. Far be it for me to suggest anything along those lines (and at the risk of obvious and gratuitous plugging), but there are pretty much any number of Handelian articles that would benefit from your skilful assistance. Of course, once you've made a clean spot in those parts, the paucity of quality in the other parts will be all the more obvious—but at least a standard will be set that will be a joy to others to follow. Best wishes and here's hoping for your continued involvement at WP. GFHandel &#9836; 00:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @GFHandel: I've been expecting this kind of thing ever since the ArbCom case ended. And now it's happened it's the end for Malleus unless Courcelles falls on his sword ... which is of course just about as likely as the Sun failing to rise tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All I'm suggesting is that you take a little time before the end. In a couple of weeks I'm certain that you'll see rays of light peaking out from the gloom. GFHandel &#9836; 01:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I won't. I knew this would happen, and I won't be posting here again. Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * IIRC, Giano is very knowledgeable in architecture related articles. Would you like me to ask him to have a look? — Ched :  ?  00:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * He hasn't edited since early February. Nev1 (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you think he might be willing to take a look if I emailed him? I've seen some of his work, but don't recall ever really interacting with him directly. I know he and Malleus have chatted a time or two, that's why I thought he might consider it. — Ched :  ?  00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd just let it go and not pull in Giano. Either Malleus comes back or he doesn't; time will tell. As someone who's suffered greatly from baiting in the past months, but hasn't responded, all this block does is show that baiting is sanctioned and that editors who are baited should suck it up. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The note Giano left on his talk page suggests he wouldn't be inclined to come back. I suppose there's no harm in asking though. Nev1 (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * C'mon Malleus, don't take this so seriously. Go treat yourself to something you deserve and shrug off the crap. It's your contributions that will endure here, not the crap. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, crap. I hope you reconsider, Malleus. :( Lady  of  Shalott  02:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia would be absolutely the right thing to do for your sanity and self-respect. If you stay here the game of "let's poke Malleus" will just continue. It's not like things are all that great in the project anyway. Arbcom values unctuous dissimulation over honesty and is dominated by personality politics, as those in a position to know will confirm. The WMF won't be satisfied until that fellow Arnie down at the pub can write an article about how to rebuild a carburettor to run on goat urine without being annoyed by editors trying to enforce those silly guidelines and standards. And on and on. So cut your losses and move on with life. I wish you well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well yes... if you believe, like Iridescent seems to, that the bureaucratic system here wields ultimate power, then psychologically you'll box yourself into a corner like the one he described. On Wikipedia, content editors have built a world where apparatchik-types have moved in and try to take over. We need a few skilled bureaucrats, but we don't need lots of unskilled apparatchiks. These could be removed to the net benefit of Wikipedia, except that for every apparatchik removed, there are ten more apparatchik-types stumbling over themselves to replace them. Including 12-year olds. Still, over time the ineptitude of the Wikipedia bureaucracy will all but vanish from the memory of the world, while the contributions of Malleus and kindred editors will endure. The small number of proper content contributors still willing to work here matters. There are no replacements waiting in the wings for editors like Malleus. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it was Aldous Huxley who said that you only need 20% of the people to change an organization. If 20% of admins and users decided to make significant changes to Wikipedia, they would, inevitably, occur. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Geez Malleus, you shouldn't up and quit. Sh*t happens, and sometimes the people we put on pedestals (such as yourself) end up the target of rocks thrown by those left on the ground (or under it, in certain cases). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * exegisti monumentum aere perennius, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not bad, but I suggest carpe cervisiam fits Malleus better. --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope Epipelagic will forgive the slight paraphrasing, but I thought this nailed the truth so well it deserved to be on a statue or something: Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?...
Otherwise known as ... wish you weren't leaving, but totally understand. Thought you'd like to see this, so you know that at least something awaits you if you return ...Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ealdgyth, the work you do here is gob-smacking, but that one and the Middle Ages is gob-smackingly gob-smacking. I see that I'm unblocked now, but it's too late as far as I'm concerned. Unless I see some heads on spikes I won't be contributing here again. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please excuse me while I barge onto your talkpage...
Though I understand completely why you might feel the need to leave having recently left an unaffiliated project under similar circumstances myself, I must say, this is a shame. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have found many of your comments in discussions to be highly amusing, as you have a tendency to get to the point in an often very tactless manner whilst still getting there so much more effectively than more civil folks... I'm not really going anywhere with this, but... but while I don't disagree that some action was in order and that perhaps a departure (at least for a time) may indeed be for the best, you're lovely and horrible and... and I'll miss you. *hugs Malleus*  — Isarra ༆ 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I forgot, you hate barnstars--this kitten is sure to keep you away... Hey, hope to see you again. Maybe I'll come look you up in the UK someday. I noticed you helped an IP out with getting articles up in mainspace: that's precisely why we need people like you, people who can write, who know WP, and who aren't assholes.

Drmies (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC) 


 * Second the feeling. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Easter
 You decide, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Malleus, this comment is almost exactly what your admonishment in the Civility Enforcement case was telling you not to do. Edit warring to keep it there is doubly bad. You're blocked for 72 hours. You know that was a personal attack, and we've had an entire Arbcom case whose cause was mostly your personal attacks, so you know this wasn't right. If you had just left the removal, I might not have blocked you, but at this point, I feel it is necessary. Courcelles 18:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That really is the final straw, and thoroughly dishonest of you to leave the personal attack to which I was responding. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No request from User:Ianmacm to remove it, no request from anyone else to remove it? Just a 72 hour block over a couple of reverts. Wow. Pedro : Chat  18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a request to remove it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So I just noticed from the ANI threrad, and was coming here to ammend my comments. My mistake. Pedro : Chat  18:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I expected this kind of thing to happen after administrators were emboldened by the ArbCom case, so it's now obviously time for Malleus to hang up his boots. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would, IMO, be a great loss. But I can also understand and appreciate your reasons for hanging up the boots.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This was not a good idea, Courcelles. My take on the situation is that Malleus was bated into this exchange by a user who supported a topic ban of MF and proceeded to impugn his motives and make snide remarks like "There are 3+ million others where your universally admired talent and wit are most welcome." MF has had a great red target painted on his back now—he posts strong opinions, as any of us are entitled to, and admins sit around with their fingers over the block button waiting for some doofus to show up and stir the pot until Malleus makes a comment. Unfair, and unwarranted. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Two broad points, I blocked after noticing the request for removal had been removed from this page, and the edit warring as continuing. Second, Mal, I voted against site banning you in that case. I think you're a very useful contributor to this project, whose positive contributions outweigh the occasional personal attack. If I had to cast that vote again, I'd vote the same way. But this particular incident was a good illustration of what you were admonished nt to do, and having declined to remove it, and edit warring to keep it in, a block was, in my opinion, necessary. Courcelles 18:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh ffs... WP really does give me the creeps sometimes. No wonder I (mostly) stick to editing "bullshit" articles no-one wants to read. Nortonius (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Bad block. After the ArbCom case Malleus is expected to take abuse and yet not be baited, but if he reacts to it he gets blocked? Great respect for you Courcelles and all that, but this was not a fair or even-handed action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Laser Brain and Boing, but completely fair and warranted. Could you, perhaps, show me the part of WP:NPA where it says "Give back twice as good as you get?" No, you cannot, because the policy clearly states that editors are not to respond to personal attacks in kind, and being "baited" is never a valid excuse. In a first-week newbie, such a gaffe is understandable. In a six-year editor with over a hundred thousand edits, it isn't. Especially given the recent admonishment, either MF is incapable of understanding the civility rules or he just doesn't care to follow them. To quote from a famous sporting incident, "The time for probation or leniency is past. Whether this type of conduct is the product of temperamental instability or willful defiance of the authority in the games does not matter. It is a type of conduct which cannot be tolerated by any player - star or otherwise." There's some parallel to that here.   Ravenswing   19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the point is ... if you block someone for responding to baiting badly, shouldn't you also ... do something about the bad behavior of baiting? Being a jerk but never quite going over the edge of a personal attack is just about as bad as responding to baiting, quite honestly. What's good for the goose... is good for the gander. If we want to improve civility, we need to police baiting also .. it's just as incivil in my book. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a "bollocks" to your "au contraire": sports have laws, WP has "policy" which the playground makes up and implements as it goes along. To quote the Bard of Billericay, "You can go to hell with your 'Well well well oh oh!'" Nortonius (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What a terrible block. Courcelles, what were you thinking? Did you even see what he was responding to? And you left that, without blocking the editor? 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep Ealdgyth, that's exactly my point. If a child complains that a dog bit him, and you learn that the child had been poking the dog with a stick, do you beat the dog? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan defends being the one to report Malleus at ANI on the grounds that his tantrums are OK because he withdraws their intemperate opinions when asked. Whereas Malleus, as in this instance, stands by his own opinions without trying to worm his way out of trouble. I can respect a man who shows strength of character. Writegeist (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus was blocked before I even reported him. I am irrelevant in this situation. I rather not get involved here, but as you have mentioned me, IMO - I stand by my insult is not something that deserves respect. You  really  can  19:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but you see one can always avoid a baiting charge by claiming to be misunderstood, ill, new, and so on. Something like "I didn't really mean to wind up and kick you in the nuts. I lost control of my foot. It was a muscle spasm. I'm not responsible for that action. But if you kick me back, you're in trouble." Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * When things like this happen, I'm ashamed to be part of this community. Anthony is perfectly capable of looking after himself, and I very much doubt he would want this attack on Malleus. Blocks like these, sanctioned by this silly system, are the worst form of personal attack, lack of civility, and lack of basic sanity. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Nortonius (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not going to opine on this block (I have a very clear stance on the subject being discussed, it's easy enough to find if you like), but I will say that you could do without the buzzword-laden lines above. Instead of talking about "blocks like these... are the worst form of personal attack" and raging against "the system" (whatever that is, I certainly don't know of one), could we keep it to the specific problem that's in front of us here and now?  We're not going to revolutionize "the system" on this page, that's a discussion for somewhere else; all that can be done here is to resolve the specific problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The block is fine. It's definitely not assuming good faith to comment on someone's brain function and/or existence.  It really doesn't matter what precipitated it.  These types of comments generally limit people's contributions to the main pages they are attached to and can cause them to leave wikipedia.  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny...I tend to be more turned off by the unchallenged baiting behavior. But I guess everyone has their own limits and triggers. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The solution is to reverse this bad block. One of the things that I hoped might come out of the ArbCom case was a bit more support for Malleus when he's being baited by others, but sadly things seem to be continuing in the same old one-sided way. Someone hits him, he hits back, he gets blocked - and that is wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the block is reversed doesn't really matter any more. This is exactly what I expected the ultimate outcome of that recent ArbCom show trial to be: as Laser Brain says, to paint a big red target on my back. Anyone can say anything they like about or to me, but I get blocked if I reply in kind. To address Eqazcion's dishonesty below (why am I not surprised to see that he considers this a good block?), Courcelle only warned Anthonycole (and hardly "sternly") after he'd been prodded to do so, which is completely unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's why baiting continues and (to quote Equazcoin) "generally does go unrecognized too often." It's too easy to evade any charge of baiting, and those with passive-aggressive behaviors are usually very good at it (and are equally good at the "What? Me? I'm just misunderstood" defense, IMO). Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree, though not with any implication that the response is then unworthy of sanctions merely because it was the result of baiting. The nature of baiting is that it is intended to provoke a punishable response, and while that action in itself should be admonished more often than it currently is, Malleus tends to take such bait rather gladly as an excuse to provide said punishable response, when it is anything but. Both actions need to be admonished separately, and have in this case (despite the warning to Anthony coming in late, which was regrettable as Courcelles did acknowledge, though that shouldn't negate the quality of the block).  Equazcion  ( talk )  22:25, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, no. Wikipedia does not do punishment, only prevention - at least, that's the way we're supposed to work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I could do a search/replace but the content of my comment would still stand. Given the user history involved here, the action/sanction/preventative measure/etc was preventative.  Equazcion  ( talk )  22:43, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
 * The block is good, IMO, and I think Ravenswing's description above pretty well sums it up. Addressing the baiting is also important though, and I think baiting generally does go unrecognized too often. The complaints above that the baiting warranted just as much of a block are still a little off though: Had both users' histories been comparable, a block for both sides would've been warranted. As it stands Anthonyhcole‎ has been given a stern warning, which I think is more or less a proportionate response given his relative lack of experience and past warnings regarding civility issues (at least as far as I'm aware) as compared to Malleus'.  Equazcion  ( talk )  20:51, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)


 * Rubbish block, in my opinion. I was going to ask if you wanted to help me take another neglected article on a polarising figure in British politics to a better state. Oh well, it'll have to wait. Sorry. --John (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Courcelles can help? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "this comment is almost exactly what your admonishment in the Civility Enforcement case was telling you not to do." Really? And what about "Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective." I don't see any evidence of Courcelles trying to do anything to sort out this little spat before hitting the block button. Richerman ''   (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish another solution could have been found here. I've noticed how hard Malleus has been working to not antagonize people, to be more friendly with folks, and to avoid situations like this.  I could almost sense a change of some sort after the case and the meetup he attended - and I thought it was great.  Sure, I've seen him get blocked for much flimsier reasons, but I would have preferred to see discussion rather than blocking.  At least there's a time limit on the block - but I won't be surprised if this pushes Malleus further away from our project; and I think that would be a HUGE loss to Wikipedia.  It always saddens me when someone comes in and baits another editor into a terse response - then walks away without getting the same results handed to them in turn.   Sure, it's not nice when someone questions the gray-matter available to an editor - but really, how pleasant is to to get called a "brat" who should go play in another sandbox?  I just wish there were consistent standards applied to one and all throughout the entire project, but I imagine that is simply a pipe-dream.  Malleus, I hope you have great weather there to enjoy a weekend in real life. As always - best, — Ched :  ?  00:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * He was baited by being called a "brat" in this case, and there doesn't appear to be any question about that. And his response was not nearly along the lines of what the ArbCom case was about (the dreaded "c" word) - it was more of a "traditional" Malleus response when he is challenged. Pretty tame, actually. If Malleus said something like that to me (and he has in the past, and vice-versa), I would not consider it a personal attack to be reported, or a statement to be removed by another editor; but rather something to be brushed off and ignored at the worst. Now, if I had said something designed to bait him and elicit a negative response from him, I would naturally have to expect... a negative response from him. I speak from experience ;> No one likes their comments being removed, I think, and that seems to me to be the reason he kept reinserting it, though edit warring could be construed. Meh. It's not a personal attack worthy of a three-day block, and it could even be reduced to "time served". With all due respect to Courcelles (and I do respect them). Jus' me opinion. Doc   talk  01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * yea Doc, I agree. While I have a lot of respect for Courcelles, the more I look at the situation and the history of the other editor - the more I think this block was a mistake.  I think when two people disagree like that, you either let them hash it out, go their separate ways, or intervene equally on both sides.  To block Mal, and simply give AC a "don't do that again" warning I think is not right. — Ched :  ?  03:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We're not children. Blocking people for this kind of bollocks is....well, bollocks tbh. Parrot of Doom 19:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked! It is an Easter miracle. GFHandel &#9836; 22:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Spot on PoD, all it does is encourage "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" and righteous indignation from the busybody faction. Blocking should be for vandals.J3Mrs (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're exactly right J3Mrs. It's about time we abjured the block button for editors who have demonstrated their commitment to our encyclopedia, as anything other than a very last resort. I've seen this project slide downhill in the four years that I've edited, and most of that descent has been through loss of good contributors because of attitudes that don't accept adults need to be treated as adults. If Courcelles has somehow concluded that the best way of dealing with an exchange of insults is to make one of the participants sit in the naughty corner for 3 days, he has even less grasp of human psychology that I originally thought - and we're now trusting him to make decisions at our last resort of dispute resolution. We found out years ago that such treatment didn't yield the desired results with children, so what chance with an intelligent 60-odd year old? Malleus has sufficient life experience and project experience to understand if someone should suggest he backs away from responding to an insult. But instead of talking and making time for him, we get instant escalation by someone else brusquely removing his comment. Why? How does that ever help? Malleus, I hope you don't decide to walk away from a project that is (despite it all) still worthwhile, and from those of us who want to work to make the environment here less toxic. I still hope I'll be able to buy you a beer at the next meetup. --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, too, Ralph. Jack Merridew 23:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And the admin involved has posted saying he will be requesting his admin rights removed after doing so. Which was exactly the wheel warring arbcom advised admins not to do.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  22:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WHEEL: "Reinstating a reverted action ("Wheel warring"). When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision." Steve's action was not wheel-warring. That policy is the accepted meaning of the term on Wikipedia, and either EW needs to read the definition or ArbCom does. I'll just remind folks that ArbCom fiat does not make policy, the community does. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the admin involved needs to read it as it was him who said it was wheel warring in the diff provided. Anyway this will probably end up back at Arbcom one way or another. It's a never ending cycle Malleus is stuck in rather unfortunately. Edinburgh   Wanderer  22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything admins tell you :D --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I screwed that up somewhat. If it wasn't wheel-warring in practice, it was at least in spirit. Steve  T • C 23:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Before anyone with their finger on the trigger thinks to reinstate the block, I'll only say that it wasn't my intention to escalate the issue. I've stated my reasons here, and I hope you read them before taking any action. It may be a petty ideological point, but screw it; it was worth making anyway. All the best, Steve  T • C 22:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Terima kasih. Jack Merridew 22:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Where was the block notification template on this page (with the reason for the block, and the mechanism to request an unblock)? GFHandel &#9836; 07:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * None was given; however, Malleus has in the past stated that "no respected editor would ever appeal a block" or something along those lines.-- Gilderien Talk|Contribs 11:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I can understand why, really. It's a bit of a shaming procedure that some think established editors shouldn't have to go through - as established editors shouldn't be blocked without prior discussion etc. If you've been around as long as someone like Malleus has, you really don't want to update a template to catch the eye of a passing admin who must then review it all and pass judgement on you. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 11:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please come back
Someone just gave up their adminship for you. I think that warrants you coming back. You are one of a greatest content contributors and we don't want to lose you. I know we haven't had the best interactions in the past, so you should know that, this coming from me, means I really do care. Silver seren C 23:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to respond to what Steve's done, which is quite extraordinarily principled; I hope I would have had the integrity to do the same. The fact is though that while arseholes like Courcelles are in charge here I have no further interest in the project. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's rubbish Malleus. What makes you think Courcelles is "in charge". He's only in charge of a block tool which he doesn't seem to know how to use wisely. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The day I can block Courcelles is maybe the day I'll start to think about taking that comment seriously. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well yes, that's the core issue, the great smelly underbelly of Wikipedia. Inappropriate people, in their hundreds, have been given rights to block the able adult content editors, treating them like children and on the same level as vandals. It is demeaning to be a content editor now. You and Anthony can't even banter without some vulgar busybody intervention. The huge number of entrenched admins now means they block any attempt to roll back, or even discuss, the absurd powers they wield. And now the wrong admin has fallen on his sword. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sitting here watching a pair of chaffinches trying to get through my window, banging their little beaks against the glass. Must be a bit like the way you feel, from their point of view (damned annoying from mine...). All the other birds just get on with their lives - even the long-tailed tits who tried it a couple of years ago. Unlike these daft chaffinches, you've got intelligence. A lot of the time, I disagree with you (and you probably disagree with me), but I think you are needed - both for disagreement and content. I'd create more articles if I could think of things to write about - as it is I 'contribute' content by rescuing things from tags and/or stirring people up into sorting them, and negatively by removing dross. Go if you feel you must - I don't know all the ins and outs, but I'm surprised and disappointed. Peridon (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You do know that User:Courcelles is open to recall, if consensus can be shown that there is disagreement over any recent administrative decision, right? I may not have seen eye to eye with Malleus in the past, but He is definitely not in the wrong this time. The victim should not be the one getting the shit kicked out of him, and I admire Steve for having the balls to do what he's done. I agree wholeheartedly with Epipelagic that the wrong admin has gone, and maybe right now, the right admin needs to go.  BarkingFish  17:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think Malleus was one of the "pillars" of WP (he hasn't "gone off in a huff" as a certain editor has described it, he's just had enough, and I know the feeling); admin Steve I'd never heard of before, but his quality is shown by his actions. It would be good to see a degree of balance here, and I've seen enough to know how I would vote on Courcelles' behaviour as an admin in this fiasco, should it be called for. IMHO his action has precipitated an entirely foreseeable weakening of the content side of WP totally out of proportion with Malleus' actions and, as things stand, this weakening looks to be permanent. This should not go without remedy. Nortonius (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Head on spike or falling on sword. I've always been fairly positive regarding Courcelles, and may have even voted for him in the ArbCom elections, but in my opinion this block is wholly unjustified and he has obviously failed to take into account any of the circumstances that led to the exchange. I also became aware of Malleus relatively recently, after the ArbCom case, and it saddens me that I never got to know this obviously great, victimised yet resilient british editor; it may now be too late. (However I don't see anywhere that says Courcelles is open to recall?)-- Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gilderien, please see User:Courcelles/Recall for the terms of recall - although failing our meeting any of the terms of the recall here, a call for Courcelles to be desysopped wouldn't go amiss. This is one of the few situations I've seen here where an admin has managed to damage my respect for the administrative staff of this site.    BarkingFish  21:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to be one of the six supporting Wikipedians for the recall. Drop me a line if you do it. Silver  seren C 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, Silver and Barts1a. BarkingFish  00:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to ask you to come back, I feel that to do so would be an insult to you. If you do, you do. If you don't you don't. I'll respect which ever decision you make. We've shared words and you know where I stand... I wished you could have developed a little more restraint... but on a whole I thought you were a net asset to the project. One of the bigger assets it had. If you are gone for good, I wish you the best in whatever you choose to do now.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 04:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you believe in predestination?
Well, this whole incident was foreordained about 2 months ago when Arbcom issued its findings in the civility case. I for one am not surprised at the actions leading up to the block, the block, or the subsequent responses.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, if you were banned from commenting on the main forums and in turn admins were banned from blocking you and banned from coming here to scold you, would you think that a reasonable compromise? I also find a lot of the things some people say on forums such as ANI and the village pump highly irritating which is why I generally tend to avoid them. One cannot completely edit wikipedia without coming across people we consider complete assholes but there's certainly ways in which we can adapt to minimize the wikidrama. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Amen to that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a retired tag at the top of the page, discussions on various corners of Wikipedia, and it's Easter. Let's just let it go and leave the man alone. If he decides to return, he should return without anyone suggesting he needs a leash imo. And, Malleus, thanks for all your help and best to you. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no... my post was in relation to the WHOLE situation... Malleus, the baiters, and the blockers... not just MF. If anybody is surprised that we are here, then I have property they could buy... the ArbCOM resolution didn't do anything to avoid this outcome.  It just delayed it.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't go. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd never thought I would say this; but Malleus, don't let the bastards get you down. There are a lot of them in life. That's what I think. ;-) Jaguar   (talk)  18:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry
First, I mean no disrespect to your "retired" tag; but I felt a need to say a few things. Second, I'm not even going to drift into the "please stay" area; you are a wise adult that does what they need to do in real life. OK - now getting to what I wanted to say. You obviously have a ton of people who will stick up for you and who admire you. I've been on the Internet for a very long time, and it's been very seldom that I've run across such an honest person. Your integrity, honesty, and dedication to this project simply amaze me Malleus. I'll say outright that I consider you the very most prolific editor that I am aware of here. To be honest, I guess at heart I am a bit arrogant - I try to make up for that in being accepting and understanding of others, but I do tend to think rather highly of myself as a person. Now, having said that - there are a few people that I tend to look up to. Some family members, the personas that John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, or Steve McQueen have presented, and a few strong leaders our history has enjoyed. (JFK, Churchill, Gandi, etc.). There have been a few times I've caught a glimpse of your heart. A comment about how much you love your wife - or how much you cared about a cat you once had. Absolutely amazing. What all this is getting to is this: There's damn few people that I look up to as an example of who and what I should be - you are one of those very few. That I would feel that way about a person that I have never met (and likely never will meet), confounds me. I guess I just wanted to say thank you for the inspiration you have been to me. Not just in a wiki sense - but in real life. You are a very strong person person Mal. A true leader. That carries a lot of baggage with it. It has to be very hard and exhausting to continually stand up for what is right. It's hard for me to even imagine what you've gone through emotionally; and that's just here on WP. The fact that you are not an admin. is one of the biggest travesties I can think of here. I just wanted to say thank you. Not just for the explicit help you've given me in editing, but for being who you are as a person to look up to. I'll likely never achieve the standards that you adhere to .. but I will continue to try. With all my heartfelt respect - I wish you the very best in life. I hope I'll see more of you in one incarnation or another. — Ched : ?  20:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for you
Yet again, you were right. This is what happens when someone puts a "Feel free to poke the tigers! Then we can sell tickets to watch them being shot!" banner up at the zoo. Deliberate baiting should get a default week-long block for starters; that might make people less inclined to do it. When will anyone ever see the benefit of emergency blocks for baiting? Pesky (talk ) 09:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think they ever will, because baiters can always hide behind the "assume good faith" clause. When called out, they can simply hide behind that and claim to be victims of a bully or something similar. Granted there are bullies out there, but the existence of passive-aggressive "professional baiters" is something that people don't seem to want to acknowledge.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't baiting, I'm not a bully and I'm not passive aggressive. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason for you to be on the page of an editor who is taking a break after you tried to have him topic banned and then baited him into an exchange that got him blocked? I think not—please disengage and stop posting here. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony's not the villian here, and I don't think Malleus has any problem with him --Epipelagic (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, I wasn't talking about AC specifically. I was replying to Pesky's comment about emergency blocks for baiting. Baiting is an issue, even if it may not apply to this specific case.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony, apologies if I mischaracterised you. I'm just shocked that the response was considered blockworthy, seeing what whistles right on by without causing the slightest flutter in the dovecote, in WikiLand.  Pesky  (talk ) 19:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony, I think I also mentioned the b-word ("baiting") somewhere, and I probably said something about one party being blocked but not the other. I fell for the oldest partisan falsehood, that if one is unjustly punished then the other one must have been wrong. This was not correct; my apologies for jumping to conclusions like too many editors and admins did in this case. No one should have been blocked, that's clear. Your comments since then in various places are greatly appreciated, and I'm saddened that a discussion, even in strong language, was made to lead to these consequences. MF was right about all those comments he made about the impossibilities of enforcing our NPA policies/guidelines/oukazes. So it goes. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the internalised concept behind the wording which needs to be clarified. If only we could put the concept into clear, unambiguous, "see the light" stuff, and create a Road to Damascus sea-change in the way it's understood; if only we could wave a magic wand so that everyone could suddenly see "Oh, that's how it's supposed to work!", then it would work.  But we have a problem ... the tip of the iceberg of it is on my talk page –  words chain us. The concept is so simple, but so huge.  It's like the sky. Pesky  (talk ) 08:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
This fits in really oddly here at this point, but thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

...continued
I've been watching every single diff on User_talk:Courcelles since Sunday night. I would've given the same suggestion to redact the comment no matter who it had come from. That the first comment came from a sysop was just what it was. I've blocked editors in the past for civility, and I doubtless will do it in the future. However, while watching that page, I decided I would take the nicest of approaches when dealing with civility issues no matter whom it was from because I am trying to diffuse the drama that surrounds a recall. I felt that if I could keep the peace by keeping a light tone without raising to blocks, that the entire event might just blow past without too many hurts, grudges, and resentments. That's why I gave him time to redact it himself. I considered redacting it myself but felt that if it led to an edit war it would cause more drama.--v/r - TP 01:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I think that's all I'll say on the subject too. I've got some P90X to do and I'll be too tired to discuss this afterwards.--v/r - TP 01:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really not interested in excuses, as they solve nothing. The fact is that because this personal attack came from an administrator it was allowed to stand. End of story. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should ignore personal attacks, no matter who they come from. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Were they ignored in this case? What it seems to me is that "personal attacks" are in the eye of the beholder, and those who either are or have the favour of the administrators get away with murder. Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I get blocked on a regular basis for saying things no worse than any administrator says here on a daily basis, so I think you should rein in your neck Baseball Bugs. 02:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should stop saying those things, and you won't get blocked. :) Why should you care what some bigmouthed admin or anyone else says about you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should you or anyone else care what I say about those big-mouthed admins? Malleus Fatuorum 12:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer to that type of question is, "How badly do you want to edit?" What's your priority? Is it more important to you to fight other editors, or is it more important to you to be able to improve wikipedia's contents? You can't control what anyone else says or does. But you can control what you say and do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple. I no longer want to edit Wikipedia at all. It's a disrespectful place that reminds me of nothing more than the American Marine Corps attitude to training; break the recruits' spirit and then rebuild them in the mould of the corps. That may suit some editors, but it's not for me. Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At some point, they will probably take your talk page privileges away here. Maybe you should join Weekly Reader, where they can't touch you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, that's the usual approach to dealing with any dissent here. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly object. I'm an admin, and my dentist always complains that my mouth is very small. I'm furious. Where do I get one of these big mouths from? I've been left out and I'm deeply unhappy. I'm sure it'd hurt my jaws less next time if I had a bigger mouth, next time I need some work done on my pearlies. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Luckily, not all admins are big mouthed. Just some of them. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be a shame if Wikipedia's discourse descended into that of an average online forum, since name-calling rarely advances a debate constructively. I think Wikipedia's pillars and behavioral policies were crafted with avoiding that in mind, keeping the place more adult and maybe even professional, even if there's currently a significant segment of editors who don't see the need.  Equazcion  ( talk )  12:27, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true, as even a moment's thought ought to tell you. What there is, is a significant number of administrators who believe that the rules don't apply to them, only to those they sanction for breaking the rules they don't comply with themselves. The issue and problem has always been about that inequitable enforcement, no matter how many times you and others try to pretend otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 12:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to invoke the "look what they did" and "look what they made me do" arguments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I continue to do no such thing. What I continue to do is to insist that the same rules are applied equitably to everyone; that that seems to be such a foreign concept to so many here tells its own story. Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that there are administrators who break the rules and get away with it. My own block log consists mainly of overturned blocks due to that. I just don't think that's the problem. Part of maintaining an adult atmosphere is not taking others' childish actions as an excuse to respond in kind. It doesn't matter if others "started it". I think people see you doing that deliberately and proudly, and have more of a problem with it than with the odd civility slips that precipitate it.  Equazcion  ( talk )  12:47, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)
 * People see whatever it is that they're looking for, not what's really there; always have and always will. There is absolutely no reason why I should be expected to put up with continual streams of abuse day after day, but get blocked if one day I should snap back at one of my tormentors. Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "People see whatever it is that they're looking for, not what's really there" -- Yes, I'm noticing that.  Equazcion  ( talk )  13:26, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we've said all that there is to say here now. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only you control what you say or don't say. However, having just read those shocking comments Cole posted here earlier today, that's much farther "out there" than you or me on our worst days. Is it just my imagination, or is the wikipedia well getting poisoned worse than usual this year? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey
We hadn't finished discussing that. What I'm driving at there is, it is conceivable that some people are terribly distressed by the existence of a public web page aggregating the story of their life, as told by others.

Whether the subject of the article in question is one of those, I don't know. I do know that only one person on this planet knows how much distress this article is causing him. And it's not you.

Given that, my instinct on that question is that he's more outraged at its existence than hurt. But I can't be sure the outrage isn't masking hurt.

This raises two questions, to what extent should we take into account distress, and how should we respond to a demand for removal. What is our appropriate social-affective response in such cases? What is the socially responsible response? Do we have a social responsibility? I have my own views on these questions. Tarc recently made a proposal on Jimbo's talk page, with regard to this. I'll look for the links when I have a bit more energy.

I'd like to continue this discussion, if you would. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ? Ning-ning (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The answers to the questions you pose are blindingly obvious: if there are plausible grounds for believing that the contents of an article are causing stress then we should examine whether the material has been presented fairly, neutrally, and with appropriate balance. If it has, then the wishes of the subject are irrelevant. In this specific case the subject has basically objected to the existence of an article that he implausibly claims is causing him stress for some reason he is unwilling or unable to explain, but is self-evident -- the contents are not under his sole control. The "socially responsible response" is to ask him either to say what it is in the article that's causing him stress, and when he once again proves incapable of doing that then to explain to him that the subjects of articles don't get to decide whether or not the article should exist. Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That may be policy you're reciting at me but it isn't written in stone. Why should that man have to disclose to you what it is about that article that distresses him? Huh? You see, this is my problem. To quote the subject, it's none of your damn business. And it's none of your damn business judging how much pain the article is causing the man, or whether the content justifies the degree of hurt it's causing him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It may or may not be policy, not the point. Hawkins has no obligation to tell me anything, just as I have no obligation to take his implausible claims seriously. Which I don't. Malleus Fatuorum 13:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Which implausible claims, in general terms, not diffs? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely we've been down this path before? Is there any new ground to be covered here? Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand you. If I knew which implausible claims you were referring to, I wouldn't ask. Are you referring to claims that the article causes him distress? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it is you expect to achieve by prolonging this discussion Anthony. You already succeeded in getting me blocked, so I can only presume that you're trying to repeat the trick. I made my position abundantly clear during the recent AfD, so I'm certain you know perfectly well what I think about this subject and his article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I wasn't sure what you were referring to. And you're mistaken about my motive. I don't want you blocked. I want to challenge your assertion that the wishes of the subject are irrelevant. They're relevant to me. They're relevant to the subject. I bet they're relevant to a lot of people here.

The other question I'd like to discuss is the appropriateness of you editing the article of a subject whom you've described in insulting and gratuitously demeaning terms. My problem with that is that it makes you not a fit and proper person to edit that page. I'm struggling with the obvious self-evidency of that. I see that as an obviously humiliating position to put our subject in. I guess it's the certain social hurt the man will experience, knowing someone who called him what you called him will be writing the article the world goes to to learn about him, that rules you out. So it comes back to the first question, above: to what extent do we take account of distress?

And you won't be blocked for anything you say about me here, at least not by anyone with a brain. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Malleus, excuse me for butting in, I hope you don't mind being TP stalked. But I wanted to say to Anthony - please drop this! FWIW I actually agree with you that it might be better if editors like Malleus with strong views about JH did not edit that article. However this was very thoroughly put to the test in the AN thread I started and was decisively rejected by the community. I'd say that there was a consensus that Malleus' edits were reasonable and there was certainly a majority against any topic ban. I've learned my lesson from the community's decision which was vey clear, even if it was not the decision I would have made. As far as the WP community is concerned, Malleus is both fit and proper. A formal process has been invoked to ban him from the page, and that process failed. We have to respect that; doing otherwise and raising this here again is the equivalent of making a page move request a week after a decisive NO at WP:RM. I do agree with Malleus that JH has been needlessly vague about his reasons for not wanting an article. Indeed, he doesn't have to articulate his reasons but then by the same token we don't have to take any action until he does (and possibly not even then.) For the sake of a quiet life, could you drop this and can we leave Malleus' talk page in peace? No good will come of further poking. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  14:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry? Poking? Baiting? What is this crap? I'm trying to have a serious conversation with Malleus that was rudely interrupted by a trigger-happy admin blocking Malleus mid-sentence. Malleus is perfectly capable of answering for himself here. I don't know who you're patronising more here with that. I'm getting the message that Malleus has no response to the obvious humiliation him editing that man's biography represents. Is humiliation or hurt a likely response to that, Malleus? If you do concede that, what makes it right for you to insult and humiliate him and edit his page? It's a serious, not a rhetorical, question. It's a moral question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm going to take my own advice that this is neither a fruitful argument nor the right place to have it. In other words I will indeed leave it to Malleus himself to respond (or not) and not prolong this further myself. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't have strong views about Hawkins at all, but I do have strong views on the kind of back-door censorship this issue has exposed. Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You may believe whatever you like, but the reason I have nothing further to say to you is that you seem to be unable to understand what you have already been told many times, so there's clearly no point in repeating it for you not to understand again. I note with contempt your suggestion that I am not a "fit and proper person" to edit Hawkins' page, which I had no intention of doing again anyway, topic ban or no. I would simply point out to you that a corollary of your argument is that only members of the BNP are "fit and proper" to edit the article on Nick Griffin for instance; anyone who's expressed disapproval of Griffin's political stance (including incidentally the main editor of that article) ought to be topic banned from it. That just so far off-base I wouldn't even know where to begin with it. I really don't care what Hawkins says about being stressed any more than he cares about me being stressed by this stupidity. Now, please, there's nothing more to be said, and certainly nothing that you or anyone else could possibly say that would change my mind on this issue. Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't see that what you said about him disqualifies you from doing so, morally, but I'm relieved you won't be editing that article. And I'll just reiterate, you have no idea, none, how much distress that article is causing him. It's not relevant to your "argument" (the bald assertion that the wishes of the subject are irrelevant) so I didn't follow up earlier. But before I go, I just want to make sure you hear me. (Personal attack removed) (Personal attack removed)  --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Civility please ... Art LaPella (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * His details are a matter of public record. They do not belong to him and he has no right to restrict their publication.  If he doesn't like that then maybe he should move to North Korea. Parrot of Doom 13:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Malleus - if you feel that I owe you an apology for editing another editors comments on your talk page I will offer one. Had the FU comment been made only at you, then I know you would be capable enough to deal with it; however, the fact that you could not technically "block" also crossed my mind.  The fact that the comment included a "FU all", I felt was over the top and unacceptable.  Feel free to comment openly, honestly, and without restraint what-so-ever on my actions.  I'll not take offense, and I ask any passing admin. to disregard any comments made towards my actions as I am fully aware of what I've opened myself up to here. — Ched :  ?  16:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @ the other folks in this discussion (Kim, Art, PoD, ect.): A thread has been opened here Any input is welcomed. — Ched :  ?  17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing to apologise for Ched, I'm sick to death with this stupid Hawkins issue anyway. After I saw Anthonycole's very fair comments a few days ago I was rather surprised to see him here trying to stoke the fire again, in a clear attempt to have me blocked for responding to his incessant screams for me not to do something I had no intention of doing anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good then. I normally don't go about editing other people's comments on another person's talk page; and just wanted to note that I did indeed do that here.  I have to agree that his motives are suspect.  Perhaps I should have outright blocked but I saw that others were involved and hesitated.  Either way, best to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  18:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries Ched, let someone else take the flak for blocking. I'm racking my brain trying to think if I've ever called for anyone to be blocked, and I don't think I have. My preference has always been either to ignore any bullshit or to respond in kind, which has obviously got me into a lot of trouble in the past, so probably just as well the comments were gone when I checked back here. I really can't ever see me going to AN/I to complain about anything rather than dealing with it myself, so Anthonycole might just have achieved his evident goal if I'd seen what he'd posted. Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Kudos for not taking the bait. Give them nothing but sugar and spice and they will cannibalize themselves. Now get busy and write something! Carrite (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Carrite, that's not funny. See two sections below and read the article, if you haven't yet. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the sugar and spice context, I think that's a typo. He meant to say "caramelize" them/ourselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Humans with any degree of brains are passionate. It's "species-normal" for humans to be passionate.  Sometimes, in our passion, we do things which aren't always that wise.  We all do it. (Yes, me too!  Often, in fact!)  None of us can realistically expect anybody else to be perfect, being perfect isn't human.  Pesky  (talk ) 06:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A Beer for You

 * Malleus, you will of course be getting a genuinely wet beer from me later this month. Bollocks to your semi-retirement, etc: be there whether square, thin as a rake, rotund or whatever. You and I have an agenda all of our own, and that particular sub-meeting requires a 100% quorum. See you near Bootle Street cop shop, 28 April. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest I intended to burn my bridges with Wikipedia, but as you're offering ... Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn shame the beer would end up undrinkable if I sent it by post. Sitush, give him two... one for me... Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I said "Give him one from me", would that come out all wrong? Pesky  (talk ) 09:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Geez, MF is going to end up flat on his back (unless Sitush runs out of money)... Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Donner party
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Donner Party". Thank you. --Jswap (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. So what's it going to be tomorrow? V for Vendetta in the Guy Fawkes article again? Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Or Wife selling. BTW, I noticed your Puritan hierarchy comment below, and I want you to know that I resemble that remark. Incidentally, or not, I was one of the ones who blocked Chrisjnelson, before he got blocked indefinitely--I think it's my only "civility" block so far, and I felt really bad about it until I got his email. Happy days, Malleus--spring is in the air, and there are lots of fun things to do. I'm planting roses this year. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We're planting weeds, or as my wife prefers to call them "wild flowers". It's all to do with the butterflies. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You make me like your wife, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A weed is only a flower in the wrong place. At least, that is what my mother tells me. One of the best anthologies I have ever read was Other Men's Flowers - a compendium allegedly of "soldier's favourites", from an age when Brit schoolkids were somewhat more literate and/or differently spoon-fed in their education. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What!? That title is a redlink. I may perhaps fix it. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps unbelievably, wild flower seeds are now rather expensive; she's spent a fortune on trying to turn our (not very big) back garden into a wild meadow. One of our neighbours has a beautifully manicured garden, so I can't see them being too impressed, but fuck 'em I say; the butterflies are far more more important: "Without the animals, Man's soul would die of loneliness." Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bears broke into my house last year. Probably trying to kill my soul. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the kind of of thing I find amazing about America and Americans. When I visited a friend in San Francisco a few years ago he was complaining about possums(?) coming into his house through the dog flap, and explaining to me how important it was to retrieve the fence posts at the bottom of his back yard after each tremor, to keep the deer(?) out. And an American cousin met his future wife after he was bitten by a poisonous snake and the only antidote available locally was at a summer camp for girls. How lucky was that! My overwhelming impression of America was that it's just like in the movies; you really couldn't make it up. Stuff like that just doesn't happen here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that bear thing was a freak-out for sure. But, what can you do? Bears break into your house. Get them out. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that Wikipedia isn't a site for "How to ..." manuals, but there may be some here who're interested in the best approach to adopt in a similar situation. Do you confront the bears with the seriousness of their crime in the hope that they'll feel remorse and leave? Do you try and kick their asses? Something else? Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Much like Wikipedia, you pick your battles. For a couple weeks last summer we saw a mother and 2 or 3 cubs, perhaps even as many as 7 different bears. We put the dog on a leash to go outside and didn't go alone. We bought an air horn to startle any bears if they came too close. When one broke into the house and merely flinched when I blasted the air horn at it, we set baseball bats in strategic locations if it got beyond a certain point that would block our exits from the house. We also bought bear mace and tested it in the yard. It doesn't shoot out far away as I might have hoped. It mists out so you really have to want to get rid of those fucking bears to spray it because you're going to end up macing yourself in the process and you can't afford to be puking your guts out if a bear is in your house. My wife and a friend thought I was nuts and freaking out about the air horn and bear mace, but those fuckers came back again and broke another window. Then we washed down the entire outer breezeway, removing any traces of liquid from recycled beer cans and soda bottles. On a whim, we sprayed AXE body spray on the doors to the breezeway. I have no idea why we had AXE body spray, but the break-ins stopped after that, so I'm going to say it was the atrocious smell of AXE body spray that acted as a true bear repellent. --Moni3 (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Axe body spray is an international menace---the Colt 45 malt liquor of white boys. At least one school district has banned it after a junior-high school teacher (poor bastards, all of them) was overcome and went into anaphylactic shock. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, that sounds like the script of a horror movie! Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So do significant portions of other parts of my life. --Moni3 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time the bears broke into my place, I tried reporting them to ANI. Nine admins wanted to block the bears, but they couldn't agree on how long for; five others thought it would be better to ban them from my house, and four more felt a final warning would suffice as I hadn't pursued other dispute resolution with the bears. Oh - and two of them gave me a final warning for provoking animals and threatened to report me to the RSPCA. It could be worse. --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I lol'd at a comment on Wikipedia for the first time in months. --Moni3 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be polite to your neighbours (or they might come around and block you). :-) GFHandel &#9836; 00:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * She's away with work at the moment, but I think my other half uses http://www.wildflowersuk.com for our meadow. And GFHandel is right; much as I dislike coming over the border, it's not that far from North Yorkshire to M********r to block you ;) Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's where my wife got her seeds from, but we don't have a meadow, just an average sized back garden. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I say meadow, but no doubt any member of the Conservative Party would describe it as a back garden (it's about 50x200yds, mind you I had to chase a Red Grouse away earlier in case any of our neighbours started shooting at us). Black Kite (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a meadow as far as I'm concerned. Scale that down by a factor of three and you're closer to what we have; we're city folk. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hugz to you and your wife! Yes, wild flower seeds are atrociously expensive, but it's soooo worth it to get the butterflies etc. in. Buddleia, of course, is a thing which butterflies love (but I expect you know that!) and buddleia bushes are actually really quite cheap to buy from garden centres. As the wildflower seeds are so damned expensive, could I suggest that you start them off in little seed-planters, and gradually move them into bigger pots as they grow - treat them like the most delicate of hothouse plants, or the buggers won't germinate (of course, they would if they were cheap .....). And, once you've got them established, collect seeds from them to start off more babies in the wildflower-nursery to replace the ones which (though they thrive all over motorway verges) will undoubtedly kick the bucket .... ;P We get deer, occasionally, in the garden (if we've forgotten to shut the gate). And buzzards flying overhead, and a squillion different kinds of native birds. Pesky (talk ) 06:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Ooooh, and make a small pond; wildlife will move in :D  Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right - I have small pond and it's fascinating on warm sunny days to see the insects coming in to take a drink from the surface. The one I put in at the last house was used by frogs to breed as well. I love watching the bees working the Asiatic poppies and lavender in my garden too. If you really want to help the pollinating insects the best thing to do is to try and get your local council to plant nectar rich plants instead of those sterile, formal flower beds and neat lawns they like so much. There was a fascinating series of programmes on BBC2 recently with Sarah Raven called Bees, Butterflies and Blooms (see:here for clips) where she was trying to persuade people (and councils) to do this, and the difference it made to the insect populations was incredible. If this was taken up across the country it would make a real difference.  Richerman ''   (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That was an interesting programme Richerman. I, being rather a cheapskate, bought a box of seeds from the pound shop last year. I'd definately get a buddleia or three, I took a photograph of a red admiral, peacock and a tortoiseshell all on one flower spike. I'm looking to plant some teasels this year but they won't do anything until next. Ponds are good, ours has newts and goldfish but it's very small and quite deep so the fish survive in winter. I love to see the blackbirds balancing on the netting (which keeps the fish from herons) having a bath. We get pheasants having a dustbath under the hedge too. I don't live in the countryside, the urban fringe I suppose, but we've had loads of wildlife from solitary bees to foxes and a wild rabbit that took to sunbathing on the grass. I spend quite a bit of time working in the garden but you wouldn't think so if you saw it! J3Mrs (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You've obviously achieved the 'natural' look. :-) The problem with fish in a wildlife pond is that they eat a lot of the wildlife. At the last house I had a carp pond on the patio and a wildlife pond below it at garden level. I then connected the two with a stream and waterfall but I was too ambitious with the design and could never get it to work without losing water. It looked fantastic for a few hours but the pond levels would drop alarmingly if I left it on overnight. I'm going to do the same again at this house but this time I'll get it right.  Richerman ''   (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I remind you all that Wikipedia is NOT a social network? I'm going to have to start blocking people here for all this chit-chat: it's an outrage. Remember, we are here to build an encyclopedia. On that note, does anyone have any experience with a beehive in their yard? And if I get a duckling, will it be happy enough in the little pond I dug, or will it move to the swimming pool? Mrs. Drmies won't allow that. Can ducks be trained? Drmies (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a toad (and toady tadpoles) in our pond, and the usual pond insects, which always seem to manage to find somewhere in the marginal plants to escape from the fish. And the blackbirds love bathing in the waterfall bit  I think they thing that running water is one of those must-have luxuries :D  A lot of people with ponds around here get grass snakes moving in; we haven't had one yet.  And yes, ducks can be trained.  Food is the key.  But it's very likely to try the swimming pool out from time to time, just to be amusing.  Beehives: cool things! Just make sure they're in a quiet place, and don;t walk within 4 - 5 feet from the front of them unless they're sleepy.  And remember, if you have bees, you have to tell them all the family news.  It's important to do that ...  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-retirement can be a rewarding time...
I "semi-retired" from my university post, at an absurdly young age, nearly 20 years ago. The next dozen years were the most fulfilling of my life: among other things I founded a school, edited a local magazine and wrote musical criticism for it, and worked as an administrator for a home for the blind and mentally handicapped in Palestine. Illness struck in 2005 and severely curtailed my activities. Then I found in Wikipedia an outlet for my still considerable mental energies, and I have stuck with it for all the background noise and irritation. I have drawn strength from editors like you – sometimes provocative, sometimes rough-edged, but enduringly kind and of unshakeable integrity. I hope that the "semi-" bit means you'll still be around to help out from time to time, and that in due course you'll start writing again. So I won't say goodbye just yet. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My brother says that I semi-retired as soon as I left full-time employment to go contracting 20 years ago now, based on the fact that the pay was so good I no longer needed to work more than six months a year. And I didn't. But like you I got involved in loads of other things, mainly animal-related, but nowhere near as impressive as what you've done; we each do what we can though. I'll still be around to help out from time to time, but Malleus won't be doing any more significant writing here; I've had a couple of RL writing projects on the back-burner for far too long now, so I'm going to turn my attention to them. If the Wikipedia proletariat ever succeeds in usurping its Puritan hierarchy be sure to let me know, and I'll think about coming back for real. I simply won't change just to fit in here; maybe that's good, maybe it's bad, but it's just the way it is.


 * But I'm not going to spare your blushes Brian. The truth is that you've done far more on Wikipedia with far less fuss and drama than I ever would or could do, so more power to your elbow. The work you do at peer review is way above and beyond the call of duty. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Donner Party
Greatly admired your "Way forward" post on that talk page. — Ched : ?  22:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That Moni3 is one hard bitch to convince though. Far too bright for her own good. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I spoke too soon, we are as one.


 * lol - yep, the two of you do work well together. — Ched : ?  00:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Moni3 put an awful lot of emotional energy into that article, as did Karanacs, another great editor who's gone AWOL. Moni3 allocated each of us reading tasks and bits to write, an object lesson really. Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's one party which an invitee might want to take a rain check on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been surprised that so many Americans don't seem to know about the incident; it's been on TV here several times, which is how I stumbled across it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The survivors failed to post their videos on youtube. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only the nerdiest nerds paid attention in Junior High School American History class. Hell, I was the biggest loser in my class, and even I didn't pay attention. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I'm even more glad that we did it, lest others forget. I felt exactly the same about the Peterloo Massacre. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was being slightly facetious; I think most Americans have heard of the Donner Party, I'd be surprised if many haven't. But I doubt many of us know the details.  Really well done article, kudos to all involved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Peterloo, yes. And your reference to it caused me immediately to take a look at Cato Street conspiracy. That is poor but I may be able to assist there. Dare I look at the Tolpuddle Martyrs? I am assuming that such an article exists but right now I am off to bed. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to have decent articles on all of the 18th and 19th century English riots. Far more revealing than articles about kings and queens. And no, don't look at Tolpuddle Martyrs, far too distressing. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey now! Kings and queens have their place (but wait til I get to Ranulf Flambard - THERE is a bad boy bishop!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What happened to that pirate/wizard bishop? Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He is late in time compared to my usual. I couldn't get that interested, honestly. We did have Gerard, the magician archbishop... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been half-following the talk page discussions on the Donner Party article (and read the article as well!) ever since I came across another tale of pioneer travellers getting stuck in snow and dying in large numbers. The one I picked up a book about while on holiday in the USA and passing through Utah last year was the Devil's Gate company described on the Mormon handcart pioneers page. I was surprised that didn't have its own article, but was pleased to see that the page summarising the whole handcart movement had a page, and it was a featured article no less (though a relatively old one). I've also been half-following the other stuff going on, and have thought about commenting at various times, but usually thought better of it other than a brief comment to Pesky, though I agree largely with what Blofeld and Brian said above. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

re
And yet a deity that is unable to edit. (and heavens no, nobody actually thinks he's all that). If you'll recall; I also stated back at the time the issue was ripe that Ottava should be allowed to edit. In fact I will stand by that today as well. I'll go one step further: If I drop him a note today, I'm sure he'd be willing to respond. In fact there are many users who can't edit, but who did indeed add quality content to our project. You say "serial plagiarists", and I agree that everyone should drop by WP:UPDATE from time to time; especially admins. But in all honesty, the biggest rush to learn our policies is when one is going for RfA, or first starts editing. At the time Rlevse passed his RfA, wp:plagerism was a redirect to non-policy, non-guideline, notification board: Wikipedia:Copyright problems. (link), and wp:copyvio looked more like this. Now I'm not suggesting it was acceptable; but more I'm saying that it was a case of lack of due diligence rather than malicious plagiarizing.

Having held several different jobs over the years I noticed something. It seemed that every ill, wrong, and bad thing that could be said about the work place was always directed at and blamed on the person that just got fired (or left). The thing with wiki though is this: People may not be able to edit - but many of them can and do still read. Things are said that are so downright insulting and hurtful, that it would turn any sane person cynical. And I'm speaking in general, not just this one case. When we chastise the Ottava, Mattisse, Jack Merridew, ... good lawrd .. the list is so damn long, then we do an injustice to our own for not remembering the good things they did while they were here.

Hell - if it were up to me? NO block or ban could exceed 1 year. And on top of that? Any editor who goes a year without a block - then their past block log should be expunged. All these "you were naughty" bs things like sock tags, banned tags, block-logs etc. are an abomination to a project that purports itself as a "professional" project. OK - your turn now. — Ched : ?  01:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think any sane person could disagree with that. In what other "professional environment" are our alleged misdemeanours plastered all over the Internet and held against us for the rest of time? Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * AMEN! — Ched : ?  01:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So far as Ottava is concerned, I didn't always get along with him, but I recognised his value to what we're supposedly trying to do here, which was considerable IMO. He was promised a review of his ban after a year, but that turned out to be another farcical ArbCom show trial. I really am thinking about standing for the next Arbom election as the "Honesty Candidate". Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you will certainly have my vote if you do. You do realize that you'd probably have to accept some extra baubles though?  I did speak with him a bit when that SOPA thing went down by the way.  — Ched :  ?  01:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd accept no extra baubles. My position would be exactly as Giano's was when he stood. Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would make things harder to get in that way. — Ched : ?  02:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess it's hard anyway, but I'm still having no extra baubles, not until the way they're handed out and taken away is reformed. My position would be exactly as Giano's was when he stood, except that unlike him I would be prepared to provide evidence of my identity. Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That could be enough I suppose. — Ched : ?  02:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I got into it with Ottava on one occasion, and it was not pleasant (and though it was years ago I haven't changed my mind that he was wrong). Whether his behavior was worth a permaban, that's another matter. It's hard to come up with fifty names of editors who have done more than he has, and in the field of literature his contributions are pretty much unmatched. I would support giving him the ability to edit again. If he can control his temper, that is, since he had a habit of creating hostile work environments. Malleus, I know you don't care much for DYK, but his DYK list is a pretty good indication of how much he has contributed, and how meager our coverage in that area would be without his work. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't always get on with Ottava myself, but I'd far rather have one of him than 10 of the Puritan administrators who seem to have taken over this place. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Never gonna fuckin' happen on the block logs. Yes.. "Fuckin'"! Erase block logs after one year of not getting blocked? Come on, now. Get serious... Doc   talk
 * And your opinion is interesting to me why exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 05:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Touché. I've guess I've got a few articles to write, haven't I? But, my opinion on erasing block logs stands. Carry on. Doc   talk  05:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not run along and try bothering someone else? Malleus Fatuorum 05:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! Seeya! Just you don't go "retiring" on us again anytime soon, okay? Doc   talk  05:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a vast a mount of massive good sense in this thread! It would be so much nicer if humans could learn not to Demonize the Scapegoat / Baddie quite so much. It's a horrible thing which we humans do, and all good, everything good, gets brushed under the carpet in people's memories (apart from the outstanding few). And the Sanctify the Goodie thing, too ... dammit, we all do good stuff (somewhere in our lives, I hope!) and we all do bad stuff and have bad moments! But by sentencing someone to Eternal Banishment, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face when they have real talent which we need. Sure, some people left a hell of a cleanup mess. But if they step back in with priority one being to work damned hard on the cleanup, and they then continue to do Good Stuff, and they do better, and work on the glitches - heck, they should be allowed back! And we should, we really should, have a "spent convictions" thing. And I think we should have two logs for blocks - one for sound ones, and one for the bad blocks, just as evidence that it happened. The bad blocks shouldn;t be living in the same room as the sound ones, because some people are too damned stupid (oops snark) just don't know .... <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't "vacate" convictions or conviction records from the histories of actual criminals (or those charged with crimes) in the real world, at least here in the barbaric "US and A". If you get arrested for anything in, say, Florida (where the WMF is located), you get your face in your mug shot plastered all over the internet for all eternity, even if you were not convicted. I guess you reap what you sow. Anonymous "Wiki-criminals", who are never to be exposed though the privacy policy, should get a court system vastly different? Expunge the records? Dream on. Doc   talk  05:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here in the UK, once a conviction is over a certain age (which varies depending on conviction type), it's "spent" and can't be held against you any more. It's on a list of "spent convictions" for those who have access to such lists, but it's not something that (for instance) you have to declare on a job application if you;re asked about convictions, etc.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC) I'm sure that my highest-priority principle (OK, call it my biggest obsession if you like!) is justice.  Genuine, real, honest-to-goodness justice; not the processes of law or quasi-legal systems, not vengeance, not all that other stuff.  Just real, genuine, moral-and-ethical justice.  It over-rides (probably) every other principle I hold.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the U.S., ten years to pass for adult misdemeanor convictions (felonies never go away) is the general standard from what I've seen before a conviction is disregarded on the overall record of the individual. Times change, though! We are much more civilized here on WP, and perhaps one year would be more progressive in rehabilitation. Doc   talk  06:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doc, as far as expunging block logs, I never said it would happen; but then again, I'm not expecting "Peace on Earth" anytime real soon either. The idea is to work toward proper goals, and the closer we get, the better.  As to the other?  So you are basically equating editing a website outside our "policies and guidelines" with real world criminal behavior?  I'm sorry - it's going to take me a while to adjust to that concept.  If this were a word association test, my first thought would be .. hyperbole. — Ched :  ?  06:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's kinda what I was just thinking about, as I dived off for a cig and coffee! Instead of modelling ourselves on the barbarisms of the Real World, why not set an example of how not to be barbaric? When I was young, I was all into vengeance.  I think that's common to all youngsters; maybe it's something to do with how we're brought up?  "Do X and you will be punished," kinda thing. In real, enlightened terms, surely the better way is reparation and rehabilitation?  Done kindly? Here in WP the average intelligence level must be far higher than in a whole-world population.  We don't have to copy Real-World mistakes and barbarisms.  We can do better.  We don't have to model what we do on Real-World systems.  We can do better.  Wouldn't it be nice if we had something which worked so effectively, and so kindly, and so productively, that the Real World decided to emulate Wikipedia instead? Talent is too rare and valuable a thing just to eliminate and wipe out in a splash of vengeance.  The outcome we should be seeking to achieve is the Best Possible Outcome, not a transient "get it off our chest, take that, you fiend, nyeah, nyar, nyeh" playground tit-for-tat "you're not our friend any more" thing.  We lost / lose an awful lot, that way.   We could do better than this.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I sometimes speak using broad metaphors that relate to the real world, and/or worlds I may have just imagined. You could call it hyperbole, I suppose. Forgive me. Now, Malleus has told me to go away, so I'm going to just leave this debate to the lot of you. Cheers... Doc   talk  06:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doc, we all (I think) do that metaphorical thing. And we all sometimes come across as hyperbolic.  I can't read Malleus's mind, but I think that whenever you're talking sound, enlightened, insightful and improvement-goal-oriented good sense, then Malleus is happy to read it? I could be, of course, wholly wrong on this; at the moment I'm faced with the choice of editing under the influence of either pain or opiates, but at least this morning it's still in the "choice" area!  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Donner Party
You should know by now not to take the bait; when another editor is being obtuse or refusing to engage in collaborative discussion, let someone else answer him. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're quite right. Malleus Fatuorum 09:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good call, Sandy. Yogesh came close to a site ban recently, and ended up with a topic ban on Indian history & colonialism, broadly construed. He is a known tendentious editor with some rather extreme opinions and a distinct anti-European/anti-US trait. It is pointless rising to his bait and, in fact, it is often better just to ignore the messages. Difficult to do, I know, but better! - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And you, dear Sitush, will not block that editor if you ever get the bit, haha. Have a great weekend everybody. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be too late for that party, at the rate that he is going on, so questions of involvement would not arise :) - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dealing with him and Jswap is like dealing with another sock who used to follow around Moni3, Malleus and me. Hmmmm ... interesting!  Anyway, no good comes from engaging such feigned obtuseness. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Page in your userspace protected
FYI, Zzuuzz has protected User:Malleus Fatuorum/WikiSpeak because it's become a target for confused spambots. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Two things
One, I'm happy to see the tag at the top of the page blue instead of black. Two, if you're interested and have the inclination, could you have a look at Bal des Ardents? A comment at FAC -review here - suggests the prose needs work. I'd like your opinion and of course sprucing up is always welcome - but don't worry if you're not up to it. I'd understand completely. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * After all the support you've consistently shown me it would be churlish to refuse to help. And whatever else I may be, I'm not churlish. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts no, I can't help. If I do then the serial abusers here will think they've got away with it. Sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So the reason you won't return is purely because of the serial abusers and to prove your point to them to make them suffer, not because you genuinely loathe the encyclopedia itself? Its your choice Malleus but I think its a shame you let wikidrama distract you from your editing. It is evident you have a love for the encyclopedia itself and care greatly about the quality of articles. Trigger happy admins and assholes aside, I think you're losing sight of what is really important here. People don't matter, however important they think they are. What matters is what they do with their time on here, that's what causes the problems. What people produce on wikipedia is of prime importance, not the people themselves. Yes, there is something very wrong about the way wikipedia is run in parts of the project. Too many pretend policemen who lack authority in the real world and try to be powerful on here. I'd have left long ago if I didn't care about what we are really here for. Personally for me the positive aspects of wikipedia and the chance to produce something never been seen in English before or to compound so much knowledge into one encyclopedia is exciting. I get some days when I feel quite the opposite, at such times its best taking a breather for a bit. Refusing to edit on the grounds that you dislike the way admins treat you and how wikipedia is run is wrong from the point of view of the encyclopedia and content, which is what we are here for. Your absence is not going to make you a martyr and neither is it going to change certain members of the "authority" on here from being damn irritating and intrusive at times. The bottom line is they don't matter and it is possible to get on with editing the encyclopedia with relatively low drama. However bad certain individuals are on here, the passion for editing and the sheer potential of the project outweighs it in my own opinion. Anyway, its your choice. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with every word of that. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a point Dr, I'll think about it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus, don't worry about it. It was a long-shot. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've thought long and hard about this. The fatal flaw in my position has always been that I believe passionately in information being freely available, and right now this is just about the only place to gather it together; should that ever change I'll likely be off like a shot, but until then ... Events today surrounding the Donner Party article have also played their part in making my mind up, and I have Ched to thank for that.
 * So no matter what the resultant snark, I'm going with my initial instinct TK; of course I'll look over your latest opus. I'll not be writing any new stuff here myself, but I'll help old mates like you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't really think of it as snark and I shouldn't have asked. Riggr went through a few sections last night & might be back or not - so it's up to you. I didn't mean to make more of a big deal - just looking for a good copyeditor. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean snark from you. Anyway, I'll be very surprised if you get any more prose objections now. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. For whatever it's worth, you really are very good at this. I knew that, but it's been a while since you've been through a page I've been working on. I'm seriously impressed. Thanks a lot for the work. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I always felt slightly sorry for anyone whose article I subjected to "the treatment", as I can find fault with pretty much anything, and I tend to make lots of little changes rather than one big one, which can make it look like a lot of work was needed. So by-and-large I restricted myself to those who either requested it or were at GA/FA. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I think you should be charging (elsewhere) for "the treatment". You're certainly good enough for it. Probably better than a lot of professional editors. I don't mind it all. For pages like that I spend an immense amount of time reading, I don't have a ton of time to be here, so often I'm throwing stuff in on the fly. The other nice thing though, to be honest, is what you bring to a page is in the spirit of pure collaboration, of which I don't think we see enough. Anyway, in lieu of a barnstar, a lot of compliments! But you deserve them. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In a small way I am a professional editor elsewhere, and if you've ever bought generic medications from your local pharmacy you may well have read some of it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) Ifuproben. No wonder I still have a headache- but at least all the commas that were floating in my eyeballs have gone. When I read badly-edited badly-written tendentious crap like Sleeping With the Enemy: Coco Chanel, Nazi Agent I feel sad that Wikipedia editors aren't able to cut a swathe through such-like, and get paid for it. Ning-ning (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like I suffer from one of the same problems as you - when I read something on WP I can't leave it alone unless it's really good, and even then I usually find something to change. I made the mistake of reading the TFA Galapagos Tortoise the other day and the prose was embarrassingly awful. What had happened to it after it got to FA I don't know but I can't imagine anyone would have passed it as it was. It took me four hours to get it looking half way decent by which time it was coming to the end of its moment in the sun. I just wish I'd seen it before it got on the main page. Richerman ''   (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Help (Niceville in Sweden)
We rented The Help last night, and I recommend it.

Have you considered baking a pie and sending it to selected administrators at ANI/ArbCom? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You know I was in school with the author (same time, same graduate program), and I don't remember her? I brush with greatness and I don't even notice it... Drmies (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine used Stan Lee's toilet! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice. I was in line at the supermarket behind Willeke van Ammelrooy one time, in the late 80s I reckon. The view was magnificent. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and people use "arse" as a derogatory term! Some arses are just gorgeous.  Others, maybe, not so much.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pesky, you're talking to a delicious guy sitting by the pool in his undies, having a beer. I'm putting myself in the first category and thank you for your WikiLove. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Arse" and "Pippa Middleton" will forever be synonymous in my mind after that royal wedding. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, there's a Hall of Fame that's just crying out to be invented: Pippa, J-Lo, Kim, for starters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on Pippa Middleton is very restrained, as are its pictures (and all pictures on Wikimedia).
 * Hehe! My own is currently in the "not so much" category. Seeing as it's currently in the "rather too much" category.  I am, however, working on that ;P  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I want my younger daughter's arse. But as she only weighs next-to-nothing, it would look very odd, on me! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 17:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That "Covet not they neighbor's ass" commandment has never come easy. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Knackers
Hm. I dare not suggest why it is that I saw a link to Knackers on a talk page and, having read that link, thought of you ;) Is there anything reliable out there for the other UK usage, ie: testicles? And how the heck did Dawson get away with "Knickers, knackers, knockers" back in the 1970s? IIRC, it was Les Dawson, but I may be wrong. They did not have subtitles way back when I were a lad. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. It is mentioned. Time for bed. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, "bollocks" is another synonym ... and talking of knackers, we thought one of our ponies might end up there yesterday. Fortunately, she seems to be looking better today, and is being brought home for extra TLC and nursing. Another expensive vet visit.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You weren't racing the thing at Aintree, were you? - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly! Sadly, we had to have her put down last night; having spent the day looking very much better, she then got colic and just "gave up". :o(  Equines do that, sometimes.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Be glad you still HAVE knackers - I live where there isn't one and disposing of a dead equine is difficult and pricey. Condolences on losing one though.. that just sucks. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it really does suck; specially as she was only young (rising 4). It's damned pricey here in the UK, though!  £125 (about $200  and that's with a discount!) for carcase disposal.  On top of two weekend vet callouts (one of which was late at night).  EEEK! The good thing is that she's no longer suffering, but we will miss her, having had her since she was a wee small just-weaned foal.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Two Hearts of Kwasi Boachi
Orlady (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Brain malfunctioning ...
I'm kinda vaguely considering nomming New Forest pony for GA, but seem to be quite incapable of either making the decision at the minute, or looking objectively at it from a Reviewer From Hell perspective ... could you pass a quick eye over it for any glaringly obvious faults, for me, pretty please with hugs? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 17:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, speaking as that "Reviewer from Hell", I think the article still needs some work before it would stand a chance at GAN. First of all I'd be concerned about coverage, as there seems to be quite a bit of information easily accessible on the web that's not included; the lead is also too short to adequately summarise the article, but that's usually easier done when the article's just about finished.


 * Of greater concern though is the referencing; the first two paragraphs of History (which seems rather too short to me) are completely uncited for instance, as is the second paragraph of Ponies on the New Forest. But my biggest worry is with the citations that are already there. Checking one at random, ref #15, it seems to support very little of the material preceding it. And far more serious even than that is the presence of what appears to be a copyright violation. This appears in the first paragraph of the Characteristics section:
 * The head should show pride, the shoulders should be well sloped with deep reach, and the legs show an even line with strong joints and solid hooves.
 * That's sourced to ref #15, which doesn't mention it at all that I can see, but the phrasing looked a little odd to me, so I did a Google search and discovered this on the Devon Ponies web site:
 * The head should show pride, the shoulders should be well sloped with deep reach, the quarters, strong and well muscled, the body is deep, and the legs show an even line with strong joints and stolid hooves.
 * That seems far too close for comfort to me.

Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like the source site had that text in 2006, and an IP added it to the article in 2009. 28bytes (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply that Pesky was in any way to blame, just that from my spot checks I think the whole article needs to be looked at again very carefully for similar problems. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no, it was obvious to me you weren't blaming her... I was just curious where the copyvio came from so I looked into it. I thought knowing where it came from might be helpful in rooting out any other copyvio from the same IP. Fortunately that IP doesn't seem to have done much of it. 28bytes (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! Other than removing/tweaking a couple of tiny things, I haven't touched the article for yonks ... I shall (at some point) get around to fixing those things.  One of the problems with the breed standards thing is that one can;t move too far away from the official definitions as set by the breed society, but I know I can do better than what's currently there.  Not necessarily today ... ;P Any more obvious glaring problems, please let me know!  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done some tweaks (including getting rid of the copyvio and expanding the lede a bit). <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll get back The Book from my daughter, for more on history and so on. Dionis is probably The expert in this field, being not only a long-term breeder and panel judge, but also (currently) one of the Verderers.  Pretty much acknowledged nationwide (and probably world-wide) as creme-de-la-creme in New Forest Pony expertise. Besides being a lovely person, too!  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 13:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the History section. Just a bit ;P Will do more when I have more source material.  Also wioll do more on NF ponies in other parts of the world.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I reckon it might be ready now ... so I'm going to be either brave or foolhardy and slap a wossname onto it :D <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 16:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks much better now. I'll take a closer look through later this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What a lovely part of the world. Wish I could live near the New Forest ;-) Pedro : Chat  21:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Come over for a holiday! It's also within spitting distance of the coast. Beach full of fossils, etc.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll peek at it with the WPEQ eye. It's vastly improved.  Someone other than I should check old edits for copyvio problems, I too often see the wording and then can't reword it; better to flag a close paraphrase and let me (or Malleus or someone) do the rewrite having never seen the underlying source.  Then whomever knows the topic can tweak to make sure the nuance is correct.  And on the breed standard, if departure destroys nuance, then a direct quotation, blockquote if long, works just fine.  Montanabw (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the advantages of arrogance is that I pretty always think I could write it better than the original author, so I don't suffer too much from your problem. I do agree though that given the history every citation would ideally be checked, and certainly at least all of the online ones. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe! From what I recall, it had very little in the way of citations until I had a go at it in around February 2011-ish; I've done / tweaked / clarified the stuff you (MF) pointed out on my talk (nothing terribly hard to deal with, there). I'm not sure how much of it I haven't tweaked around, actually.  I added all the stuff with the Sally Fear citations, I know you're not supposed to trust me on copyvio etc., but you can.  And y'all should get a copy of that book - Sally's primarily a photographer, and the pictures are astounding. (She's also cute and cuddly, etc. ;P)  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is how it looked as at my first edit - only two sources there at that time. (Montanabw, you know what redlinks do to me!  I'll see if I can find some kind of link for "commoner" somewhere .... and thanks, guys for all your work.)  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would link it to The Commons and add the various definitions of a commoner to that article (in this context it's a person who has a right in or over common land jointly with another or others ) Richerman ''   (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, done that :o) The article itself clarifies the word with "local people with common grazing rights".  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I've added the definition to The commons article - although, shouldn't the title of that article just be 'Commons'? Richerman ''   (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There again - maybe Common land would be more appropriate? Richerman ''   (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The case of the New Forest is slightly complicated ... it's (for the most part) Crown land, managed by the National Park Authority, the Verderers (who have the same status as a Magisterial Court), and the Forestry Commission. Around the borders of it there are "proper" commons (which the stock can wander freely on and off) and within it there are manorial commons (which the stock ditto) ... it's land over which people who occupy certain land themselves have the "right of common of pasture" (along with various other rights, some of which are now not used at all). So it's not quite "common land", although it is used as if it were ... yes, it's complicated! I'll add a link in to Common land in the "rights of common of pasture" bit; I think that will give people enough background reading to get it! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC) ✅
 * It's all Billy Boy's fault. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but without him, most of it would have become one massive conurbation along the south coast, and I would have nowhere for my ponies to be running free! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles
There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My input would be appreciated? I guess there has to be a first time for everything. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oooh, you old grouch! I've always appreciated your input! Well, maybe 90% of the time .... ;P  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

GAN at ENB
Mentioned you, Education noticeboard. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I haven't really been paying attention to GAN over the last few months, but hopefully Geometry guy will chip in there. Personally I've never found that poorly prepared nominations are much of a problem. Either they're so poor they can be quick-failed, or if there's some doubt about the commitment of the nominator or ability/willingness to deal with any issues then I have a quick look through, leave a few samples of the problems, and wait to see if there's any response. If there's none after seven days the nomination gets failed. The real problem seems to me to be at DYK, but that's never going to voluntarily reform itself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What happens when I am bored and can't garden due to the rain...
Hugh de Neville. I especially like the chickens bit... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote all that today? Amazing! Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Last night and today, yes. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe! Now, if they were point-of-lay pullets, that would be around £800 as at today's rates ... now that's what I call love! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

 * That's well deserved Truthkeeper. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

They get younger every day ...
Dunno if you saw this one, but I think it confirms your suspicions ...

"This user is about 6 months old" ... and already he's at AN/I ...

<span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

CBT and NICE
Mal, when I started in on cognitive behavioral therapy, there was some poorly written and poorly sourced text about criticism of it in the UK. I removed it. Could you find me any high quality sources or help me reinstate something, per your comment at WP:ENB? I'm only familiar with CBT in the TS/OCD realm in the US, where it is well accepted as superior to medication alone when used in conjunction with medication, but there was something about the whole NICE business in the UK that I wasn't able to sort. Help? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can find, but as I said, as one example, there are so many drivers here being encouraged to claim for a course of CBT to address their alleged fear of driving after having been involved in a minor road traffic incident that's it's little more than a joke as far as I'm concerned. Admittedly though I am one of the founder members of the "for Christ's sake pull yourself together" school of psychology. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish more people would take a CBT, we need more two-wheeled road users... Parrot of Doom 22:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy - Drew Westen has some critical things to say about the hegemony of CBT in the Psychological Bulletin 2004 Jul;130(4):631-63; The empirical status of empirically supported psychotherapies: assumptions, findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials. Westen D, Novotny CM, Thompson-Brenner H. Westen et al. say "numerous studies have shown that CBT and IPT (and a number of lesser known brands) produce initial outcomes comparable with those obtained with medications. Over the course of 3 years, however, patients who receive these 16-session psychotherapies relapse at unacceptably high rates relative to patients in medication conditions if the latter are maintained on medication during the follow-up period" and "However, only one third of patients across treatments or in individual CBT (which tended to fare slightly better than other treatments, particularly group CBT) showed sustained recovery at 1 year (i.e., recovered at termination and remained recovered at 1 year)." Don't know if that's any help; I'm not a CBT-basher but I am interested in a fairer reporting of its up and down sides. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  22:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that's about application to individual conditions-- the criticism had something to do with the British Health System and NICE ... but it was poorly sourced. And the NICE website is a nightmare.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My wife is involved in setting up clinical trials here, for drugs, not for CBT quackery, but I'll ask her for an opinion. If it's printable, but I suspect that it may not be, I'll let you know. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Further info that may help. I'm aware that TS treatment in the UK is horrid, practically medieval, and from trying to find sources in the NICE website, I got the impression they are forcing CBT on folks, using it where it might not be proven, and using it first rather than in conjunction with medication, and that folks have no choice per the British Health System.  That's not how it works here, and CBT in conjunction with medication works at least for OCD.  Anyway, it was a criticism specific to the British NICE application of CBT, but I need a better source.  CBT in general for conditions where it's proven effective, typically in conjunction with meds, isn't quackery just because NICE is forcing it to be misapplied. I hope.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * NICE doesn't force anything on anyone, just that the NHS is very unlikely to pay for a treatment not approved by NICE. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I went back to the old version to revisit what I had deleted due to poor sourcing. Some of it was not reliably sourced, some of it was outdated, and some of it was specific criticism of the NHS as far as I could tell, so I reinstated what I could according to WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS to the Society and culture section. Cognitive behavioral therapy. So, it appears that was the issue? Could you improve on that, or find sources that address this notion? From this side of the pond, it looks like government interference with healthcare, similar to the direction things are trending here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (Hoping Malleus is OK with this discussion happening on his talk page...) The biggest influence in the last 6-8 years has not been NICE, but rather the Department of Health's IAPT programme - Improving Access to Psychological Therapies. It is IAPT's implementation, rather than NICE's recommendations, which have caused controversy. There is this article from The Psychologist - the monthly news journal of the British Psychological Society. Press releases are not ideal sources obviously, but this one is from the UKCP and illustrates the view of this important body. There's quite a good opinion piece from The Guardian that might have some useful stuff too. Hope some of that might be relevant. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  21:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks! The first makes me nervous since it's labeled as "opinion pieces".  The second (press release) looks usable, but what is "Shadow Health"?  I might find a way to use the piece from The Guardian-- as long as I'm careful with the phrasing, I might be able to use these in ways that doesn't breach WP:MEDRS-- it's not so much about CBT, as the way it's being used in the UK health system?  Which fits in "Society and culture"?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Shadow Health Minister is the Opposition (ie currently Labour) politician who shadows his Government (currently Conservative) opposite number. The opinion piece is obviously not independent news, but it is published by the British Psychological Society. Clearly, none of these three meet WP:MEDRS but then they are none of them about the medical/clinical aspects of CBT but rather its social/political role and implementation. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  22:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "In the Layard Report problems like depression and anxiety are viewed as discrete conditions that will get better with the right treatment. Layard writes about people being ‘cured’, implying that these conditions are similar to illnesses like measles that can reliably diagnosed and simply treated. This is the cornerstone of his economic argument. But it is a naive view of psychological problems and their treatment." Exactly. Reminds me very much of a book that made a great impression on me, Szaz's The Myth of Mental Illness. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I added back what I could, but I need to get out to my garden ... please feel free to dig in and fix my damage! I feel like it's OK to include this criticism in this form under "Society and culture"-- we aren't making medical statements there. Thanks again, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Goodness, I can't believe I got you to edit that article-- but I appreciate it! Look at what was there before I started slashing and burning. Thanks Malleus! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a lot more slashing and burning needed though; I really can't believe the state of that article. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's typical of our psych articles ... and WMF is helping make 'em worse. Thanks again! There's no reason for a topic like that to be in such awful shape when sources are plentiful and accessible. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Witchcraft in Anglo-Saxon England
New article that shows up on medicine new page patrol. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be little more than a summary of Davies' book. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, I just realized that's the editor who made Hugo Chavez even worse than it was before he started ... if that's possible. Anyway, have you noticed that new page patrol no longer works at all on Wikipedia? Folks used to catch problem articles more than now ... now most of them are getting through. I don't think anyone cares any more. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as the WMF (and most administrators it seems) consider editors to be easily replaceable units of work the decline will continue. My hope is that a project like Qwiki will mature as an alternative to Wikipedia, and when it does you won't see me for dust. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While not disagreeing with the initial sentiment in your post, I'm not sure what you mean "won't see me for dust". As far as I can tell, Qwiki is more-or-less a pretty wrapper around Wikipedia article text and pictures (as well as information from other web sites). I entered my local suburb into Qwiki, sat back, and listened to a (relatively) pleasant female voice read the current Wikipedia article to me. I even saw photographs come up on Qwiki that I had taken around the suburb and uploaded to Wikipedia. It's still going to take editors here to provide good quality text for the Qwiki project to scrape. I don't see any opportunity for ordinary editors to contribute to Qwiki (although their site says that there are currently four positions available there). GFHandel &#9836; 06:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and now I feel guilty for having done no new page patrol for months! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It has become really bad ... I struggle to keep up with Medicine and Venezuela articles, but I throw up my hands in despair over at least half of what I see ... I don't have enough time to take on more than a few, and what is getting through is horrible. I also despair at how often I see someone got there before me and failed to identify issues, AFD, CSD, prod, whatever.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For now it is. Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Back in the autumn, I was sometimes patrolling more than a hundred a day. CorenSearchBot was down, and between August and December I CSD tagged over 100 blatant copyvio pages (which were removed).  Then, in December, I kinda lost my motivation.  It hasn't really properly come back yet. So I don't really feel like doing npp.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 19:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Same old, same old at ANI and RfA
=== RfA of Dennis Brown: ANI of Kiefer.Wolfowitz ===

Please be aware of Dennis Brown's comments at ANI, and that Dennis Brown is currently a candidate to be an administrator.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. I see so many (far too many) "cases" in here that, if they'd been presented to me as homework, they would have been sent back with "Inadequate background research  do again."  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 20:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're around and bored...
Ralph Neville is looking bored... bored bishops are a bad thing... right? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really bored, busy elsewhere, but popping in from time to time. My own writing days here are over I think, lost all enthusiasm for it, but I remain willing to help those who've helped me in the past by doing a bit of comma shifting from time to time. For now at least anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with your findings of my problematic writing ... ready for the next set. Oh, and Middle Ages made GA! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blimey, that's one heck of an achievement! I'll have another read through Ralph later/tomorrow; who knows, it may all look fine to me now, and there may not even be a next set. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * After some more research, I'm thinking heading to FA for good old Middle Ages, actually. Be a while, and will need a good PR and stuff first, but I'm actually rather proud of the thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you should be; that's a real core article. How much do you bet that I couldn't find something that needs fixing in it though? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you could ... easily. I never claimed to write brilliant prose - just serviceable! I do think my ability to digest and regurgitate sources is pretty good though... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it is, else you wouldn't have that pile of FAs at your feet. I was just taking the piss as we say over here ... hang on, I think I can hear the civility police drawing up outside ... Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sumo urina? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So... how does Ralphie look? I'm going to be gardening for the next couple of days ... we got warm enough to finally plant out the seedlings... but Ralph at FAC would spare me from working on my "to-do" list for Middle Ages... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I should be able to have another read through Ralph later this evening, and hopefully he'll be ready for FAC by tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox
There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And just because...
Hee! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, I do like that! Nice find :D <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK
Malleus, you've bitched about DYK so often--I'm glad I found an article that proves you wrong. Eminently encyclopedic, carefully proofread, and of great importance to the world, I present you Template:Did you know nominations/Justin Bieber on Twitter. That's right: suck on that, all you geeks with your medieval bishops and your obscure 20th-century novels that aren't even in print anymore. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No doubt it'll get more hits than people like Einstein and Gandhi.. Imagine opening an old dusty encyclopedia and seeing an entry "Justin Bieber on Twitter"... But the writer has proved coverage in multiple sources so I doubt it would be deleted if you AFDd it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Un-fucking-believable! Sadly though I fear that Dr. Blofeld is right; it's destined to remain an embarrassment. Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to see more embarrassment, go back in history ... it was even better! Hey, Malleus, did you change your e-mail address?  I emailed you days ago. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't change it, but I don't check that old email address as often as I should as it got so cluttered up with spam. Something seems to have gone wrong with my email server as well, as I can't reply from that account. Until I get that fixed it's best to email me from here. Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c with Sandy) I think the article was written by as a result of a conversation at this WT:DYK thread.  One editor wrote Enough already. It seems every week or so there is a DYK about [University of Michigan] football. No other institution gets this kind of attention. Is the editor a U of M fan or alum? If so, he is abusing the prerogatives of his position. Cut it out. ... it is the editor's job to work on articles that interest readers. This is typical U of M arrogance. It is an attitude that makes the Michigan Daily a joke." LauraHale responded "It absolutely is not an editor's job to work on articles that interest readers. If that was the case, Wikipedia's most viewed articles would be better shape and we'd get non-stop celebrity news on the front page. How many Justin Beiber DYKs have you worked on as an editor knowing the huge amount of interest readers have in him?"
 * Within a short time of posting that comment, she had started work on the Bieber Twitter article, which appears to be a departure from her normal editing work (which to judge from her user page is more focused on women's sports). I get the impression that she has gone outside of her normal article writing zone as a personal challenge and / or experiment - it'll be interesting to see how many hits it gets on the main page in due course.  It may well need improving, like many articles on WP already, but I found it an interesting read about two areas of youth culture about which I know v little... And it may not have been covered in old dusty encyclopaedias, but the existence of this article does not come at the expense of an article on another topic in the finished WP, after all. BencherliteTalk 15:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does come at the expanse of the project's reputation though. Volunteer Marek 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If "public interest" is now the measure of importance, as measured by pageviews, Wife selling is the fourth most important topic on Wikipedia, closely followed by Cock Lane ghost, and Daniel Lambert is more important than Elvis Presley. Stats don't lie. 78.149.243.251 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually gave Laura a barnstar recently for her work on African women's football teams. Didn't get a thanks though, probably too busy Beliebering.. Yep we reach a level in the popular culture phenomenon... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus, sadly you believe that Blofeld is right or sadly you believe that Blofeld is right? Mrs. Fowler does not appreciate danglers. You all here are reinforcing this old view of an encyclopedia. Get with the times, fools. Twitter counts. Student evaluations determine tenure. Text should be simple, and writing is overrated. I know of a person (in fact, I am married to this person) who is allowed to make a playlist as a final project in a graduate lit class instead of one of those old-fashioned "papers". Drmies (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'll report myself on ANI as having canvassed, if someone hasn't beaten me to that yet. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugger! I've fallen foul of an adversative conjunction!. Now the only outstanding question is what excuse the administrators will invent to have me blocked for this. Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is truly an outstanding question, Malleus--I congratulate you for honoring the letter and spirit of Ambiguity day. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for a child admin to come by and nab you for ... civility, NPA or some such. I've always thought it would be fun to come over here and pick a rip-roaring fight with Malleus, attack the shit out of him, just to see which of us would be blocked first.  A breaching experiment, ya know !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As canvassing has been explained to me recently, Drmies is clearly in breach of the daft policy. As is almost everyone else almost every single day. Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, the way to get some attention is by starting a new section (so it shows up on Recent changes) with a title that seems insulting, such as ...
 * And the answer to your question Sandy is surely obvious; it would in some way be portrayed as my fault for having provoked you, just as with Pedro's recent nonsense, for which he got a free pass. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put money on that-- it would be a fun experiment because there's a posse after me these days as well! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll get used to it. There are some names that as soon as I see them I know exactly what they're going to be saying, and I'm rarely disappointed. Remember how accurately Iridescent predicted the result of that recent ArbCom case based only on what he knew of the arbitrators involved? Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gropecunt Lane is right up there as well, at number 10. Interestingly it was mentioned on Rory Mcgrath's TV programm Pub Dig several times last night, and each time the "cunt" bit was bleeped out, so I'm not sure how much the viewers would have got from that. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't they also mention cock ale? Someone's been reading Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They did, and in fact they made some. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you were tickled when you saw that program. Congrats! I hadn't read about cock ale yet--wow. Truth is stranger than fiction. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the best was when Stephen Fry Tweeted on the article's TFA day how much he enjoyed Gropecunt Lane. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thou shalt not question Stephen Fry. MastCell Talk 18:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Back in January Parrot of Doom mentioned that he'd proposed a radio documentary on the 1910 London to Manchester air race and included links to Eagle and Mary Toft. Not long after documentaries were made on the last two, and PoD was nonplussed (it's better explained here). While Pub Dig wasn't exclusively about Gropecunt Lane and cock ale, which are both linked from PoD's user page, I suspect he won't be too impressed. A documentary on Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies next? To be fair PoD's articles are on some fascinating subjects. Nev1 (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * One wonders what will happen when I finally get around to sorting out Thomas Rowlandson. I suspect an article littered with 18th-century pornographic images (NSFW) won't go down too well...

I think these Twitter account articles are about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on this site (and there is some ridiculous stuff). And Drmies, nana na booboo I canvassed you fir-irst! :p Lady  of  Shalott  02:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * na na boo boo? — Ched : ?  13:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I had a go at writing a condensed borderline encyclopedic version in the Justin Bieber article... But I'm not sure how any content discussing people's activities on Twitter could be considered even remotely encyclopedic...♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just checked my old email address Sandy, and I'm absolutely gobsmacked. WTF is going on here? Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bieber's Twitter account deemed encyclopedic but 1970s in science and technology not!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Cunt
I had no idea what a flexible word this was--"cunt-up" is news to me. Also, I hope you can "look" at these Google Books, but there is a Cunt Coloring Book. That's more fun than Manzilian waxing. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I should have called this "You cunt", that shows up much better. Some Recent change patroller just read this: thanks for checking, I think we're good! Drmies (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Asshole! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The existence of the coloring book made my day, and I'd like to thank you for bringing it to my attention. Seriously.  Equazcion  ( talk )  17:22, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And there is more to enjoy--I love Amazon. BTW, is Keyzer Soze a notable author yet? Drmies (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, will you both just Go the Fuck to Sleep. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that was a DYK that improved mankind. You know that Kelapstick and I got sent the press kit from the publisher? Blatant Wiki-ing off for pay, it was. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my, when I posted that, I hadn't even realized you were involved. I happened across that book in a bookstore, and am still laughing.  Good on you !!!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe thanks. How my kids managed to learn of that book and started reciting the title I'll never know. I mean, it's not like I left it on the dinner table or something. I think. Like lots of funny articles on weird topics, this started with my friend Kelapstick, also a proud father. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Boobs?
According to an almost-family-member's Facebook page: "Boobs are the proof that men can focus on two things at once." <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ZOMG! I have just realised that that could be construed as a sexist remark! (Though which of the genders should feel offended, I have no idea ...) <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote the late Barney Fife, "You're a boob, Gomer!" Be careful, or they'll toss you into the booby hatch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hi Malleus--perhaps you have an interest in this thread, see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. The editor in question is, besides a bad, bad, blocked editor, also the author of User:AnotherWeeWilly/sandbox. Feel free to refer to me as a moron for inviting you to that place, but there's a beautiful watercolor by Van Gogh to make up for it. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, since you asked for it, you're a mo... mor..., no, I just can't. You made an honest and generous mistake. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did move the article to mainspace; the ban will soon be in effect, I have no doubt. You know I got accused of canvassing for having placed this note here? Drmies (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly a surprise. If you're ever in search of morons Wikipedia would be a good place to start. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure
What's this and this all about? I was in complete support of Pesky and her actions, and really, genuinely found her quote to be inspiring. I'm not a 14-year-old admin; you seemed to take my note as an example of how badly behaved I am and somehow complicit with a secret admin/'crat society of which I have no clue (okay, so poor English, but I hope you'll forgive it on this occasion). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I read a different meaning into your words than you intended. It seemed evident to me that "the most interesting notion I've seen here" in reference to a fairly banal self-deprecatory observation is in reality a comment on the contributions of every other editor on that talk page. If that was not your intention then we can go our separate ways and not speak of this again. Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I most definitely suggest you adopt your recommended course of action. I would also prefer you to strike out anything that related to my position as a 'crat as that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.  Your gross misinterpretation of what I said should be unilaterally resolved please.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Dream on. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I thought that would be your response. You made a genuine mistake, and totally mischaracterised my comment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was you who made the mistake, not me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify how my support for what Pesky said constituted a mistake? And how my position as a "crat" had any bearing on it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already done so, and you're pursuing me here is simply adding to your mistakes. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that by giving support to what Pesky said has resulted in this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you need to get out more. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no particular bone to pick with you beyond what I consider to be your ill-considered observations at Peksy's talk page, so I've got no idea why you're still going on about it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My only comment was that I really liked the quote. If you took it a different way than it's your ill-considered reading of my good-faith comment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you drop this now, as there's no way you'll manage to intimidate me even by the sheer volume of your postings here, much less your bureaucrat status. What you said was "the most interesting notion I've seen here", a clear reference to everything anyone else had posted. So, if your claim is that you expressed yourself badly, then go apologise for that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what set this off, or who (if anyone) is in the right or wrong here, but to see two of the WP editors I most respect and whose company I think I would enjoy in real life arguing like this is one of the most depressing things I have seen here for a long time. BencherliteTalk 22:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I guess you haven't been blocked by Courcelle recently. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Onoes, please don't argue! :o( I've only just noticed this; been awake all night now trying to work on policy stuff. I can see how the misunderstanding came about, but I'm absolutely sure that it's just a misunderstanding.  My reading of it was exactly what TRM said he meant, but I can totally see how you could equally read it the other way, Malleus.   Please guys, each have a hug off me, and find a way of sharing a virtual beer.  Okay?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Belenggu
I know you're semi-retired, but could you take a look at Belenggu? Even if you don't copyedit, if you want you can tear me a new one and question my idiocy for making simple BrE mistakes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the days that I'd help anyone with anything are gone. But perhaps the WikiMedia Foundation will be able to supply you with an alternative unit of work. Malleus Fatuorum 07:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That second sentence is... interesting? Alright, no problem. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Semantics question
I am currently writing an article on xerotine siccative and there is an instance (and there will almost certainly be more) where the word flammability comes up. I have almost always used the word flammability over inflammability; however, the source uses inflammability. Do you know if this is a British vs. American English problem? If it is more comment in British English to use inflammability, it would be better for me to use inflammability, since the subject is more relevant to British history. Any advice? Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The OED considers "flammability" and "inflammability" to be synonyms, so it's potentially rather confusing. I'd stick with "flammability". The best general advice I've seen (from the British Standards Institution) is to avoid the word "inflammable" and instead use "flammable" for things that burn, and "non-flammable" for things that don't. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ryan Vesey  Review me!  20:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an account of the history of the two words here Richerman ''   (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your opinion...
here, if you are willing. :) Lady  of  Shalott  13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Re you're welcome to make any comment you wish regarding my Wikipedia contributions. Nobody Ent 19:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I explained to Ent how it might seem to be solely an invitation to ANI. As I think you guessed, I was more interested in your observation on the article, which is now in the mainspace anyway. Speaking of anyway, I hope all of this is cleared up now. Have a great weekend and if you see Sitush in the pub, take his keys from him: he gets pretty wild, I hear. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You hear? Well, that is a bonus, I guess! Although not being able to hear does have its occasional uses. I've blown one of my eardrums & it is bleeding etc quite badly right now but, hopefully, it will clear up overnight, Plus ça change, plus ça même chose or something like that - I am not great with the Franglais. - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sitush, it's always something else with you. At your age, you should really be more careful. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, indeed. However, I do have the occasional successes. I am having to remove two 90 ft cypress trees at my house in Wales and last weekend was suspended 60 ft up using a chainsaw on the end of a 12 ft pole. I am still alive, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, the undefined undefined template really should allow people to select "feet" or "foot". In my part of the world, it would be a "12 foot" pole, for example. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does: 90 foot produces 90 foot Nobody Ent 03:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also do 90 ft, which produces 90 ft (which has the proper hyphenation) Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I didn't spot those options. Everyone has thought of everything before here, haven't they? Good stuff, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I envy you! I love climbing trees! And, what with the neck etc., it's been far too long since I've been able to do so. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What's with this feedback thing? Has someone finally twigged that W. is used by (ahem) consumers? Ning-ning (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My problem is a hip full of metal and arthritis etc from numerous other past broken bones. However, the job needs to be done & I am not paying £2500 to have someone else do it (more, if I want to keep the wood for my own use, as I do). - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that. About 25 years ago we had a big garden with lots of trees and one night half of a black poplar blew down. After getting lots of quotes for silly money I decided to do it myself and hired a chain saw for the weekend. Like all 2-stroke equipment you hire it was a complete bastard to start but once you got it warm you could stop and start it again with no problems. I put my ladders against the tree, climbed out onto the beginning of the branch I needed to cut, roped myself to the tree trunk and cut through the branch. It fell away from the tree just as planned, destroying the garden table I'd forgotten to move out of the way. When I looked around there was a crowd of people in the allotments behind the garden all looking at the idiot making all the noise tied to a tree. My brother-in-law and I then spent the rest of the day chopping down the rest of it and cutting it into manageable pieces - along with any other bits of tree around the garden I didn't like the look of. When I woke up next morning I was aching in every bone and muscle, and when I tried to start the chain saw I didn't even have the strength to turn over the engine, so the second day of hire was completely wasted. The next time I wanted to cut a branch off a tree I climbed it with the ladders, sat on the branch that need to come off and cut through it with a bow saw. This time the branch swung down and swiped away the ladders so I spent the next half hour trying to attract the attention of to one of the neighbours to ask her to get my wife to put the ladders back. I don't think I was cut out to be a tree surgeon.  Richerman ''   (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't sound like it. Perhaps a slapstick comedy actor in the Buster Keaton vein would be a more suitable vocation. OTOH, if you ever want another go then don't hire a saw: I've got three here + my harness etc, and I promise to watch carefully while you sweat. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're all heart! Actually I have a small electric one now (as tools are much cheaper these days) and a garden with not so many trees. One day though I'll get to that bloody conifer that blows in front of the Sky dish when its windy. Anyway, my only arboreal injuries so far have been to a garden table and my pride - no broken bones or metal hip plates yet :-) Richerman ''   (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with watching a craftsman at work, nor with watching an uninvolved debacle unfold! My breaks are a part of my birthright, as is my deafness etc. (I should put a plug in here for the rubella inoculation but won't. Oh, sorry, I just did). Plus, playing rugby & various other contact sports didn't help. I've used a couple of the Aldi etc type of electrics and they were fine, if you do not need the freedom of movement that a 2-stroke brings. Either type is better than none, and people appreciate it if you have a big chopper, so to speak. I took a tree out last year for a neighbour who was experiencing the Sky dish issue. It wasn't even their tree but, hey ho, that is not my problem - just dump the stuff on the correct side of the boundary & assume that they have had talks. With the rise in use of woodburning stoves and Sky, I expect a rather significant increase in deforestation, which is a shame because I love trees & when I cut them I have this weird feeling of guilt. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm rather fond of trees too if the truth be known. The main reason I haven't done anthing to the conifer is that it's used by a lot of birds - I could do with just lopping off the top really. Now, if you had a helicopter I could borrow....... Richerman ''   (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Out on our field, the only options are two-stroke or the ol' fashioned way, with hand tools. No electricity ... and we're currently in the process of clearing saplings, brambles and scrub galore.  Hoping to be able to free-up about an acre or so of extra graze-able land, by the time we've finished.  But, for digging the 100m-odd of drainage ditch, and making the embankment alongside it, the idea is to hire a mini-digger for the day.  Not that that will help us with digging the drainage in the woodland, or making the bog-passage under-drained pathway in the woodland, as there is no way to get the digger in there.  That's going to have to be an all-done-by-hand-and-sweat jobbie.  Deep joy. Hey, the way to lop off the top is to climb up there, rope the top, strain it slightly down to a suitable other tree of your choice (to tether it and put a bit of strain on it), and then use the bow saw.  You may need more than one rope, and more than one set of spare hands, to keep the top under control on its way down ;P  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be unfortunate if it hit, say, a Sky dish on its way down. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Or, f'rinstance, a garden table ... the kind of knot we use for tightening ropes over hay-trailers is kewl (and I can't remember what they're called!) If you have two of them (working out the triangulation nicely, of course), you can drop the top 20ft of a half-dead holly tree directly onto the tops of the fence-posts you want to use it as a top-rail for ;P  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But climbing to the top of a dense conifer is a bit tricky and the only trees I could tie it to are in other people's gardens. Roping it to ground pegs would possible but getting up high enough to cut it would be a bit of a problem. I'd need a scaffolding tower I suppose. Richerman ''   (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Guess what? I have one of those also, although it is only of limited use unless you have access to all "sides" of the tree. In any event, if the birds are nesting then now is not the time. Perhaps it is a daft question, but can the dish not be moved? - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We had it moved about 2 years ago and it's ok at the moment but they didn't move it far enough and I can see when the tree grows a bit taller it will become a problem again. That would be the answer really but there's a mountain ash growing in the neighbour's garden in the other space that's left and that will fill the gap before too long. I think it would probably be best to have it moved onto the chimney but most of the installers are reluctant to get up that high. I'm sure I'll find someone to do it when it gets a problem again though - I'll just have to pay a bit more.  Richerman ''   (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it something that you can do yourself, with those handy roof ladders (the ones with the angled top which goes over the ridge)? IIRC, there's nothing majorly techy about siting those things ... nothing a reasonably intellismart human being shouldn't be able to do, possibly with some background research beforehand. Unless, of course, you really don't like heights, that is.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 19:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I could do it, I've got the signal strength meter to set up the dish for the caravan, but at 62 I'm getting a bit stiff for climbing on the roof. I went up a couple of years ago when there was scaffolding up but the last time I tried it with a cat ladder I came a bit too close to falling off whilst climbing over the gutter. Probably worth paying a younger man to do the job. Richerman ''   (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe! Yes, could be!  This, of course, is where younger members of the family can come in handy.  Though a decent safety harness, tethered to two points (please! So that when you move the top point, on the chimney or wherever, you're still tethered to the lower one, etc.) is OK.  And abseiling / rapelling (sp?) down the walls is such fun!  And, for that bit, it really doesn't matter if you're a bit stiff.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 21:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

GD vs IP
Thanks for standing up to the IP, Malleus ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)