This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ainsworth
I was able to find only one current biography and one turn of the century biography. Our dear boy, although more famous than Dickens 150 years ago, is basically ignored today. That is great news if you want to publish something real on him (we could chat about -that- sometime later). However, it might cause a strain when writing a Wiki page. Two sources is more than enough for a nice biography but it is still a shame and lacks variety. I found perhaps half a dozen references to various works and to him in some general books on Victorian literature, which can fill in some gaps. My obligations will be nil in 2 weeks, so I can start putting together everything on a subpage so we can go over what is there. I definitely think a paper could be easily written on how his historical romances compare to Scott or how he deals with Manchester in comparison to Gaskell among other topics if you want to pursue something outside for publication. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Any kind of "Ainsworth" house? When I go through the biography I can hunt down addresses for you to take pictures of (hoping the buildings still exist). I do know that works including those on Dickens discuss Ainsworth, so we can always use them to piece it together, but it looks like we are stuck with a structure of two biographies, and only one that we can really "trust" academically. I've been in worse situations. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any Ainsworth house, but there might be a blue plaque somewhere, I'll check. Don't know why I didn't think of doing that before. I'll be happy to take pictures of whatever will help to tell his story. We may eventually stumble at FA, but surely we can at least do the man justice with a well-rounded GA? --MalleusFatuorum22:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I have more than enough for an FA and possible 4 or 5 scholarly articles (perhaps a book or two). The thing is, I don't have enough for a -Johnson- size FA, let alone for what Milton would look like. It just wont be as satisfying compared to the fame and respect that he had during his time. The man was greater than Dickens and yet snubbed by history. Blah! Ottava Rima (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to put together a substantial biography on subspace, then put together notes about books. If you can work on some plot summaries, we can think about how to work out a major set for DYK and publish a bunch of well written pages together and move some towards FA level. It should be fun. Also, since Ainsworth scholarship is so light, we really should think about publishing our own work, then having someone else add what we say to Wikipedia. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
His action novels? The first one I'll be reading is The Lancashire Witches, the only one that's never been out of print; I'm a bit surprised there isn't already an article on that. Quite a few of his novels are in Manchester Library's catalogue, so I'll make a start there. I take it that one of the books you've already got is Ellis's William Harrison Ainsworth and his friends? --MalleusFatuorum21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I meant to say -actual- novels but I obviously didn't pay attention to anything my fingers decided to type. I have Ellis's book, which would be good for you to have in comparison. I have two others, including the uber expensive The Life and Works of the Lancashire Novelist William Harrison Ainsworth by Stephen Carver. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
← I've used the word "gobsmacked" a few times recently, but I really was gobsmacked this morning when I idley thought of moving the list of Ainsworth's works into a "List of ..." article. Right there, staring me in the face, was the claim that Ainsworth wrote The Admirable Crichton. --MalleusFatuorum01:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Quite strange. By the way, I have first editions/early editions of 4 of his novels plus first collected editions (Vol 1-6) of the Ainsworth Magazine. I will upload some of the images. What I am thinking is to work on the biography, then have in subspage 6-8 different novel pages and maybe a page on his style. That way, we can have a large DYK with some well written pages. We will have to think of a unifying theme (or, we can just have his most "popular" novels listed and mention that he was bigger than Dickens at one time, which would get people interested). After the DYK phase, the rest would be easy. I'll put something together in terms of biography and notes on various books by mid-next week. This is going to be fun. Its about time Manchester literature received its due. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK remains a minor mystery to me]. I'm beginning to feel like I'm ploughing a lonely furrow with historic computers so I'm looking forward to something more collaborative. Bear in mind though that the only resources I bring are whatever is available in Manchester's public libraries. Oh, and a brain as big as a planet. --MalleusFatuorum02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK has become political, as of late. It never was, but... My new strategy is to keep things in subspace until I get approval. That way, I wont have to worry about time constraints. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Ottava Rima/Ainsworth biography. I'm slowly starting. I'm going to put all of the biography stuff there. Then we can talk about what is split to the early life, possible pages for some of his other family members (there is a bit out there). After I put together this, I will put together a page on his literary career, his novel style, his reputation, the Ainsworth's Magazine, and a few other things. Then we can figure out how much is summarized on the main page, what information is needed where, and we can work out the individual novels. I'm going to keep it on subpage until we get things mostly worked out. That way, we can move it to mainspace in chunks, have it go through DYK, and get Ainsworth promoted. He was ignored by history for writing historical romance, for being from Manchester, etc etc. We can make sure to return him back to his proper position and overcome the politics. Also, I have a few ideas for some articles that we can write along with possibly writing some introductions to some of his works and propose to get some of the novels republished (there are 4 that really should be). What a better way to give back to your community than by resurrecting Mr Manchester himself? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind if we move that to subspace for a few days? If not, that is fine. I'm going to add some of his other stuff shortly based on what I have. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I wanted to show you the size - User:Malleus Fatuorum/Ainsworth list of works. Thats just from the tiny collections and not all of the works and essays. I think that we could do a "list of novels" and have short summaries. Then have a "list of short stories" and a "list of essays". By using the bottom format, we could create a nice little set of pages that could be put up for Featured List. Would this be a good way to go? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Note - I will hunt you down some good images of Ainsworth. I also found some locations for his homes over the years to send you out and see if you can take pictures of. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ainsworth is undoubtedly a worthy subject, but I have to confess that my motivation to make any further contributions to wikipedia is at an all-time low. I guess we all go through phases like that from time to time though. --MalleusFatuorum22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless if you stay at Wiki or not, I will drag you into working on articles with me (real literary publication types of articles). I need your understanding of Manchester to help. If I have to get you through email, I will. I definitely want to examine how his childhood in the "romantic" time of Manchester affected many of his early great novels, including Rookwood. He was at the spot. Since it would partly deal with the narration in trying to impart an emotional feeling of the scene, I would need some first hand knowledge. That, at least, will be what I will force you to do no matter what. If you refuse, I will dig up some dirt on you and blackmail you. :) It will be fun. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I'll do some of the easier copyediting, but I doubt there are enough active contributors to address all your points within a week. Are you just picking an article out of a to-do list, or do you have some interest in Forth or programming languages? --IanOsgood (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The article came from this list. Although I flatter myself that I'm pretty much up to speed with programming languages and computer software in general, I'm afraid that I have no particular interest in Forth. I think there's a great deal that needs to be done to the article, and what is likely to be the most difficult task is adding citations and reliable sources. I was tempted to delist the article as I too think addressing everything that needs to be done is a big job that is unlikely to be able to be done any time soon. What do think? Is there any point in keeping the review open? The article can always be resubmitted to GAN as soon as the work is finished anyway. --MalleusFatuorum18:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
How about adding maintenance templates to specific sections with your remaining concerns, and let it stew for a month or two before revisiting the article? (Or does adding such a template automatically delist the article?) Another idea is to find some of the more active editors from the page history and notify them of the review on their talk pages. Or maybe find another couple active editors with more programming language expertise to help out. Also, I presume you are referencing the style guide? --IanOsgood (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've listed my concerns and drawn attention to a few of the sections that need to be cited in the review, along with the other issues I believe need to be addressed. If you or anyone else wants to add tags to the article then please feel free to do so. All articles listed as GA must meet the good article criteria, no matter what any project-specific guidelines may say. Of the seven examples listed as good articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Programming_languages#Style_guide only two are actually still listed and one was never listed. Those guidelines merely constitute advice as to content though, which is the third of the GA criteria. Every article must meet all six.
With the best will in the world, I am not going to embark on a search for editors to save every article which is in danger of being delisted. I have notified the project that tagged the article and I would hope that any interested editors would have this article on their watch lists and so would be aware of its reassessment. I will revisit the article in seven days and decide on its GA listing then. --MalleusFatuorum20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
He won't pass adminship the way he's going now. He's too serious and trigger happy, and has too much pride.--Pattont/c21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Aw.. nuts...
You're not thinking I'm all bent out of shape are you? I was having fun. Later in the day I get a bit looser with manners. In the morning I'll be all embarrassed...
I apologize if I was too informal. That's what fun does; someone's eye gets put out some way or another. --Moni3 (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I prefer to stay as far away from Ireland articles and the issues surrounding them as is humanly possible. --MalleusFatuorum18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
How about just stating the obvious, "... that John de Breton was Bishop of Hereford from 1269 to 1275?" No one said DYK had to be interesting, I once got Leon Johnson (a pretty unremarkable West Indian cricketer) past DYK with the hook "... that Leon Johnson, a West Indian cricketer, captained the West Indies team at the 2006 U/19 Cricket World Cup?", and – no offence to him – he doesn't sound as interesting as a medieval bishop. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That's my kind of article. I'm always astonished when I see reviewers ask for hauntings to be taken out. Bung 'em in, I say! Perhaps we could collaborate on a witch trial one day? There's also the plague in Manchester which I'm toying with, but then Hanah Beswick deserves her shot at FA .... so much to do. lol: --MalleusFatuorum22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree about the hauntings, including them is an exercise in neutrality but it should be done; I half expected more people to complain about the Warwick Castle article for mentioning them. A witch trial would be very interesting! It was good to watch the Pendle witch trials article develop. So much to do? I know the feeling, I'm eyeing up a list of castles in Cheshire for WP:CHES based on castles in Greater Manchester, plus Wigan needs work, and so does Salford... Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Tain't my choice, it's Ealdgyth's choice. But I do think she'd be foolish not to go with my brilliant suggestion. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --MalleusFatuorum23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing the page, I have not seen anything that can be considered a personal attack. If you have a complaint, take it to Wikiquette. If not, then you are basically acting in a non civil manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've been dragged through WQA a couple of times that I can remember, but I'd never bother to do it to anyone else. It's just a pathetic waste of time; "Mummy, Mummy, Malleus was rude to me." Live with it bitch. --MalleusFatuorum23:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
But Malleus, you keep forgetting - that is why Wikiquette was created. People have the chance to air out their grievances and then they are sent on their way back to working on the pedia. If someone has that much time to really be bothered then chances are they aren't working on the encyclopedia and are probably not contributing. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia definition of "personal attack" appears to be an observation with which a bunch of hormonal teenagers don't agree. --MalleusFatuorum23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Malleus a number of people have been saying you were trolling and being incivil on that page. I suggest you back away from it in case something bad happens (No I don't think you were being incivil, but look what happened A Nobody; people, including admins, are constantly atttacking and humiliating him and accusing him of acting in bad faith).--Pattont/c23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any chance we could get everyone involved in the ANI thread blocked for disrupting wikipedia? I need Malleus' help on the Sale article and they've kiboshed that. Nev1 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
No they haven't. This is entirely Malleus's choice. He can either start acting co-operatively with other editors and treating them with a bit of respect, or continue down the path he's going, which is leading nowhere good. He cannot keep making such outrageous comments without expecting consequences. Majorlytalk00:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Honestly? I never have problems with Malleus. We work quite co-operatively and even have differences of opinion. I've never felt disrespected either. Of course, your milage may vary. All I can do is point out that MY experience has been good. Ealdgyth - Talk00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I have had many nice conversations with him, which is why it is such a shame that he has to resort to personal attacks and uncivil behaviour so often. Majorlytalk00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me ask you this then, how would you feel if someone came to your talk page and just put in a link to WP:NPA without trying to discuss why they felt that something was a personal attack? Wouldn't that put your back up just a little bit? I'm not saying that necessarily it's the best choice to get rude, but I myself would find the begining of this conversation a bit rude too. If I felt that someone was making personal attacks at me (or someone else) and I felt strongly enough to discuss it with them, I would probably find it more helpful to discussion and a good outcome to explain why I felt that way rather than "upping the ante" by a title and link note with no other discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree it could have been done better. But the point is, Malleus knows he's violating it, and seemingly doesn't care at all. This is by far not the first time this has happened with him. Majorlytalk00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, just ignore it this time, Malleus ... it is what it is, we need the real contributors like you, and we all should really learn to laugh at these admin shenanigans and not even take the bait. Aren't these blocks always from admins who don't contribute content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Admin shenanigans? Did you see what Malleus said? The block was well deserved. If one makes personal attacks, one should accept the consequences with grace. Majorlytalk00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
As am I. Ddstretch is a friend of Malleus (they have worked together on WP:GMR articles). Just thought I'd mention it. Majorlytalk00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The block has been reinstated; the unblock was an incipient wheel war and out of process. Discussion with the blocking admin, I'll remind everyone, is not optional. Barring a workable compromise, then bringing the dispute for discussion towards consensus to a suitable forum is next. — Coren(talk)00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There is very little point in a block, as I have no intention of contributing to wikipedia ever again. So who's the winner? --MalleusFatuorum00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that I neither endorse nor object to the block; I have reinstated the block strictly as a measure to put a swift end to wheel warring. You are free to appeal the block in all of the usual manners. — Coren(talk)00:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if you don't come back, which would be a tremendous shame, at least editors won't be insulted by your namecalling and insulting comments when you disagree with them. Just stop with the uncivil behaviour, it's so simple. Majorlytalk00:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I said it before, and I'll say it again: You're a great article writer. I'm sad to see you leave. But tone it down, its not like you haven't said this before. Best. Synergy00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you seriously think that I give a shit what you or anyone else thinks here in this shit-hole? I'm done with wikipedia, let the kiddies do what they will with it. --MalleusFatuorum01:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? Yes, I do, otherwise you wouldn't still be responding. Equazcion•✗/C •01:13, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Well if you're still fuming, then perhaps your decision to leave won't stick once you've calmed down. I have to say I'm baffled as to how you could possibly see your actions as appropriate, but then, I suppose people are who they are. Equazcion•✗/C •01:22, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
It's not my intention to rub it in. I was actually trying to illicit a constructive response from you, perhaps an analysis of what happened in your eyes. But I won't respond here again if that's what you want. Equazcion•✗/C •01:30, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Well, Malleus. I thought everyone should calm down a bit before I write this here. Malleus, I think you are well aware that I do like you and admire your article work. Many other users do that as well and this seems to be the reason why they want to apply double standards. However, completely regardless of how many FA/GA one does write, whether they are an admin, bureaucrat or arbitrator, —as Durova worded it here— “no one has a license to be rude”. It's always important to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, the other users are humans as well and therefore it's important to stay civil in order to work in a pleasant atmosphere together — of course, you can disagree with others. But after all that's not a reason, let alone a justification, for becoming rude towards them. I hope you'll realise that this block is not intended to be any kind of punishment, — however, there's a need to protect others from personal insults. I feel confident that you will realise all these points with the benefit of hindsight — at least I really do hope you will. Finally, I honestly would be truly saddened if you decided to leave — I hope you'll reconsider this decision. Meanwhile, I wish you all the very best. — Aitias//discussion14:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh. The block is clearly punitive, and it is completely outside of the blocking policy. I am not some naughty child who needs to be put in the naughty-corner. Whatever this block was intended to achieve I know what it will achieve, and so I think do you. --MalleusFatuorum15:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Do what you think best...
I'm sorry to see you go, but certainly don't stick around if you're not happy. If you do return, you know that I'll always be happy to see you. *I* find my interactions with you to be quite civil, but of course, i'm too busy working on articles and at FAC and GAN to do much with the policy, etc. After all, it's an encyclopedia we're working on, right? Ealdgyth - Talk01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ditto Ealdgyth. You're an amazing contributor, and I hate to see you go. The encyclopedia is the worse for your leaving, and it's too bad that so many people confuse outspoken-ness with personal attacks. Dana boomer (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Honestly we need you Malleus. People have ignored my commentary that the project is falling into chaos, but no onw will listen. Please. Give us another try when the block is over. Ceranthor01:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The project has fallen into chaos; I just didn't realise until tonight how far it had fallen. I want no further part in it. --MalleusFatuorum01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, Malleus, try to have a nice glass of wine and laugh at the latest drama fest; things were just too quiet on Wiki, y'know? Don't feed it any further; it's supposed to be fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It was fun, once, but that stopped when the circling vultures started demanding that I recant, and admit to the wickedness of my ways. I'm not going to change, and neither are they. So, as there are lots more of them than me, I think my time here is finally at an end. To be honest I didn't expect to last as long as I did anyway. :-) --MalleusFatuorum01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you could consider that the work is done, but the fun has begun :) No, the admin dramafests will not ever change; how you view them can though. First trick: dramatically reduce your watchlist, put your head in the sand, and don't even make yourself aware of the normal goings-on. There are good people in the areas we frequent: ignore the rest. It works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Take a month off. Draw a picture of whoever you hate most and put it on a dartboard. Or do what I do, clean a horse stall (nothing makes the rest of the world look better than digging out horse crap). Ealdgyth - Talk02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite used to shoveling (animal) shit, although on a somewhat more modest scale than horses. And you're right, it's kind of back to basics. I've got some urgent RL stuff that I've neglected recently anyway, so it's probably all for the best that I'm prevented from wasting any more of my time here. --MalleusFatuorum02:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ddstretch, I'd encourage you not to resign. From the attitudes of some of the people I've seen tonight, they won't care. It's a noble gesture, but you can do more good on the inside. Nev1 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
DD, that's absolutely not going to solve anything. It was a slip. Doing this just creates more drama anyway. Wisdom89(T / C)02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Good admins who aren't interested in climbing the greasy pole here at WP and who seriously contribute to the project are needed. You seem to fall into that category. Ill considered blocks by a certain admin have already claimed one scalp recently. Don't make it two, or three.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Chalk up another win for the violent femmes. (NOTE: I use violent femmes as my preferred description of passive-aggressive, swishy, sneaky, vicious and cowardly editors, be they male, female or transgendered, homo-, hetero- or other-sexual, young or old. Wikipedia can be a disgusting place.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Malleus, I was asleep when this drama was unfolding and could not support you. The block was obviously bad because it was made in haste without considering all circumstances of the case. Some diffs provided to support your "incivility" were simply irrelevant, and many participants in that ANI thread seems to not have bothered to read them. I still hope that you will reconsider you decision to leave the project (possibly, after a wikiberak). Ruslik (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Selfishly, I'd like you to stay around, not least to help me occasionally. Maybe you could satisfy your need for controversy (?????) elsewhere!! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I missed all the action because it was Friday night and I was less than sober. "Don't edit drunk!" my brain says. "Don't edit high!" "Shut up!" I tell my brain, and feed it more intoxicants. Maybe next time I'll get on and try to read stuff and participate (well on my way to joining the ranks of the blocked). At any rate, this is my first post of the morning and I am reminded at once of two scenes in two Oscar-winning films: West Side Story and The Godfather, where Anita and Clemenza tell Maria and Michael that big fights have to happen in order to clear out all the bad blood. Then all the boys are horny and ready to make money again. Now I'm starting to think that Mario Puzo stoleThe Godfather from West Side Story. I'm going to put that in The Godfather article...
Worry not about spotless block logs, that at one time seemed like a high-performance vehicle tootling along on a crowded highway where so many editors drive carelessly. I appreciate your efforts here. I agree that people take offense way too easily and believe apologies are inalienable rights. They use their mock injury or tattered self-concepts as leverage in debates. If this is the system and this is the way it must be played, then ah well. Such the way it is in many societies. Sometimes you have to pay the cops in order to keep dancing.
Content and review would be sorrier without you. I hope to see you return.
You're absolutely right Moni, but I'm just no good at playing the game. It's not that I don't know the rules, it's that I don't agree with the rules. As George Bernard Shaw once said: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." I am that "unreasonable man" in spades. It would be very easy to ignore all of the wikistupidity and dishonesty in the dark corners of the project, and I know that SandyG is quite right in what she suggests about purging my watchlist of those crazy places like RfA. That just wouldn't be me though, to ignore the self-satisfied, sanctimonious, institutionalised corruption endemic in those places. To me that would be like trying to build a house on a rubbish tip. --MalleusFatuorum15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This didn't happen in RfA. It happened in a backroom by someone who agreed with Malleus but wanted to start a fight. It was classic baiting. Then we have a suspicious user filing the charges. Of course, it was all Wikiquette material. Three strikes against this. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom
I have fully prepared and prepped an ArbCom case over Coren's reinstating your block. I have evidence showing lack of discussion, rash action, and declaring himself as an Arb and acting without the decision of the council to act as one. However, I will not do this unless you would want me to do this. This is about you, and this is about making sure that people don't abuse authority in regards to you. If you are not up to it, I will not proceed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I can guarantee with 100% certainty that this will not be accepted, and that for filing a frivolous case, that you could be admonished for such actions. seicer | talk | contribs03:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
They may even tell you to stick it up your arse. Just saying. It's a possibility. Equazcion•✗/C •03:59, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
If the ArbCom would refuse to review it after seeing this diff that states "While not all of my colleagues may agree with my making this act in my capacity as an Arbitrator" after clearly stating that ArbCom did not give him permission to act as such, then they are contradicting the very foundation that they stand on. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood that statement. He also explicitly stated that his unblock was not made as an arbitrator but as an admin. Equazcion•✗/C •04:08, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
"When I have undone the unblock by DDStretch, I have done so as an administrator that happens to be an Arbitrator, but not in the name of the Committee. " Stated by Coren in his first sentence at WP:ANI#A brief statement. Equazcion•✗/C •04:11, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Unless you ignore what I have quoted, there is no possible way to see him as doing anything other than stating the above that he recognizes that he is doing such as a member of the ArbCom and that he is doing it without permission of ArbCom. ArbCom members should know not to violate admin related policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
And would you be ignoring what I quoted as well? This statement seems more explicit than the one you quoted. Given the apparent contradiction, your quote seems to me a simple poor choice of words. You're welcome to try getting the arbcom case through if you like, but to repeat what others have already said, I don't believe there's any chance. Equazcion•✗/C •04:19, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Here are the arguments if you are curious. They are undeniable and are clear. I will wait until Malleus approves of this action before submitting. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble over this Ottava, I really do appreciate your support, but I know full well that nothing would come of any ArbCom case. To be truthful I don't think Coren did anything particularly wrong anyway. The crowd was baying for my head and they had to be shown blood. Whoever it was did the first block—haven't bothered to check who that was, don't much care—might even have believed they were doing me a favour by issuing only a three-day block instead of indefinite, which as I would never bother wasting time in appealing would effectively have been a permanent block anyway. I am firmly of the view in any case that a significant number of editors have made it their mission to chase me away from wikipedia; I can see no other explanation for this ever-present desire to teach me a lesson, to humiliate me. I am no more sanguine about last night's events now than I was at the time. Whether I'll feel differently when the block expires or not time will tell. If I see a few heads on sticks in the meantime that may lighten my mood a little. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I know exactly who was calling for your head behind the scenes and they know exactly how I feel about them right now. There was no consensus to block you to begin with, or to reblock you. There was no respect for consensus at all. The community didn't want you blocked. Coren misrepresented himself as an Arbitrator. We have "Wheel" for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can guess who was behind it. Things have probably escalated out of control now though. What's next after a three-day block? A month? Indefinite? It's quite intolerable to be put under that kind of sword of Damocles, and I'm not sure I'm willing to be placed in that position. I'd get a damn sight more leeway as an IP editor. I really am thinking that Malleus's time here has come to an end. I'll have a few beers this evening instead of wasting time on those silly articles and see if I feel more optimistic once the ban expires. Thanks once again for your support, you've been a pal. Watch out for your own back though. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum16:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I need you around in this project. If you aren't around, I wont be able to carry the burden of Ainsworth. He is way too massive for one person and there are things about Manchester that you will be able to pick up on more easily. I am gaining ground on this matter even if I do have to use up a lot of the goodwill and favors that Ive built over time. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime though, could I ask a favour of you Ottava, or of anyone else who happens to read this first? I signed up at WP:GAN to do a review of Millenium '73, which I obviously won't be able to do now. Can you please remove my "under review" tag? Thanks. --MalleusFatuorum17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I noticed that though you gave congratulations and closed the review page, you never formally closed the GA on the talk page and on WP:GAN. Just a friendly reminder in case you forgot or something. I would do it myself, but it would look rather funny to "pass" my own nomination. Keep up the good work :) Arsenikk(talk)18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed that (I did not read the rest of the talk page until after my request). A real shame—Malleus is always doing such a good work at writing articles GA reviews. Arsenikk(talk)19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I was able to find only one current biography and one turn of the century biography. Our dear boy, although more famous than Dickens 150 years ago, is basically ignored today. That is great news if you want to publish something real on him (we could chat about -that- sometime later). However, it might cause a strain when writing a Wiki page. Two sources is more than enough for a nice biography but it is still a shame and lacks variety. I found perhaps half a dozen references to various works and to him in some general books on Victorian literature, which can fill in some gaps. My obligations will be nil in 2 weeks, so I can start putting together everything on a subpage so we can go over what is there. I definitely think a paper could be easily written on how his historical romances compare to Scott or how he deals with Manchester in comparison to Gaskell among other topics if you want to pursue something outside for publication. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Any kind of "Ainsworth" house? When I go through the biography I can hunt down addresses for you to take pictures of (hoping the buildings still exist). I do know that works including those on Dickens discuss Ainsworth, so we can always use them to piece it together, but it looks like we are stuck with a structure of two biographies, and only one that we can really "trust" academically. I've been in worse situations. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any Ainsworth house, but there might be a blue plaque somewhere, I'll check. Don't know why I didn't think of doing that before. I'll be happy to take pictures of whatever will help to tell his story. We may eventually stumble at FA, but surely we can at least do the man justice with a well-rounded GA? --MalleusFatuorum22:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I have more than enough for an FA and possible 4 or 5 scholarly articles (perhaps a book or two). The thing is, I don't have enough for a -Johnson- size FA, let alone for what Milton would look like. It just wont be as satisfying compared to the fame and respect that he had during his time. The man was greater than Dickens and yet snubbed by history. Blah! Ottava Rima (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to put together a substantial biography on subspace, then put together notes about books. If you can work on some plot summaries, we can think about how to work out a major set for DYK and publish a bunch of well written pages together and move some towards FA level. It should be fun. Also, since Ainsworth scholarship is so light, we really should think about publishing our own work, then having someone else add what we say to Wikipedia. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
His action novels? The first one I'll be reading is The Lancashire Witches, the only one that's never been out of print; I'm a bit surprised there isn't already an article on that. Quite a few of his novels are in Manchester Library's catalogue, so I'll make a start there. I take it that one of the books you've already got is Ellis's William Harrison Ainsworth and his friends? --MalleusFatuorum21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I meant to say -actual- novels but I obviously didn't pay attention to anything my fingers decided to type. I have Ellis's book, which would be good for you to have in comparison. I have two others, including the uber expensive The Life and Works of the Lancashire Novelist William Harrison Ainsworth by Stephen Carver. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
← I've used the word "gobsmacked" a few times recently, but I really was gobsmacked this morning when I idley thought of moving the list of Ainsworth's works into a "List of ..." article. Right there, staring me in the face, was the claim that Ainsworth wrote The Admirable Crichton. --MalleusFatuorum01:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Quite strange. By the way, I have first editions/early editions of 4 of his novels plus first collected editions (Vol 1-6) of the Ainsworth Magazine. I will upload some of the images. What I am thinking is to work on the biography, then have in subspage 6-8 different novel pages and maybe a page on his style. That way, we can have a large DYK with some well written pages. We will have to think of a unifying theme (or, we can just have his most "popular" novels listed and mention that he was bigger than Dickens at one time, which would get people interested). After the DYK phase, the rest would be easy. I'll put something together in terms of biography and notes on various books by mid-next week. This is going to be fun. Its about time Manchester literature received its due. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK remains a minor mystery to me]. I'm beginning to feel like I'm ploughing a lonely furrow with historic computers so I'm looking forward to something more collaborative. Bear in mind though that the only resources I bring are whatever is available in Manchester's public libraries. Oh, and a brain as big as a planet. --MalleusFatuorum02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK has become political, as of late. It never was, but... My new strategy is to keep things in subspace until I get approval. That way, I wont have to worry about time constraints. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Ottava Rima/Ainsworth biography. I'm slowly starting. I'm going to put all of the biography stuff there. Then we can talk about what is split to the early life, possible pages for some of his other family members (there is a bit out there). After I put together this, I will put together a page on his literary career, his novel style, his reputation, the Ainsworth's Magazine, and a few other things. Then we can figure out how much is summarized on the main page, what information is needed where, and we can work out the individual novels. I'm going to keep it on subpage until we get things mostly worked out. That way, we can move it to mainspace in chunks, have it go through DYK, and get Ainsworth promoted. He was ignored by history for writing historical romance, for being from Manchester, etc etc. We can make sure to return him back to his proper position and overcome the politics. Also, I have a few ideas for some articles that we can write along with possibly writing some introductions to some of his works and propose to get some of the novels republished (there are 4 that really should be). What a better way to give back to your community than by resurrecting Mr Manchester himself? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind if we move that to subspace for a few days? If not, that is fine. I'm going to add some of his other stuff shortly based on what I have. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I wanted to show you the size - User:Malleus Fatuorum/Ainsworth list of works. Thats just from the tiny collections and not all of the works and essays. I think that we could do a "list of novels" and have short summaries. Then have a "list of short stories" and a "list of essays". By using the bottom format, we could create a nice little set of pages that could be put up for Featured List. Would this be a good way to go? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Note - I will hunt you down some good images of Ainsworth. I also found some locations for his homes over the years to send you out and see if you can take pictures of. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ainsworth is undoubtedly a worthy subject, but I have to confess that my motivation to make any further contributions to wikipedia is at an all-time low. I guess we all go through phases like that from time to time though. --MalleusFatuorum22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless if you stay at Wiki or not, I will drag you into working on articles with me (real literary publication types of articles). I need your understanding of Manchester to help. If I have to get you through email, I will. I definitely want to examine how his childhood in the "romantic" time of Manchester affected many of his early great novels, including Rookwood. He was at the spot. Since it would partly deal with the narration in trying to impart an emotional feeling of the scene, I would need some first hand knowledge. That, at least, will be what I will force you to do no matter what. If you refuse, I will dig up some dirt on you and blackmail you. :) It will be fun. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I'll do some of the easier copyediting, but I doubt there are enough active contributors to address all your points within a week. Are you just picking an article out of a to-do list, or do you have some interest in Forth or programming languages? --IanOsgood (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The article came from this list. Although I flatter myself that I'm pretty much up to speed with programming languages and computer software in general, I'm afraid that I have no particular interest in Forth. I think there's a great deal that needs to be done to the article, and what is likely to be the most difficult task is adding citations and reliable sources. I was tempted to delist the article as I too think addressing everything that needs to be done is a big job that is unlikely to be able to be done any time soon. What do think? Is there any point in keeping the review open? The article can always be resubmitted to GAN as soon as the work is finished anyway. --MalleusFatuorum18:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
How about adding maintenance templates to specific sections with your remaining concerns, and let it stew for a month or two before revisiting the article? (Or does adding such a template automatically delist the article?) Another idea is to find some of the more active editors from the page history and notify them of the review on their talk pages. Or maybe find another couple active editors with more programming language expertise to help out. Also, I presume you are referencing the style guide? --IanOsgood (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've listed my concerns and drawn attention to a few of the sections that need to be cited in the review, along with the other issues I believe need to be addressed. If you or anyone else wants to add tags to the article then please feel free to do so. All articles listed as GA must meet the good article criteria, no matter what any project-specific guidelines may say. Of the seven examples listed as good articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Programming_languages#Style_guide only two are actually still listed and one was never listed. Those guidelines merely constitute advice as to content though, which is the third of the GA criteria. Every article must meet all six.
With the best will in the world, I am not going to embark on a search for editors to save every article which is in danger of being delisted. I have notified the project that tagged the article and I would hope that any interested editors would have this article on their watch lists and so would be aware of its reassessment. I will revisit the article in seven days and decide on its GA listing then. --MalleusFatuorum20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
He won't pass adminship the way he's going now. He's too serious and trigger happy, and has too much pride.--Pattont/c21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Aw.. nuts...
You're not thinking I'm all bent out of shape are you? I was having fun. Later in the day I get a bit looser with manners. In the morning I'll be all embarrassed...
I apologize if I was too informal. That's what fun does; someone's eye gets put out some way or another. --Moni3 (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I prefer to stay as far away from Ireland articles and the issues surrounding them as is humanly possible. --MalleusFatuorum18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
How about just stating the obvious, "... that John de Breton was Bishop of Hereford from 1269 to 1275?" No one said DYK had to be interesting, I once got Leon Johnson (a pretty unremarkable West Indian cricketer) past DYK with the hook "... that Leon Johnson, a West Indian cricketer, captained the West Indies team at the 2006 U/19 Cricket World Cup?", and – no offence to him – he doesn't sound as interesting as a medieval bishop. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That's my kind of article. I'm always astonished when I see reviewers ask for hauntings to be taken out. Bung 'em in, I say! Perhaps we could collaborate on a witch trial one day? There's also the plague in Manchester which I'm toying with, but then Hanah Beswick deserves her shot at FA .... so much to do. lol: --MalleusFatuorum22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree about the hauntings, including them is an exercise in neutrality but it should be done; I half expected more people to complain about the Warwick Castle article for mentioning them. A witch trial would be very interesting! It was good to watch the Pendle witch trials article develop. So much to do? I know the feeling, I'm eyeing up a list of castles in Cheshire for WP:CHES based on castles in Greater Manchester, plus Wigan needs work, and so does Salford... Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Tain't my choice, it's Ealdgyth's choice. But I do think she'd be foolish not to go with my brilliant suggestion. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --MalleusFatuorum23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing the page, I have not seen anything that can be considered a personal attack. If you have a complaint, take it to Wikiquette. If not, then you are basically acting in a non civil manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've been dragged through WQA a couple of times that I can remember, but I'd never bother to do it to anyone else. It's just a pathetic waste of time; "Mummy, Mummy, Malleus was rude to me." Live with it bitch. --MalleusFatuorum23:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
But Malleus, you keep forgetting - that is why Wikiquette was created. People have the chance to air out their grievances and then they are sent on their way back to working on the pedia. If someone has that much time to really be bothered then chances are they aren't working on the encyclopedia and are probably not contributing. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia definition of "personal attack" appears to be an observation with which a bunch of hormonal teenagers don't agree. --MalleusFatuorum23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Malleus a number of people have been saying you were trolling and being incivil on that page. I suggest you back away from it in case something bad happens (No I don't think you were being incivil, but look what happened A Nobody; people, including admins, are constantly atttacking and humiliating him and accusing him of acting in bad faith).--Pattont/c23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any chance we could get everyone involved in the ANI thread blocked for disrupting wikipedia? I need Malleus' help on the Sale article and they've kiboshed that. Nev1 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
No they haven't. This is entirely Malleus's choice. He can either start acting co-operatively with other editors and treating them with a bit of respect, or continue down the path he's going, which is leading nowhere good. He cannot keep making such outrageous comments without expecting consequences. Majorlytalk00:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Honestly? I never have problems with Malleus. We work quite co-operatively and even have differences of opinion. I've never felt disrespected either. Of course, your milage may vary. All I can do is point out that MY experience has been good. Ealdgyth - Talk00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I have had many nice conversations with him, which is why it is such a shame that he has to resort to personal attacks and uncivil behaviour so often. Majorlytalk00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me ask you this then, how would you feel if someone came to your talk page and just put in a link to WP:NPA without trying to discuss why they felt that something was a personal attack? Wouldn't that put your back up just a little bit? I'm not saying that necessarily it's the best choice to get rude, but I myself would find the begining of this conversation a bit rude too. If I felt that someone was making personal attacks at me (or someone else) and I felt strongly enough to discuss it with them, I would probably find it more helpful to discussion and a good outcome to explain why I felt that way rather than "upping the ante" by a title and link note with no other discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree it could have been done better. But the point is, Malleus knows he's violating it, and seemingly doesn't care at all. This is by far not the first time this has happened with him. Majorlytalk00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, just ignore it this time, Malleus ... it is what it is, we need the real contributors like you, and we all should really learn to laugh at these admin shenanigans and not even take the bait. Aren't these blocks always from admins who don't contribute content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Admin shenanigans? Did you see what Malleus said? The block was well deserved. If one makes personal attacks, one should accept the consequences with grace. Majorlytalk00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
As am I. Ddstretch is a friend of Malleus (they have worked together on WP:GMR articles). Just thought I'd mention it. Majorlytalk00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The block has been reinstated; the unblock was an incipient wheel war and out of process. Discussion with the blocking admin, I'll remind everyone, is not optional. Barring a workable compromise, then bringing the dispute for discussion towards consensus to a suitable forum is next. — Coren(talk)00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There is very little point in a block, as I have no intention of contributing to wikipedia ever again. So who's the winner? --MalleusFatuorum00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that I neither endorse nor object to the block; I have reinstated the block strictly as a measure to put a swift end to wheel warring. You are free to appeal the block in all of the usual manners. — Coren(talk)00:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if you don't come back, which would be a tremendous shame, at least editors won't be insulted by your namecalling and insulting comments when you disagree with them. Just stop with the uncivil behaviour, it's so simple. Majorlytalk00:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I said it before, and I'll say it again: You're a great article writer. I'm sad to see you leave. But tone it down, its not like you haven't said this before. Best. Synergy00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you seriously think that I give a shit what you or anyone else thinks here in this shit-hole? I'm done with wikipedia, let the kiddies do what they will with it. --MalleusFatuorum01:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? Yes, I do, otherwise you wouldn't still be responding. Equazcion•✗/C •01:13, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Well if you're still fuming, then perhaps your decision to leave won't stick once you've calmed down. I have to say I'm baffled as to how you could possibly see your actions as appropriate, but then, I suppose people are who they are. Equazcion•✗/C •01:22, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
It's not my intention to rub it in. I was actually trying to illicit a constructive response from you, perhaps an analysis of what happened in your eyes. But I won't respond here again if that's what you want. Equazcion•✗/C •01:30, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Well, Malleus. I thought everyone should calm down a bit before I write this here. Malleus, I think you are well aware that I do like you and admire your article work. Many other users do that as well and this seems to be the reason why they want to apply double standards. However, completely regardless of how many FA/GA one does write, whether they are an admin, bureaucrat or arbitrator, —as Durova worded it here— “no one has a license to be rude”. It's always important to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, the other users are humans as well and therefore it's important to stay civil in order to work in a pleasant atmosphere together — of course, you can disagree with others. But after all that's not a reason, let alone a justification, for becoming rude towards them. I hope you'll realise that this block is not intended to be any kind of punishment, — however, there's a need to protect others from personal insults. I feel confident that you will realise all these points with the benefit of hindsight — at least I really do hope you will. Finally, I honestly would be truly saddened if you decided to leave — I hope you'll reconsider this decision. Meanwhile, I wish you all the very best. — Aitias//discussion14:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh. The block is clearly punitive, and it is completely outside of the blocking policy. I am not some naughty child who needs to be put in the naughty-corner. Whatever this block was intended to achieve I know what it will achieve, and so I think do you. --MalleusFatuorum15:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Do what you think best...
I'm sorry to see you go, but certainly don't stick around if you're not happy. If you do return, you know that I'll always be happy to see you. *I* find my interactions with you to be quite civil, but of course, i'm too busy working on articles and at FAC and GAN to do much with the policy, etc. After all, it's an encyclopedia we're working on, right? Ealdgyth - Talk01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ditto Ealdgyth. You're an amazing contributor, and I hate to see you go. The encyclopedia is the worse for your leaving, and it's too bad that so many people confuse outspoken-ness with personal attacks. Dana boomer (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Honestly we need you Malleus. People have ignored my commentary that the project is falling into chaos, but no onw will listen. Please. Give us another try when the block is over. Ceranthor01:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The project has fallen into chaos; I just didn't realise until tonight how far it had fallen. I want no further part in it. --MalleusFatuorum01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, Malleus, try to have a nice glass of wine and laugh at the latest drama fest; things were just too quiet on Wiki, y'know? Don't feed it any further; it's supposed to be fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It was fun, once, but that stopped when the circling vultures started demanding that I recant, and admit to the wickedness of my ways. I'm not going to change, and neither are they. So, as there are lots more of them than me, I think my time here is finally at an end. To be honest I didn't expect to last as long as I did anyway. :-) --MalleusFatuorum01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you could consider that the work is done, but the fun has begun :) No, the admin dramafests will not ever change; how you view them can though. First trick: dramatically reduce your watchlist, put your head in the sand, and don't even make yourself aware of the normal goings-on. There are good people in the areas we frequent: ignore the rest. It works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Take a month off. Draw a picture of whoever you hate most and put it on a dartboard. Or do what I do, clean a horse stall (nothing makes the rest of the world look better than digging out horse crap). Ealdgyth - Talk02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite used to shoveling (animal) shit, although on a somewhat more modest scale than horses. And you're right, it's kind of back to basics. I've got some urgent RL stuff that I've neglected recently anyway, so it's probably all for the best that I'm prevented from wasting any more of my time here. --MalleusFatuorum02:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ddstretch, I'd encourage you not to resign. From the attitudes of some of the people I've seen tonight, they won't care. It's a noble gesture, but you can do more good on the inside. Nev1 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
DD, that's absolutely not going to solve anything. It was a slip. Doing this just creates more drama anyway. Wisdom89(T / C)02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Good admins who aren't interested in climbing the greasy pole here at WP and who seriously contribute to the project are needed. You seem to fall into that category. Ill considered blocks by a certain admin have already claimed one scalp recently. Don't make it two, or three.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Chalk up another win for the violent femmes. (NOTE: I use violent femmes as my preferred description of passive-aggressive, swishy, sneaky, vicious and cowardly editors, be they male, female or transgendered, homo-, hetero- or other-sexual, young or old. Wikipedia can be a disgusting place.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Malleus, I was asleep when this drama was unfolding and could not support you. The block was obviously bad because it was made in haste without considering all circumstances of the case. Some diffs provided to support your "incivility" were simply irrelevant, and many participants in that ANI thread seems to not have bothered to read them. I still hope that you will reconsider you decision to leave the project (possibly, after a wikiberak). Ruslik (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Selfishly, I'd like you to stay around, not least to help me occasionally. Maybe you could satisfy your need for controversy (?????) elsewhere!! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I missed all the action because it was Friday night and I was less than sober. "Don't edit drunk!" my brain says. "Don't edit high!" "Shut up!" I tell my brain, and feed it more intoxicants. Maybe next time I'll get on and try to read stuff and participate (well on my way to joining the ranks of the blocked). At any rate, this is my first post of the morning and I am reminded at once of two scenes in two Oscar-winning films: West Side Story and The Godfather, where Anita and Clemenza tell Maria and Michael that big fights have to happen in order to clear out all the bad blood. Then all the boys are horny and ready to make money again. Now I'm starting to think that Mario Puzo stoleThe Godfather from West Side Story. I'm going to put that in The Godfather article...
Worry not about spotless block logs, that at one time seemed like a high-performance vehicle tootling along on a crowded highway where so many editors drive carelessly. I appreciate your efforts here. I agree that people take offense way too easily and believe apologies are inalienable rights. They use their mock injury or tattered self-concepts as leverage in debates. If this is the system and this is the way it must be played, then ah well. Such the way it is in many societies. Sometimes you have to pay the cops in order to keep dancing.
Content and review would be sorrier without you. I hope to see you return.
You're absolutely right Moni, but I'm just no good at playing the game. It's not that I don't know the rules, it's that I don't agree with the rules. As George Bernard Shaw once said: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." I am that "unreasonable man" in spades. It would be very easy to ignore all of the wikistupidity and dishonesty in the dark corners of the project, and I know that SandyG is quite right in what she suggests about purging my watchlist of those crazy places like RfA. That just wouldn't be me though, to ignore the self-satisfied, sanctimonious, institutionalised corruption endemic in those places. To me that would be like trying to build a house on a rubbish tip. --MalleusFatuorum15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This didn't happen in RfA. It happened in a backroom by someone who agreed with Malleus but wanted to start a fight. It was classic baiting. Then we have a suspicious user filing the charges. Of course, it was all Wikiquette material. Three strikes against this. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom
I have fully prepared and prepped an ArbCom case over Coren's reinstating your block. I have evidence showing lack of discussion, rash action, and declaring himself as an Arb and acting without the decision of the council to act as one. However, I will not do this unless you would want me to do this. This is about you, and this is about making sure that people don't abuse authority in regards to you. If you are not up to it, I will not proceed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I can guarantee with 100% certainty that this will not be accepted, and that for filing a frivolous case, that you could be admonished for such actions. seicer | talk | contribs03:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
They may even tell you to stick it up your arse. Just saying. It's a possibility. Equazcion•✗/C •03:59, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
If the ArbCom would refuse to review it after seeing this diff that states "While not all of my colleagues may agree with my making this act in my capacity as an Arbitrator" after clearly stating that ArbCom did not give him permission to act as such, then they are contradicting the very foundation that they stand on. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood that statement. He also explicitly stated that his unblock was not made as an arbitrator but as an admin. Equazcion•✗/C •04:08, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
"When I have undone the unblock by DDStretch, I have done so as an administrator that happens to be an Arbitrator, but not in the name of the Committee. " Stated by Coren in his first sentence at WP:ANI#A brief statement. Equazcion•✗/C •04:11, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Unless you ignore what I have quoted, there is no possible way to see him as doing anything other than stating the above that he recognizes that he is doing such as a member of the ArbCom and that he is doing it without permission of ArbCom. ArbCom members should know not to violate admin related policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
And would you be ignoring what I quoted as well? This statement seems more explicit than the one you quoted. Given the apparent contradiction, your quote seems to me a simple poor choice of words. You're welcome to try getting the arbcom case through if you like, but to repeat what others have already said, I don't believe there's any chance. Equazcion•✗/C •04:19, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Here are the arguments if you are curious. They are undeniable and are clear. I will wait until Malleus approves of this action before submitting. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble over this Ottava, I really do appreciate your support, but I know full well that nothing would come of any ArbCom case. To be truthful I don't think Coren did anything particularly wrong anyway. The crowd was baying for my head and they had to be shown blood. Whoever it was did the first block—haven't bothered to check who that was, don't much care—might even have believed they were doing me a favour by issuing only a three-day block instead of indefinite, which as I would never bother wasting time in appealing would effectively have been a permanent block anyway. I am firmly of the view in any case that a significant number of editors have made it their mission to chase me away from wikipedia; I can see no other explanation for this ever-present desire to teach me a lesson, to humiliate me. I am no more sanguine about last night's events now than I was at the time. Whether I'll feel differently when the block expires or not time will tell. If I see a few heads on sticks in the meantime that may lighten my mood a little. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I know exactly who was calling for your head behind the scenes and they know exactly how I feel about them right now. There was no consensus to block you to begin with, or to reblock you. There was no respect for consensus at all. The community didn't want you blocked. Coren misrepresented himself as an Arbitrator. We have "Wheel" for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can guess who was behind it. Things have probably escalated out of control now though. What's next after a three-day block? A month? Indefinite? It's quite intolerable to be put under that kind of sword of Damocles, and I'm not sure I'm willing to be placed in that position. I'd get a damn sight more leeway as an IP editor. I really am thinking that Malleus's time here has come to an end. I'll have a few beers this evening instead of wasting time on those silly articles and see if I feel more optimistic once the ban expires. Thanks once again for your support, you've been a pal. Watch out for your own back though. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum16:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I need you around in this project. If you aren't around, I wont be able to carry the burden of Ainsworth. He is way too massive for one person and there are things about Manchester that you will be able to pick up on more easily. I am gaining ground on this matter even if I do have to use up a lot of the goodwill and favors that Ive built over time. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime though, could I ask a favour of you Ottava, or of anyone else who happens to read this first? I signed up at WP:GAN to do a review of Millenium '73, which I obviously won't be able to do now. Can you please remove my "under review" tag? Thanks. --MalleusFatuorum17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I noticed that though you gave congratulations and closed the review page, you never formally closed the GA on the talk page and on WP:GAN. Just a friendly reminder in case you forgot or something. I would do it myself, but it would look rather funny to "pass" my own nomination. Keep up the good work :) Arsenikk(talk)18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed that (I did not read the rest of the talk page until after my request). A real shame—Malleus is always doing such a good work at writing articles GA reviews. Arsenikk(talk)19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
What is it with this witchunt? [3] Is that me? No, it fucking well isn't.
OK, I used a bad word, but I used it in response to a bad faith allegation. I get blocked for being rude, but you're quite free to accuse me of dishonesty without a similar sanction. --MalleusFatuorum00:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Its okay. It is being handled. Okay? Over 25 people have approached me to complain about the admin who blocked you and said they should be desysopped. Many people have said that Coren's actions were not good at all and an abuse of the title Arbitrator. The rest can be handled. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Over 30 have contacted me, agreeing the block(s) were perfectly appropriate, in response to grossly uncivil behaviour. They have also mentioned Ottava should reconsider his crusade against admins who have done nothing wrong at all, but simply blocked someone who happened to be a friend of his. Majorlytalk02:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Majorly, you accused Jimbo of bad faith and not knowing what he was talking about when it comes to WP:POINT. You have no grounds to even attempt to lecture anyone on anything right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I thank you for your most gracious apology for accusing me of having posted as an IP in order to evade my undoubtedly well-deserved block. I think it ought to have been fairly clear to anyone though who that IP editor actually was. Certainly wasn't me. --MalleusFatuorum14:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I for one was not “approached” or contacted by anyone, but I honestly deem your conspiracy theories utterly ridiculous, Ottava Rima. They are that ridiculous, it's simply incredible. Also, regarding your everywhere claims of desyoping me, just go ahead, please. However, I can promise you that definitely no one is going to desyop me for making a perfectly reasonable and justified block, that was even supported by consensus at AN/I. So I ask you to either stop your utterly laughable conspiracy theories and claims of desysoping or simply go ahead and desysop me and prove your conspiracy theories right. Do something, or simply be quiet. — Aitias//discussion12:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories? Not once have I stated -you- were approached or acted with another. And justified block? You have a long history of interacting with Malleus on RfA. Your blocking him on an RfA related page was uncalled for by CoI. Regardless, the original warning was over one word, then "stick it up your ass" is another. Two. WP:CIVIL makes it clear that it must be egregious. If you think two comments are egregious, then you seriously need to put yourself up for reconfirmation and see if the community really supports you. We all know it wont, especially with four calls for you to do just this as an immediate reaction to your Point violation yesterday. Jimbo should have saved us the trouble by desysopping you and blocking you for a week for such outrageous disruptions of Wikipedia as of late. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest is moot validation for alleging a "poor block" – practically everyone at RfA (and even most at GAN) have interacted with Malleus (on most some occasions, it hasn't made pleasant reading) so claiming that would leave very few admins who could, 'justifiably', block him. Caulde14:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
"... practically everyone at RfA (and even most at GAN) have interacted with Malleus (on most occasions, it hasn't made pleasant reading)". I would be very interested to see what evidence you can produce to back up your claim that "most at GAN" have found my interactions with them to make unpleasant reading. --MalleusFatuorum14:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I second that. Whatever the merits of Malleus' current block, Malleus is a highly respected reviewer and contributor to discussions at WP:GAN. We're not always on the same side in discussions (I think it's about 50/50), but I never have any doubt that Malleus' main concern is to improve the quality of articles and, pursuant to that, of editors. --Philcha (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I meant in the context of your presence, you are known throughtout many of the processes here; with some situations that have arisen making unpleasant reading - I didn't specifically say it was your comments that made it appear that way either; just to clear that point up. Caulde15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
He is well known throughout the article processes (FAC, GAN etc.) as a distinguished and highly-qualified reviewer (I think of him as that myself), however, there are at times some sticky situations where conflict has arisen as a result of, say for example, a nominee-article's nominator becoming frustrated or at RfA when people see his comments and become somewhat incensed to defend their own views through ad hominem attacks - it has happened. Even at the discussion on ANI that resulted in this block, there is evidence of where arguments have occured and given the number of them linked, I think it would be difficult indeed to find an admin or editor for that matter that hadn't been involved (and thus have a conflict of interest) with Malleus, therefore claiming a conflict of interest (on the part of Aitias) is moot. That is essentially what I was trying to say, my 'convoluted commenting disorder' just returned for a second there you see! Caulde15:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little mystified as to the integrity of a system which allows administrators like Caulde to throw around mysterious and unsubstantiated allegations in an apparently gleeful rejoicing at the misfortune of another editor without even an eyebrow being raised. But then I'm mystified by a great deal that happens here. --MalleusFatuorum15:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You didn't explain in the first place, merely blustered and obfuscated. I asked you to back up your claim that "most at GAN" have found my interactions with them to make unpleasant reading. --MalleusFatuorum15:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it will set an example for other administrators to follow. I find it very strange though that someone who so freely admits to a lack of self-control retains the admin bit. --MalleusFatuorum15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I can not understand you, really not, Malleus. I am not kicking you. Exactly the opposite. I've tried to explain to you why I have made this block — because I deemed it the best (and necessary) both for the project and you. Actually, I would have expected you to understand that. Instead, you are not even a bit understanding but only searching for lame excuses for your behaviour. Also, this kicking of Caulde was disgusting. I would have expected different from you, but apparently I was mistaken. — Aitias//discussion18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) @Ottava Rima: “You have a long history of interacting with Malleus on RfA. Your blocking him on an RfA related page was uncalled for by CoI.” Mind providing some evidence for this obvious untruth? And I mean evidence, not just new untruthful claims. Thanks. — Aitias//discussion18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Time to end this now
We need decision making, not arguing. Here is what I propose we do to end this now and put it to a smart end:
On the condition that Coren has grotesquely abused powers of Arbitration here, I have to believe that, he should not be taken off the Arbitration Committee, but under a four-month probationary period in which if he is to cause a problem with Malleus once again, or involve himself in such way that he may go to do such actions again, he can either 1) Resign from ArbCom, or 2) Be recomfirmated from ArbCom via community vote or actions from Jimmy Wales. This is a really groutesque lapse of judgement and I severely do not agree with it.
On the condition that Aitias has severely abused his powers of administrator, I have to believe that this Conflict of Interest and Lapse of Judgement (along with many prior lapses), that its time to request a desysopping by community decision. I have heard on and off-wiki many times that he is beginning to overstay his welcome as an administrator. I think the community has basically had it with him and his lapses. If the decision to desysop is passed, Aitias is off the hook. If it is not, we should look into a 6-month probationary period, where he is under strong restrictions and if he is to violate it, we should look into more punishable measures, such as another desysopping discussion.
As for the last party involved, Malleus Fatuorum. We know the history of incivility, but incivility is only a small violation of Wikipedia policy. Malleus is a strong contributor and whenever he has been blocked for incivility, he did his best to wait patiently and not be more incivil in terms. I think this witchhunt on top of him is getting way out of hand, and I would go to say that we are stalking him with more problems that 1) he needs and 2) we as a community need. For Malleus, I proposed a "slap on the wrist" per se. He should at least get a good warning about really what incivility on his part is causing.
Now, I am sure people will not agree with my conditions and terms here, but I do believe that this witchhunt has gone on long enough that its becoming more of a pain. As I said in each Coren and Aitias', we should not look up and ignore what they have done, and not condone it for that matter. We have the split that we can see that there are people who are condoning it and some who are not. We need to make the decision as a community, not as Unions or Confederates.Mitch32(Go Syracuse)16:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
@Mitchazenia: “On the condition that Aitias has severely abused his powers of administrator, I have to believe that this Conflict of Interest and Lapse of Judgement (along with many prior lapses)” Where is this severe abuse of my admin rights? Where is this conflict of interest? Mind providing some evidence for the COI instead of untruthful allegations? What lapse of judgement? Mind providing some evidence for the "many prior lapses"? Simply making a huge amount of unproven, untruthful allegations does not make them true. — Aitias//discussion18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, I don't recall having come across Aitias until recently, when (s)he insisted on posting in Ancient Greek during a discussion I've forgotten, and had to be reminded of wikipedia's rules of engagement (not by me). I bear Aitias no ill will, I just don't believe that (s)he is fit to be an administrator. --MalleusFatuorum19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Mitch: That block was actually a mistake, admitted and apologized for. There is very little need in prolonging this. Synergy21:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this is getting a little out of hand - that's an outrageous accusation. I suggest it be redacted unless you can provide evidence. Wisdom89(T / C)21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't true. Aitias is German, and Caulde is Irish. Checks were done on Caulde's account for an unrelated reason in January 2008, during which time Aitias was actively editing, so if they were the same, it would've shown. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
With passing interest because they and others aren't continuously causing a ruckus on a usertalk page. Wisdom89(T / C)21:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That diff is nothing to worry about. A simple geolocation reveals that the IP originates from New Jersey, USA, excluding any serious possibility that it belongs to yourself. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm only concerned that different standards appear to be expected of me than are expected of other editors. See Caulde's remarks below as one example. I suggest that two users may be socking, or tag teaming, and I'm a devil. Yet when I'm accused of trying to evade a block by IP editing, everything's cool; everyone knows I'm a dishonest bastard anyway, just the kind of of trick I'd try to pull. Anyone who really knows though me will also know just how far from the truth that actually is. --MalleusFatuorum21:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Had the accusation of socking with an IP been made a subject of discussion on your talk page, I'm sure it would have elicited a similar response. Wisdom89(T / C)21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The fact they're from completely different countries, have totally different interests, different personalities, and a huge amount of edits that would make any kind of socking impossible, should make it completely clear to anyone that they are most obviously not the same. A smidgen of research would have shown this. I agree with Wisdom's comment. Please remove this section. Or should I start making ridiculous claims you and Ottava are the same? Would you like that? Where is Ottava anyway, he should have turned up already to agree with you, and request the check for you... Majorlytalk21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Malleus. I personally guarantee they are not the same person. Can you trust me on that? If you want we can speak in RL for the reasons - I will happily email my phone number to you. Pedro : Chat 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A generous offer as well, as my head of steam has shown no signs of diminishing during this punitive block. It would probably be a good idea though if other administrators didn't follow your lead; they might get a little more than they bargained for. --MalleusFatuorum22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
"Yet when I'm accused of trying to evade a block by IP editing, everything's cool." After I posted it a number of people approached me saying you definitly weren't. Once again my sincere apologies--Pattont/c22:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if they were the same person a checkuser couldn't proove it. They're not stupid, they'd use proxies and seperate browsers, maybe even seperate operating systems...--Pattont/c22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(This message is not only directed at Malleus but other users discussing.) I have protected this talkpage until the expiry of Malleus's block (in a bit less than a day) as no productive discussion is coming out of this--tempers seem to be pretty high and the socking accusation was really the last straw. Maxim(talk)22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I popped in to finish off the GA review I'd started before I was so rudely interrupted. Whether the motivation to do anything else here will return remains to be seen. --MalleusFatuorum21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I note you at least seem to have found some motivation to edit a popular website that provides critical commentary regarding the Wikipedia project..... :) Pedro : Chat 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Motivation. :) That is 50% of the early life page sans discussion of his juvenalia. You can see part way down a section that the Peterloo Massacre should probably be elaborated on. There are some other Manchester things that need to be discussed. I will be working on this more during this week. But yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind complaints about a need for copyediting, especially when I didn't touch the language since the content was first added. However, I get upset when someone implies that it is the worse thing ever, especially after there were many copyedits by multiple users and there was jargon thrown out that has no connection to their actual use. It is so frustrating. >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Good article reassessments
Hi, when you delist good articles in the future, could you please also remove the good article ratings from the Wikiprojects? I corrected a dozen old ones. Thanks. Hekerui (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The project assessments are nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with any GA review. So to answer your question directly, no I won't. --MalleusFatuorum22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
In the "Pass" section of WP:GAN it says "Also, update the class parameters to "GA" for project templates on the talk page." So the way a Wikiproject tag gets a GA rating is exactly with the GA review process, therefore it makes sense to change the rating with delisting. It would be a lot unnecessary work to go through all of your delistings, as you contribute quite a few and they are reasonable, and this is why I suggested changing the ratings along with the article history. Please reconsider, thank you. Hekerui (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that it may be better for you to bring this up at WT:GA, as I have absolutely no intention of altering any project taggings. How would I decide (or how do you decide) that a delisted GA should be a B-class, or a C, or whatever? That's a matter for the projects themselves to decide. I'll contribute to the more general discussion when/if you decide to bring this matter up at the GA project. --MalleusFatuorum22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind if I moved you to the list of GM inactive participants? The way I see it, it's not just a list of members who haven't edited for a while, but a roll call of the people who've been a part of the project. While I understand you want to sever your ties with wikipedia, I think it would be right for WP:GM to remember those who've help make it the one of the leading UK projects. Best wishes, Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I have done. Is there any chance of you reversing your request for withdrawal of Baby? I've asked WPGM to look after it, and as long as nothing major pops up, I think we can guide it through. But if you think reviewers wouldn't like to spend their time on an article without it's main writer around, best to withdraw it. Nev1 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If you think that the project can guide it through, then please do so with my blessing. I'll strike my request and you can add something underneath explaining. --MalleusFatuorum01:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, an editor has nominated the above article at FLC, there are concerns about the prose. The prose isn't actually that long, once you take out all the lists and references. I was wondering if you had the time, could you help copy edit it. I did come to wish you well the other day, but your talk page was fully protected (so us mere mortals couldn't edit it :(). Thanks. — R216:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I won't be able to help. I'm just tidying up a few loose ends before taking my leave. Whether or not I come back depends on whether or not any real changes are made to the way this place is run. --MalleusFatuorum18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Title: Something Happening Here
Artist: Malleus and the Wikpedia Review Chorus
Composer: Stephen Stills and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: For What It's Worth
YouTube: For What It's Worth (Buffalo Springfield}
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a clan with a banhammer there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Admins making up rules
Becoming storm-tossed on their Ship of Fools
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Another page to delete
A dozen vandals to baleet
Singing songs with lyrics most snide
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your talk page it creeps
It starts when you're always too bold
You step out of line, the ban comes along
And gives you a scold
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
I gather that you have retired from Wikipedia, or are on a break, and will not be doing any Good Article reviews. In light of that I deleted the review page you created for Millennium '73. Thanks for all of the contributions you've made to the project. I hope to see you around again. Will Bebacktalk02:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Not Yet!
You have become somewhat legendary among my AP class. They enjoy your ruthless wit and writing style! Your assistance to the project does not go unnoticed; it is a point of honor when you take the time to review their efforts. Having you as an ally seems to boost the confidence - they dare not imagine the alternative! Irregardless, know that in our little part of the world your perspective and support is highly respected and appreciated. --JimmyButler (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that Jimmy. I wish Yohmom the best of luck with her Banker horse article; she deserves to do well with it; it's a really nice piece of work, clearly a labour of love. She's got some good people from the equine project supporting her though, so I'm sure she'll manage just fine without me. But if the FAC ever looks in doubt, then just give me a call and I'll be there to kick some ass for her and manhandle it through. :-) --MalleusFatuorum02:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I thank you for not using that "civility" word, the one that just sets my hackles on end and starts me tugging at my chain to savage as many people as I can reach. "Gruffness" I'll settle for, that's a fair comment. :-) --MalleusFatuorum23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Retirement
I hope you reconsider your decision to retire. You're an asset here, and we're certainly the lesser without you. Raul654 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry. I will travel to Manchester and force him to work on the Ainsworth project (40 novels, 7 biographical pages, and dozens of short stories and essays) if he thinks about -ever- backing down. This will hopefully keep him around for a long time. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I've sent Noel Park to FAC; although I wasn't originally planning to, on reflection I think it meets all the criteria (even the dreaded 1(a), inasmuch as it's possible to be "engaging" about such a dull topic). Since you did a lot on it (officially you're the main contributor to it!) if you are still about then obviously any comments you make as to why it is/isn't ready ought to be heard.
Good luck with Noel Park. I've long been in awe of your ability to hone what many might think of as a rather unpromising subject into a really quite informative and sometimes even interesting article, while all the time skating dangerously close to the edges of the MoS. I realise in retrospect that I started going down that path myself, with obscure historic computers and even more obscure Victorian novelists that hardly anybody but me (and Ottava in the latter case) gives a monkey's about. I ought to have stayed there, and not got myself involved in attempts to try and change the ludicrous and grossly inequitable way things are run here. --MalleusFatuorum23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Boring Is Good. "Interesting topic" is a synonym for edit war; when you're writing about the abandoned underground railway system of Ramsgate, people leave you alone. As far as I'm concerned the model Wikipedia article is Tomb of Liliana Crociati de Szaszak. (Incidentally, as far as I can see that technically meets every single FA criteria, since it's such a dull topic there's only six lines worth to say on the matter. Maybe I should submit it just to metaphorically see the look on Sandy's face.) – iridescent23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at that article before, can't remember why, but once seen that scary statue is never forgotten. Isn't there a copyright problem with the poem? And the translation in unattributed. SandyG would spot that a mile off. :-) --MalleusFatuorum23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The translation was my guessing from rusty Spanish and Latin, and double checked by Giano to make sure I'd got the Italian right. You remember it from a rather dull discussion on my talkpage in November about fair use vs free use as applied to photographs of works of art in Argentina, during which all hell suddenly broke loose. – iridescent01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Just try it… Five references in a four-sentence article must be some kind of record. Besides, I wanted an excuse to use that creepy photo. – iridescent02:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Google "Liliana Crociati" and somewhere in there you'll find a fan club complete with teenage goth girls wanting to look like her and slightly creepy teenage boys writing love poetry. – iridescent14:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Byzantine navy FAC
Hello! Since your comments a week ago, the article has been extensively edited for content, MOS and style by several editors. Would you care to review it again, and, if you find it OK, strike your opposing vote? Best regards, Constantine ✍ 17:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It's always harder to do your own prose. I can usually do a fair job of copyediting someone else's prose, but my own? Dream on. In my defense (ha! Americanism!) one of my day jobs involves writing descriptive prose, which means that I really don't want to lose my touch with THAT, so I don't put much time into Tony's exercises for Wiki. Ealdgyth - Talk03:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a difficult balance between that formal encyclopedic tone and being "engaging, even brilliant", or whatever the current 1a says. I doubt that few of us will ever make it, but at least if we can see the mistakes in each others' prose then perhaps one day we'll get there together. --MalleusFatuorum03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Johnson
By the way, I put the Johnson early life page at FAC. Someone who decided to oppose over rather shifty concerns decided to them try the same with this one. I mostly listed it to see if they are really there to go after me and not actually look at the page (it is blatant from them that they refuse to look past the lead in either page, which is just disrespectful). This is also the guy who stated that he would pick apart the main Johnson page because of how faulty the English is.
I know you wont want to bother about it (and don't), but I just wanted to mention what was going on with our page even though I can handle it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think that Fowler made some good points about the lead, which probably still needs a bit of tweaking. Where I disagree with him is in his extrapolation of the problems he saw in the lead to the rest of the article. I've only glanced at the rest of it briefly, but a lot of it seems very similar to what I remember was threshed out during the main Johnson article's FAC, so I'm certain any preceived problems with the new bits could be easily fixed. Just keep your cool and deal with any additional problems as they come up. If they're unreasonable or not based on objective evidence, then I'm quite sure others will see that and make their own minds up; Raul, SandyG and Karanacs aren't fools. --MalleusFatuorum16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
If you read on Raul's page, this started when he attacked Ceoil's The Lucy poems page at FAC by describing it as being poorly written, etc, and then claimed that -none- of the pages I worked on were well written. He also stated that he would pick apart the Johnson page (the one that is already an FA). So yeah. Thanks for looking through it again. I'm going to drop you an email in a second. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
If he's just being vindictive then others will see that and you don't need to do anything. Where he's making reasonable observations, as I think he was with the lead, let's just deal with them. Nothing that any of us writes, even the best of us, will ever be perfect, or be to everyone's taste. Does that make it "poorly-written"? Not in my book, only imperfect, just like us. If FAs were required to be perfect then we'd have exactly zero of them. --MalleusFatuorum17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
PS. Have you considered the possibility that saying none of the pages you work on are well-written may be a deliberate attempt to provoke you, for whatever reason? Not saying that it is, I obviously don't know, but if it is then it seems to be working. Don't give anyone the satisfaction. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I know that it was an attempt to provoke me. Hence why I picked the strongest page and put it up for FAC to see if he would continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm under no illusions; there will be at least as many cheering from the rooftops. :-) I'm lingering until a couple of FACs I've got a stake in are resolved one way or another. One in particular I put a lot of work into, so I'd like to see that through. After that, who knows ... I'm pretty hacked off at the way this place is run, but not quite as hacked off as I was last Friday, so we'll see. --MalleusFatuorum21:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Do I need to make more brownies or did Ealdgyth's chocolates do the trick? Bureaucracy = bad; idiocy = worse; making funny faces at idiots = pretty fun for a while, even when they can't see you ;) Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
today's outdoor task was the fun and exciting "muck out stalls" Everytime I dumped a bucket .. I imagined another lovely image of your choice underneath the pile (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk21:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the wikidrama. You must be used to that sorta stuff by now! I'm sure you can deal with it. ;) Remember, this is a free encyclopedia written by volunteers, so don't let a bunch of mandarins drive you away and get the place to themselves. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
When I get into a condition enough to do some major work, I will be working more on the Ainsworth stuff, so, don't forget about that. Also, if you do forget about that, I will send my minions to get you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, Malleus, if you need a break from wikidrama and your other c/e projects, there's a wee article on Siward, Earl of Northumbria that would benefit from you skills. Almost all of the research has been done for it, so really only c/eing is left. Keep thy chin up btw! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The Gimmebot did step by 2 hours after he posted, but someone else reviewed. Perhaps he confused your comments as the GAN reviewer's? I don't know but that is my guess. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Gimmetrow has lost what little of the plot he had retained would be closer to my guess. Maybe he'll one day be prepared to explain what it is that he's taken such offence to, although I certainly won't be holding my breath. --MalleusFatuorum03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
He is upset that your name has a space in it! That -has- to be it! Also, you should be glad that you edit conflicted me at the other page. I had something nasty to say about the term "red handed" and claims that listing a page at FAC that has been ready for 5 months could be improper in any way. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I can be at least as hot-headed as you Ottava, but when peace has broken out I see no reason for a rain-dance. (As soon as I wrote that I realised the mixed metaphors: peace with sunshine, rain-dance with cloudy skies, but I liked it nevertheless, so I'm sticking with it.) --MalleusFatuorum04:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
How's he look towards FAC? I need four FAs or FLs for my Gregorian missionFeatured topic... have one already and the list is at FLC, so I need to get one of the pesky little bishops up. It's either Laurence or Paulinus of York on the chopping block (the main article is already at PR so it'll go to FAC too)... Ealdgyth - Talk20:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, go on then. I haven't had dinner yet, so I'm feeling a bit peckish anyway. Where's Karanacs with her cookies when you need her? :-) --MalleusFatuorum20:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers muchly, Malleus. Very much appreciated!!! I'll add an extra paragraph in the lead soon, and reread the article. I'm actually pleased with this article, as it's not too long (like David I) and is not too boring (like, say, Walter de Coventre). I'm not sure when I'll nom it. It'd be my 6th FA, and that's a bad number, so I might develop another article first so I can nom both close to each other (I'm thinking I'll develop Ranulf le Meschin maybe, but that has some content work yet). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, Ranulf would be good. We really need to work up the magnates as well as the kings and bishops, but gees, who has the time... Ealdgyth - Talk20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yikes, that article has a cite to Stubbs! I really shouldn't look at those sorts of articles, makes me feel like I'm getting nothing done. Ealdgyth - Talk20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
To be serious for just a moment, I think you and Deacon adopted a very sensible approach to what you do here in focusing your efforts on the medieval period. A massive area which is poorly represented in wikipedia and very few of whose articles attract controversy of anything other than the academic kind. Iridescent is another good example, though in a quite different genre. (S)he specialises in what to many others would be the boring. I'm sick to death of the edit warriors who insist that Sale is in Cheshire, or that Stretford is in Lancashire, or who wet themselves when a minor TV celebrity moves into their neighbourhood, and feel compelled to add someone hardly anyone else has heard of to a Notable persons section that's already groaning under the strain of minor celebrities long forgotten. To say nothing of the rubbish surrounding every single article even tangentially related to Ireland. And of course every single BLP is an absolute minefield best avoided. It's something I'll have to reflect on going forward. --MalleusFatuorum21:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I do dabble in more controversial subjects. The horse stuff can generate it's own fair share of controversy, although it's not quite at Ireland level. (I have to admit I was impressed with the latest news from around Belfast. At least here in the States they are covering it as "most folks dont' want the violence back" which strikes me as progress!) You seemed to enjoy working on the Manchester Mark article, you might find the history of computing interesting. For that matter, you should have better access than I do to some of the medieval stuff. U of Manchester has a pretty spiffy medievalist department (or did at least) and their library probably is available to you. And you should be able to get to the ODNB, which frankly is pretty much my starting point for anything outside the Anglo-Norman field. You did incredible work with the AP Biology kids too... I was very very impressed with your work on Banker horse. If you wanna dabble with Anglo-Norman magnates, I'd be glad to help out. Certainly it's not that controversial! And honestly, I make fun of some of the obscure bishops I do, but no one can deny that an article on Augustine of Canterbury or Wilfrid or Hubert Walter IS important. These folks are worthy of good complete coverage, they are important in European history. Ealdgyth - Talk21:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, online access to all of the standard references like ODNB are free here with a Manchester public library membership, and I use ODNB qite a bit. I haven't checked to see whether the university libraries are open to the public though. I did enjoy the Manchester computers effort, although judging by the lack of reviews the SSEM's FAC has received it looks like I may be one of the few who gives a damn. Still, that doesn't matter; pass or fail the subject now has an article that does it credit. I still have a hankering to take Manchester Mummy to FAC, but I know there's a potentially important source missing that I really need to try and get hold of ... anyway, I'm keeping you from your burgers and dogs. :-) --MalleusFatuorum21:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
the SO is dragging his heels. (I do not cook. It's better that way, trust me) It's not quite 5pm here, so we're still in good time for dins. I'm watching some really bad History Channel documentary on Merlin and shuffling furniture while whacking at an article. What source are you lacking for the Mummy? Ealdgyth - Talk21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a book by Edith Sitwell, called something like English Eccentrics IIRC. If I got my arse in gear I could probably find a second-hand copy on eBay for not too much. --MalleusFatuorum21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why, but I had it in my head that the book was out of print! Ah well, no more excuses now, the mummy's for FAC. --MalleusFatuorum22:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm at the University of Leicester. A Mancunian in exile! There's a great library that puts the John Rylands uni library to shame, which really needs to be revamped. Nev1 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I deal with controversy enough in general, but even in this area you get it -- surprisingly perhaps. There are a couple of family promotion nuts who like to insert nonsense into articles glorifying their family histories, e.g. insisting a progenitor of a family who isn't in Domesday and verifiably didn't come to England until William Rufus or Henry I was fighting along side William I at Hastings, or the Clan IP fruitcakes with similar patterns, all of whom tend to get offended when you clean it up. Erm ... Ranulf de Blondeville maybe a bit late for me, but maybe I'll run through all the Chester earls sometime as they are all interesting guys. Noting your comment on the talk page, you are right about the nightmarish naming patterns. I'd happily rename these earls per continental/contemporary styles, e.g. Ranulf I, Earl of Chester (Ranulf II, II, etc), but I know eventually [when it comes to their notice] one of the peerage people (a pain in the side) will object. They insist on the Name de Name, Nth Title of Place style, which is a completely anachronistic and highly annoying early modern idiosyncratic British convention that creates a whole bunch of confusion. In Chester's case, there's probably an earl based in the region before Hugh (called Gerbod), in which case the entire numbering would be factually wrong. It's certainly clumsy. Anyways, thanks again :-) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ensure / assure
Hey there. Regarding this edit, to "ensure" is to take action to make sure something happens. The newpaper writer in question is not taking any action to make us laugh. Rather she "assures" us that we will laugh, meaning she tells us that she is convinced it will happen. Your comment was a bit rude, but mostly funny given that it's you that has the definitions confused. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm eating humble pie. I thought the comment was made by a curator, not by a journalist. No need to revert me, I've already reverted myself. Sorry! --MalleusFatuorum01:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Bristol has been renominated for GA after previous delisting. I'm helping with content & referencing, but some of the prose is mine & you know what that is like! If you had any time to take a look that would be great.— Rodtalk09:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been through about half of the article and there are a few things that don't seem to make sense:
"With an approximate population of 410,950, and urban area of 550,200, it is England's sixth, and the United Kingdom's eighth most populous city." I imagine that's talking about the population of the urban area, but if so it needs to be rewritten to clarify 550,200 whatevers.
"Fishermen who left Bristol were long part of the migratory fishery to the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and began settling that island permanently in larger numbers around this time." The subject for "that island" is "Grand Banks of Newfoundland", which obviously isn't an island. Also, "migratory fishery" seems like a very strange phrase.
In the Economy section value of goods imported is given in metric tonnes, but the article elsewhere is using imperial units (with metric conversions).
"The graffiti artist Banksy[69] hails from Bristol ...". That's one of my pet hates, right behind "is home to". What does it mean? He lives there? He was born there? He was brought up there? He visited once just so that he could hail, and then left? It's just a bit too informal a tone for an encyclopedia article I think.
"Despite being hilly, Bristol is one of the prominent cycling cities of England ...". This claim seems a little strange to me, partly because I'm not sure what "prominent" means in this context. The citation given at the end of the paragraph in the Transport section where this claim is made doesn't seem to support it in any case.
I'll try and go through as much of the rest of the article as I can, but I'm not sure how much time I'll be spending on wikipedia for the foreseeable future. From what I've seen you shouldn't have too many problems getting Bristol's GA listing back, so good luck with that. --MalleusFatuorum18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I have addressed those concerns - not sure about the tonnage as the coversion removes the neat round numbers. I shall be away for two / three days will look later. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Your exceptional copy-editing skills certainly didn't go unnoticed in the Banker horse article. It was really nice to know that someone was always "watching" (and fixing!).
I've found that before I turn in English assignments, I'm starting to ask myself "Would Malleus find anything wrong with this paper?" It's a question that has actually sent me back to erase jargon and yes, even add those darned serial commas. I really appreciate all of your support on the road to FA, and you have really have helped me become a better writer along the way. So thanks. --Yohmom (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers!
Hi Malleus - Your comments on my talk page were much appreciated. I'd retired to the armchair with several bottles of Cobra by the time this happened... Guess I threw my dummy out of the pram a bit, but I really do get narked off when people try and speedy things when you are actually following procedure. I love the idea of Wikipedia, the chance for everyone to enhance something free for the benefit of all. But the behind-the-scenes stuff just gets wearing...as you obviously know all too well. Thankyou, really.-- Myosotis Scorpioides10:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I was finishing off a bottle of ginger beer (Cobra sounds much better...) when I noticed that the civility police had turned up on your doorstep. Something really needs to be done about them ... --MalleusFatuorum13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Manchester Mummy
I've managed to tear myself away from the subject of Cheshire's castle long enough to grab a copy of The English Eccentrics. Accoding to the index, "Beswick, Miss" occurs on page 22, "White, Dr Charles" also on page 22, and "mummies" on page 37, so it doesn't look there's much in the book. A skim read reveals that Hannah Beswick paid not only Dr White, but his daughters and their cousin to make sure she was actually dead, and a closer reading may glean more. The mummies on page 37 have nothing to do with Hannah Beswick. It's not much, but I could take a photo and e-mail it to you if you want. Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK thanks. Doesn't sound like it can add much to the facts of the matter then; I'm very dubious about the claim that Hannah paid money to anyone other than White to make certain she was dead. I already have a very reliable source saying she left White £100 in her will. There might be a good Sitwell quote in there though, so if it's not too much trouble a picture of page 22 would be great. --MalleusFatuorum20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nev1, you're a pal!. Sitwell's pretty hazy on the facts, but she's got a nice turn of phrase: "... the cold dark shadow of her mummy hung over Manchester in the middle of the nineteenth century". Which edition of the book is this from? --MalleusFatuorum22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's the second edition from 1986, and it's published by "Faber and Faber Limited" in London. If you lose the copy I sent you, just let me know and I'll send you another one. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
So, are you sticking around or what? I'd like to spend some time reviewing your FAC but probably not if you're going to disappear and not look after it. It might "sink into shit", to borrow a phrase from Giano. --Laser brain(talk)01:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sticking around at least until my labour of love either does or doesn't get through FAC. I can't promise much more than that I'll try to keep an eye on it after that, depending on how certain things pan out here at wikipedia. If I ever saw it begin to degenerate into shit though that would certainly rouse the dragon from its slumber, but I'm confident, as Nev1 says, that the GM project would be able to keep on top of it. It's not rocket science after all, only computer science. :-) --MalleusFatuorum02:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
I responded to you on my talk page. In response to your Wiki hug, I am sending you my personal invention for the best spaghetti and meatball recipe you will ever eat:
Spaghetti and meatballs is a common meal eaten by Catholics on Saint Joseph's feast day, March 19th
SAUCE:
2 Tbsp olive oil
1/2 cup chopped onion
1 garlic clove minced
1 qt water
1 28 oz can tomatoes cut up
2 cans tomato paste
1 1/2 cup fresh tomatoes
1 Tbsp sugar
2 tsp salt
1 tsp oregano
2 Tbsp fresh basil leaves
1/2 tsp petter
1 large bay leaf
MEATBALLS:
3/4 lb ground beef
1/4 lb ground pork
2/3 cup dry bread crumbs
1 small onion chopped
1/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese
1/2 tsp salt
1/8 tsp pepper
1 egg
1 16oz pkg spaghetti
Cook onion and garlic in oil until tender. Place them in a crock pot along with all other sauce ingredients and heat on high setting covered for about 5 hours, sauce will be watery. While sauce is cooking, prepare meatballs about one or two hours before sauce is done. Just brown the meatballs on all sides, drain, and place into crock pot with sauce. When these are all done and you have watery sauce with meatballs in your crockpot, put the spaghetti directly into the sauce and stir well. It is important not to let the spaghetti stick together so you need to stir frequently until it is done. What makes this great is that the spaghetti cooks in the sauce and absorbs more flavor. The sauce will not be watery after cooking. Serve immediately after thanking God for your many blessings! NancyHeisetalk14:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That's looks really tasty, my mouth's watering just at the thought of it. Not sure it isn't a bit too complicated for me though; I have to check a recipe book whenever I want to boil an egg. --MalleusFatuorum15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that a meal eaten by most Catholics (and anyone going to an Italian restaurant) in general? :) Joseph is my patron Saint by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point! I guess you're right - those Italians did make their way into the stomachs of most of the world. Although Mexican food just barely wins by inches over Italian food in my stomach. : ) Happy Saint Joseph's day! NancyHeisetalk17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, that recipe for boiling eggs is way too complicated - I have a better one. You can take the egg right from the fridge and put in a pan of room temp water. Place pan on the stove right away (no waiting for the egg to cool down) and put burner on high for 15 minutes exactly for hard boiled, less for soft boiled. But I am sure you were just kidding about needing a recipe for boiling eggs. NancyHeisetalk17:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Sadly not. I actually bought this book not too long ago. I went to an all boys school. We were only taught the manly things, like welding and how to make a mortise and tenon joint, and even then only as a recreational break from physics or maths. Cooking was something your Mum did, then your wife. Unfortunately my wife has never had much interest in cooking, but we somehow manage to get by between us. :-) --MalleusFatuorum21:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay since it seems you need educating on the single most important thing in life (i.e. a good egg);
For Chicken Eggs
Take the egg from the fridge and place into a small pan barely covered with tap water. Leave to stand for 2 - 3 minutes to permit some of the cold to move from the egg to the water. Bring to the boil quickly and keep at a rolling boil. 3 minutes for perfect soft boiled. 7 minutes for hard boiled. Remember with hard boiled to remove from the cooking water and douse under cold running water for 30-40 seconds very quickly.
For Duck Eggs
A far better choice in terms of taste and texture. Take the egg from the fridge and place into a small pan barely covered with tap water. Leave to stand for at least 5 minutes to permit some of the cold to move from the egg to the water. Bring to the boil quickly, but slightly slower than for a chicken's egg. and keep at a rolling boil. 3 minutes 45 seconds for perfect soft boiled. However Ducks eggs are far better fried in a light (and cheap) olive oil then served on asparagus.
What's asparagus? If it's green I won't allow it on the plate; green stuff is for cows, not humans. I wouldn't say I'm a faddy eater—although others might—but I'd be perfectly happy to live out my remaining days on a diet consisting solely of egg mayonnaise, chicken curry with fried rice, paella, with an occasional baked pasta dish or risotto thrown in for a little bit of variety. I watch cookery programmes on TV in stunned amazement at the things people are expected to have in their cupboards. Nancy mentioned a cup dry bread crumbs for instance. Where would you buy that from? I'm a hopeless case, so learning to cook the perfect boiled egg is obviously high on my list of priorities. --MalleusFatuorum22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Green stuff recently. Note the lack of people dying from scurvy in the background.
Ooh! You can buy breadcrumbs at petrol stations!...or at least I did once. They were on the bottom shelf, covered in an inch of dust, and about a good eight years expired... Although if you were ever in a kitchen and needed breadcrumbs, couldn't you, you know, get some bread and crumble it? --Yohmom (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, I have to opposite situation. Even though my husband went to an all boys school he was the one who taught me how to cook. His Sicilian grandmother lived with his family and she had her own restaurant. He is a genius with spices. NancyHeisetalk22:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Yohmom, no need to take the piss. Is that all the thanks I get for helping you with your FAC? The younger generation, no gratitude, think they know it all .. *mumble* ... *mumble* ... ;-)
To Nancy: Ah, if he's Italian that would explain it, or French. I'm English though. I didn't even know we had a kitchen in our house until I was 15 ... never really thought about where meals came from. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum22:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
For the best boiled egg
The neutrality of this section is not to be disputed.
Actually I use the microwave for scrambled eggs. Two eggs, a smattering of butter, a splash of milk, two minutes on full power, mix the cooked bits on top with the still soft bits underneath using whatever (reasonably) clean utensil is close to hand, serve on toast. (I can do toast, we've got a machine for that.) I'm wondering whether I ought to think about writing a proper cookery book ... :lol: --MalleusFatuorum23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in here, Malleus, but I have to share an anecdote. My wife (Korean) fixes elaborate, exquisite Korean and Japanese dishes for us daily. I've given up on asking what most of the stuff I'm eating actually is, and just enjoy it. But, after 15 years in the US, 15 years married to me, the sandwich remains an exotic mystery to her, and a delicacy she considers far beyond her cooking skills. Whenever it's a sandwich that is wanted, I, with my Western learning, have to do the work-- "Nae ga eotteokae mandureo??!!" she always insists ("How can I make such a thing?!") Dekkappai (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting
I just read some of your more recent archives (not sure how I wiki-trailed into your archives, some link somewhere though). Sorry I missed out on some of your more interesting "activities" over the last few weeks, I might have enjoyed making a quippy and unproductive comment or three as needed. Scars are evidence of battle, they are. At this point, you're a regular leatherface. Carry on, soldier of the free-information bizarro-world! Glad to see you plugging away at the hypocrisy of the place (and squeezing in an article or two for leisure). Keeper | 7601:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I was daft enough to do it because I believed in what I thought was the purpose of this site, free information freely available to everyone. More fool me. --MalleusFatuorum01:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll admit I'm much smarter about things now that I'm a regular Wikipedia reader. [dubious – discuss] Case in point, the wonderful irony of the post I started at wt:rfa. Cripes, this place is a regular Pavlovian experiment. Ring a bell, see who starts drooling. It's almost too easy. And too damn entertaining to look away. The point of my whole thread was to see who would be daft enough to actually respond in a serious manner to a thread complaining about meaningless chatter on that particular page. Gotta love it. Keeper | 7602:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Only a matter of time before some kid turns up waving WP:POINT at you, without him or herself ever having read it, or able to understand any of the polysyllabic words even if they had. --MalleusFatuorum03:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
(to Malleus) You managed to get Fowler & Fowler and Ottava to agree on something. What do you want, blood? (If you want to see nitpicking in its purest form, have a look at Bruce Castle's GA nom. I'm not complaining – he's doing a fantastic job in spotting things that managed to slip past the combined eyes of you, me and Giano – but the effect is still akin to being hit over the head repeatedly with a water-filled rubber glove. (And if you think roads and council estates were boring, wait until my forthcoming series on female miners – first one due tomorrow – starts to roll out.) – iridescent02:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there some mistake? I thought you'd put Bruce Castle up for GA, not FA? The way GA is going there will soon be no point to it, might as well just go straight to FAC. I'm not sure I'd ever bother with it again. --MalleusFatuorum03:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Getting hit with a water filled rubber glove is much more serious where I live, where it rarely seems to climb above freezing temps. Just saying. Keeper | 7602:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have supported Malleus's page as an FA during its GAN. The page is strong, the topic is strong, and it deserves to be shown off. Wiki 1.0 definitely. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Though I say it myself who conventionally ought not to, it's a bloody good piece of work, probably the best encyclopedia article you'll find on the SSEM anywhere. It's right up there with my master work. Let's see if any of the other editors of historic computer articles can step up to the plate now that they've got something to aim at. --MalleusFatuorum03:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
(to Malleus) This is my first GA nom for a long time (almost a year) – I generally ignore GAC/FAC, but with the "London N17" series (Bruce Castle, Noel Park, Broadwater Farm, The Mall Wood Green I want to try to get as many as possible "officially accredited" so I can send get the set listed as an FT and annoy Elonka by putting a yellow star on Broadwater Farm provide a service to Wikipedia's readers by highlighting topics of interest. It's reminded me why I ignore GAC, though – he doesn't seem to have realised that "Good article" doesn't mean "perfect article". (I think he'd be a fantastic FAC reviewer, though.) – iridescent03:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of 'em just can't switch off though. I like to think that I was able to tread that line between what's acceptable at GAN and what's required at FAC. They're two completely different gigs. --MalleusFatuorum03:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I stopped reviewing at GAC completely a long time ago – I realised quite early on that my standards are too low, and that I didn't really care about MOS compliance so was just judging by "is it interesting", "is it accurate" and "are there any obvious gaps". Same reason why I never support/oppose at FAC, although I'll sometimes comment on them. – iridescent03:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason I won't do any more GA reviewing is that I always end up copyediting the damn article so as to get it through. And what thanks do you get? None. --MalleusFatuorum03:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Note - Featured Article shouldn't mean perfect either, Iridescent. :) I see Featured based on the strength of the topic and how it is present. If I think it belongs in Wiki 1.0 and is well done, then I definitely support. Well done doesn't mean perfect. Even text books in their 10th+ editions have tons of spelling and grammar mistakes. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Not as simple as that; if by "Wikipedia 1.0" you mean, "would it be included in a hypothetical The Essential Wikipedia CD-ROM?", a lot of FAs wouldn't make it in. To take obvious examples, my derelict railway lines and council housing could be the best articles of all time (in the case of Noel Park, I'd say it is the most informative single article ever written on the subject), and likewise with Malleus's computers, Julian's hurricanes and the never-ending flow of Simpsons episodes, but would never be included as they address obscure specialist areas. I wouldn't say "well done" should mean "perfect", but "no obvious room for improvement" – some, like my Bruce Castle article which started this conversation or Ealdgyth's Saxons, will never be perfect as the sources just don't exist to cover the history accurately. – iridescent16:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
*cough* Speak for yourself! This Manchester Computer is definitely important enough to be needed for Wiki 1.0, along with every page that I edit for the most part. You be surprised how many mainstream topics go ignored or neglected for the most part. For example, I was the only one to think of creating a page for one of the first copyright lawsuits (Motte v. Faulkner) and I'm the only one who really majorly edited it. A very important legal topic that was neglected. So yeah, I'm prejudiced about what is "encyclopedic" and when I see a topic that is and well done, I wont hesitate supporting. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
To save Malleus and Ottava from falling under the cosh of the Civility Police, I'll say it instead: Ipatrol, please stop acting like a whiny child running to mommy because the big boys were mean to him. Malleus is perfectly in his right to object to your proposal. Malleus is a significant contributor to six pieces of featured content and nine Good Articles, as well as assisting users with all manner of thankless tasks across the entire project, whereas your contribution to Wikipedia appears to be sitting on IRC whining, and tinkering with your userpage (to which you have more than five times as many edits as you do to any article). – iridescent19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"Malleus is perfectly in his right to object to your proposal." Right. Shall we ignore the fact that he also extremely nasty to Ipatrol? So the hell what if he wrote x articles with y badge attached to them? That's one of the worst arguments I've seen as an excuse to be rude to people. There's ways to argue about something if you dislike it, and attacking other people is not one of them. Majorlytalk19:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
And basically belittling Ipatrol just because of the way he edits is pretty poor too. There are certain admins with more user talk posts than any article, and they do just fine. Argue about the argument, not the person. Majorlytalk19:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
he also extremely nasty to Ipatrol Really? I noticed just one short (and may be slightly impolite) comment. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently this is totally acceptable because Malleus has happened to collect a few badges at WP:FAC and WP:GA. Our interpretations of the comment may differ, but the point is, it's unacceptable all the same. Making Malleus the victim here is ridiculous. Majorlytalk19:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've seen some equally nasty things said on IRC by you and others about Ipatrol's actions and habits many times. So... yeah. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Iridescent, Rusklik0...WTF? "My thoughts Ipatrol are to wonder whether you've discussed this idea with your parents, and whether they allowed you to stay up late and post this rubbish". Is that comment likely to win your friends and influence people? No. Then it's innapropriate for Wikipedia. And don't say that's rubbish; that's the way it is. That comment isn't constructive and makes the page more hostile.--Pattont/c19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes asking your parents is a wise thing to do. So I do not understand why this comment is considered problematic. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. Is that comment likely to win your friends and influence people Many comments on the pages of Wikipedia (especially on WP:ANI and WP:RFA, where such comments may constitute the majority) are unlikely to win your friends.
Because it's a tactic of insulting ones opponent in an argument by implying they are a child, and therefore wrong and foolish. Bit of a bully tactic. Majorlytalk21:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If that is true Pattont/c, then he should know better than to complain about such a trivial thing as this comment. Indeed, if juggling Wikipedia with children, I'm surprised he even has time to complain about something like this!-- Myosotis Scorpioides20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It does make me quite sad to see how rudeness and uncivil behaviour is stuck up for time and time again just because of whose bad behaviour it is, by their buddies. Let's see the facts here: Malleus made what Ipatrol deemed to be an impolite comment. Ipatrol asked Malleus to redact it. Now it seems Ipatrol is in the wrong because he doesn't edit enough articles, and should be spending more time with his children?! How ridiculous. How about Malleus stop being so impolite and rude to people he doesn't like? Then we would have none of this. I know it's a bit of a big thing to suggest someone act with basic courtesy, but I thought I'd try yet again. No doubt another of his friends will show up here backing him up again. Majorlytalk21:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the last straw, i am tired of being belittled by Malleus and everyone who agrees with him, I will report this to ANI.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Ipatrol: I would give you this advice: just ignore it. Trust me, you are not the only one Malleus has bullied, patronised or insulted when he disagrees with you. If you go to AN/I, a bunch of his buddies will show up, like here, backing him up and will attack you for your own editing pattern. Last time he was blocked, he "retired" claiming admin abuse. Nothing productive at all will come out of an AN/I thread; the best thing to do is walk away, and ignore childish comments from him and his friends. Majorlytalk21:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Ipatrol: Really, is this worth getting so upset over? There are so many more important things happening in the real world, death - disease - famine, than to bother getting worked up over a few comments made on Wikipedia. Yes, if Malleus had deleted an article you had slaved over for months, or removed a picture you had taken weeks to source and upload, then I could understand your frustration and anger. But this? Well, I'm sorry, but I can't see the point of all this fuss. We are all here, supposedly, to help create a free - and factually accurate, encyclopaedia - with editors like Malleus playing a vital part in this. It is inevitable that not everyone will get on - it's not a perfect world after all - but there are some things worth fighting for here - and others not. I just don't see this as one worthy of so much time and effort -- Myosotis Scorpioides22:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL and our community standards are that we do not expect people to agree - and we robustly support disagreeing - but we do expect everyone to edit in a collegial, adult, constructive manner and not launch nasty rude abuse at each other during disagreements.
Malleus - your comments to Ipatrol were nasty, rude, and unconstructive. You know better. We expect more experienced users to avoid causing incidents like this. You have certainly proven that you know how to communicate disagreement without being nasty and disparaging people, as you did here.
The policy is there for a reason. Even if Ipatrol's idea wasn't ultimately useful, we do not tolerate going around insulting or attempting to drive away people who are misguided but operating in good faith to improve the project. We've seen you acknowledge that in the past.
Dear Malleus, I see that you are quite busy with your normal duties amid the various flame wars going on all around you, but I was wondering if you would take a look at the article Robert C. Michelson. It is now nominated to be a "good" article in the Engineers and Inventors category. In looking at other good articles that are biographical in nature, I note that most are about 'dead people'. I don't see anywhere in the criteria that being 'dead' is requisite, but I find it strange that more biographies are not appearing as "good" articles... Based on all of the IARC work that I did to bring that up to "good" status with your help, I had a leg up on getting the Robert C. Michelson biography into much better shape-- but is it good enough? Some things are very difficult to find reference for because they involve items that pre-date the internet or were only locally published (e.g., early work history or in-house teaching activities). In looking at other bios that have been categorized as "good", I see that some list numerous accomplishments without reference, and yet they are still "good"... but maybe that is why they are not "featured". Anyway, I would appreciate your consideration of this for "good" and any comments as to what would make it so if it is not already acceptable as "good". Thanks. (also, PS: how do people get their signatures to show up automatically with color and font types along with the time stamp? I've manually done it here ( – Firewall ), but isn't there a way to just click on the signature link so it "just happens"? Firewall (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you can change how you signature displays by copying and pasting how you want it into the "raw signature" field under "my preferences" at the top of your screen (NB: I've never actually done this, so I'm not sure if I'm right). I think that the reason most "Good" biographies are on dead people is because they don't require updating. It's much easier to ensure an article is of a good standard if the content doesn't change over time. Also it avoids WP:BLP issues.
Taking a look at the Robert C. Michelson article, it doesn't feel like a GA. The lead needs expanding to summarise the article, and some of the sections are just lists, which is generally discouraged. This may be fine for something like patents, but for hobbies it would probably be better to work the information into the section title "biography". Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Nev1's right about your signature, just copy-and-paste it, check the raw signature box, et violà. He's also right in his comments on Michelson's article (don't you just hate people who're always right?). Is there any particular reason why you've opted to use level-3 and 4 headings throughout the article instead of the more normal Level-2? --MalleusFatuorum14:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll fix the headings (though actually, I think Wikipedia has the heading precedence out of order... darker bolder headings should be higher in precedence than lighter or italicized ones). What I am trying to do here is to get all of the articles that I started to be at least be "Good", which means they are formatted correctly and have adequate material for the "Good" category. The Robert C. Michelson biography was a logical first pick after the IARC article because I am able to dredge up supporting references more quickly than for other of my articles. Any comments on the article's TALK page, as you have opportunity, would be most welcome. Most of the other biographies that I've seen on the Georgia Tech Alumni and Faculty pages are woefully under-referenced, so I hope to at least make this one a better model while walking the thin line of keeping it encyclopedic and not seemingly "promotional" since it is a BLP. ⁃ Firewall16:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a spelling mistake in the idiotic hammer's one contribution, so I doubt anyone would mistake him/her for me. :-) --MalleusFatuorum21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, a username block is not too much of a stretch here, Whatever your issues with NPA and CIV Malleus I don't think we need this particular sock/SPA. But I imagine you're more flattered than offended - or more accuratley you couldn't care less .......so maybe we can let it go. Pedro : Chat 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The article got promoted a couple of hours ago, congratulations. It's a deserving article and I know a lot of effort went into it. Nev1 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed. It was a bit of a labour of love, and I'm glad it's now got that bronze star, done and dusted. I'm optimistic that because it's such a niche subject it won't "turn to shit" too quickly. :-) --MalleusFatuorum00:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we can look after it ;-) Unfortunately Buckton Castle didn't make it, but maybe after this year's work there'll be enough info to expand the article. Next on the list is Sale again, but I'll be inactive for a week or so starting this weekend, so probably won't nominate it until early April. Nev1 (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Two things: Congrats on the FA, it was a great read. Second, sorry for the silly edit war over italics, I should have known better than to clutter up your watchlist over such a minor thing. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about the italics thingy; actually I prefer i.e. to i.e. – all that pissed me off was that the MoS itself was inconsistent. --MalleusFatuorum01:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Shame about Buckton, better luck next time. It probably was just a litle bit thin, but when the archeology's done this year that'll probably be enough to flesh it out sufficiently. Even better luck with Sale, you're gonna need it I think. --MalleusFatuorum01:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
GARDEN has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Eh, butting in here, hope you don't mind. "IMO" generally means "In my opinion". As for NB, it depends on the context - it generally means "not bad", but is also fairly commonly used for "no brainer". Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
That is only for scholars. Not what is being talked about here. Internet whizzes, not scholars. (I am following your around.) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I love your Manchester Mummy article. Totally bizarre. (I'm doing one on a bloke who, instead of being mummified after his death, was turned into a pair of shoes...) I tried to get a pic of the mummy for you, but no joy from Manchester Evening News or Manchester Museum/University. Lovely lady at university suggested "Manchester Central Library or the John Rylands, Deansgate." Do you want me to try for you?-- Myosotis Scorpioides11:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been through the Central Library's catalogue but I haven't been able to find anything more there, and I don't think it's a subject that the John Rylands would ever have had much interest in. Most accounts I found have just been rahashes of earlier accounts, so getting the facts straight wasn't easy until I discovered the embalming experiments paper. One source I found claims that there are no pictures of Hannah Beswick, which I've come to believe is the case. Perhaps the museum didn't allow photography or something like that. The picture I really need though is a better one for the lead. That's the present museum, but Hannah's body was actually displayed in the building that one replaced, somewhere on Peter Street. A picture of the cemetery where she was eventually buried might be worth adding as well, but the old museum's the important one. If I manage to sort something out for that I may even chance my arm at FAC with it, who knows.
This is a nice shot of the old museum in Peter Street in 1850-1865:[4] I wonder if the council would let WP have it? I could trying emailing them tomorrow if this is the kind of thing you need?-- Myosotis Scorpioides22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for the tip Iridescent. It's just that the pic is a tiny thumbnail on the website, with a watermark over the top. It would be nice to get a decent-sized copy...Here is a pic of the cemetery anyway - well a drawing from the 1840s.-- Myosotis Scorpioides22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly the picture I was hoping for Myosotis. If you can get a full-sized version with the council's approval you'll be even more of a hero to me than you already are. And if you can find a photograph taken of Hannah before her death in 1758 I'll even be prepared to admit that you must have supernatural powers. :-) --MalleusFatuorum22:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. It actually looks pretty OK, despite the small size,, but I'll email tomorrow for "official approval." (I've already got the "dodgy upload" message for the cemetery pic - even though it's over 100 years old and in the public domain...)-- Myosotis Scorpioides23:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might. Bizarre really. Someone who made a drawing in the 1840s, even if (s)he was a babe in arms at the time, would now be at least 169, most likely over 200 years old. Still, can't be too careful, don't want a zombie, or even worse a vampire, turning up to claim a copyright infringement. The key thing though is when was the picture published. --MalleusFatuorum23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've emailed off permission requests for both pics this morning (Friday). Received an automated reply from Manchester local studies, saying email received and that they "aimed to respond within ten days." Nothing from Genuki yet. Like Iridescent said, both pics are out of copyright...but, if WP is determined to find out the original 19th century origins, then I'm a bit stuck. I'll do some more digging today though. Fingers crossed eh?!-- Myosotis Scorpioides11:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's hoping they're feeling generous. I've had some luck with the Manchester Museum in the past, who one time even sent me a picture to use in the Chat Moss article, so fingers crossed. --MalleusFatuorum19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was thinking about bringing My French Coach and My Spanish Coach to FA, and was looking for a possible copy-editor. Would you be interested? The article just recently passed GA (although in terms of FA, that means squat) and is fairly short. Shouldn't be that much of a task. Thanks a bunch, — sephiroth bcr(converse)22:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
For your generous assistance in making sure Museum of Bad Art is the highest quality possible in a very short amount of time, I bestow this lovely rendition of Lucy in the Field With Flowers. May Lucy watch over all your edits to inspire such beauty, attention to detail, and overall appreciation for aesthetics. --Moni3 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImageTaggingBot#File:Mummycemetery.jpg_and_File:Manmusmummy.jpg){kind=link}
