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.
Comments from Julian's RfB
I'm posting them below this. If they were to go anywhere, it was better for them to be here than increasing heat and drama at an RfB. Malleus, this is your talk page, leave them here or remove them as you see fit. --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Your tone is completely uncalled for, and your attitude apalling. If you'd simply opposed but omitted the last sentence, you would have looked so much better. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 10:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with TreasuryTag here. That was a disgusting oppose but seeing that I have already had a conflict with you in the past, Im going to back away and say. Please try to be civil in your !vte at RFA's and RFB's.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In an attempt to neutralize this before it gets out of hand, I do not think it wise or effective to ask for civility immediately after calling someone's opinion disgusting. It would be much more effective simply to treat a view you disagree with with silence. If you have a problem with the way Malleus phrases his opinions, take it to his talk page. If his opinions are truly out of line, no doubt a bureaucrat will address them in some way. --Moni3 (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Wise words, but I'm afraid they'll go unheeded. Some opinions are just unpopular, and those of us who hold them are "apalling" and "disgusting". If I'd used those words I'd be facing another block, but it's apparently OK for the kiddies to use them. --MalleusFatuorum15:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion for TreasuryTag, and whoever else. If you can't abide disagreement, don't read RFA/RFB/whatever else gets your panties in a twist. Malleus's lack of desire to engage in a futile argument is understandable, and you only make yourself look like a fool by objecting to it this way. Friday(talk)15:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, a man sticks to his principles and values and his actions are called "disgusting"? What exactly was wrong with Malleus' tone? It seems respectful towards Julian in my opinion. I would like Treasury Tag and Coldyplay Expert to practice what they preach and remain civiil, as in this instance it was they who ignored their own standards. Nev1 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought Malleus was perfectly respectful and courteous in this instance. Often people who oppose for age-related reason do so as rudely and nastily as possible, but that was not the case here. If someone's oppose had to be picked for being the "wrong" tone, it certainly wasn't Malleus's. Majorlytalk15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried to make it as clear as I could that there was nothing personal, and in a year or two if you were still up for it and hadn't fucked up in the meantime I'd no doubt be supporting you, but it didn't seem to work. Ah well. --MalleusFatuorum15:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, quite the reverse in fact (fixed my typo). As I think I may suggested elsewhere, when discussing my first love, Lydia. You can't beat a good woman to give you a sense of perspective. In fact you can't beat a good woman. Period. --MalleusFatuorum15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In the US do you mean? It's perfectly legal in the good old UK. Heck, you can be married here at 16 (with your parent's permission) and many are. Didn't you guys once make alcohol illegal, thus giving rise to a massive rise in gangsterism? Didn't that teach you anything? --MalleusFatuorum16:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Makes sense now. :-) In England though it's still (I think, havent checked) legal to beat your wife with a stick no thicker than your thumb. It's also legal to kill a Welsh man found in Chester on a Sunday. I'm not certain that either crime would be forgiven by a modern court, but the law is the law. --MalleusFatuorum20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a curious thing. You had to go to war to ban slavery, whereas we just banned it, and tasked our Royal Navy—perhaps the most powerful military force on Earth at that time—with ending the slave trade. On the other hand, we went to war with you because you refused to pay your taxes on a few cases of tea. It's a funny old world. --MalleusFatuorum18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In some ways, Glenn Beck's appropriation of the Tea Party trope is apt. We always prefer to frame the Revolutionary War in terms of freedom from tyranny, the inalienable rights of man, and the triumph of representative democracy over remote autocracy... but in the end, we just didn't want to pay a 2-cent tax. MastCellTalk19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it was more that we didn't want to pay a 2 cent tax when we weren't allowed any representation in the decision making bodies. Now, I'm not saying that some folks wouldn't have refused to pay the tax even with Colonial MPs in Parliament, but the numbers would have been a lot fewer. Ealdgyth - Talk19:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
At that time most English men, and almost no English women, had a vote either. America was a speculative investment that didn't really work out for us. Now Australia ... --MalleusFatuorum19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sure, but to play devil's advocate... how many British residents had true representation in Parliament in 1776, or any real say in the uses to which their taxes were put? How many could vote? John C. Miller put the number at around 3% of the male population of the Isles. From that perspective, "no taxation without representation" was more of a theoretical construct, even in England, than a political reality.
On another note, John Major was pretty much a schlub, but I did think it was clever when he accused the U.S., deeply in arrears on our U.N. dues, of desiring "representation without taxation." :) MastCellTalk19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Three per cent may even be on the high side. In those days voters had to travel miles and publicly announce their votes in front of a sometimes hostile crowd. At the time of the Peterloo Massacre, in the early 19th century, it's reckoned that half of the Members of Parliament were elected by about 150 voters. --MalleusFatuorum20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"Electors of Wareham! I understand that some evil-disposed person has been circulating a report that I wish my tenants, and other persons dependent upon me, to vote according to their conscience. This is a dastardly lie, calculated to injure me. I have no wish of the kind. I wish, and intend, that these people should vote for me.", from the wonderfully-named (and sadly still redlinked) John Samuel Wanley Sawbridge-Ernle-Erle-Drax (Wareham 1841-1857) will always be my favorite political quote. Electoral systems which have open ballots and a small number of participants are notoriously open to corruption, bullying and cronyism. Why, hold on a minute... – iridescent20:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Ah, but remember, us colonials had a bit more franchise (still very restricted) to the colonial assemblies, and were used to having a say in government. If ya'll had just left us alone... (tongue in cheek there on the leaving us alone, obviously). All in all, I'd say it didn't turn out too badly in the end. Given the weather I'm having right now, I'm not sure anyone would want to come out here and "govern" the colonies right now... (snow is still coming down fiercely...) Ealdgyth - Talk20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oddly enough this is one of the few times I can totally agree with Malleus. His tone was wonderful, and one of the better opposes I've seen at that RFB. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I likewise thought his comment was entirely low-key, civil, and gave a defensible justification for opposing. The furor over it is malplaced. –xenotalk20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that some people react to the editor, and not to what that editor said. I'm persona non grata, therefore fair game and good for a few brownie points if I'm provoked to the point where the civility police feel they can make a case, however nebulous, to block me. Just a game for them really. --MalleusFatuorum21:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What was it persuaded you of that? You and your mate seemed quite determined that I was wrong. So what exactly are you apologising for? --MalleusFatuorum01:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to say, I thought MF's comments were perfectly fine. Age is a valid reason to oppose, generally doesn't garner much traction as an oppose rationale, but the constant bickering about it is futile. MF has a stance, one that he knows isn't universally held, he voiced his stance, and indicated that he didn't want to get drawn into an extended debate on the issue. When I read his oppose initially, I thought, "Well done." Unfortunately, his oppose turned into "attack MF!"---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Piling on, there was no need for these attacks on Malleus, I'm still unable to see why anyone would find those remarks "uncalled for" or his tone "appalling." I don't happen to agree, but there was nothing at all wrong with the way he stated his opposition. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment—just to clarify, I was not objecting to Malleus' stance on age. I disagree with it, but consider it a perfectly valid viewpoint. My original response explicitly noted, "If you'd simply opposed but omitted the last sentence, you would have looked so much better." The "last sentence" to which I was referring reads, "As an aside, I'm not going to argue about this, so don't anyone waste their time in trying to engage me in a futile 'ageism' argument." It was the attitude behind this aside from Malleus which prompted my criticism. I thought, and think, that it goes entirely against the collaborative ethos of Wikipedia. I was not, however, deriding the issue of ageism itself. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 14:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Holding an entrenched position goes against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia? How does that work? I don't think you entirely understand what collaborative means. Parrotof Doom14:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I said that the attitude which prompts one to pre-emptively make a rude and dismissive gesture to those who happen to hold a different opinion to you, is contrary to a collaborative spirit. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I rather resent your sanctimonious objection to anything you take a dislike to, and I really do wish you'd take it elsewhere, as I'm not in the slightest interested in your opinion on this matter or any other. How dare you assume that I have a bad attitude towards collaborative editing when all I said was that (having had the "ageism" argument many times before) I had no intention of going through the motions again. To be perfectly frank it's attitudes like those displayed you and Coldplayexpert I find to be very distasteful. If you post here again, on any subject TreasuryTag, I will delete your posting without reading it. I have neither the desire nor the need to be around offensive editors such as yourself. --MalleusFatuorum15:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conf) There isn't anything rude about making clear what one's position is on a certain matter, and telling people not to bother debating on it. For instance, I think you're talking complete bollocks, and there's no point in trying to debate with me on the matter. Is that a breach of civil also, as you imply above? Parrotof Doom15:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
I know you don't accept barnstars, but please take a token of my gratitude for helping with 1997 Qayen earthquake. I've now significantly contributed to 5 FAs; it's been a wonderful experience, and you have been part of that. :) ceranthor17:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ceranthor; let's hope you have many more good experiences in the future, both on wikipedia and, more importantly, off. --MalleusFatuorum15:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll be coming out of retirement to complete my four, but I'll probably be guilted in to doing more. I really hope all (well most) of the other reviewers jump in. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Roll, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, Eric Corbett. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Excuse me?????????? Why are you interfering with my affairs? This has nothing to do with you! Now stop acting like a child and apologise for your remark. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
And I've moved my comment back, because by moving it you rather conveniently managed to lose the context, which was your rude and abrasive section title. Kids. Who'd have 'em. --MalleusFatuorum19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is open to everyone, people are free to stick their noses wherever they want; I suggest you read WP:OWN. Being so aggressive and lashing out like this casts you in a poor light, Jack1755. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean on your page? I can perhaps begin to see the problems you have with prose ... give it up Jack, you're too easy. Go find someone your own size to play with. --MalleusFatuorum19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Look. You're clearly upset about God knows what and I clearly couldn't give a fuck. Why don't we each just go our separate ways now? Haven't you got something else you ought to be doing anyway? There's plenty of others who'll be quite happy to pitch in here and abuse me in your absence. :-) --MalleusFatuorum20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have missed this "event" (I just figured out what it was all about ... too much champagne for New Year's, I guess); Malleus, how would you like your abuse delivered? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, I just caught up on all of this. Malleus, it's amazing how even a politely worded post from you draws much ire from other editors...you must have a username with a lot of negative energy associated with it or something... I just hope you never decide to leave over stuff like this - there are many of us who would be much worse off at FAC without your keen eye on our articles beforehand! Dana boomer (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that the "Malleus" thing does put a certain negative picture in some people's minds. I'd meant it to be a play on the Malleus Maleficarum, of course, so I guess I've only got myself to blame. God knows what was Parrot of Doom was thinking of when he chose his username. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope ;). I'm about to be re-incarnated. And...eh....I sorta can't see your face, Malleus. *Applause just for you*
Ummm, Jack. A piece of friendly advice. Knock if off, now. Taunting another editor after claiming to retire isn't going to be well received. Take some down to calm down, evaluate the FAC, and come back refreshed, but please leave Malleus out of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This isn't getting any better is it. You're a 15-year-old kid acting like a five-year-old Jack, and you're really beginning to piss me off. You've not been blocked only because you're not me, but by God you need to be taught a short sharp lesson. --MalleusFatuorum01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There was a "Jack" character featured in Hummer advertisements over here. Liked to do things his own way, bless his heart, and had a thing for gas guzzling jalopies apparently. Happy New Year Malleus! And also to your many fans (and jealous followers). ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Noticed you're doing a lot of work on the article on Reg Christie. With regard to the indictment at trial including only the murder of Ethel Christie, this was because in English law at the time, an indictment for murder could only contain one count. I have yet to trace exactly when that changed (probably in one of the Criminal Justice Acts of the late 1960s) but it had quite an impact on this case: in multiple murder cases prosecutors had to choose which was the strongest case (cf Timothy Evans where the murder of the baby must have seemed easier to prove at the time).
I wonder if you have/have access to the Notable British Trials series book on 'The Trials of Evans and Christie'? Rarer than Ludovic Kennedy's book and containing both trial transcripts, it is useful for sourcing key details. Funny to think of Reg Christie in uniform operating out of Harrow Road Police Station during the war. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's interesting, and certainly worth further investigation. I only got involved with this article after its failed FAC a few days ago, so I've just been pushing a few commas around in a copyediting attempt. I had no intention of getting involved in the research, but there do seem to be a few gaps still to be plugged ... --MalleusFatuorum23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Malleus, I am a part of this project and am working on the bog turtle article. Me and my group brought it up to GA several weeks ago, but our ultimate goal is to make FA pretty soon. Yohmom and some members of the pudu group said I should ask you to help me. So...pleease!! We need a god of a copyeditor. Sasata, one of our GA reviewers, will tell you we're diligent workers...(I don't know if I asked you with the proper decorum, but I hope so, pardon my ignorance).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help NYMFan. FAC is quite a step up from GA, so there will be some work to do though. I'll leave some initial notes on the article's talk page and we can take it from there. --MalleusFatuorum14:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Essay on consensus-building
"Since you ask, I think it expresses a point of view that is all too common here, and one that is killing the project. For more details contact my talk page. --MalleusFatuorum23:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)" (here)
To state it simply, wikpiedia has degenerated to the point where everyone is expected to agree, and all dissent is punished. Or, to be more blunt, not all dissent is punished, just that from those the ruling elite don't happen to be friendly with. The corruption is endemic, you only have to look around.
Consensus emerges from rational discussion, not from a series of "Support", ""Oppose"", "Neutral" votes at an RfA for instance, and it should not be the function of some third-party to step in and decide the outcome of a discussion that has largely been emasculated, thus having no legitimacy whatsoever. --MalleusFatuorum00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you think there would be any value in imposing a "minimum statement of s/o/n" length? Say, 500 characters or such? Or is it the case that those reviewing read each and every comment, and evaluate the matter appropriately?
I think I see where your concern lies. I wasn't meaning to suggest that it just turn into a !vote, just that the strength of your argument isn't actually improved by its repetition. Once you've addressed a specific concern, you've addressed it. It's not like a conversation, where you often have to repeat yourself just to be heard - everyone can read your position even if you only wrote it once. If someone brings up a new point, by all means add something new to the conversation in response.--otherlleft00:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm always happy to debate my views - it helps keep me from becoming a curmudgeon. I'm guessing that my essay speaks to something at the heart of what you think is wrong with Wikipedia, and I expect to learn a fair bit by hearing more.--otherlleft00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for replying. As I read it the original draft essay considers (i) controversial article change, (ii) deleting an article, and (iii) selecting an administrator. Seems to me that those three areas are mostly froth: how can any point of view about them be a central issue, let alone "killing the project"? Can you explain further? Cheers - Pointillist (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Controversial article changes, abuse of the deletion process (in both directions) and the endemic corruption of Wikipedia's electoral processes and lack of a way to control the abusive admins (yes, they may only be 10% of the total, but 90 abusive admins can do a lot of damage) are the three single biggest factors in the collapse of Wikipedia's editor base and the consequential deterioration of the core content. The false elevation of "assume good faith" and "rules are made to be followed" above "use common sense" may make the social-networking side of Wikipedia work more smoothly, but it's wrecking it as a credible reference work. In any serious publishing environment, someone insisting on including something inappropriate would be met with a barrage of objections, not a lone objection followed by everyone else standing aside quietly nodding. The position espoused by the essay in question is a sixties relativist presumption that all points have validity and the point is to choose between them. The real world, unfortunately, is not a French philosophy textbook. – iridescent00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I've always been rather happy that the real world isn't a French philosophy textbook, nor that it resembles anything close to a philosophy textbook. (Can you tell I despised philosophy in college?). Otherwise, I agree with Iri. It isn't our job to make everyone feel good about themselves, it's our job to create an encyclopedia. Sometimes, that means that if you are advocating a wrong position, you might get your feelings hurt. (I've never subscribed to the self-esteem school of child raising, why would I use it to build an encyclopedia?) Ealdgyth - Talk00:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
That's very well said. As a student I was for a while taken in by Sartre's existentialist bollocks, but any clown who has to stick a knife through his hand just to prove to himself that he can is clearly a nutcase. I'm reminded as well of the football game that was abandoned at half-time, because those in charge of the poor kiddies getting hammered 9–0 thought it was too upsetting for them. Sad. Learning how to lose is one of the most valuable lessons anyone can learn. --MalleusFatuorum01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's an interesting take, and I'll have to consider revising because I certainly didn't intend to argue that making people feel good is the point. Sure, I think civility helps, and I think not needlessly cluttering a debate by saying the same thing again and again is a civil thing to do, because it assumes that editors are intelligent enough to read everything, and makes it easier for that to be the reality. Your concerns about the silent majority allowing bad things to happen are certainly valid. My understanding is that our practice of having a third party judge whether or not consensus was reached (with which Malleus has a specific objection) includes the expectation that the person making that judgment weighs the value of the arguments rather than their number, so I don't see that reducing repetitions would harm that process. It can be harmed if the closing admin is one of those 10%, but I don't see that my suggestion would cause any more harm. Again, I'll reread it to try to see where it sounds to "feel good" to you - may I ask your opinion when I do so, Iridescent?--otherlleft01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You have a great deal more faith than I do in a few clots who were elected on the basis that they hadn't upset anyone important. --MalleusFatuorum01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What areas of dissent are we talking about? If a "controversial article change" means something that violates the consensus of reasonably-well-educated contributors, but most of them stand aside quietly nodding, that isn't a failure of consensus, is it? Surely it's a problem of participation. Using admins to decide things when too few editors have participated in the discussion is a recipe for disaster for the articles concerned. Mind you, most of those articles aren't really important. The core of the encyclopedia is fundamental articles about the sciences, arts and humanities, and AFAIK they are mostly OK. Arguments about evolving news stories, Balkan politics and Pokemon characters etc aren't core. There are borderline areas—e.g. why have easily-vandalised climate tables in city articles—but there's no reason why consensus shouldn't work there, too. I suspect you're worrying about a deeper problem: that Wikipedia is already larger than the population of well-educated editors who are prepared to do the boring work of copy-editing, improving references and detecting vandalism in perpetuity. It's a shame, but perhaps that's la condition humaine. - Pointillist (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC) updated 01:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's 100% "dissent" being expressed, but imo reasonably simplifying it that way still works. I'll go with 50% dissent for the sake of dissenting and 50% laziness. The minority of that mindset slice into what should be a smooth discussion. For example I would love an honest straw poll on percentage of persons giving a !vote in an RfA have dug into contributions all that much, even just for general trends, areas preferred, ability to back up what the candidate says interests them, talk page archive quick scroll downs to spot angry red icons and why there's there and see if that might match on any confessed prior conflicts. Just basic stuff like collaborating opening statement to develop more trust past the starter AGF. Anyone on a "per Xxxxx" I'm thinking not so much so on the research. Whomever does go to this kind of detail, my utmost respect for them. Also kudos to anyone who moves from neutral to something, as long as it's own their own and not from hounding. I'd be 100% favor of some minimum statement length with some evidence (1 diff even) on 100 words to not have to fork pages on for views... *shrugs*. It would prove the person discussing actually put a little time into it.
That should all be taken with a grain of salt I'm handing out to all of you I'll admit, since I'm trying to think some months away. I was just getting more comfortable and encouraged with editors who "specialize" in 1 or 2 areas with little care or talent for new articles being welcomed, and months of slow good faith tweaking seems to have died in but 3-4 days.Sorry for the rant-- I think the overall line of thinking for the essay has potential, though. Why do 5-10% of effort total weigh 90-95% to core policy and decisions, XfD, RFC/x, etc. merely because they jab sticks at dead horses to no end? I'm not picturing that being easy to share to the community as a whole even if that's the direction being spun out too. ♪daTheisen(talk)13:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Brazil
Hello, Malleus! I am currently working on the article about Brazil along with other editors. We have almost completely remade it from scratch. I noticed that you were one of the editors who were against the article's reassessment to GA status. I was wondering if you could take a look in it, but not a serious overly detailed look because we are not finished yet. Just a quick look to see if we are going into the right direction. Thank you very much and regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Country articles are seriously difficult things to write so all kudos to you for sticking with it. I think my major objections were to several uncited sections and to the unidiomatic prose. From a quick look through I think you've probably addressed, or are addressing, the citation issue, but some of the prose still looks strange. For instance, no English speaker would say "Brazil remained neutral at the early years of World War II ...". I think what would help would be if you could recruit a native English speaker to knock off those rough edges. The article is perfectly understandable, and if I were the GA reviewer I wouldn't be expecting the "professional" prose that FA demands, but it does need to be clear and grammatically sound nevertheless. --MalleusFatuorum03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. Everything is being looked and fixed where necessary. Thank you very much for your attention! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, 30 December. I was fairly tame with the hook though, no "that...people used to shit in a bucket which was taken away by blokes and the contents spread on fields so that people ate vegetables grown in their own shit?" Parrotof Doom15:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that if it hadn't been for Tony Robinson's TV programme we'd never have heard of them. just about everything I've found is a rehash of his book for children. --MalleusFatuorum20:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Could be a nice thesis for someone. A bit like Gropecunt Lane really, plenty of evidence to support them, just nobody has looked at the ancient documents and put it all together. Mind you, its understandable why nobody would want to talk about it. I bet there must be some medieval records of how much they were paid, at least. It'll certainly be on a castle financial account somewhere. Parrotof Doom20:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Must be records, and in fact I found some for the cost of clearing out a parish workhouse's (IIRC) latrines. What worries me—apart from the fact that OR is obviously verboten—is that I can find nothing saying when the term went out of fashion. Obviously cleaning out latrines and cesspits still goes on today. I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether gong farmer really warrants its own article, or whether it shouldn't really be part of a larger article on latrines/cesspits. --MalleusFatuorum21:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"M. Wood, The English Medieval House (London, 1965)" might be a good source. Its been cited a few times, and one book I've just read cites it for the wages a gong farmer earned. Parrotof Doom21:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"I've always believed that the typical Coronation Street back-to-back terraces were built to allow those colecting the night soil easy access via the lane separating the rows of terraces." - you were correct. I'm reading something now, published in 1877, which states exactly that. Privies were built so that people could gain access from the back, rather than having to trapse through the house with a bucket of shite. The back alley was normally 4-5 feet (can't imagine many of those are left!), the cart waited at the end while the nightsoilmen did their job. So keep your eyes open for any new bricks filling a hole a couple of feet square, near the ground :) Parrotof Doom18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The same document also states that between 1-2 tonnes of dead animals including dogs and cats (etc) were brought into the depot on Water St (by the Irwell) every week. Blimey. Parrotof Doom18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I expect there are a lot more of those back lanes left than you posh Flixton types imagine. I have a friend who lives in a small two-up two-down terrace in a now gentrified part of Chorlton. The lane at the back of her house is certainly no more that 5 feet wide. We collected a new fridge-freezer for her, thinking we could just drive down the lane and put it straight into her kitchen, instead of trying to wriggle it through her house from the front. No chance; the car was too wide. The problem today though is that it allows easy access for robbing scallys, not gong men. The police keep trying to persuade the residents to gate it off. Does your document mention dead babies?--MalleusFatuorum18:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No babies that I've seen. It does however mention that manure which the corporation couldn't sell was moved to somewhere just north of Manchester, called "The Tips". No idea where that is. Parrotof Doom18:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like some photos for the Fashion Architecture Taste article. They have a project in Sheffield, but I don't think it's been completed yet, but I want you to dispatch some of your comrades over there to get some shots for me. Also for Tony Fretton please, architecture is very dull to read about with no pictures. Thanks in advance. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
CoM, the Deerlands project is literally across the road from my son's grandmother's place, but IIRC the site is mainly wasteland and the remains of the old school at the moment. Ping me at some point in the coming months and I'll get a few snaps of the development for you (assuming they start on time). Caveat: my photography skills may be described as "shit" at best. :-) SteveT • C23:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you've offered to help the above user. They've left a note on my talk page, which I've responded to outlining issues with WP:COI and WP:DCM. Their username is also against policy, but I've given them the benefit of the doubt before approaching this – there's no point clogging their page with a million warning templates. Julian Colton has already given a soft warning on it, so I'll let it be for the time, provided that they don't start spamming (which, in fairness, they haven't). Just thought I'd let you know in case you decide to offer the user further help. Regards, matt (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've already suggested that a username change is in order. i don't take the stern view on "COI" and paid editing that some others do, as it's the end result that matters, not the motivation. --MalleusFatuorum16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know you from Adam; all I know is that you are a 15-year-old kid behaving like a complete arse hole. I'd suggest that you gather your thoughts, and then try to be the mature editor that you claim to be. --MalleusFatuorum00:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Im the arse hole? Your the one writing crap about me behind my back! How am I the "arse hole" Malleus? What have I done? Nothing you just seem to hate me for no reason.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll "drop it" once you drop your attacks about me from behind my back. Why do think so little of me? I have done nothing and yet you think that im garbage.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk01:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Coldplay I don't know you, and don't particularly care to know you, but if you want some respect I suggest that you turn your computer off, and go for a walk or something. Behave like an adult. Parrotof Doom01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Coldplay Expert, a piece of advice: stop trying to get everyone to like you. Perhaps you should think about why Malleus has a poor opinion of you rather than get upset about it. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, just crawl back into your hole Coldplay Expert, instead of proving that all those editors who believe that minors ought not to be editing wikipedia are right. . --MalleusFatuorum01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've never seen Malleus say he hates anyone. But I'd say that not being able to let things go, such as this and a similar incident involving iMatthew, might be one reason some - not just Malleus - have a less that stellar opinion of your behaviour. Also, I'd say Malleus post on WR makes it fairly clear that at least one edit is the attitude shown in this edit. You seem to think too much of admins and the status associated with it; it's not important and admins are no better than "normal" editors so why care if you don't become one. Nev1 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I doubt Malleus hates you. There are a very very few people in this world that I hate, and none of them are on the internet. There are people on this project who don't like my efforts, but I really couldn't care less, as I know there are many more who have a modicum of respect for my contributions. I suggest you take the same point of view. Its the internet, not life and death. In 100 years, nobody will give a shit, but who knows, you may have contributed to the sum of human knowledge by getting your head down and learning a thing or two about life and history. You may, if you pay attention, actually learn that respect is earned, not assumed. Parrotof Doom01:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I hate butting into conversations, but I think it might be helpful here. Malleus, I think Coldplay Expert has the right intentions but seems to be a bit too thin-skinned. It at least seems that way.
I'd advise the two of you to disengage; Coldplay Expert, Malleus is free to dislike whomever he wants and thought it may seem cruel for me to say that, such is life. Additionally, I don't think he hates you by any standard. Otherwise, I don't think this conversation is useful to anyone so please stop it now. Then again, this is Malleus' talk page so whatever he cares for goes. ceranthor01:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If I may say, that is pretty much the kind of wikipap that I despise. Coldplay is free to play his games wherever he likes, but he chose to bring them here. I'm not gunning for him, but he came looking for me. Whatever happens next happens because of his stupidity. --MalleusFatuorum01:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You came here accusing someone of hating you. It should be pretty obvious that it wouldn't go down well; unnecessarily seeking out drama isn't clever. Nev1 (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You didn't ask him to stop in your opening post though, did you? If you spent time away from the dramaboards like ANI, did less myspacing, stopped caring about who "hates" you in your opinion, and tried to get your edits to article space well above 25% then I'm pretty sure it would stop. Nev1 (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to add that I think Coldplay Expert might want to seek out a mentor who is dedicated to helping him, as I think he has quite a lot of promise. If you're willing, I could recommend some good teachers. ceranthor01:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I offer my self as an alternate choice, since Julian is almost always busy. I'm sure he'll be able to find time though. Still, I'm available if you need me. ceranthor01:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The last time I got fed up here, I went and played Machinarium. Its much more frustrating than any of the bollocks that goes on here. Maybe you'd enjoy it, I certainly did. Parrotof Doom01:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I really do suggest that you step away from your computer, before I lose my patience with your pathetic whining and let you know what I really think. --MalleusFatuorum02:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Means "computer based training" to me. You've obviously not worked for the government enough.
Actually I have, even been inside the hallowed sanctum of GCHQ, admittedly continually accompanied (even to the toilet) during my two weeks there. Obviously can't say what I was doing there. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum20:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I invite anyone who doesn't mind spending the next 1-2 hours mildly disturbed to look up CBT at Urban Dictionary. Mildy disturbed like the time you first discovered your parents were doing it. --Andy Walsh(talk)20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody can, although if they had to choose one to cut from Mr Cellophane and Class, I think they made the right call. – iridescent20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we end this people? Im getting really tired of watching you guys insult me over and over again. And Iridescent, your rude comment is hardly worth mentioning. Way to be mean to someone whom you have never interacted with. Just leave me alone people and stop stalking me! (Now I know why I have 53 TPW, so when I screw up agina you all can laugh)--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk04:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I feel sorry for Ealdgyth, having her work shredded like this. I'll go do something else for a while. I'm sure there's someone else I can find to annoy. :-) --MalleusFatuorum20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh. As long as neither of you move citations around or do anything other than word choice/grammar/spelling fixes I'm not bothered. I've never been one to be attached to my prose, it's the ideas that count, quite honestly. My strengths aren't in copyediting my own prose, most folks aren't. (Besides, I've been busy cutting Deacon's prose to bits with Ranulf le Meschin, 3rd Earl of Chester today!) Ealdgyth - Talk20:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
"The first assessment was based on the Domesday Survey, completed in 1087, which investigated land holdings in England" - does "which investigated" refer to the Domesday Survey, or the assessment? Parrotof Doom22:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok I asked because Domesday Book lead says 1086, and I wasn't sure. That might warrant an explanation. Sorry to fill your talk page Malleus but lots of intelligent (and some, perhaps not so intelligent?) people watch this, certainly more than the article's talk page. Parrotof Doom22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't know for sure when DB was finished, just that it was done by Willy's death in Sept 1087. I've replaced "in" with "by" (as that was sloppiness on my part) and threw a cite at the thing. Our article on DB is a disgrace, but I'm already working on Norman Conquest of England, and one hopeless article at a time is my motto. (I also despise "Domesday Studies", yes, there is an entire sub-discipline of medieval studies devoted to that Damn Book. (Another favourite expression among medievalists)). Ealdgyth - Talk22:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
(not ignoring Nancy but back to the sorta-original subject). Quick copyedit on my changes please? I swear, this is an absolutely rotten birthday! Hot water heater is out, it's still cold, and I put up Carucage and it's making me wanna tear my hair out. Ealdgyth - Talk20:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
After the way Carucage is going... I'm never touching medieval money again! (gaze up) It'll sort itself out... but some days I think I'm supposed to educate everyone about the silliest things. "Free men" ... what ELSE could it mean? Some days... Ealdgyth - Talk22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I took a look at Robin Hood a few weeks ago. Then I slowly backed away from the computer, once I'd got out of sight I started running. It looks like an absolute nightmare. Parrotof Doom22:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deep breaths, Ealdgyth, deep breaths. BTW. you must be pretty stinky by now if you've lost your hot water. Thank Heaven for the internet. --MalleusFatuorum22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
We have a "temp" fix in.. just have to keep checking it because it turns off unexpectly and has to be turned back on. So THERE! (sticks her tongue out) Ealdgyth - Talk22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole history of England is in a terrible state (bar a few articles on England's monarchs.... oh and some witch trials and a series of streets sharing an immodest title mind...)! I suppose I share the same sentiments on the English people article as Parrot did with Robin Hood. It's a shame more hasn't been done, but it's nice to see a few users care about the Middle Ages; its the most interesting and important period of history (in my view of course!). --Jza84 | Talk 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't much like the article on Richard the Lionheart; not so long ago it was based mostly on pretty old sources and contained stuff like "The inhabitants of [a fortress were so afraid of Richard at this point that they left the safety of their castle and attacked Richard outside its walls"]. That makes no sense. With flawed logic like that the article needs a major overhaul. I made a start but got sidetracked. Nev1 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess we each do what we can Jza84, knowing that it's just a drip in the ocean. But an ocean is, after all, a repository of drips. I've begun to find the religious and social upheavals of the 17th century to be quite fascinating, but that's probably only because I was brought up as a Catholic, so it strikes home. --MalleusFatuorum22:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that History of England article is that there clearly isn't enough 18th-century scandal. It just so happens... Parrotof Doom23:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on and off on Norman Conquest of England, as well as working on some other bios, mainly religious. I also got Gregorian mission up and running. The problem is, anything wide in scope is just... a bear to work on. As I poke away, things slowly improve, but biographical articles are often times the easiest to work on, as they are self-contained. Even then, you get ... fun .. things like the little dust-up at Gilbert Foliot a little while back, where attempts were made to add film trivia to the article without really tying it to the subject of the article. It only gets worse the more "big" you get... If I ever finish with bishops I intend to tackle the monarchs, and then hopefully will be able to work on broader brush articles later. Ealdgyth - Talk23:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, our history made us what we are, and in the case of Malleus some would say that if we don't don't learn from the lessons of history we're bound to repeat them! Not me of course......hee, hee Richerman (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Randomly...
Just wanted to say that I like your common sense, no BS views. Definitely needed round these parts. RB88 (T) 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That may be but I hope you never lose your, how should we call it, zest. A counterpoint is always needed. RB88 (T) 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I've already done a great deal more than those who are so keen to criticise me will probably ever do. The fault is theirs, not mine. --MalleusFatuorum01:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not? Are you looking for suggested hooks? BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but I changed "Great Britain" to Britain; I'm no expert, but I think "Great Britain" is a relatively modern term (17th/18th century or so). --MalleusFatuorum18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed, and yes, I'm looking for suggestions. I'm about to throw up my hands on Carucage and withdraw. This is getting ridiculous. It's an article on a tax, I do not need to explain in detail about all the royal revenues, for gods sake! Was it REALLY that hard to understand???? Sometimes, we are going to have specialized subject articles. Ealdgyth - Talk19:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've sometimes felt like that with FACs, but stick with it. Sometimes they can turn around really quickly, and then it'll have been worth it. (Remind me of that the next time I get pissed off at FAC). I think as well that we've probably all been in the situation where we have to write a few spin-off articles to avoid having to go into too much detail on a particular topic. I never really intended to write this, for instance. Or this.
"I'm about to throw up my hands on Carucage and withdraw." - don't. Stick with it, take a breather for a day or two. It'll be there for a fortnight at least. Parrotof Doom22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion, or at least the first of them:
Did you know ... that during the 200 years between the withdrawal of the Roman legions from Britain in 400 and King Æthelberht of Kent's early 7th-century law codes, the British were apparently untaxed? --MalleusFatuorum23:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've rather lost touch with DYK, and have little motivation to reengage. I seem to remember as well though that here has to be a link to the article in the hook. I'll try and think of something else. --MalleusFatuorum00:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe there's nothing else to be found? What about newspaper reports? I'm still gobsmacked about the Zeppelin raids on Bolton and Wigan during the First World War. I knew about the raid on London, having walked past the site of the bombing many times, but Bolton? --MalleusFatuorum01:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Bolton library is pretty good, you'll probably find plenty about the raid in there. And you can go have a look at the museum when you're done :) I don't think the Bottle Conjurer will get much more than a DYK, but its an interesting thing all the same. Parrotof Doom01:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I've got pretty much all there is to get on the Bolton raid, and the Wigan one, just can't decide whether it's enough for standalone articles. --MalleusFatuorum01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Citations
Hi MF, I just noticed this on the watch all page, I think you were changing cite web -> citation in an edit summary. As you suggested ages ago, I always use citation but other editors change it to cite web. Does it matter a lot?
Also an editor started changing my references on Wakefield edits to something I haven't a clue about. I am easily confused. I've said before, I can add content, but the rest I like to be as simple as possible.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to use {{citation}} rather than the various {{cite}} templates, as I find it easier just to stick with one. I wrote the Stretford article ages ago, before I knew of {{Harvnb}}, so I just thought I'd update it. The golden rule is consistency in whichever citation style you choose, at least within each article. All the editor's doing on Wakefield is moving the citations from the article text into the References section. Waste of time in my opinion, but each to their own. --MalleusFatuorum18:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The only sensible place to move ITN to is "nowhere". In a project with more than its fair share of bad ideas, showcasing what are by definition the articles most hastily-written and prone to edit-warring (and then wondering why the general public think Wikipedia articles are unstable and prone to editwarring) is somewhere near the top. – iridescent16:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
And Did You Know are new or recently expanded, but unchecked and unassessed. This is why good articles or other featured content should at least be frontpaged, instead of Did You Know. Majorlytalk17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with that as well, especially showcasing GAs. The idea that just because an article is new it's somehow worthy of putting on the main page without even its basic spelling and grammar being checked is just plain bizarre. Like so much else that has become entrenched here and impossible to reform. --MalleusFatuorum18:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an element of worth to DYK, however. I've had a few articles there, and quite a few errors and mistakes have been hoovered up. I like the general idea, and the randomness. Pail closet for instance, I can't see that being a GA anytime soon, but several thousand people clicked on it while it was at DYK. Parrotof Doom18:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Dark Side of the Moon is TFA this thursday, I've gone through it a couple of times to improve the prose, I wonder if you could have a quick scan to see if there are any bits of silliness remaining? The less there is to correct on the day, the easier it'll be to keep an eye on it. Parrotof Doom19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep, the OED doesn't say much more than "utterance" but there's an article on it here. Its the best way of describing "wordless vocals" that I could think of, without contradicting myself. Parrotof Doom20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take your word for that. I've had a quick look through and made a few very minor changes. I don't see any reason why this will get any more than the usual amount of TFA day vandalism. It's a very nice article actually. --MalleusFatuorum20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. My plan is to get all the studio Floyd albums to at least GA. I have Piper at the Gates, Saucerful, Umma Gumma, Atom Heart Mother, Momentary Lapse, and Division Bell to go yet :) Parrotof Doom20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I looked earlier and wondered why the vandalism wasn't as bad as I'd expected. Isn't being sensible with TFAs against the wikirules though? --MalleusFatuorum00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Grammar question
Would you mind having a look at this question and seeing what you think? Its only a very minor point but you're probably better qualified than I am to comment on such grammatical detail. Parrotof Doom21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the sentence to what I think is correct. The album isn't building on anything right now, it's a done thing. The "matching verb tenses" argument is spurious. --MalleusFatuorum21:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought, but I just wanted to check. I'm glad you saw the ageing/aging thing. I was under the impression that the former was correct, but now I'm uncertain. I think I need to chill out a bit, I feel like a pecked hen of late thanks to that Choudary article. Parrotof Doom21:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
TFA can make you feel like that. "Ageing" is my preferred spelling, and I see no reason for any other editor to change it to the rather awkward looking "aging". --MalleusFatuorum21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It does annoy me when people resort to WP:OWN to win an argument, as if "ownership" is a bad thing. From my experience houses with owners are usually in better condition than those without as there's someone to maintain them. It's a different matter when the main contributors to an article prevent improvements, but main contributors often have the interests of the article in mind and are unlikely to oppose changes for the better. For someone to start whining about ownership over one letter is silly and they've failed to understand the spirit of the policy. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyone daft enough to start a fight over the spelling of "ageing" is hardly worth bothering about. "Ownership" is indeed often seen as a bad thing, and it certainly can sometimes be, but more often if it were not for "ownership" then all of wikipedia's articles would turn to shit, not just most of them. --MalleusFatuorum21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
My usual retort to "ownership" is something like "if ownership means that I won't allow this article to become a dog's dinner of half-eaten spaghetti and unidentified vegetables, then yes, its mine". Parrotof Doom00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If you've got some time, could you take a look at the article on Bodiam Castle? One the FAC on Château-Gaillard has closed, I intend to nominate Bodiam as well. Barring an unimportant sentence about one family, the content is pretty much all there. Nev1 (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks great to me. I found myself doing a lot fair bit of copyediting to the article, so if I can see problems with my own prose it must have needed more work than usually. Thanks very much. Nev1 (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I've almost certainly said this before, but the thing I find hardest isn't to fix the glaring errors, but to do so while still retaining the voice of the editor. Any clot can come along and rewrite your prose in their preferred style ... well, you know the rest. --MalleusFatuorum00:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
do I run this site? Am I a child?
I saw your message at the top of your user page. I hope I am not one of the children that run this site.
If you can point out any other poorly written sentences in the Nokian Tyres articles, please let me know. I hope I am welcomed and useful despite my clumsy English. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you an administrator Suomi Finland? It's only them I've really got it in for. ;-) Of course you're welcome and useful, and in fact your English is far better than that of many Americans. --MalleusFatuorum16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and message on my user talk page. I am not certain why I picked this article as I previously had no opinion about Nokian tyres and didn't know much about them. The article was a stub which I expanded and made it to a DYK (Did You Know), then to GA, which I hope to keep. Aside from a few people, like you, who have come to help, there have been no other editors editing more than 6 times. None of the original sentences of the stub remain. Everything has been created by me with quite a few helpful suggestions from you and a few others. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
To keep high spirits, I always have a required wikibreak of 1-5 days at the beginning of every month. Although it is not the 1st of February yet, I'd like to take a few days off Wikipedia. However, the Nokian Tyres article is at the bottom of the GA reassessment list so it is the next one that will probably be decided. Can this be delayed because I am not able to make corrections when off Wikipedia? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd say that you've almost done enough with it now for the reassessment to be closed as a keep, so it would be a shame if you couldn't hang around long enough to see it through. GAR doesn't move that quickly though, so a few days off probably wouldn't make any difference either way. --MalleusFatuorum22:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not in a rush to close it, but at the moment, most reviewer concerns appear to have been addressed, so if the reassessment is closed, it is likely to be as "keep". There is, however, still plenty of scope for improvement (and hence reviewer comment). Geometry guy22:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll very likely be voting (yes, I did say voting) for a "keep" very soon. The article has come on in leaps and bounds during its reassessment. --MalleusFatuorum22:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It is, and it's great when an editor like Suomi gets involved. I've had to delist over 140 GAs during the past year or so, usually because they'd been abandoned, and nobody cared about them. --MalleusFatuorum23:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I have wasted so much time here ...
... because I know that the whole thing will inevitably turn into the grey goo of trivia and popular culture. Depressing and demotivating, and I'm not sure that I any longer care enough to even try to make a difference. -- MalleusFatuorum02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't give up. There's lots of important monster trucks that still needs articles--you still have a job to do in this world. Together we can make a difference, you know. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
What provoked the black dog, Malleus? Everything is important to someone and trivial to others - that's how a encyclopedia is. What really matters is content that's reliable, thought-provoking and stylish - and no-one does that better than you! --Philcha (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
"stylish" - What alternative universe do you inhabit, Philcha? LoL This is Wikipedia — where goo rules, by design. And no, Malleus, that has nothing to do with popular culture (where there are many flashes of excellence), but in the impossibility of style remaining once the goo processors have been engaged. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program. :-) Proofreader77(interact)07:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Are the Goo Processors a species similar to the Randy From Boises? If so, equal parts of WP:V and WP:NPOV should neutralise their snivelling, with a specific against WP:DE in stubborn cases. Occasionally this recipe may also reduce the CP (Malleus knows who I knew) to impotence and zips. --Philcha (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Darn, and I thought you would love that video !! It was supposed to make up for you hating musicals. Thanks for fixing my outdenting; will you follow me around fix my prose and typos, too? I did give you a great Youtube ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It was a good video, I enjoyed it. In fact I looked out all the other videos by the same creator. I only altered your indentation because it made it look like I was being critical of Ealdgyth/you/FAC when in fact I love you all, so no, I won't be following you around. --MalleusFatuorum23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a rule of thumb for edit counts, which is that least 60% ought to be in article space. Obviously there are going to be exceptions though, like if mine ever drops below 60%. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum23:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even looking at mine since editcountitis in my case is worse than a farce. Most of my edits are at FAC these days, there was a time when I had a gazillion edits on templates and article talk when Gimme, Maralia and I were building articlehistories on every FA and FFA, and everywhere, I take three edits to make one. But I do have an app't scheduled with the eye Dr. :) I'm a classic case of why editcountitis is a bad thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Reminds me of when Franamax was working on his ucontribs tool in 2008; he ran my results and guessed from them that I am "a vandal-fighter...interested in article quality, but mostly as a gnome". Ironical. It's probably a good thing they didn't let me manually CSD-tag all these WP-space pages last year; my stats would look even worse. Maralia (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposed siteban for any editor with 60%+ edits in article space
You piqued my interest. Anyone who states on their user page "a city without disagreement is a ghost town" is at least a blood brother. --MalleusFatuorum01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Question: Is it just bad Broadway musicals you dislike? :-) I.E., Can you imagine liking a Wikipedia Western (musical) ... if one of the characters was based on you? :-) P.S. Do you have what you might consider you "theme song" ... some musical archetypal representation of your soul? LoL (Laughing, but not kidding) Proofreader77(interact)03:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I hate all musicals. I hate the idea of musicals. I can't even abide opera, for the same reasons I don't like musicals. They're an absurdity. --MalleusFatuorum04:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no room in art for absurdity? Dali? David Lynch? You interrupted my article tending with this crazyass subheading, that keeps popping up on my watchlist. Who is suggesting this site ban or whatever it is for article edits? Should I just go back to minding my own damn business? --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Moni3 ... This crazyass topic is a natural for this crazyass page (inspired by discussion further up the page) ... But since you're here, what's your theme song? (Adding data for the Wikipedia Western musical, to come)Proofreader77(interact)04:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't pick one. I love musicals and can sing pretty much all of them, but I think Malleus is a victim of poor marketing. Musicals were portrayed as wholesome entertainment, when they make much more sense as absurdist theater. If Malleus and I ever hook up, let's see how many beers it would tkae for him to break out into "The Lonely Goatherd" from The Sound of Music in public. Me, one. --Moni3 (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Let no one ever say that magic cannot arise from stupid topics. (Smiling all the way across my face and around the back )... What you said, Moni3, AMEN! ... And, yes, beer may be an absolutely necessary ingredient. (Did I mention smiling going on? LoL) Excellent. Just excellent. Proofreader77(interact)04:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I may be the only person on the planet who's never seen The Sound of Music, so its wouls take an awful lot of beer. On the other hand, I may have been a little too hasty in saying that I hate all musicals. As a kid I loved this one, mainly because of that song, which often runs through my head even today. --MalleusFatuorum04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The intersection of your two musical selections has told me more than I would have learned otherwise in thousands of words (whether correctly or not is immaterial. :) Will leave this smile here , while I go down to address the "silly" issue.Proofreader77(interact)04:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I mean all musicals. If I had the power I'd make their production and staging illegal, as a crime against good taste and common sense. Musicals have nothing to do with music. --MalleusFatuorum04:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(1) "Road to Hell" - Perfecto! (2) You have NOT heard the Wikipedia Western (musical) because it is still being composed ... and since your input has been sought, it will clearly not fit the parameters of which you hate. :-) Stay tuned. Again, great song! -- Proofreader77(interact)04:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand the natural reaction to see this these exchanges as less than serious, but I'd like you to ponder the nature of collaboration in online projects ... The software people have a somewhat easier time in that code either works or it doesn't and there is little argument about which is which ... BUT articles are not such on/off working/not-working things ... HOWEVER ... imagine the collaborative creation of something between software ... and articles ... Perhaps a musical. Songs are sing-ably good ... or horrifying crap. Not so nailed down as software, but still a graspable ball. yada yada yada For now, I'll stop there ... and ponder what kind of beer I'd most like to have. Cheers. Proofreader77(interact)04:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If one is in Sheffield, one may partake of Roger and Out which was a stoutish thing with a claimed alcohol content of around 12%, served at the Frog and Parrot....this was near 20 years ago mind you so no idea if still there...Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, you're talking about a bad batch then LoL ... A good batch of Roger and Out hits 16.9% (BTW, beware ... if you pass out at the Frog and Parrot, I think you get added to the vat. :-)Proofreader77(interact)06:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
With the fortuitous mention of "train" (and the mysterious workings of my brain:-), we at last return to the the topic of musicals ... with the memory of a high school production of Annie Get Your Gun for which (as a student teacher) I arrived and found the students had painted a huge backdrop of all green .... with tiny cows ... which I repainted as a beautiful desert with a substantial train track in the foreground (with various size cacti in the middle ground and multi-toned mountains in the distance) ... the largest canvas I have ever painted, where was I? LoL
"Of course, an alternative suggestion for the overt lack of support for Arcayne's perfectly reasonable proposal is that very few editors can be bothered to engage in a discussion that will be filibustered by those holding the entrenched position that only administrators can be be trusted. A view that you so eloquently express, but which is patently absurd and insulting to the body of hard-working editors who are so frequently subjected to the whims of the current crop of "admin-for-lifers"
Were you suggesting that I was insulting the Body Wiki by suggesting that we do have some good admins? I agree that there are some bad ones, and ones getting to that point, but the point of the proposal is to help some of them get back on track. It would also identify the ones who refuse to accept any criticism.
Under the current policy, an admin pretty much has to bite a newbie's head while shouting how the Holocaust didn't happen while utilizing a vandalizing sockpuppet who flouts policy - just to get ArbCom's attention. The proposal isn't going to be on time (once every three years) to catch the aforementioned type of git. You are a very smart individual, Malleus, but you are alienating people who might give the proposal a chance. Yes, there might be admins who have drunk the 'us-versus-them' kool-aid, but no amount of insulting (or encouragement) is going to change their minds. For the proposal to work, we have to appeal to the reasonable part of the brain that is looking for something reasonable, fair and well-defined. You are on the other side of the 'them-versus-us' coin, Malleus. It's going to take both sides of this discussion coming together to give it a fighting chance. Please help me do that. - Arcayne(cast a spell)03:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I was suggesting that Wehwalt and his ilk were alienating me with their "hard-working administrators" bollocks, implying that regular editors were by comparison lazy bastards. So some don't like my opinions, tough. They'll just have to live with it. --MalleusFatuorum03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Help copyediting
Hello Malleus. Last year you helped me with Alan Kotok (and promised to finish in time for FA later this year). I have another problem. Talk:Jeannette_Piccard/GA1 says Jeannette Piccard is so poorly written that it was automatically or summarily delisted from GA. Any chance you could run through it? I have the same agenda here, to take it to FA this year. The subject matter might not be up your alley, but it is completely referenced except a couple of things I put in because her son Don Piccard told them to me. I have no problem removing those small things. See what you think? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm not sure I'd have delisted that article rather than putting it on hold, but c'est la vie. There are a few oddly written bits, like the reference to Gene Roddenberry, and a few apparent gaps – all of a sudden Piccard pops up in Lausanne, for instance –but probably the biggest problem I see is a slight disorganisation in the sequence of information presented. Nothing that couldn't be fixed fairly readily though I don't think. I'll try and take a closer look in the next day day or two. --MalleusFatuorum19:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Review points are done. Only a couple questions. But I will stay out of the way and the lead is yours. Again, thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
I've been there SandyG, I know what it feels like. Some days it can get under the skin even of tough nuts like us. I just wanted you to know that you weren't alone. --MalleusFatuorum23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The second semester has started with many of the same students returning. The bog turtle group is still functional and seems to hold promise for FA. I'm considering banding the remaining students in a single group and unleashing them on an obscure seashell - ummmm perhaps a bivalve this time? Strange how connected the world has become - bet you never thought a group of teenagers in the backwaters of North Carolina would be gathered at a lunch table discussing your views on punctuation! From my take, they seem to view you with a mixture of fear and respect ... you would make a great teacher. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Fear and respect sounds good to me. ;-) Unbelievable though it may be to some, I was a lecturer for many years. Not in biology, but in IT. I wasn't such a great teacher though, as I don't really have the people skills for that. I wish your students all the best of luck, and I have absolutely no doubt that their (and your) efforts have improved wikipedia. If they ever need any help in moving a few commas around then I'll be only too happy to help. --MalleusFatuorum02:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
He/she just doesn't get what the big deal is, do they? Lying and attacking another user on your own RFA, and claiming that there isn't a problem? I don't think I've ever taken part in an RFA but I made an exception this time. Parrotof Doom10:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
After the fun and games with Coldplay Expert the past few days I'm beginning to wonder which IRC channel is hosting the "Get Malleus" project. --MalleusFatuorum10:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Its a pretty unsuccessful project, if it exists. A bit like the UN, they can only send you a "strongly worded letter". Maybe they should hire "Team America, Wikipedia Police" Parrotof Doom20:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've thought for a while now that it might be best to split off the real English wikipedia from the American one. Mainly to get rid of the poncey American civility police. Let's get back to a world in which it's perfectly OK to call a spade a fucking shovel. --MalleusFatuorum21:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've regularly considered doing just that. After all the software is free and initially so could the server be. I run several websites, am conversant with Apache, php and MySQL so how hard could it be. If an American programmer can achieve self-considered deification it would be a breeze for a couple of Brits :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the US attitude towards civility. A country that allows you to own fully-automatic rifles, that glorifies violence on television and in films, and that enjoys hardcore pornography—gets upset over a few rude words. I look forward to the day that Britannia retakes the 13 colonies and brings them into line. Parrotof Doom21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a significant cultural divide, that's for sure. When was the last time (or even the first time) that you heard anyone pleading with you to "assume good faith" outside of wikipedia? --MalleusFatuorum21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom, perhaps rude words are more dangerous, and forced civility more important, in a country where people are likely to defend their honor with fully-automatic rifles? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Your rifles must have one Hell of a range if they can reach me here in Manchester. That's the real Manchester, not some hick town in the back of beyond God-knows-where-USA. --MalleusFatuorum21:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. When confronted by a gunman, is your first thought "assume good faith"? I may just be over-reacting though, after having watched Easy Rider again last night. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
My tax dollars at work; long range through-the-intertubes fully-automatic rifles are no doubt being developed by the U.S. military even as we speak. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Start with Georgia, will you please? I don't know what the preoccupation with civility is from US editors. I thought it was more from younger ones who can spot incivility quickly. Anyone who has been to school or has older siblings can spot an uncivil comment. Schools give out leadership awards and stuff for kids who bridge divides and our culture is preoccupied with not letting someone's feelings get hurt. I don't know if that's Western culture or American culture. It takes more experience and critical thinking, access to sources, and such to delve deeply into article space and fix stuff or do other highly technical things. --Moni3 (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I've used the story before about the school football game played between two teams of nine-year-olds, abandoned at half-time when one of them was losing 9–0, because it was too upsetting for them. They're damn lucky I wasn't their headmaster; I'd have sent them back out for the second half with a rocket up their collective bum, and expected them to run out 10–9 winners. --MalleusFatuorum21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Careful now. There are people on Wikipedia who actually state, on their user page, that they believe in creation theory. They might just have you sent to hell. Parrotof Doom22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
They're all Americans though aren't they? Is there anyone outside of the USA who takes creation theory seriously? Even if they're right, I'd rather be in Hell than share Heaven with them. I'd get myself blocked and demoted within minutes of having to listen to the first one of them spouting off anyway. --MalleusFatuorum22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To me anyone accusing anyone else of incivility is indulging in passive-aggressiveness, something I feel is a very popular pastime in the US. As for Heaven and Hell, well one of my frequent responses to someone uttering "fuckin' Hell" is "I'd far rather fuck in Hell for all eternity than wank in Heaven". --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the 9-0 football score story, the Running up the score article neatly illustrates the disconnect between American culture and the rest of the world when it comes to "civility". In Britain, if a football manager plays a weakened team for matches they're bound to win, or takes off star players once there's a comfortable lead, it leads to howls of protest and demands for refunds from fans, the losing team furious at the perceived insult, and threats of fines of punishment for not taking the game seriously. In America, it's an expectation. 212.74.97.211 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Unsportsmanlike to give your opponents the thrashing they deserve? Tell that to either Manchester City or United when they meet again next week. I can't imagine either of them complaining about a 15–0 thumping of the other. --MalleusFatuorum01:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Willenhall Town 57 Burton Brewers 0 (4 March 2001)- I've never been to a football match, but I always wish I'd seen that one. Ning-ning (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Nokian Tyres
Thank you for kindly helping with this article. I've changed back a recent edit of yours. There are test facilities in Ivalo. You can see the buildings in the picture. However, the Spain and Germany facilities may be just test tracks that they use. The reference mentions the testing of tyres in Spain and Germany but it doesn't mention any Nokian facilities there. A ver subtle point. If you feel strongly another way, just let me know or edit the article directly. You are a gem for coming to this lonely article to make corrections! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
... but I was struck by this one, targetted at me, from a current RfA candidate: "If you're being mean and chasing people away, you're doing exactly what you shouldn't. We're already losing users at an unprecedented rate just from enforcing our own rules, no need for mean-spiritedness and hatred to speed things up." I believe that I've helped and encouraged a great many more productive new users than this RfA candidate has had hot dinners. Just felt that I wanted to say that. --MalleusFatuorum22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I just strayed in here by mistake and read that!!!! Well you certainly helped me when I was new! And you continue to help even though I'm not so new but not very confident. Just felt that I wanted to say that too.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I vividly remember the last RfA of that user and expected nothing less. IMHO, those insults are really something that should at most be taken with a grain of salt. Best, FASTILYsock(TALK)05:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll make some suggestions on the article's talk page. From a quick look through, the most obvious thing is that the lead needs to be expanded substantially to better summarise the article. --MalleusFatuorum15:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support for the Nokian Tyres GA. Even if granted, I will continue to work on it. I have identified another article that needs repair. That article is not a stub but could use some work. It is Esko Aho, a somewhat recent former Prime Minister of Finland. Unlike the Barack Obama or Tony Blair articles, I think I can probably fix the article without too much infighting. I do not think that an encyclopedia should worship politicians (authors, scientist, doctors, and others are also worthy of respect) but people do read these articles. The same thing is true about paper currency. Too many countries have President, Prime Ministers, and politicians. In the UK, the choice of Adam Smith and Elizabeth Fry is interesting! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm with you on that, and I'd be surprised if the Nokian Tyres reassessment wasn't closed as a keep after all the work you've done. --MalleusFatuorum23:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
If the famed MF/PoD copy-editing team fancy something a tad more modern to work their magic on, may I suggest Final Cut Pro as an article. Given its predominance in the video-editing world I'd suggest that it's a quite important article, yet it's an absolute train wreck of an article. Also given PoD's occupation he may find it a pleasant change to do something relevant and in this century with no smelly or anatomical bits (or both)! Just a thought :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ugh! I've very deliberately kept away from computing articles except for a few early steam-driven ones. I just can't bear to look at them, they're almost uniformly dreadful. --MalleusFatuorum23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you please look at the FAC right now and tell me what the HECK SV wants with the latest bit? I thought "established" was quite clear, honestly. I'm about done with this. It's getting pretty ridiculous, I'm not sure what the heck is being asked of me, I just keep getting quibbles and higher and higher hoops. Ealdgyth - Talk04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Carucage seems to have suffered some collateral damage during this FAC. The difficulty of course is that there are very few (if any) decent supporting articles, although I do think that some of the points being raised are just, well, not to put too fine a point on it, silly. I've been having a look around to see if I can find a description of the medieval court system(s) on here, but I can't. The point about the clergy being denied access to the royal courts isn't entirely clear to me I'd have to admit. Why did they need or want access to the royal courts? --MalleusFatuorum20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
To be able to sue each other and have the king enforce it, basically. The same reason anyone would want access to a court! Ealdgyth - Talk20:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
But didn't they have ecclesiastical courts where they could resolve their differences? I seem to remember that there was an ancient right whereby anyone who could read a page from the Bible could claim that the civil court had no jurisdiction over them. I think as well, calling them "royal courts" sound a little strange unless you know that they were the civil courts, just so happened that the king was then head of the judiciary. --MalleusFatuorum20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Three types of courts at the time: manorial courts/hundred courts, which were for the serfs/villagers, the ecclesiastical courts, which at this time were not as fully developed as they would later be, but really only dealt with "ecclesiastical" matters, such as marriage, etc, and the royal courts, which dealt with both breaches of the king's peace (murder, rape, etc) and land matters between freemen. The royal courts are that, imposed by royal will, and either held directly in front of the king or by his designated representatives. If you were denied the royal courts, you couldn't do much justice. Ealdgyth - Talk23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I do feel for you Ealdgyth. I just looked at ecclesiastical court, which doesn't explain anything of that, and it's clearly not the job of an article on one medieval tax collected only six times to explain it either. I do feel that too much is being expected of this article, exacerbated by the fact that the articles that ought to supporting it are either unwritten or poor. I'm going to add my support for carucage, even though SandyG may not consider me to be an independent reviewer. Enough is enough. It's not the job of carucage to explain the medieval legal and taxation systems. --MalleusFatuorum00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There is SO much to cover and so few of us who edit on the topics. Most of the effort goes into the royalty articles, which leaves the topics ... with half-hearted editing at best. You've got Mike, who's kinda lost interest in the subject, Adam, who when he has time works mainly on crusades, Deacon, who's very Scots-North England oriented and does a lot of admin work, Scrivener-UK who is working on Irish bishops, and some others who fitfully edit but no one really WANTS to tackle the topics. I do think biographies are so much easier to write that we tend to write them rather than other types. Oh, while I've got you... the Equine project is slowly slowly slowly working towards getting Horse set ... think you can look it over (and any talk page stalkers) and tell us if the organization seems good, if there are any things missing, etc? We're not really ready for a copyedit yet, but a pointer to what we could usefully add or subtract would be good. Ealdgyth - Talk00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Another problem is that I really didn't study administrative or financial history when I was in college. I fell in love with ecclesiastical history and pretty much stuck to it, and with the Anglo-Norman period, so I'm a lot less "up to date" on stuff in the administration/legal/literature/finances even in the Anglo-Norman period, but I'm much more lost in the non-AN period, so it's sometimes hard for me to even tackle these subjects. Carucage was good for me, since it forced me to at least look at financial topics (much as I hate them...) Ealdgyth - Talk00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest you tell some of them to take a look at some of the featured science articles. For instance, Aldol reaction. Then ask them why its so important to explain every last little detail to the layman, because if that was a requirement of all FAs, Aldol reaction would be about 500k of prose. Parrotof Doom01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you know a word for foreboding, but where the person making the prediction is completely wrong? ie, Roger Waters says "You'll never fucking do it" to David Gilmour in 1985, and Gilmour of course proves him massively wrong? Parrotof Doom18:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That's what I thought, oh well. I reworded it. Might just go straight for FAC once this one is finished, there's plenty of material. Parrotof Doom20:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm on the home straight now with the Pink Floyd studio albums. Do you have any ideas for any woefully inadequate but historically important articles we could improve upon, like the ones in the heading? Something that gets plenty of visits, but is shit. Is there any merit in working much on Guy Fawkes, or does the Gunpowder article cover much of his life already? Alan Turing is someone who is certainly worthy, and frankly I'm surprised his article is even a GA. I know you have an interest in computers so maybe you have some source material already? Parrotof Doom01:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've got Leavitt's biography of Turing, but apart from periodically clearing the shit out of it that's an article I prefer to steer clear of, for now at least. Like all of the other computer-related articles. Guy Fawkes looks like a low-lying piece of fruit after the work we did on the Gunpowder Plot, but my heart's not really in it. John Christie is one that we ought to be able to get through FAC though I think. It failed a few weeks ago, but it's got a lot better since then. I'd been meaning to have done more with it by now, but well, you know.
You might be onto something with Lady Godiva, but you'd have to delete almost all of it and start again. How many new enemies would that make? --MalleusFatuorum02:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any sign of anyone being that active on it. I'd suggest rewriting everything but leave in the popular culture/trivia crap until right before you nom for GA or FAC. Handily, I just picked up a copy of Baxter's Earls of Mercia which would be helpful for it. Honestly, I have most of the sources that would be needed for her "real" life, it'd just be assembling them. ODNB lists most of the useful articles, etc. Her legend, however, would be where I'd not be able to help much. Ealdgyth - Talk02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Is Oliver Cromwell really your hero? He always struck me as a standard-issue militant religious zealot, of the sort who made European history so depressing, and who bequeathed their essential worldview to these United States via Plymouth Rock. MastCellTalk04:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove this picture from the self-harm page? I do agree with you it doesn't look like scars. In my opinion it looks like a group of fresh or half healed cuts.
I disagree that its "clearly" a fake, however it is not of the best quality. It appears that there is some redness around the words, this would be consistent with fresh cuts. However, I think the photo is too blurred to tell for sure. Can you justify why you think it is a fake please because if it turns out the image is fake then we should remove it and find a replacement. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no sign of scarring, no signs of inflammation around the supposed cuts, and it is very unlikely that someone could cut the cursive shapes so accurately. It's a fake. Skin is tough; that's just been painted on. --MalleusFatuorum21:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The lighting is also suspicious. The skin colour after the word appears to have been picked from that above the word, making the lighting look very artificial. It's a fake. --MalleusFatuorum21:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) Sorry, I didn't see this talk page discussion when I removed the picture (ty Guerillero for the link). I examined this pic and determined that the purple colouring variations on the N and M are consistent with scarring of this nature. On the B you can see that there is slight raising. And the redness around the scars is also consistent with such skin damage (think tattoos). Probably inflicted with a very fine blade, such as a biologist's scalpel, which would allow for the rounded corners easily enough. I agree that the quality is poor and maybe doesn't belong in the article, but not because it's a "fake". Maedin\talk21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I would defy anyone to cut a letter "B" so accurately in, let's say a piece of pork, and to do it to yourself using only one hand just beggars belief. It's a fake. --MalleusFatuorum22:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed cutting words into the skin is a common form of self-harm and the letters could easily have been made by someone who has self harmed before - I don't think the lettering is a good enough justification for saying it is fake. There is also evidence, as Maedin points out, of colour variations along the lettering indicative of various pressures being applied with the blade as the individual was cutting. There is evidence of inflammation, there is redness around the letters. So I don't think it can be clearly marked as fake. However the quality of the image in terms of resolution and focus is not good enough for inclusion in the article. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I find the concept of deliberately inflicting injury on others to be rather strange, and inflicting injury on oneself to be beyond comprehension, so it's not a subject that I have a particular interest in. I was simply objecting to the inclusion of a clearly faked image, something I was alerted to by that august organ the Wikipedia Review. --MalleusFatuorum21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I trust them. But yes, I know that they are not the best of sources by a long shot. I just could not really find anything else. could you give me a hand though?--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk21:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
As Dabomb87 says, it's a good start. I'm not fond of galleries though, and I'm unclear where all the technical info in the infobox has come from. Also I find the references to the "Queen's hotel" a bit puzzling. Is that a hotel owned by the Queen, one she was staying in, or an establishment of that name? If the latter then it ought to be called the Queen's Hotel, unless its name was actually "The Queen's", which seems unlikely. --MalleusFatuorum22:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
All ships in the Type UE II Class were identical. The hotel is called the "Queen's hotel" I only put in the "the" to make the sentence complete. And I only have a gallery section to show all of the other images of U-118.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk22:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That article certainly wants writing, but it's not really a subject for me I'm afraid. I'm currently looking at late Victorian gang culture in Manchester and Salford, after which there are a few witch articles I want to finish off. MilHist is a pretty active project though, and I'm certain someone there will help. I'll be happy to offer what help I can with copyediting though, should you need it. --MalleusFatuorum22:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking around now. Interestingly, did you know about the Manchester earthquake of 1777? Quite a noted event, apparently, and plenty of sources for it online. Parrotof Doom20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We've got so much to do. I stumbled across a little pamphlet on the Great Storm of (I think) 1782, which apparent devastated the region. I'd still like to do something on Manchester plagues as well, as it would tie in with the Great Stone in Stretford. --MalleusFatuorum20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Not forgetting the flooding of the Irwell in 1866, which caused dozens of corpses to be loosed from the burial grounds. Things were certainly interesting back then. I'd love to go back in time and walk around Manchester or Radcliffe in, say, 1850. Parrotof Doom20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the Irish influence on Manchester (and probably the Italian influence as well) is a story that wikipedia has yet to tell. Hence my interest in the article below, which I must get down to now. --MalleusFatuorum20:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
MCTC Pix
Hi
I have some private photos re MCTC vehicles and have uploaded 3 for colour examples
That's excellent, thanks, shows the colours nicely. What I'm thinking of doing is producing a graphic of that wavey "Manchester Carriage & Tramways Company" on the side of the trams for the infobox that Jza84 suggested. Unless you have a straight side-on view of a car that the company sign can just be cut from, that is? --MalleusFatuorum20:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added the start of an infobox and the logo now. What do you think?[5] I think this could be a nice little article, one that might even get more visitors through the door of the Transport Museum if it was done right, with some nice, well attributed pictures. --MalleusFatuorum00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops - be careful - Dont forget the Tramway Museum is in Heaton Park, whilst the Transport Museum is at Boyle Street. (2.13 miles distant). Any effort to gain custom for either is most welcome. Whilst my main hobby revolves round a little railway in NWales, my "historical" (in two ways) interest is in Manchester Buses.!! --Keith10:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ferrets
Hi there, just wanted to let you know I really appreciate the continuing work you do, trimming the additions to the ferret page to ensure it doesn't become a "how to" manual. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk)
Thanks, but there's a great deal left to do yet I fear. I've only really been nibbling at the edges and trying to prevent it from getting any worse. --MalleusFatuorum14:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malleus I saw this on here and went and had a look at the Ferret article - oh dear! I've downgraded it to a C as it clearly doesn't meet the criteria for B, and I left some suggestions about removing the crap. I've not decided yet whether to get involved with improving it as I'll be constantly removing irrelevant rubbish put on by members of the Society of Fancy Ferret Keepers or whoever. I'm not really stalking you - honest! I put your talk page on my watchlist some time ago when I left you a message and I've not taken it off since as all the fun seems to happen here. It's just one long party! Richerman (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even sure it can justify a C rating to be honest. It's almost uniformly dreadful IMO, but you know what it's like trying to get a consensus to change anything around here. There are signs though that the time may now be right to try a root and branch rewrite. I'll think I'll probably have a go anyway.
I feel really guilty now for drawing attention to the article! As you say, Malleus, it's a full-time job just trying to prevent the article from deteriorating - we do what we can... ~dom Kaos~ (talk)
No problem. As I said last time, give me a talkpage post when you next nominate something and I'll have it reviewed within a day. Ironholds (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. I'd return the favour to you, but I'm afraid it may be misinterpreted as us passing each other's articles without a proper review. Nobody seems to trust anybody these days. :-( --MalleusFatuorum15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hah, thanks kindly! Knowing me there are typos and odd bits, so I'd rather get that ironed out here than look a fool at FAC. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope, although I'll be sure to rewrite that at some point. It does adequately describe part of the office's initial functions (an administrative department that eventually got judicial overtones). Unfortunately my list of "things to do" is, at the moment, rather long. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I needed it to explain what a chancery was (without referring to your wonderful article on Court of Chancery, which isn't quite the same thing as the medieval office. Rewrite is great as long as it doesn't get redirected into Court of Chancery! Ealdgyth - Talk17:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem, and it won't. I can use some of the sources I have for the Chancery article, actually, and I'll make sure to link in the Chancery article to the court. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I often think that the difference between those of our ancestors who left for the New World and those who chose to stay here is very telling. Some of us railed against the injustices of the time, and stayed to fight them. Others ran away. --MalleusFatuorum15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a reason for my "not with someone else's bargepole". In case you're not aware, be aware that thanks to RFAR/NI, 1996 Manchester bombing is subject to a strict 1RR for any named non-vandal account (i.e. you can revert "poop" and IPs as normal, but don't rollback anything that makes sense, no matter how contentious, more than once). Violating that will get you an automatic one week block with no warning in the first instance; a one month block in the second instance; an indefblock after that. I don't think it's pushing the tinfoilhattery too far to suggest that there may be one or two admins who would be delighted to have an Arbcom pre-sanctioned reason to ban you from the project; be very careful how you tread, and discuss anything remotely contentious on the talkpage first; the RFAR/NI decision has a very long history of being used as a pretext to eject Enemies Of The Wiki. – iridescent00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
So far the contentious stuff in the article is the use of the word "terrorism" (long gone) and the background section, which has generated some heat on the talk page. That section was my addition, so I won't be letting Malleus take flak for that. Nev1 (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, but I'm all too well aware of that. I'll do what I can, but if I start to encounter resistance then I'll just leave it and go elsewhere. I'm not about to give any rogue admin an excuse to do anything ... on reflection I think I may back away from this article anyway; I had enough problems with this one. --MalleusFatuorum00:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I filmed at the epicentre a few days after the bomb had gone off. I wish I'd taken a stills camera with me, I could have gotten some unique images. I could still get the footage we shot, only the last time I spoke to the person I was filming for, to ask why he hadn't paid me for another job, he threw me out of his office. Surprisingly enough his name is now on a BECTU list of "contact us before you work with these people" so more fool him. Actually, I'll have a root around in the loft. I may have the tapes somewhere, and since I was never paid for the job I'll consider them mine. Parrotof Doom11:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm out of there. I tried to add a bit of background about Ireland's situation: "The whole of Ireland had been under British rule since the end of the Nine Years War in 1603. The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) was formed in 1969 with the aim of reunifying the island, by acts of violence if necessary". and got reverted. Let the republicans have it to themselves. --MalleusFatuorum00:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Screw them, it'll suffice as a background to say that Paddy filled the van with diesel in Cheetham Hill, just to get some free glasses. Parked the van up outside Marks & Sparks to have a quick nosey in Jessops then some daft bugger with a lit fag threw it through the capless fuel filler pipe (conveniently forgetting that diesel doesn't have an explosive vapour) so really it was some daft Brit's fault. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
By the time I got home from work that page was so huge it seemed silly to answer the question there, and somewhat off topic. So: the answer is that most of my FAs are solo. I have a few co-noms, and I think there have been a couple with significant other contributors, but I have never really had much in the way of collaboration. I also don't go to PR or GA; I think I did for a couple at the start, but not any more. I will also say that given all that, I still wouldn't mind a solution that forces me through GA, because something has to be done.
I also have a question about your comments in regard to the queue option -- you said you saw no logic in splitting one queue into two. I seem to recall, from what I know of your interests, that you've a scientific or technical background. Can you tell me if the following analogy seems appropriate to you? It seems to me that FAC is a process which needs a certain amount of work (i.e reviewer input) needed to operate on a certain amount of material (candidate articles). To make the process run faster, we must increase the work input (more reviewers, or more work per reviewer), make the process more efficient (less review needed), or decrease the material operated on (fewer candidates at one time). The last option is the queue.
More reviewers is very clearly the best option; we don't see how to do it though. More work per reviewer is unlikely and would be unsustainable. More efficiency -- it's hard to see how to implement that: less scrutiny? Doesn't sound plausible. So that leaves fewer candidates. When someone of your common sense expresses dislike for an idea I can see few problems with, I am curious to know what flaws you see that I don't. Can you explain?
I do know that the queue doesn't *really* speed up the process, just as a narrower pipe under higher pressure may produce no more total water. However, to abandon the analogy, there is a risk in bloat: the huge number of articles leads to exhausted reviewers and increases the risk that a deserving article fails to garner support or a poor article will squeak through.
If you're not sufficiently interested to answer, no problem; but I am interested in your take on this. I am thinking about adding a "queue" option to the FAC RfC, and may go do that now. Thanks -- Mike Christie(talk)02:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
As a one-time computer scientist I had to study queuing theory, which doesn't always give the results you'd expect. OK, there's a queue, but how it is being dealt with, and how are the queuers being allocated to the servers? For some subject areas it's clear that they're just being ignored. Pretty much the same thing is happeninhg at GAN as well. --MalleusFatuorum02:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
..I am, that Queen (band) has been listed as a GA. There are reams of uncited assertions, the prose is choppy, the lead is blatantly POV—I could go on. I was about to quickfail it before I noticed it had already been passed. I don't believe that it has been given a proper review. What would you do? Parrotof Doom19:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well yeah I am too. Just the lead alone has poorly formatted citations, a link to an unreliable source, and contradictory information, claiming Queen is the second best-selling band after the Beatles and linking it to a list where ABBA (yay!) has that designation. It needs some work. --Moni3 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Even though the review was apparently closed, the article hadn't been added to the GA list, so I've reopened the review and left a note on the reviewer's talk page informing them. Feel free to make whatever comments you feel appropriate here, but in its present state this will be a GA only over my dead body. --MalleusFatuorum20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Regrouped
Regrouped with a new strategy. We will select two articles on which all students may edit. Evaluation is based on a portfolio of contributions, which goes beyond edit counts. These would include response to concerns raised by others, either by direct edits or discussion on talk pages. I've shifted emphasis from the end product to the process. I hope this will stop the procrastination and raise the level of involvement. Those who wait to the end may find themselves with nothing to do! Its an experiment - in response to the endless and to some degree legitimate complaints over group grading. I hope you will join us as we take a slightly different approach to this assignment. cheers --JimmyButler (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think what's interesting about your idea is that real work almost always requires collaboration, and asking your students to assess their own contributions is an excellent idea. Wikipedia's article history tells no lies. --MalleusFatuorum23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, what should I concentrate on more, length or prose or something else? I will probably work on it in February because starting Monday, it will be the 1st of February. Every month, I have a scheduled wikibreak of a few days starting the 1st (unless I forget, then I start immediately after I remember) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say polishing up the prose, to get it to the "professional" level that FAC demands. Has the article been through a peer review? That might help as well, if it hasn't. We did enough to get it to GA, but not enough for FA. --MalleusFatuorum17:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
GA Reassessment of Phoenix Zoo
I believe that I have addressed most of your concerns with the Phoenix Zoo article (see [Talk:Phoenix Zoo/GA1|here]). The only thing I cannot answer is to the provenance of the drawing by the elephant. I have left a message for the contributor, so hopefully we will find out something. Otherwise, if your concerns are copyright related (the contributor may not have the right to have taken it in the first place), I can just remove it until we get an answer. Although I believe that I have addressed your concerns, I did a lot of rewriting and could easily have introduced more. Please let me know if there are any other issues that you find. Thank you. Donlammers (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I just left a message on your talkpage saying much the same thing. The only thing that's troubling me now is the copyright on the painting. If you decide to comment it out until until its status can be established that would be fine by me. --MalleusFatuorum01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
ZooPro asked much the same question. I have to admit that I'm not the world's copyright expert, but I also never heard of an animal holding copyright. The photo was posted on 2006-08-02, and has been in the article since. Looking back as the history, it looks like it was placed as part of the original workup towards Good Article. Let me know what you want done here. I'm incline to leave it, as the photo itself has been properly released, but I can't fin much on the subject. Donlammers (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert either, but I'm inclined to believe that animals can't hold copyright. I'm going to close this reassessment now as a keep. Thanks very much for stepping up to the plate. --MalleusFatuorum02:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the last bit of tweaking there. All improvements for sure. An, I agree with your original assessment. Whether this article just devolved or whether it didn't deserve the original rating, it was certainly not GA when you reviewed it. Donlammers (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I only did five reviews? I should do more, and hopefully once that GA Sweeps thing is finally over I might be able to. It had to be done, but ... --MalleusFatuorum01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Trust me, five puts you well up there in the ranks. I did discover I opposed five articles that closed in January though... quite shocking for me. Ealdgyth - Talk01:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been and had a look through. I know why you're doing it, but I really don't much like that "... sire, or father, ..."; makes it look like they're alternatives. I'd have preferred to use brackets "... sire (father) ...", but you probably don't like them. Ah well. I notice that you've explained what a "dam" is twice, once in the lead and again in the Early life section. Is that really necessary? I'm sure I've said before elsewhere that I really find "The first year Lightning Bar stood as a breeding stallion his stud fee, the fee charged to breed a mare to him, was $250 ($1,982 as of 2010) but only nine mares were bred to him" to be very awkward as well.
that'll be a joint nom with Deacon and Cavila...and Deacon's not edited since the 20th. I'm not going to nom that until he's around because I am NOT expert at manuscript studies! But if you wanna copyedit ... Also, while I've got you...look at Jersey Act. I've about run out my sources on this side of the pond, think you can scare any up for the Empire? Ealdgyth - Talk22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
