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.
It's generally pretty shitty, so I'd be inclined to rely on the reliability of the journalist, Sharon Churcher, as to whether this particular article is reliable or not. MalleusFatuorum00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I suppose one of the problems with writing good articles on Wikipedia is that they get used by what may be reliable sources. I noted some similar language in the Mail article to the TKaM article, but not terribly earth-shattering. I'll have to read the Mail article again to see if there's really anything in it that hasn't already been said. Maybe Lee's article, which I won't touch with a ten-foot clown pole, could be the recipient of the Daily Mail's good graces. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is a cheap tabloid, its racist, misogynist, and I would say completely unreliable for anything other than a direct quotation. Parrotof Doom21:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I particularly like the way they made quite a point to say that Lee refuses to speak about Mockingbird, then the article proceeds to concentrate primarily on Mockingbird. --Moni3 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly the wrong way round. Americans use 10 words, at least half of which must be 50 cent words, to say what any reasonable Brit could say in three. MalleusFatuorum21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed—don't know what kind of "proper Englishman" that author knows. One stereotype that's certainly true is that the English are notoriously monosyllabic. – iridescent21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Shut up, now! "I laughed so intensely that my buttocks nearly disconnected from my flesh" is the only thing that kept me alive today. That's comedy gold and I wish only to read all of your posts in that voice forever and aye. Don't destroy my dreams by trying to convince me that's unrealistic speech. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
When I'm not moving commas around, I must spend half my time on here changing "prior to" to "before". And what's with this new trend for misusing the subjunctive, as in "he would become" instead of the much simpler "he became"? I blame the teachers. MalleusFatuorum22:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm about to start a degree in English, with a view to taking teacher training in the future. I can assure you that anyone mixing up their, they're, etc, will see the board duster flying at them at mach 2... Btw Malleus did you get those Scuttlers docs? Parrotof Doom22:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. I'm pleased to hear you've decided to take the plunge, and I hope you enjoy it. Studying at degree level opens up a whole new world, or at least it used to. :-) MalleusFatuorum22:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I thought about it and realised that in 40-50 years I'll probably be dead. Might as well spend the time between now and then doing something different. And I'm getting a bit sick of working in television tbh. Parrotof Doom23:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Board duster! Which century are you inhabiting PoD? They're museum pieces now, along with chalk.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That's where it all went wrong. Throwing a whiteboard marker at a dozy teenager's head doesn't have the same impact at all - in either sense of the word. Richerman (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it's pushing bad taste too far to nominate Whipping Tom for DYK? When I talk about how DYK needs to be made more interesting to general readers, this is exactly the kind of thing I have in mind—however, we are talking about a pair of rather unpleasant serial sex attackers here, albeit rather ludicrous ones. – iridescent20:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not in bad taste at all. Mind you, you're asking someone who put Tickle Cock Bridge on DYK, and is sorely tempted to try and get Cock throwing ready for next years April Fool's Day, so you might want to double check with someone a little more mainstream. :lol: MalleusFatuorum20:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I think it's a great article Iridescent. Myosotis, it's up to editors like us to challenge these preconceivd ideas about what's acceptable and what isn't. :-) MalleusFatuorum20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If you (or anyone) can think of a DYK for it, please suggest one. I'm finding it surprisingly hard to find a one-line factoid from it. – iridescent20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you know that... I'm going to try to use "Spanko!" as a valid edit summary sometime in the near future... – B.hotep •talk• 20:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
There's one that jumps out at me: "... that Whipping Tom used to shout out 'Spanko!' while beating his female victims on the bum". MalleusFatuorum20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
And me. Something about the line "He claimed that his plan was to attack a hundred women before Christmas, and suspend his attacks during the Twelve Days of Christmas before resuming in the new year." – that's great! Like he thought, "Come on! Nobody would attack women with a great rodd of birch at Christmas... there's too much on the telly." – B.hotep •talk• 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he was planning to spend the holidays with his Auntie Beryl in Macclesfield and wouldn't have access to his Great Rodd of Birch?
I'll give it a couple of days and see if anyone sensible pops up to say they'd be offended by it. I suspect the cartoon dinosaur will be just as sceptical about this one as he was about Tarrare, and he drove a ridiculous amount of traffic towards that particular page, so it has the potential to get messy if a lot of people take a dislike to it. – iridescent20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Malleus' idea was the only thing that struck me as a great hook, too. British history... can't make this stuff up. Also, when you get a chance, can you come back to my talk page and give your opinion? Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Me, or Malleus? If you're asking me, I'm 100% with Moni; FAC measures compliance with arbitrary standards, not quality, and it's better to have a good quality article without a star than a worse article with one. If you count to 100 and refresh this page, Giano will probably have popped up to say the same thing. – iridescent20:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
There have been two or three occasions when I've drawn a line in the sand at FAC and refused to budge when reviewers have demanded changes, and like Moni3 I'd have let the article be archived rather than make those changes. MalleusFatuorum21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't need to refesh a 100 times, I am already here and I also think any page that not only raises a laugh, but will attract a 14 year old to read it and laugh has to be a good page. I do have a slight problem beleiving he cried shouting "Spanko!" I spat a mouthful of wine over the computer as I read it. Giacomo 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
So long as it has the little number by it, then it must to be true! I cannot wait to see it DYKd or even GAd, it has the requisite references and is far more interesting than some I have read. Giacomo 21:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"Spanko" is doubtful. Spank with the meaning of smack doesn't appear until 1727 apparently. Perhaps he was misheard shouting "Spam Co." as he tried a novel promotional campaign for his processed meat company. Yomanganitalk21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Myself, I'd go with the guys dressing up to be women in the hope of getting spanked catching the perpetrator. Risker (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, Spanko does sound like a metal polish. Nothing shines your brass like Spanko – make your chrome gleam like a dream with Spanko – don't throw your tin in the bin, give it a spin with Spanko and make it brand Spanko new! – B.hotep •talk• 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If you're going by the OED, that 1727 doesn't refer to its first use, but to its appearance in Nathan Bailey's Dictionarium Britannicum. By definition, it must have already been in circulation before that to have been included. "Spanko" turns up in Whipping Tom Brought to Light and Exposed to View, it's not a later addition. – iridescent22:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
True...although according to Whipping Tom Brought to Light and Exposed to View he apparently "makes their Butt ends cry Spanko" rather than shouting it himself. Yomanganitalk22:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Part of what makes me reluctant to use it as the hook. WP:VNT and all that, and it's undoubtedly back-uppable to a reliable source, but it seems hard to pin down exactly when it gets added to the narrative, and whether multiple stories are being conflated. – iridescent22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's another suggestion then: "... that Whipping Tom decided to stop spanking women on the bum for the twelve days of Christmas". MalleusFatuorum22:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"...that if Whipping Tom was still around, Risker would go out with a group of cross dressers looking for him?" (her words). By the way, Malleus, there is still a lot to write on cock throwing, I was just too lazy to sort the embellishments from the reality at the time. Yomanganitalk23:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't realised that cock throwing was one of yours, but it did look in remarkably good shape, so no surprise. I came across it earlier today after I'd been looking through a book on early English sports. MalleusFatuorum23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Who is "Skipping Joan" by the way? Is she the Robin to Whipping Tom's Batman? "Holy Smarting Bum Cheeks, Tom...". Yomanganitalk23:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
See the footnote; there are no other references to her anywhere, and it's probable that she was just invented by the artist as a companion for Tom. There's more on the Yale Panorama, including Tom and Joan here, featuring what may be the single best list I've ever seen:
Didn't you read any of the comments made by those who opposed your recent reconfirmation RfA, or do you just not agree with them? MalleusFatuorum12:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I read them. Some I agree with, some I don't. That is not germane to my question. In the context of the discussion, it appears that you are saying that I deserve to be called a pedophile. That is a very serious charge indeed and see WP:PED for possible consequences for you. Would you like this opportunity to explain yourself before matters proceed further. Yours truly, Herostratus (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I said no such thing, and I've got no idea why you're so obsessed with pedophilia. I was referring to the exceedingly bad taste stunt you pulled on your user page. MalleusFatuorum12:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Herostratus, has anyone ever actually accused you of being a pedophile or are you just milking "Wikipedia Review was rude to me!"? What WR actually said was "notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus", a very different kettle of fish. (I've just written two articles about French cannibals, it doesn't mean I am one.) If you're going to have this as your userpage, you can't then complain if people assume that you're telling the truth. – iridescent12:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The section Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2#Oh, and... begins with my post "Oh, and would people stop calling me a pedophile for crying out loud?..." Your response was "Herostratus brought this upon himself. Don't let's pretend otherwise." You are clearly stating that "brought it upon myself" to be called a pedophile. This will not stand and I cannot permit it, if only to prevent other eyes from inferring from your post that I or my family should be sought out and physically harmed.
A couple of people did say or imply that I am a pedophile during the RfA discussion. Some or all of these comments have been deleted I think, but diffs can be dug up I'm sure, if needed. I called upon these people as a class to "eat the burger" (so to speak) of atonement, assumed that they would do so, and that's the end of as far as I am concerned.
However you chose not to eat the burger but instead have doubled down in your noxious and dangerous accusation. You have cited [this as your reference for your claim that am, or deserve to be called, a pedophile. Nowhere in the text you site does it say or imply that I am a pedophile. However, that is my opinion, and I guess what matters is no longer my opinion but the opinion of the people tasked with enforcing WP:PED. You will not be hearing further from me, but I am sure that you will be hearing about this case, and soon. Yours truly, Herostratus (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Get a grip. What "noxious accusation" are you accusing me of making? Quit making vague threats like "I am sure that you will be hearing about this case, and soon". (Just to reiterate, the "noxious accusation" in full is "Herostratus, has anyone ever actually accused you of being a pedophile or are you just milking "Wikipedia Review was rude to me!"? What WR actually said was "notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus", a very different kettle of fish. (I've just written two articles about French cannibals, it doesn't mean I am one.) If you're going to have this as your userpage, you can't then complain if people assume that you're telling the truth.") If you have something to say to me, then say it; don't threaten me with the fearsome spectre of "the people tasked with enforcing WP:PED". (Who would those people be exactly, anyway?) I appreciate you're stressed at the moment because of the RFA and its aftermath, but that doesn't give you the right to throw vague unspecified allegations and threats about. – iridescent18:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't bother trying to threaten me Herostratus, I'm just not the type to be bullied by you or by anybody else. Now please fuck off and feel sorry for yourself elsewhere. MalleusFatuorum19:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
"Fuck off" being a fair approximation of "Good day!" in my understanding, very well then.Hello, Eric Corbett/Archives/2010. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Herostratus (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding appears to be very limited. I have never taken much interest in the WQA children's playground, and I have no intention of starting now. Knock yourself out. MalleusFatuorum01:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, in answer to your earlier question "Herostratus, has anyone ever actually accused you of being a pedophile", we have this edit to start with, followed a whole thread addressing this speculation which is near the top of the "Support" section. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you are terminally confused. Iridescent and I are not the same person, as any fool ought to be able to see. MalleusFatuorum02:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I see it more as an evolving civilisation. We're in the Stone Age at the moment where everyone who meets someone they don't know, wants to club them over the head either to (a) prevent competition for food, (b) prevent competition for sex, or (c) just for sex. You wait til we get to the Victorian era. That's when the pain begins. ;) – B.hotep •talk• 22:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to get to the bottom of the sockpuppet accusations and the timing of it all, but some people suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT more than others. Besides, he lit the fuse and retired. – B.hotep •talk• 22:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Because he's had a bad week, and people are giving him the benefit of the doubt. If you want a bid of advice from your other self, just leave it and don't reply to anything he or any of the usual suspects who've popped up, are saying; just ignore it completely. Let him go to "the people tasked with enforcing WP:PED" if he wants; given that you and I both have at least of Arbcom watching our talkpages, any "action" will be summarily shown the door unless you flare up and give someone a pretext. – iridescent22:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) A grade-A genius. Edits prominently in a dirty area without considering basic tenets of web security. Deletes an invite to a Wiki meetup on grounds that it might reveal his geographical location. Escalates some imagined labelling and then introduces us to his wife and kids. Appears to edit a certain other wiki under his Wikipedia user name, with a user page citing the pages he has written, created or essentially rewritten- these include Space is minty fresh (breath mints being one of the Wiki H's interests) and Negro. The latter redirects to a page on the Birmingham N***ers. Ning-ning (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Just yesterday I came across a Manchester in Bolivia. So I knocked up a stub, as you do. I've just discovered that the Manchester Museum is hosting a "Finding Manchester, lost in Bolivia" exhibition from September this year until January 2011.[2] Who'd have believed it. MalleusFatuorum20:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm really tempted to try and expand it for DYK, just so that I can say "Did you know that Manchester is only 60 miles from Cobija in Bolivia?", but sources are rather thin on the ground. MalleusFatuorum20:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
So, wait until the exhibition is on and they'll no doubt be flogging an accompanying booklet of some kind. If you ask nicely, you might be able to pester an advance copy out of them if you can persuade them that it will raise their profile and draw in more visitors. I seem to recall that it's now been established that it's not against Wikipedia principles for museums to give away freebies in return for coverage of their exhibits. – iridescent21:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I've left you a couple of translations on the talk page from a quick look, but the Spanish sources don't have much more than the English (they seem obsessed by some other Manchester and its football team). Yomanganitalk22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Apparently the Bolivian Embassy in London didn't even know that there was a Manchester in their country until they were asked to check, and their guess of a population of 10,000 is just bizarre. Apparently it's just 30 families living around a football pitch. I guess that's appropriate though. MalleusFatuorum22:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Re Rod and Wehwalt: I'm well aware of that, that was sarcasm. I've been subjected to a barrage of—erm—strongly worded comments for suggesting that there may be something inappropriate about this arrangement, given that Greg Kohs was summarily banned from Wikipedia for almost exactly the same thing and we routinely hardblock PR agencies and companies, even if they're staying perfectly within the bounds of NPOV. (See here, see here, see here, see here…) However, if we are going to rip up all our rules on COI (as far as I can tell, the new policy is "COI is now perfectly acceptable provided you're not a Toxic Personality"), we may as well get some benefit out of it. – iridescent21:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
COI is a joke. I've offered to help at least one agency – quite openly, here on wikpedia – and I'd have no compunction about helping any other, so long as the subject was notable. MalleusFatuorum22:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the inappropriate bit isn't people being rewarded for creating FAs, as is the case with the British Museum thing, but banning Greg (the idea of the BM's funding going to Wikipedia is a slightly different, although related issue). As long as someone edits within policy (ie: WPV and WP:NPOV) they should obviously be allowed to edit. In some cases, that's probably the only way certain areas of the encyclopedia will improve. Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Which is exactly what I was arguing for when it was discussed; to me, there's no difference between a fan of a band editing articles on the band (warmly welcomed) and the band's PR agency editing the articles (instant block), provided they stick to NPOV and WP:V. However, I recognise that I was massively outnumbered; what grates on me through this latest episode isn't the COI per se, it's the fact that this clique have suddenly decided that the policy applies to other people, not to themselves. (Note that I don't include User:Witty lama himself in that; he does seem to have made a genuine effort to understand and address this particular issue.) – iridescent22:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to Manchester, are there any other Manchesters in the UK or the world? Apart from the ones at Manchester (disambiguation) (to which I added the Bolivia entry)? Interestingly enough, I think the answer is no... but maybe. There is a place called Mancetter in Warwickshire which was given an alternative name of Manchester by John Marius Wilson in the Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1870–1872 [3]. – B.hotep •talk• 22:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There are also places that were once called Manchester, like, would you believe it, the settlement now called Niagara Falls, renamed from Manchester in 1848. MalleusFatuorum23:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, if you put the co-ords of the Suriname Manchester from the link Iri gave (5.8833 -56.9000) into Google maps, it comes up with a place called Crappahoek. Perhaps that's been renamed too. – B.hotep •talk• 23:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
On that fallingrain page it does say "Other towns at this position: Gloria,Crappahoek". Bing Maps (generally more accurate than Google) does show a "Manchester" there. Bizarrely, between Hampton Court and Paradise. – iridescent23:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes. And to the north, Glasgow and to the south-east Bombay. Replaces Google map link with Bing maps link – B.hotep •talk• 23:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Tried asking for an image of Manchester, Bolivia, from the guys behind the exhibition later this year. They quoted me £240 for the use of just one!-- Myosotis Scorpioides07:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Your project page had to be reviewed and pending revisions accepted...if only you'd had autoreviewer it would still be a secret. Yomanganitalk13:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Dunno; and my sock puppets didn't leak it. And, anyway, we're the revolutionaries, the others are the counter-revolutionaries. We're going to have the change the secret handshake... Thomas Jerome Newton17:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (and don't let them X-ray your eyes)
OK, so here's what
OK, so here's what I've decided.
First, I've decided to give you a barnstar. Yes, this is is sincere, and no, it's I'm not being ironic (and no, it's not poisoned, go ahead, take a bite...). You do do excellent article work. Actually, I first thought of it as a goodbye present, but then, you're not going anywhere, are you?
Don't get me wrong: this just means I think you do good article work; it doesn't mean I think you're a net asset to the project; you're probably not, I guess, depending on how many editors you've driven away. It would not need to be too many to put you in the negative column, no matter how hard you work. But you still get the star.
Second, I've decided not to escalate our dispute. I don't want to go WP:RfC/U because: too much drama altogether. So I could go to ArbCom. Since it's a WP:CHILDPROTECT issue (the fancy new name for WP:PED) issue, it would by email -- would have to be, in fact --and so you and your bully-boy gang wouldn't get a chance to chime in. The ArbCom just looks at the diffs and decides privately what to do, I guess. I don't know if that's fair but I think that's how it goes.
I think its about a 60/40 proposition: there's a 60% chance they'd tell me to fuck off, but a 40% chance you'd wake up indef blocked. That's just my guess. I may be overestimating your chances. The ArbCom is generally quite strict with WP:CHILDPROTECT violations, so who knows?
But... I don't want to see you blocked. The project obviously means a lot to you, and I don't want to take that away from you. Even if you are a drain on the project, it's probably not that big of a drain, and it's important for people to have hobbies.
I'm not doing you a favor, actually. I think this will just encourage you. One of these days you really will pick on the wrong guy and go too far. 'Til then, Herostratus (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a drain on the project? You're having a laugh. It's people like you who are the drain. Without any evidence whatsoever, you have repeatedly accused me of driving people away from the project. I've probably helped more new editors here than you've had hot dinners matey. I don't want your barnstar, I just want you to drop your obsession with me and get on with whatever it is that you intend to do here in the future. So long as that doesn't involve you switching your harassment to another editor, of course. Now, move along, there's a good chap. MalleusFatuorum10:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey and stuff I generally tend not to chime in to various discussions spawning from pages I never frequent, but this is weirdness personified. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Best not to reply here Moni3, because what happens next is that Herostratus accuses you of being one of my sockpuppets.[4] He's a man on a mission. MalleusFatuorum15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand it. For someone so apparently appalled by the accusations made against him (quite rightly IMO), he seems to go to some length to ensure that as many people as possible are made aware of them. Far be it from me to judge the actions of others but he seems to me to be acting like nothing more than a plank. Parrotof Doom15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
What's doubly strange is that he's decided to target me, who accused him of nothing, but has ignored those who suggested that he was a pedophile. MalleusFatuorum15:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It's why too many are here, to do whatever it is that allows them to get through RfA, which they hang on to like a drowning man. MalleusFatuorum15:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch (talk·contribs) is reviewing Little Thetford/archive2 and given me some useful feedback, which I am working on. He (she) commented on the references as follows "The system of references used is confusing as there are both plain numbers and nb followed by a number. ...". I agree. However, I am not sure how to fix it. I have left a detailed reply with a suggestion. Would you cast a brief eye over my reply. Links to examples are included in my reply, so it should only take a second for you to agree or otherwise.
Erm, whilst I am here. Is there a possibility you can find time to peer-review another short article of mine—Little Thetford flesh-hook/archive1? If not, no worries.
I agree with Ruhrfisch, that the present mixture of "nb"s and numbers appears arbitrary and confusing. Whatever you choose to call each section, there's no doubt in my mind that the organisation of an article like Guy Fawkes is the best way to go. The "nb"s are a place put to put material that, while useful, would disrupt the flow of the narrative if it was included in the body of the article.
I think that there should be a page for this, but when we were originating the Boy's page we found little information available. I now live in Canada so it is difficult for me to get data from other than the web. Would it be possible for you to assemble a new page on Girls' magazines. The advice of some 80 year-old lady would also be helpful for war & pre-war experiences.
I've never been a girl, and I don't think I know any 80-year-old ladies, but there's clearly a missing British girls' magazines article missing. I'm not at all happy about that redirect from story paper to British boys' magazines either, because as I said on the talk page, there were girls' story papers too, like The Schoolgirl. I don't know what sources are available on the history of girls' magazines, but it surely ought to be possible to put at least something together, as a start. MalleusFatuorum19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I was a little girl once, a long long time ago, and still remember Bunty, Mandy, Twinkle, Judy and Misty. There was also Girl (I had annuals from my mum). Then, as you grew up a little, there were Just 17, Looks, Jackie, Mizz, Company, 19, Number One, Girl, Blue Jeans and My Guy. Oh, them were the days...
I rememember the names like Bunty and ... err .. well that's about it really. I only got into this because of trying to save Roy of the Rovers at FAR, and then finding that there was no article on the only comic I read regularly as a kid, The Wizard. Almost all of the comic articles need an awful lot of work, but at least Parrot of Doom has set a standard with the Eagle. There's so much to do; the Paisley witches have been waiting too long. MalleusFatuorum20:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I can easily write Girl, I have some good source material for it now. Probably only a GA but there you go. Just let me finish Eagle first. Parrotof Doom20:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean "I can easily read girls"? If so, you must be a genius. It's strange though that the girls' comics/magazines seem to have been relatively so ignored. Or perhaps not so strange. MalleusFatuorum21:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, both mad here. One can be very sweet and charming, and in an instant turn into a Medusa. The other joined Islam, and spends her days hating Jews and Homosexuals. Unsurprisingly I no longer bother with her. In fact my family is something of a disaster zone, which is why I keep them safely locked away in Radcliffe. Parrotof Doom22:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Apology
Hey Malleus, I can understand why that would hurt your feelings. I'm sorry that I made such a comment but I was not trying to insult you or hold a grudge. Actually instead of a grudge, I thank you for being so "insulting". The criticism that I got from you and iridescent in January caused me to become the prolific content writer that I am today. I wont try to be a brown noser but I hope that you understand :)--White ShadowsThere goes another day21:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand that attacking Malleus (my real name isn't Malleus btw) is likely to earn you RfA brownie points, so I understand why you continue to do it. MalleusFatuorum21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia is a pecking order, but the pecking order is inverted. Those who write content, and might actually know a thing or two, are lower in the order than those who hang around AN/I and pages like that stirring up drama. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I asked because I was considering the John Lymburn article. It looks long but the area that it really needs to cover, the man's work as attorney general is only one paragraph long. Nine years and one paragraph. The colorful chart is very long. Compared with some GA that passed, it is not nearly as good. It is about par with those that failed. In terms of criteria, it could go both ways. Thank you for your comments about length. RIPGC (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Better luck next time White Shadows, but don't make it too soon, and don't let yourself be persuaded until you know that you're ready. God knows why you want to be an administrator anyway, but still ... MalleusFatuorum16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought I reworded it so that it said "Almost a quarter" because it was relatively close. Do you want a more precise wording? ceranthor16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The figures don't agree (29,000 in the lead, 28,700 in the Eruption section). Also, "almost a quarter" implies that it's slightly less than a quarter, but there were 8,700 survivors (20,000 killed according to the lead), which is about 30% survivors according to my reckoning, closer to a third than a quarter. MalleusFatuorum16:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The source you cite says "Three quarters of its 28,700 inhabitants perished", which would mean that more than 21,500 perished. Also, can you provide a citation for the quotation at the end of the 4th paragraph of the Eruption section? MalleusFatuorum22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If it says "over", then that's wrong, should be "more than". If you think you're done, then I'll check through the article again. MalleusFatuorum23:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
All that work wasted then, might as well have let Roy fail at FAR. Still, I suppose that most of what we do here is doomed to be wasted in one way or another anyway. MalleusFatuorum11:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Nah, your work wasn't wasted at all, I'll get it on TFA sooner or later - third time's the charm. ;) I'll not try for Sept 11 (you thought this one was a disaster?) but maybe Sept 25 would be a good target date to bring it up again. BOZ (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd say try September 11. Raul does have a sense of perspective (yes, 3,000 deaths is A Bad Thing, but it's still less than 1% of the death toll of the Battle of the Somme alone), and understands that the world doesn't involve around New York City and doesn't feature 9/11 articles on that anniversary most years. I imagine he'll be intentionally keeping that date Osama-free this year, to allow something appropriate to run on the 10th anniversary without accusations of giving it undue weight. – iridescent12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that and I've replied. I should be able to finish off the review a little later – I need to pop out for a bit now. The article's pretty good really, so I don't think there will be too much work for you to do, hopefully not anyway. MalleusFatuorum18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you be so kind as to very briefly outline the work which I would need to do to get it up to FA level ? I've got other projects at the moment, but I'm probably going to go back to Prescott at some point. Thanks. Claritas§09:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm so sorry if I messed up that article about Cotswold Olimpick Games. I didn't know that in the history, you were telling me not to change British English to American English. I just saw that when I was playing around, trying to get used to this place. Please look at my other changes, and if I messed anything up, delete my edits. I'm so sorry. I won't edit it again until you say it's okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtal (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I was afraid that you would be displeased. Everyone here is so nice, by the way. Both you and "Parrot of Doom" dismiss my errors as petty. So it's alright if I continue editing that article? --Virtal (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not "displeased" at all. If you can see where the article may be improved, then please improve it. Nothing is ever perfect. MalleusFatuorum22:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Ljótólfr
Hi Malleus, i'm working away on the article. I'm trying to add some dates to some of the events. The source I'm using sometimes uses dates like "1141 x", or "1142 x 1143", and "? 1144 x ? 1147". Do you know what the "X" means? After? Between? I can't find an answer on Google, or WP:Date.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
A date such as 1141 X 1143 means that the event is bounded by those dates. Typically that means that we have documents that, for example, show that so-and-so held one title in 1141 but by 1143 had another title, or that in 1141 so-and-so was alive but by 1143 documents are referring to the person as dead. The exact circumstances will vary. Ealdgyth - Talk07:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth. I looked through the beginning of the first volume of the source, and the author has a key: [9]. So I'm all set, for this source anyway. His way is pretty much like you said, he's got an x between dates meaning: 'note earlier than', and 'not later than'.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Give me one cogent reason why you are failing to follow established processes for things with which you disagree; carping from the sidelines isn't constructive, particularly when you rely upon unsupported nonsense. I remember your sterling work at Peterloo Massacre, but you are, in my view, throwing that valuable effort away. I'll repeat one last time: if you don't like the process, start an RFC. If you won't do that, you should retreat and consider your position here, or be blocked for disruptive editing. Up to you, and a last chance. Rodhullandemu23:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Many people have told me to do so in my lifetime; few have had the satisfaction of a result. Meanwhile, your edit history doesn't defend you against failing to follow the policies and guidelines here, particularly WP:NPA. If you don't like the resysop request, or the policy that allows it, you've been told more than once where to take it. Your next edits will determine whether that last chance I offered you has been taken seriously. Rodhullandemu23:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Exactly what was disruptive about the goings on at WP:BN? It's pretty clear neither Malleus nor Off2riorob was going to get any change through that avenue, so they were just wasting their own time. Or are you annoyed that he's wasting yours? Either way, hardly a blockable offence. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) You realise that's just adding fuel to the fire, right? If there's one thing guaranteed to make someone with what they feel is a legitimate point persecuted and victimised, it's a threat of punishment for not toeing the party line. Nev1 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
An admin who quit in 2006 was just given admin rights again with only JulianColton's question half-answered? Oh, wait. I'm not caring, by order of my brain. It's rather mockworthy, though. --Moni3 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, ignore him. You must have been here long enough to have seen Rod's "I am the king of Wikipedia and you will all bow to me" routine before; just ignore it and he goes away. There are a lot worse admins out there. – iridescent23:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
So far, I agree with MF, and also with iridescent.. While I possibly disagree with MF on resysopping (I see no problem in re-granting admin rights to the former-now-celebrating-their-comeback admin. Catching up on policy? These days I trust those admins who use common sense over those who know every crook and nanny of policy, but I digress), ... so while I see no problem, I definitely see no disruption, let alone reason to block. I looked at the thread at WP:BN. Did I miss a deleted post? ---Sluzzelintalk00:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)You haven't a leg to stand on in this situation, so drop the act. If you let Malleus waste your time in that thread then more fool you. Nev1 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
What the fuck? Thin ice? I didn't even speak like that to 10-year-olds when I had authority as a teacher. Dude, come on. Make your brain kick in. --Moni3 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Bollocks. The crats have defined functions with respect to creating and re-creating admins. Those functions are defined by well-established policy and there is little discretion. If you don't like the policy, RFC is the way to go, not carping at WP:BN; in particular, personal attacks on editors who know this aren't helpful. Malleus has been told this on several occasions, but has not availed himself of this opportunity to change policy. I regard this as disruptive. If you don't realise this, I suggest you spend more time here dealing with vandalism at the most basic level, image copyright issues, and generally trying to make this encyclopedia defensible as a provider of knowledge. We do not need wasps at the picnic who make unsupported allegations of corruption and will not follow our processes. Although those processes may not be perceived as perfect by some, pragmatically, they have worked for at least the five or six years in which they have been in place. I repeat, for one last time, shit or get off the pot. If you don't like the ways things work, argue for change. Rodhullandemu00:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
How will MF's expression of disagreement obsctruct the war on vandalism or on image copyright violation, and how will it stop anyone from making this encyclopedia defensible as a provider of knowledge? ---Sluzzelintalk00:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Really? Show me the consensus, or the reality. I've already set out my stall; in particular, Malleus has been directed to WP:RFC as regards changing policy and has as yet not taken that opportunity. If it really matters to him, he will do it; if it doesn't, he will continue to spark wound the periphery without actually taking the issues that appear to matter to him on board. That's up to him, of course, but so far he appears to me to be little me than a drunk shouting at a passing bus. Time to get wise, perhaps, and I have already made this plain: Put up or shut up. When it comes to issues like this, there is no room for cowards on Wikipedia. Rodhullandemu00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You have indeed made some things quite plain. Thank goodness Wikipedia has you to protect it. Otherwise it might have to deal with criticism. If you actually had a reason to block Malleus you'd have done it already instead of tried to provoke him. Nev1 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Who cares? Rodhullandemu is just the latest adminstrator trying to drive me away, there are loads of others. Nobody cares about honesty. MalleusFatuorum00:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Friday, if a user uses the ceterum censeo approach to express his views, it can get old, but it can also be a helpful reminder or food for thought, whether one disagrees or not (I often disagree). MF shouldn't back off just because of his potential to annoy. ---Sluzzelintalk00:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I am sorely tempted to go over there and demand resysopping, just to see if RH&E will jump in with "I don't see that the Crats can refuse a resysop request from a former Admin in good standing" in that instance too. – iridescent00:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In order to get a red light installed at an intersection, you must first fill out forms 451, 467, and 9008-B, all in triplicate. Once you submit these forms to this office, the office of form submission, and the office of form reduction, and pay your fees of $499.92 in pennies (1942 Wheat Pennies, by the way), a committee will meet several times over the next 6 to 18 months to decide if a traffic signal is warranted. The committee will argue and eat donuts for several months, then consider hiring the most outrageously overpaid urban engineers to watch the intersection for people dying. If at least 13 people do not die while the engineers are watching, a traffic signal will not be recommended and you will not be able to request another for five years. Have a good day. --Moni3 (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this right - you think the system is dishonest and corrupt but the only way you can change it is to use said system. Oh, and telling people that the system is corrupt is not allowed and will just get you silenced. This reminds me of another system I heard about that collapsed some time ago.... Richerman (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
If you disagree with policy, the proper venue is to discuss at the policy page. It is inappropriate to discuss elsewhere. To do so may be interpreted as disruption, and particularly when editors have been directed to those pages, and refuse to take that opportunity. Carping in the wrong place isn't helpful, and is a waste of time and effort. I've almost lost count of the times I've made this point at WP:BN, but if Malleus ain't prepared to take the advice, or even discuss it, there is nothing down for him. Rodhullandemu00:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want a discussion, then perhaps you shouldn't start with a block threat. Use some basic psychological and communication skills, O corps of admins, dammit. (Yes, I realize I'm making a faulty generalization). ---Sluzzelintalk01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a productive debate; I've advised Malleus on WP:BN and here that if he disagrees with existing policy, he should raise an RFC. He hasn't done so, and has repeatedly accused admins of corruption. That's unacceptable as breaching WP:NPA and WP:Civil. That is why I suggest that he should either substantiate his accusations, or withdraw. So far, he has has done neither. Whereas he may be a provider of good encyclopedic content, he is not exempt from general considerations of civility here. As to a block threat, that is largely reserved for those editors who fail to accept our standards, either in the long- or short-term disruptive editors. In this case, Malleus has been around long enough here to know better; but that doesn't give him carte blanche to impose his own views over other editors. And, realistically, he should know this. When it comes to policy WRT resysopping, it would be helpful if he was aware of precedent, and if he is unaware of this, he could at least ask, rather than come out with all guns blazing, as he did as WP:BN. He's had advice; he failed to take it. That's all. 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe you. Sources? As I said before, shit or get off the pot. Meanwhile, you are less important to me than the occasional dogshit on my shoe. Put up or shut up is the bottom line here. Rodhullandemu01:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Soxwon, I'm reverting this, just because that's fucking hilarious. Please load that to Wiki. Whatever the issues about this thing where everyone got their collective panties in a wad, that is just one seriously funny picture. --Moni3 (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I see Rod Hull fell off his proverbial roof, and had what in the gaming community is called a "ragequit". Quite funny really. Parrotof Doom14:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Ironic really, given Rod's comment at the top of this thread: "Many people have told me to do so [fuck off] in my lifetime; few have had the satisfaction of a result." MalleusFatuorum14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Go Malleus! That thin ice bullshit and attitude is unproductive and should be called out. Your first response was classic, in the meantime keep up the excellant content work, I wsa just checking out the first crusade article and It is impressive. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Xeno cleared that autoblock a long while ago. Malleus, are you still unable to edit? I can't find any other autoblocks that would affect you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I see I'm missing all kinds of shenanigans here and on Moni's page ... please don't break the Wiki, I'm too tired to fix it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I know, I'm working on a draft. I've been reading lots of style guides and looking at lots of examples. I had been under the impression that leads were supposed to be limited to one paragraph. Please don't close the nom until I've had a chance to post a revision. Fishal (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to thank you for your hard work in rescuing Roy of the Rovers at FAR. I originally nominated the article after seeing it suggested for the Main Page, reading it, and becoming concerned about whether an article at its quality level should be featured on the Main Page especially on such a prominent day. My intention when nominating it at FAR was for a collaboration of editors to improve the article so it would be ready by the date of the finals, or at the very least preventing it in its then-current state from reaching the Main Page; I didn't anticipate a single editor stepping up to completely rewrite the article. I was disappointed to see that it was substituted out at the last minute for an article that I think would have been better to save for another year. My plan was to give you the below on the day of the finals with the article on the Main Page; I decided not to let the last-minute switch hold this up. Thanks again! –Grondemar03:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, the OTRS for this file is missing (seems like no OTRS member has tagged it since you sent your email). Could you help its location by providing information on your email at commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Worsley Man.jpg? Thank you. (This is the same message I posted to your Commons as I am unsure if you are regularly watching it there.) Jappalang (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I managed to find the OTRS ticket. It seems that the person who handled the ticket found that the permission granted by the Manchester Museum was not enough, and asked for a followup. NW(Talk)13:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The museum official said "I had a word with our Collections Manager who said it's ok to send you an image without a fee." Uploading to Commons requires a specific, non-revocable license release. NW(Talk)00:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you did a lot of work on Robert C. Michelson, although I suspect it was for a GAN, and wondered if you could tell me how COIs are treated by the GAN reviewers.
The reason I ask is that there is another article on his fying machine the Entomopter which has a COI tag addedd after you did some smaller edits to it. As I am thinking of asking him to join the Robotics Project and possibly onto the assessment team I would like to prevent any COI issues before they occur. Obvioulsy any COI needs to be avoided on the articles he would review and especially obvious ones, such as these two or any in his field of expertise, are a concern.
Is there anything I can read besides the standard COI policies that would help on GAN and the GA process that would help me on this matter ?
I'm no expert on wikipedia's various guidelines – Iridiscent is a better person to ask – and neither can I speak for GA or FA reviewers. I'll give you my take on COI though, which I think is a widely misunderstood guideline. I don't care who wrote an article, or why, I only care about the quality of the end result. Every other encyclopedia recruits experts to write their articles, why not this one?
I'll give you my take (briefly before extra time starts); I personally think the only thing that matters is the quality of the end product, regardless of who writes it or why. However, this isn't the Wikipedia policy (which seems to change day by day); the best thing to do is post at WP:COIN, as anyone likely to complain will be hanging round there. – iridescent20:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Can't quite see where the national pedigree shows in that but you're right. Council-house cat-lady from Stepney. And where Sarek was apparently speechless with crossness on behalf of the deserving - thanks for your support. I'd already gone down the pub: a good thing too, because his was exactly the sort of admin response that pisses off the aggravated even more. I'm guessing that he didn't want to get into any potential discussion.
Tonight, I'm going to finish a couple of new arts that've been sitting in My Docs for far too long: you know, write stuff, avoid drama. I should write more. I hate drama. Which is why, with 2 exceptions in 4 years, I stay away from WP:AN/I and them (RfA being my one exception - adminery protektsia is seriously business) but they really fucking well ask for it and sometimes it gets too much and out comes the angry old bag.
I hereby reward you the Original Barnstar for your excellent article work. You are one of the greatest content contributors I've ever seen. Cheers, --Meaghan:) ≈02:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Not at all contentious, quite the reverse, very helpful. There are a few I'm not sure I agree with, like your suggestion to change the punctuation in quotations to a more modern style, but overwhelmingly I think you've made some great points, so all help is appreciated. MalleusFatuorum14:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I've done as much as I think I can reasonably do now for copy-editing myself, and left a message at OohBunnies!' talk page to say so. I've ticked in the GA reviewthe items I've done (I could have made more obvious those I haven't by crossing them or something, but didn't want that to be seen as a "fail"). The main things left now are, I think:
Sort out whether Gray and the narrator are necessarily the same person, and use the terminology consistently.
Hoist the bit out of Genre (?) into Composition that deals with composition.
Restructure Composition so that it covers the alternative theories of development with fewer surprises.
With all that, I'm more than happy to pass it. Sorry it took me so long, but it was fairly obvious from the start that it would make GA and so it's worth a good polishing, I think. Si Trew (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
OohBunnies! picked up this article written by a currently banned user, and she's really now the lead editor. Like you, I'm just helping where I can. I want to thank you again though for the great work that you've done with this. MalleusFatuorum20:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Witchcraft! Mystery! Deception! A thousand elephants!
Hello! I come bearing a tale of rural witchcraft and medical mystery, of an elaborate hoax that fooled the world, of credulous medical men and virtuous vicars. Or, as seems more likely, of Münchausen by proxy and the lengths to which an impoverished family will go to make ends meet. And if that description makes you suspicious that the article in question is a lot less interesting than I've made it seem ... you'd be right. Still, I was wondering if—at your leisure—you'd be interested in performing the GA review for The Sleeping Girl of Turville, which—after I created it this afternoon—came to mind as the sort of article that might be right up your street. There are probably too many gaps in coverage and unresolvable inconsistencies between the sources to ever take it to FAC, but it should make for a reasonable GA, despite my rather dry style (which tends to rob subjects like these of, well, fun). And there aren't any elephants. In return, I'll review any GAN of your choice. (I'm more familiar with fillum and related articles, but I'll give anything a shot.) Oh, and the subject probably deserves a far better DYK hook than my rather plain effort, so if you or any of your TPS squad can come up with better, I'm humble enough to accept the help. Posted with apologies for all the exclamation points, SteveT • C15:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Right up my street indeed, looks good. I'll flag it up as being under review now and post up any comments I have later. MalleusFatuorum15:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, excellent; now that's what I call service. Feel free to point me at a GAN that you think needs attention (I'm usually rubbish at deciding what to review); alternatively, I'll just pick something at random from the "Theatre, film, and drama" list. Thanks again, SteveT • C16:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm working on my first try at an FA, Sentence spacing—perhaps my version of your Stretford. Ruhrfisch peer-reviewed it and it is garnering some support at the FAC page—in its third FAC nomination. [12] The support does not seem to be sufficient yet though, and Iridescent said I should ask you to review the article. If you have the time to do so, I would greatly appreciate your review and input. Best regards, --Airborne84 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I remember that from its last FAC, although I can't remember whether I supported or not. I'll try and get to it tomorrow. MalleusFatuorum21:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't actually know anything about the conflict which is apparently happening between the two of you. But if he's asked you to back off and refrain from posting to his talk page unless it's necessary for the project, it seems like it would be better if you did that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)23:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I just noticed that your word "liar" there was directed at me. Do I know you? Have we met? I don't think there's any reason that you should be insulting me, and if you'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for confusing me with whatever conflict you're having with Rod, I'll accept, of course. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)23:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It's funny- I actually don't know anything about it, and don't really plan to look into it. Didn't even really have any notions about which of you I'd agree with, since Rod isn't a perfect person either. But the fact that in my first encounter with you, you've managed to insult me and speak startlingly rudely to me, I'm assuming you must be in the wrong. First impressions can be harsh, can't they? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
So what are you saying? You're just another admin wielding a big stick without any idea of who you ought to be hitting with it? Have you warned Rodhullandemu to back off? No? Why not? Because he's an administrator and I'm not? This episode stinks more and more by the minute. MalleusFatuorum00:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are you assuming that I'm threatening you with my 'big stick?' I'm not. I'm just telling you, one editor to another, the impression I've gotten from our recent encounter. Not because he's an administrator and you're not, just because you talked hatefully to me, for no obvious reason. I'm not going to block you, obviously. I'm just kind of pissed off with you. I don't really know anything about you at all, other than that you're the kind of person who'll randomly insult a stranger. I guess I would suggest that Rod back off if he were posting on your talk page, especially if he was insulting people you were talking with. He doesn't seem to be doing that, though, right now. I'm going to back off, though, since I don't really want to talk with you any more, and it doesn't seem like there's anything else of use to say. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This conversation makes less sense now, since Malleus removed the comment in which I object to being insulted elsewhere. While I'm inclined to leave him alone at this point, I don't like the way his change makes me look like I'm randomly taking offense at nothing, which is not the case. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)01:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you might be kind enough to provide a diff for this posting that you claim I have deleted. In lieu of one, you just look like another drive-by admin bully I'm afraid, of which there are already too many on this project. MalleusFatuorum01:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course- this is the edit= I was referring to. I'm not sure what you mean by 'bully,' since I haven't requested any action at all from you, and haven't threatened anything that will happen if you don't do something. I did originally indicate that I'd like you to apologize, but you chose not to, and that time has passed. There isn't anything I want from you now; I just don't like that this history makes me look like I'm objecting to nothing at all because of the removed comment. Still, I don't care that much, and don't plan to pursue anything. Conversation with you is unpleasant, and doesn't do anything to improve the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)08:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
What a shame, I was so enjoying our little chat. As even the most cursory glance at this talk page and its archives would reveal, I very rarely delete anything, and I certainly didn't intentionally delete your posting, which I've now restored; I can only assume that it was lost during an edit conflict. I hadn't seen that posting before, in which I note that you accuse me of having called you a liar. Where did I do that? MalleusFatuorum12:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Lady bits
I just heard today (or yesterday) that you got blocked again. Sorry I didn't find out earlier. I would have thrown another block party! Been swamped with statistics, though; so I haven't been paying attention much lately. Probability is a bitch, man. Anyway, someone pointed out to me your comment on BN today. I loled. Be good, you! Lara03:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it would have resembled one of those very quick parties where everything has to be wrapped up in the estimated time between the neighbors calling the police and the arrival of the squad car.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Pft. These are parties thrown after he's already been arrested. Mind you, it presumes it's a jail system unlike that of the US or UK. Some third-world country where we can hang out on the opposite side of the fence and feed him cake and liquor. Seems to pretty well describe Wikipedia's security, no? Lara21:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I was freed; Moni3 threw me a file and I busted out. I do note with some amusement though that several editors think I ought to be banned because I was incorrectly blocked by the saintly Rodhullandemu, whom God preserve. MalleusFatuorum21:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Iri, back in the old days, when you and I were both admins, blocking someone with whom you were arguing was immediately understood as fucktardery and would have landed you in a lot of hot water. How anyone can be too dense to acknowledge that is a little beyond me. And how they aren't at ArbCom... well, I guess I'm not surprised. Lara00:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it depends on who your target is. Blocking me for whatever reason is generally considered to be "a good thing" by many editors and a fair number of arbitrators. And of course, it's all my own fault anyway. This is a crazy place. MalleusFatuorum01:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you are well. I saw you had passed little old Little Thetford recently. I made some changes following yours (not rollbacks - see diff) - mainly adding non-break spaces and hyphens. Anyway, can you help with proper use of the following please? My current use is shown in italics:
Bedwell Hay farm or Bedwell Hay Farm - see use Boundaries
Fen or fen? Erm, specifically, The Fen or The fen (which I guess is different to A fen thinking about it) - see use Drainage and the Fens
Fen if you're talking specifically rather than about fens in general.
A10<nbsp>road - Don't tell me I got it wrong again and it should be A10<space>Road? I suspect not, but English rules are so complex - see e.g. Transport
The article is fairly peppered with dates of the form (n<ndash>m<nbsp>X) where X is either BC or AD. Is it acceptable to replace the parenthesise with commas? See e.g. History
I am not discouraged. Just lacking in ability. I am giving it a go. I think I will need help but give me an hour or so first --Senra (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yups. Little Thetford needs more than comma shunting. If you could find time to fix the lead, I would be eternally grateful, etc, etc, etc!!!!! Dear me, went over the top with bad grammar and punctuation there, but you got the drift I feel --Senra (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. You really are singing with these list articles Peter. Just one question: why isn't the first column in alphabetical order by default? MalleusFatuorum20:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks once again for your prompt help which is much appreciated. I used the date as the default column, which I have done previously, and IMO has more meaning than an alphabetical order.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Malleus, that really means a lot, and many thanks for taking a look and giving it a polish, that is really what was needed. I'm glad you think its got a good chance, as I'm sure you know there are a few source reliability issues I need to address, and a question about the date of the name change that needs answering, but thats all thats really on my to do list. Do you have anything to add? Tom 20:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Malleus would you mind taking a quick look at the lead of Manchester United F.C and either giving me some feedback or giving it a copyedit? I'm not sure if I like it. Tom (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. I'm going to go through and get the discretionary plural sorted out, and I agree about the lead so I'll re-write that. Problem is I've read this article so many times in the past few months sometimes my brain just skips over things so if I give you a buzz when I've finished, could you check through and see if I've missed any? Tom (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I've sorted the discretionary plural issue. Regards lead, I've tried to give it a bit of a re-write to but to frank, I'm pretty clueless. I've tried looking at other featured football club articles but I'm just really not sure what to put in and in what order. I think my changes might actually have made it worse. Fuck everyone else, I really need your help. Tom (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
You're tugging at my heart strings; give me some time to think about it. My last experience with this article wasn't pleasant. MalleusFatuorum19:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Tom, I've been a little ... distracted over the last few days. I'll try and take a look through the whole thing again tomorrow. The last thing I want is to have to turn up in the oppose column again. MalleusFatuorum21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added a paragraph on the global brand, revenue etc to the lead. What do you make of it? Thanks, Tom (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I think you've done wonders with this since its last FAC, and I certainly won't be opposing its next nomination. MalleusFatuorum17:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. Looking at it now, it shows me how right you were back when I nominated it at FAC just after it had become a GA again. I've certainly learnt a lot about what is required of a FA. Thanks again for looking at it, I owe you one. Tom (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Are 'Belgian champions' and 'eventual League champions' correct (both in Busby years section)?
If it's not a problem for you, could you leave the promised tips concerning getting this to FA-standard on my talk page or on the article's talk page ? Thanks. Claritas§19:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I probably would have passed it, well I would have tweeked your grammar first, but that was next week's reviews not this. Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Tweaked my grammar? How dare you Sir! Anyway, we'll see how it does at FAC. MalleusFatuorum
europe was wonderful, now we're in Minnesota, taking the kid to camp... should be home Friday afternoon... My only big problem is that we took a LOT of pictures, including a bunch that I intend for Wikipedia, so getting that sorted out is a high priority. (87 GB worth of pictures in fact... ) Ealdgyth - Talk12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh. the 87 gig was AFTER culling out all the blurry stuff... and did I mention I went to the British Museum, and a bunch of other museums? Ealdgyth - Talk19:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, I have been taking a sit-back from Wikipedia for a few days, but cannot help noticing all the utter pretentious drivel being written regarding the your scurrilous block by Rod and the usual folk posting it. It looks like the Arb case is being slung out - which is hardly a surprise. I don't think I need to pass comment, but rest assured, I am watching and reading it all. Give me a call, if I'm required. Giacomo 19:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Giano, but I don't think this will amount to a hill of beans in the end. As I said elsewhere, I'm mildly amused that the attention of several, including Newyorkbrad and Balloonman is on my alleged incivility, diverting attention away from Rodhullandemu's ridiculous block, for which he ought to have received a scolding and a warning not to do anything like that again, and that would have been the end of the story. As it is, it drags on, and on, and on ... I would have been quite sanguine about a block applied by an uninvolved administrator, so long as both Rod and I were blocked, and there I think lies the fundamental problem. Rod was at least as uncivil as I was, but who's got the balls to block another administrator. MalleusFatuorum19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh don't wory about Brad, he's American - lovely race, but like terrorism and pollution they have never really understood incivility. They wait for the horse to slam the proverbial stable door from the paddock and then claim to be misunderstood and wronged - one despairs of the poor old things. Giacomo 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the one word I never lightly say because the one and only time I ever did so, was the one and only time my Father ever brutalised me, I'm sure before that incident both my ears were the same size. Even now, I cannot quite bring myself to say it, without ducking and looking round for a ghost behind me. Giacomo 21:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Its part of the language here, and can be used affectionately, or insultingly. "Cunting fuckwit" is one of my faves. Parrotof Doom21:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the word is beginning to lose its effect thanks to overuse on "comedy" programmes on Channel 4 nowadays. I predict in a few years time, it will go the same way as "bloody" did, giving way to "shit" as the next expletive to cause rumbles in TV's complaint corner, which then lead to "fuck" being used at dead on 9pm (I still remember watching films on TV in the late 70s when "fuck" was removed, even at midnight). Although, having said that, "fuck" still isn't widely approved of in certain circles even today, is it? ;) – B.hotep •talk• 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
They are indeed just words. It used to be my favourite word though until Channel 4 made the cunt trendy. – B.hotep •talk• 21:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think "fuck" serves its purpose well as an intensifier; nobody really believes that when they're asked to "fuck off" they're being asked to find a partner with whom to copulate. Well, nobody outside of California does anyway. MalleusFatuorum21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, great, now that we've dealt with "fuck" and "cunt", why not expand our scope, and rehabilitate "motherfucker", "nigger" and "twat" as helpful terms of affection and discursive expression? These are all just words after all, right? Geometry guy22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Mrs. Moni and I use "queerbait", "faggot", and "carpetmunch". My brother uses "cocksucker" when calling my sister-in-law from a different room, and she "cuntlicker" when he needs to take out the garbage. Ours is a family of love. --Moni3 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ach, upstaged again by a superior and funnier actor ;) So lets spread the word that all these terms are affectionate and go and make Wikipedia a better and happier place. Geometry guy22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like some interesting history, with Bat Masterson and all, but that's the problem, it's all history. I'd suggest for starters splitting the article into History and Present-day. The lead is too short to adequately summarise the article, probably ought to be two or three times the size, and the prose needs some some serious attention. For instance, "The area has suffered several floods that have received national coverage due to their scope and the damage it had on both the local and national economies." Here's another: "It is important to note that while many of the existing buildings were built in the 1880's but due to the floods many were remodeled to the standards of those times." To whom is it "important to note"? To me? To you? I think that with work you could make a GA out of this, not sure about FA though. MalleusFatuorum19:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thank you for the review Malleus. I'm going to shoot for the GA. I figure every editor worth his salt should have at least one so that's the goal. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I know what an anti-climax it is to watch something you've slogged over slowly sliding down the FAC list, so I'll be happy to take a look and offer my opinion. MalleusFatuorum15:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
That was fast! Thanks for the copy-edits. I see that I have to work on comma usage and prepositions. I've noted some discrepancies in preposition usage between Am English and Brit. English, which is interesting. The comma usage was mentioned in the GA review. Can't tell whether it's because of bad eyes, lazy writing, a hold-over from reading Hemingway earlier in the year, or a combination of all those things. Anyway, much appreciated. I enjoyed working on the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
One of our challenges here is to make things comprehensible to all English speakers, not just those living in California. I recently used the term "metalled road" in an article, forgetting that in the colonies they're called "paved roads". My general view is that English subjects should use English punctuation and grammar, and vice versa for American topics. MalleusFatuorum18:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In our household one of us uses the word tarmac, another paved or pavement. I've never heard the term metalled - that's a new one. Btw - I'm cleaning up Frances Hodgson Burnett (author of The Secret Garden) - she was born in Manchester, moved to America, then lived in both countries for much of her life. I'm still filling in details, but haven't a clue whether to use Am Eng. or Br. Eng. Any suggestions? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it matters much which you choose, so long as you're consistent. Little Lord Fauntleroy was a book I struggled to get through a few times as a kid. It was just so ... boring? MalleusFatuorum19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't read Fauntleroy and I have no affinity for Burnett's life so it's a slog, but the article was in terrible condition when I started. This may be one I'll fix minimally and then leave. We'll see. Should she be part of the Manchester Wikiproject? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps. The Greater Manchester wikiproject was always more about geography than anything else though, and it's pretty much moribund now anyway. MalleusFatuorum20:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sweet Track
You kindly did some copy editing on Sweet Track previously, however it has since undergone some significant changes (while getting GA) & this has probably ruined your previous contributions. It is now at FAC & I'd really appreciate your comments/edits.— Rodtalk17:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No discussion anywhere. Jimfbleak (talk·contribs) at FAC suggested removing one of the two images, which I did "... Why do we need two images of the Roundhouse? ...". I removed the older image as a result. I have since wondered whether the older image would be better in the article. I decided to seek concensus. Hence the proposal. Incidentally, what happens now at FAC? Do I wait patiently? --Senra (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Me and my big mouth eh? I've been through the article and changed a few minor bits and pieces. I notice though that you've got "A$44,000" and "AUD$1 million". I don't know which is preferred, but it ought to be consistent. MalleusFatuorum12:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Marvellous, thank you for your run through the article, which has improved it. You are right, i'll need to sort that. As for the big mouth: yes, but the effects are often amusing to watch from the sidelines. "Malleus got whacked by an admin again" - "quick, someone bring popcorn." Keep up the good work. Might get to looking at Cotswold Olympicks this week, might not - real life stepped up a notch... Kind regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I know you are always busy. Congratulations on Cotswold Olympick Games, very enjoyable, reminded me of
a Cumberland wrestling event I once saw. When you are bored could you look at Rivington and Listed buildings in Rivington, no hurry as they are "foreigners" but I have happy memories of walking up the Pike in my teenage years.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That Olimpick Games article was harder to write than I'd imagined it would be. I always find it harder to develop an existing article than to start from scratch; I've been agonising over how to approach workhouse for months now, for instance. Sure, I'll take a look over those, but I want to spend just a little time on this first, as a tribute to a fallen comrade. MalleusFatuorum17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have memories of Belle Vue too, scared by an elephant on a day trip! I'll be sure to reread it :) Workhouse sounds interesting too, I wouldn't know where to begin on something so huge but I'm sure you're the man for the job.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Any help you can offer with Belle Vue would be greatly appreciated. As with Trafford Park, my ambition is just to get it to GA; there are some topics it's just not worth the hassle with to take them any further. MalleusFatuorum18:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Pity about the cars:-( there's a reasonable image in the article from geograph. I think the Pike tower is one of yours. I'd love to get a pic for all the listed buildings, I might have to be nice to my nearest & dearest.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Trafford Park is a good GA, at least in my opinion, but it has a few gaps that would be highlighted at FAC I think. For instance, it has a major oil depot that is only mentioned in passing, there's no coverage of some of the landmarks, like the corrugated iron church in The Village, and perhaps most importantly there's little discussion of the present-day major employers. There are some massive buildings in the Park, like the fairly new Adidas warehouse, but I've got no idea how many are employed there. In short, I think that a lack of reliable sources for some of this stuff is likely to mean that GA is the best this can ever be, at least for now. I might be wrong though, as to be honest I haven't looked too hard; I never had any ambitions beyond GA for this. MalleusFatuorum21:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I've trimmed Belle Vue a bit, it's a bit...wordy and some of the refs are in odd places. I hope you don't think I'm only good at pruning. --J3Mrs (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I've not looked at the article again yet, been busy elsewhere today. My recollection is that a major problem was a lack of citations in certain areas. MalleusFatuorum21:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Funny how the memory plays tricks. In my head, I thought the article just needed a few citations added, but looking at it again now, I see that it needs a lot of copyediting and pruning back. Ah well. MalleusFatuorum00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
I was thinking of getting serious about trying to get an article to GA (and possibly FA) status. I read through the guidelines and tips, but was wondering if you had any words of wisdom to add? Soxwon (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope. It's just hard work, so pick an article that you have some affinity with, and that you can readily find sources for, to make the effort a little easier. MalleusFatuorum01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's also good to pick a topic that other editors will know of - it's always helpful to have experts around, and they often can supply sources, too. ceranthor02:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I was actually going to work on my hometown. I am friends with the town's official historian and a few other officials so I can get the information rather easily. As for experts though, that may be a bit of a challenge. Soxwon (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Two other copyeditors have helped improve the prose of History of the Yosemite area and I fixed some more issues that Tony brought up since your last comment on the FAR page. I also tried to fix the specific issues you brought up or edited yourself and look for and fix similar issues. Please take a look at the article to see what else needs to be done. Cheers! --mav (reviews needed) 19:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Does your Northcote-Parkinson book (if you still have it) have anything which might shine a light on some of those citation needed tags? Else I think I'll have to delete those paragraphs. Parrotof Doom19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It was a library book, which I took back ages ago. Unfortunately my local library, where I got the book from, is closed until next week, having its windows replaced, but I'll try and see what I can do. MalleusFatuorum19:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I might have a shufty through what I have and try for GA, but I'm trying to be a bit more diverse with the sources. Parrotof Doom19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
What's the script with honorifics? A while ago I recall someone adding "Sir" to several names in the Gunpowder Plot article. I'm ok with adding Lord such-a-body where its needed, but are "Sir"s as important? Parrotof Doom23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's all that clear, although Iridescent may correct me. Personally, I'd add "Sir" the first time a person is mentioned, but not after that. MalleusFatuorum00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I've had enough of this now. I think it could be an FAC, if you have a spare 10-20 minutes would you mind glancing at it to see if there's anything wildly wrong, or just plain bollocks? Parrotof Doom18:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Sheffield has been nominated to become a featured article again. It would be nice to see you there helping me out. I notice you've made alot of edits to Sheffield in the past, so it would be nice to see you there. -- Jack?!04:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I worked in Sheffield for a few years, which may be why I contributed to the article, but quite frankly I hate the place. MalleusFatuorum22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Joseph Merrick
Hello Malleus, I was wondering if you could take a look at Joseph Merrick for me. Iridescent kindly gave me some advice about it a few weeks ago and I was hoping you would either give it a bit of a copyedit if you have the time & inclination, or else just give it a once over and tell me if you think I'm going in the right direction with it. I'm hoping to get hold of a couple of books that I haven't looked at yet, in the next couple of weeks, but in the mean time, I'm thinking of nominating it for GA. Any help or advice would be appreciated (that also goes for Iridescent, Parrot of Doom or anyone else!) Thanks, --BelovedFreak13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've had a quick look through, and I've made a few minor edits. I think it's pretty close to being a credible GA candidate, but I'll look through it more closely tomorrow. I notice though that it's one of those new-fangled protected changes thingumybobs, so you may have to officially approve my edits, as I'm not trusted to edit articles. MalleusFatuorum22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you won't take the flag. You know full well several admins would gladly give it to you, as well as the autopatrolled flag. At any rate, at level 1, autoconfirmed is all that is required to accept your own edits, assuming the prior edit was already accepted, so you're fine there. Courcelles (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. And yeah, looks like your edits are accepted unless you edit directly after someone who's not auto-confirmed.--BelovedFreak22:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The Manchester UK site isn't generally considered to be reliable, although it's useful in giving pointers as to what to look for elsewhere; there are still quite a few gaps in our Belle Vue article sadly, and too much detail in some sections. MalleusFatuorum18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I might add that to the article. The current organisation of the article just isn't working for me ... need to think about. What do you think? MalleusFatuorum19:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Well it's a bit/lot "linear" which makes it a bit uninspiring, (first, then, next, etc.) It doesn't say much about its visitors, how it mirrored the public taste of the times or the start of tourism, excursions for the working classes. It hints at but doesn't develop any themes. Apparently it became a venue for some political gatherings, that might be interesting.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the chronological approach doesn't really work. I think that each of the themes – the zoo, the gardens, music and dancing, amusement park, exhibition halls and so on – need to be dealt with separately, regardless of the article's overall chronology. I've started moving some stuff about, with that in mind. There's a lot more to do here than I'd bargained for. MalleusFatuorum20:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I really like what you've done so far but would you mind if I did two big moves? You can undo it if you don't like it :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing great about my mind. Well I think it has a much better shape now but as you, quite rightly, said it's lacking in parts. I think the Mackenzie book looks most likely.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If we ever succeed in getting this monster of an article into shape, I'll insist that you co-nominate it at FAC, stress or no stress. I think that's a bit of a way off yet though, you'll no doubt be relieved to hear. I'd be happy to settle for GA in the short term. :-) MalleusFatuorum22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a good job I didn't read that last night, I need a good night's sleep before tackling the M62. Here's a site that references some garden features. [17]--J3Mrs (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company
Excuse me. I have restored the timeline section to this article, for very good reason. It links, and shows the progression of the different organisations that have provided transport in the Manchester area for the past 185 years, and as such is not duplicated anywhere else. If I had realised you had created 2 seperate articles for MCC and MSTC, it would have been placed in the MCC article, as a proper start point.
However, I have now linked these in, as it seemed both articles were a bit bare, (creation date & merge date only), duplicating material that already existed on the MCTC article.
There is no overall general article on public passenger transport in the area, where this admittedly would be well placed. --Keith05:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you start one, perhaps with this timeline. The material has nothing to do with the Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company. MalleusFatuorum11:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You want to create work, you are quite welcome to.
Please remember, there are some people on here that contribute voluntarily, rather than to fill there time editing something! These people are usually connected with the article directly - not just through books! Having someone else start telling them what they should, and shouldnt do, could well have a negative effect. Please consider this in future!
In what way are you connected with the Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company? You must be exceedingly old. Wasn't it you who said "There is no overall general article on public passenger transport in the area, where this admittedly would be well placed."? Well, now you've got one, and it cost you no effort whatsoever. Please consider that before you mouth off here again. MalleusFatuorum22:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did make that statement, but I made no indication of being connected with MCTC, or any other organisation listed. Please take that exactly' as it stands! Such sarcasm is so wasted!!--Keith19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Then perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining what "These people [amongst whom you presumably include yourself] are usually connected with the article directly - not just through books!" actually means? What is your connection to this article? Are you engaged to be married or something? MalleusFatuorum19:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I will simply say that if I had called another editor "pathetic", then I would now be blocked. That you are not must be a miracle. MalleusFatuorum22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It maybe because what I say is true - the original name is not a correct description - the changed name is, your action in reverting could be classed many things. I chose one. --Keith22:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay Malleus, lets take it from the top - do you think the article is, or would be expanded to become a history, which are already duplicated in the respective articles, not withstanding the removal of the commercial operations of course?? --Keith22:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Which article are we talking about? Have you looked at any similar articles? If you recall, you added this timeline to one article on a specific company, and then you claimed to have secret knowledge, unknown to those who only read books. I suggest that that you try and get your arse in gear before you come back here with any more of your nonsense. MalleusFatuorum23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to be smart and hiding behind coatails is so so ... low. Try answering the point without sarcasm! --Keith23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You appear to have lost the power of rational thought. Might I suggest that you consider what has been said to you before you post here again? MalleusFatuorum23:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh - like the sacrcastic remarks you make, and the obnoxious remarks some other contributors make on this talk page (not apparently just dfirected at me!) - not in the slightest interested. Alls I would say is try reading what I said before making comment! I know to ignore you in future --Keith23:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Senra/Augustus Voelcker is a user-space draft that I intend burdening the DYK team with shortly. Before I do, would you be so kind as to cast a brief eye over it and help suggest a hook? Feel free to create a hook though I have two alternatives in mind
Did you know that..."in 1885, Senra/Augustus Voelcker calculated that the annual value of excrement per adult head was 9s (£36 at present worth as of 2010)"?
Figures are dubious. Assuming human turds are 75% phosphate, 25 % ammonia the value of shit is 3d a pound. Thus an adult producing 9 shillings worth of crap has dolloped 36 pounds of dung into the pot. A producer on Wikianswers claims that they excrete approximately 1.7 pounds of poo per day, an annual total of 612 pounds (allowing for Bank Holidays) a year, or £7.50 worth of kaka. Figures are an approximation, but I understand the average Victorian could produce a two-foot-long 20 pound turd twice a day. Ning-ning (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
For the moment I will stick to the Victorian chemist on the basis that google, when asked "weight of poo per year per adult", found the top hit which reports that poop is 75% water and an adult releases between 0.75 ounce and 0.66 pounds per day --Senra (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd lay a substantial bet that Germans are the only people who weigh their shit. That toilet ledge is just so ... bizarre. MalleusFatuorum23:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
IIRC the poo shelf is a remnant of earlier times, when it was considered prudent to check your battleships for infection. Parrotof Doom07:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
That Big Site of Amazing Facts! They say, if you eat a bucket of gum arabic a day your turds will be slippy, and propelled by vast quantities of hydrogen and methane! Only thing is, Somali Islamists control the gum arabic trade- maybe they figured out it's a cheap way to produce a suicide bomber. Ning-ning (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If you (Senra) want a serious answer, go with the sewage one; "Did you know that.John Christopher Augustus Voelcker was appointed consultant chemist to the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution in 1855, a post he held until 1863, though he continued to maintain connections with the society?" is about as strong a case of "Did you care?" as I can imagine. Are you aware that this wasn't a unique idea of his, though? William White's England's True Wealth, which calculated the value of the nation's excrement, the possible uses for it and the costs and health risks of processing it as fertiliser in almost insane detail, was published in 1849, and assorted night soil schemes had been ongoing for centuries. (Feces→food isn't a nutty an idea as it sounds. The success of the Northern Outfall Sewer and the adoption of similar schemes in the rest of the country meant that all of a sudden, sewage was no longer venting into the rivers but was piling in huge quantities at the new sewage plants. Every so often the scheme rears its head again; next time you eat something grown in Canada, consider that there's a very good chance the euphemistically-named Edmonton Composting Facility will have been involved.) – iridescent11:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did want a serious answer and thank you for your informed input. You could say there must have been a big Victorian movement in the stuff. Anyways, thank you. Much appreciated. (Incidentally, I have renamed him to his most used name - I am going with Senra/Augustus Voelcker as it does not appear that there will be a name clash - I have modified the above links accordingly) --Senra (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Inspired by yours and J3Mrs work on Belle Vue I've decided to create an article on the Manchester Zoological Gardens. They were in Broughton, Greater Manchester and were only open for the four years between 1838 and 1842 so there is only enough information available for a small article. I've made a start in my sandbox, just a couple of sentences so far (nothing to see folks so move along now) but I'll be adding to it over the next few days. When it closed down some of the animals went to Belle Vue, one source says the bears went there, so if you find any information at all in the books you have on Belle Vue I would be grateful if you'd add it in. BTW there are some some references on Belle Vue here including a full article from New Scientist from 1978. Richerman (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh bugger! - well I'll add to that one instead! I think I looked for Broughton Zoological gardens but then later realised it was Manchester but forgot to do a search on that :) I see you found one of the references I used, however, I couldn't find any other references for Hampton Court ever having a zoo and wondered if that was correct. Richerman (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If you're talking about the Hampton Court just west of London, the zoo there was a aviary rather than a lions-and-tigers type menagerie, and only lasted from 1700–1746. There's a brief aside about it here. – iridescent16:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I imagine you're probably right Malleus. It wasn't the aviary Iridescent mentions as we're talking about animals going there in 1842. Richerman (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm struggling here! Here's a book and a quote from it. The Kings Hall was used for the circus, as a venue for brass band concerts.
Tyrwhitt-Drake, Sir Garrard (1946), The English Circus and Fair Ground, Methuen
The Kings Hall was reconstructed into a large "saucer like arena" capable of seating 6,000 in 1929 when it was used for the Christmas circus. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You're struggling! The more I read, the more important I realise the Kings Hall was to Belle Vue, so we need to do it justice. I think what we're still missing though is something on the catering facilities. Belle Vue fed its visitors on an industrial scale; in fact, the Kings Hall was a converted tea room. There are just so many aspects to this story, it's a bit overwhelming. MalleusFatuorum21:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I haven't actually. Looks like a good find. When you have a minute, can you add a citation for that nice "saucer like arena" quotation? MalleusFatuorum22:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Betcha'd like a plan of the gardens, from 1892, wouldn't ya? Well I have one, and I'll upload it to commons shortly :) Parrotof Doom22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
That's absolutely fantastic. Yes, please do email the booklet to me. I think I'm at last starting to be able to distinguish the wood from the trees with this now, but I think I must have been daft to attempt it. MalleusFatuorum22:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If you get the chance, can you have a look over this monstrosity for any obvious problems? (Moni, Ealdgyth etc that goes for you too—it has Anglo-Saxons and horses.) I've spent so much time with it that there may be glaringly obvious problems that are passing me by. I've asked the usual civil-engineering people (Redrose, DavidCane etc) to have a look, but it really needs someone with little prior knowledge to see if there's anything that readers won't understand.
Even though it makes the article longer, I've kept the de facto "Infrastructure" appendix at the end. I think it makes more sense using this arrangement; that way, the technical details don't swamp the article text itself. I'm reluctant to move it off to a subpage; any subpage would need an explanatory potted-history of the line to provide at least minimal context, and thus actually add to the overall length. (Anyone interested in one is likely to be interested in the other, so will end up reading the same material twice.) The section only adds 800 words to an article that's 10200 (!) words without it, so it's not having a significant impact on length. – iridescent22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
<talk page stalker> There is somthing surreal about having eight books in a "Further reading" section, on top of the seventeen books in the "Bibligraphy", for an article about a ten mile stretch of private train track in an isolated part of Bucks. A for effort, Iridescent :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to put that in perspective, this is one of 113 subpages to the main Metropolitan line article. (Admittedly, one of the longer ones thanks to the constant rebuilding and redesigning, but even so…) Although it may not look it, it's actually pared down quite tightly; it could easily have come in at 300kb. Because it's not very sexy (a hole in the ground is always going to be un-photogenic, compared to the sweeping curves of a Brunel liner or the fire-and-light of the Rainhill Trials) the Metropolitan Railway doesn't generally get the treatment it deserves as one of the most significant engineering projects in history; without it there'd be no London Underground, no New York City subway, no Paris Metro (that name isn't a coincidence…), and thus none of the 20th-century mega-cities. – iridescent08:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of someone questioning why I go nuts on the topics I do, Iri, goddamn that's a long article...on a train line! I'm generally unmoved by Anglo-Saxons and horses, so I'm assuming that carrot is for Ealdgyth. Has it any lesbian civil rights swamps? If I can get through it all, it will have to be extraordinary. I imagine it will be something like "Brill Tramway is a train stazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see the horses being an attraction to me, but folks really don't understand how much I dislike Anglo-Saxon studies if they think that's a carrot... Ealdgyth - Talk13:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It has burning cows, dead servant girls, two stately homes, a guy who ran up £100 million (in today's terms) on loose women and rigging elections, concerns that the tunnelling would break through into Hell (yes, really), railway station toilets and Queen Victoria in the bath. What's not to like? (In all seriousness, it really does need a read-through from at least one person who's not familiar with either the 19th-century English aristocracy nor the mechanics of railway design, to see if it all makes sense to the general reader.) – iridescent13:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
So from now on, if Iridescent spots one of my noms, I'm dead in the water? Still, I cannot help but be honest. I read the very interesting lead, and then only the first three and a half subsections of "Aylesbury Vale in the mid-19th century". I think I may be being unkind, but as I could not find any lesbian civil rights swamps, I decided to give the rest a miss, other than to look at the pictures. If I understand correctly, some dude (I mean Duke) with a long name, womanised his family fortune away, so his son, seeing other railways being built nearby, decided to build one of his own; the resulting Brill tramway became a model for underground railways worldwide. Sadly, we do not learn what the 2nd Duke with the long name died of; perhaps he died of Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis? My bad. I mean silicosis. Certainly A+ for effort --Senra (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The 2nd Duke died of dropsy (oedema in modern terminology) and the 3rd Duke died of diabetes. This article is Brill Tramway, not Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, and I don't intend to inflate an already long article with biographies of the people involved, beyond that needed to establish the background and motivations; that's why we have internal links. – iridescent14:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
My sincere apologies. My attempt at humour has failed. I was trying to indirectly point out that I felt the article, though exceedingly well written, diverges from the topic, by discussing the protagonists background in too much detail (in my opinion of course). I was also poking fun at the long names which I felt unnecessary. I certainly did not give the article justice as I only read the lead and three subsections. If I have hurt your feelings, that was certainly not intended, and I therefore unreservedly apologise. --Senra (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no offence taken. I don't see how you can consider the names "unnecessary"; their names were their names. They need to be written in full to disambiguate Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, Richard Plantagenet Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville and Richard Plantagenet Campbell Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, all of whom are involved; I only use the full name and title once for each, and from then on use "the 1st Duke", "the 2nd Duke" etc even though it violates Wikipedia policies. (The MOS was not written with people with 69-character names in mind.) – iridescent16:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite a piece of work. I've only been through about a third of it so far, I'll come back to it later. Just a few initial comments:
A few sentences start off with "It is known that ...", which seems redundant to me. If it wasn't known, then you wouldn't have written it.
The Times obituary says that the line was seven miles long, but the lead says six miles.
I'm really dubious about the Aylesbury Vale in the mid-19th century section. Can't really see what Brill being a Royalist stronghold severely damaged by the Roundheads has to do with a six-mile stretch of track. I guess the point being made here is that Brill is relatively cut off, but couldn't that point be made when describing the Duke's estate?
I've used "it is known that the rails were still in place in 1940" (etcetera) for those situations where nobody seems quite sure of exactly what happened when. (That is, "we don't know everything, but we do know this".) Not sure if there's a better alternative but feel free to remove them. Reworded to get rid of them
The length of the line is a "how long is the coast of Britain?" exercise in how closely one measures it, which is why I've tried to talk in vague generalities wherever possible. Quainton Road to Brill is exactly six miles (almost to the inch). The wiggles of the line made the track up to about seven miles in total. In addition, the spur off to Kingswood was 1 mile 57 chains (about 13⁄4 miles), and the assorted sidings opening and closing meant the total length of track varied between seven and ten miles.
Moni also raised the "royalist stronghold" point (see the talk page). What I'm trying to do is explain why this is an important enough town that when they lobbied the Duke for a railway station he took them seriously, but that having been wrecked in the Civil War it had declined and was by the 1800s small enough (and bypassed by the industrial revolution) that it was never going to generate enough traffic on its own to make the station pay. It also establishes why the people of the area seemed so peculiarly obsessed with bricks, which becomes important later on when the bricks being shipped from Brill to build the London–Manchester railway line rescue both the town and the railway, while sowing the seeds for the destruction of both the brickworks and the railway by bringing in competition from the North. – iridescent16:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(Note to self: must stop lurking)(Query: Is humour allowed on Wikipedia?) Gets popcorn out anyway --Senra (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that the phrase refers to a passenger carriage, not a locomotive, I believe that the decade concerned is being used as an adjective. Since "the Wotton Tramway's" is itself a possessive, it must possess something: if we have "the Wotton Tramway's 1870's passenger carriage", the year 1870 is possessed by the Wotton Tramway, which is a curious concept. If "1870's" is a possessive noun, why is "in 1969 a piece of the 1870s track was found in situ" valid? To me, this is a similar case: 1870s is an adjective. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Does it matter a damn whether it was a locomotive or a passenger carriage? The simple answer is that "in 1969 a piece of the 1870s track was found in situ" isn't valid, and if you care to look through this talk page's archives, you'll see that some have argued rather vehemently that 1870's would always be correct, never 1870s, and you'll often see that in even the most respectable of publications. Consider if the initial "Wotton's Tramway's" possesive wasn't there, how would that affect your argument? How could "1870s" ever be an adjective, according to your WP:DECADE link? In truth, I think the sentence ought to be rewritten to avoid the necessity for this discussion. Not exactly difficult to do. MalleusFatuorum23:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. This probably isn't your cup of tea, but I would appreciate it if you could find the time to have a look at Willie Irvine and tell me whether or not it's worth going through FAC. I just rewrote the whole article, so there might be a few grammatical errors, etc. Cheers, BigDom17:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be what my head keeps hitting. Bollocks to it, I'm off out to pedal some miles away. If I stayed on my computer I'd probably end up typing something extremely rude. Parrotof Doom19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Eagle FAC. "I oppose this article's promotion because it looks different, and even though I can't find anything that explicitly forbids the comics wikiproject's decision to italicise article titles, I'll still oppose anyway". My piss is boiling. Parrotof Doom19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about that. SandyG and Karanacs evaluate each oppose (and support) on its merits. It's FAC's role to determine whether or not an article meets the FA criteria, nothing more, nothing less. Opposes not related to the criteria are likely to be given they weight they deserve. MalleusFatuorum19:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well it seems sense may have prevailed, hopefully I won't be accused of canvassing but a couple of supports have been added, along with a "the opposes are baseless" comment. So I feel a bit better. Now to find the lardy-arsed Jaguar driver that overtook me just now with only 2 feet of space. Parrotof Doom20:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that you drive a Jag? Mind you I drive a lazy old E-class that's slowly turning to iron oxide. Parrotof Doom21:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
My lazy old XJS is starting to do the same, it's needed some welding the last two MOTs. Might have to resuscitate that MGB that's been stored in the garage for the past seven years ... MalleusFatuorum21:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to suspect Malleus is The Saint with his XJ-S, and Parrot is driving the E-Type that Jaguar turned down for a Volvo P1800 in the original series. The coincidences are too much to ignore. ;) – B.hotep •talk• 21:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Malleus is more of an Inspector Morse IMO. I tend towards TVRs personally, this was my previous steed but she cost me an utter fortune to run. Now I just cruise around in a big lazy 3.0TD. A new piano comes before a new car. Parrotof Doom21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I really, really, do hate opera, almost as much as I hate musicals. I understand that others don't share my loathing for incongruously daft songs that ruin what might otherwise be a decent play, and to be fair there are a couple of musicals that I can just about bear to watch. MalleusFatuorum23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, interesting. Do you have a date for that article? I knew that there had been earlier chimps' tea parties, but I didn't know that Consul took part in them. MalleusFatuorum00:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, you're not the first to miss that the clue's in the title on my newspaper article files :) BTW there's an interesting period piecehere; look at the advert for Camel Cigarettes being endorsed by sport stars! There is also a story on page 113 crowing about the great achievement of cutting down a 586 year old Douglas Fir. How politically incorrect would those two pieces be today? Richerman (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The other kids are starting to talk
Hi Malleus! I'd like to move up in the civility police, but I need more street cred to get to the next level. I'm hurt that you haven't insulted me yet, despite my being both an American and having many fine edits to my name, like this one. The other kids are starting to talk. I don't want to canvass you improperly here, but do you think you could just look in on my edits from time to time, in a general way, I mean? It would mean so much to me, and I could hold my head up a little higher on WQA if you were to find something you could respond to in good conscience. If it helps motivate you, let me just say that creating great articles isn't much use if you chase away all the other editors by telling them to fuck off. Eventually you'll run out of them, and you'll have to start chasing away people who come to Wikipedia just to read articles. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The lack of insight and plain old common sense that you civility warriors display is quite simply astonishing. Why not try and find somewhere else to play your silly games? It's possible that there's an editor who cares less about your advice than I do, but I'd be hard pressed to think of one. MalleusFatuorum16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
OhioStandard, the reason that people respect Malleus is not only for his exceptional writing capabilities, but for his candidness as well. Just to clarify. Now, he's asked you to leave him alone unless you intend to bring something constructive to say. I'd advise you to listen. ceranthor16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I think you've misunderstood entirely. An officer from one country's army is permitted to salute an officer he admires from that of another, I believe? But it's Malleus' page, and I haven't the least wish to impose myself as a guest. Best wishes to you both, then, I'll take my leave. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The Austro-Hungarian Empire had a navy? I mean, I get that naval races and colonization colonialism were all the rage in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, but when you are basically land-locked and your empire is splitting under nationalities issues, I wonder why they bothered. NW(Talk)16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Another thing to remember is that AH hated Italy. They were scared that without a navy, Italy would dominate the Adriatic and possibly take over the Austrian coastline. With that in mind, the AHN only built small, "dinky", "battleships" that were only half the size of other battleships of navies like Germany and France and Great Britain.--White ShadowsIt's a wonderful life16:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, there don't seem to be any witches, fairies, or instruments of torture in either of those articles, but as it's you I'll take a look anyway. Is it right, as the article says, that although the Wien was built at the Naval Arsenal in Pola, she was launched from the Stabilimento Tecnico Trietino shipyards? Seems strange. MalleusFatuorum17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I've done your Monarch class battleships, good luck at GAN. Let me know when you've finished with SMS Wien and I'll take a look at it. MalleusFatuorum18:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just feeling in a light-hearted mood, no deep meaning. I'm often asked to look through articles that in all honesty I have no interest in whatsoever, but I try to do it as cheerfully as I can. MalleusFatuorum23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I think either I've misworded what I said (and that's likely) or you've misread it. In either case, I've attempted to clarify with an addendum to the question. Please let me know if I can elaborate on anything. --j⚛e deckertalk14:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know you, I have no grudge, and my response was intended only to clarify. If you and other editors have read what I've written and somehow believe I have any interest in blocking at all, particularly for something that minor, then I have grossly miscommunicated, and I wished to apologize and clarify becuse that was the right thing to do. I've said my peace now, I don't expect you to believe my clarification, but at least I've made the attempt. I'm serious about being willing to talk out any points my answer may have raised, should you be interested in the future. --j⚛e deckertalk14:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I never said that I didn't believe you, but all your clarification has done is to confirm me in my belief that you fundamentally misunderstand NPA. Some people can take offence at anything, but that doesn't make it a personal attack. Neither is everything that has negative connotations a personal attack, at least not unless you live in la-la land. I was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic", and the last thing I want to see is even more administrators embarking on similar childish civility crusades with their block buttons set to stun. MalleusFatuorum15:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough that this is important to you. It's possible that I am miswikilawyering NPA, and I meant no harm by personal attack. My intent was to point out was that from what I know from the RfA quesiton such a block would be "enormously disproportionate," and that keeps on feeling lost in our discussion. To get from that statement to an idea that I'm going to go on some crusade, in an area I've expressed disinterest in, and never shown interest in, seems a huge stretch from where I'm sitting, but I realize you don't know me, and as you have been blocked under those circumstances, well, in your shoes I'd be pretty upset and cautious too. I understand this is contentuous, thank you for putting up with the rest of the discussion. I sincerely hope our future interactions can be a little less strained, this RfA has been pretty stressful for me. Have a great weekend. --j⚛e deckertalk16:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I know exactly how stressful RfA week can be, having suffered it myself. I'm sure you'll pass though, despite my view on the ludicrous civility police and your apparent lack of common sense over "wannabe". I do however sincerely hope that you will not be joining wikipedia's guardians-of-the-law-as-I-see-it-so long-as-it-doesn't-apply-to-me when you're awarded that magical mop. There's no need to explain yourself to me, or to court my opinion, because very few give a damn what I think. MalleusFatuorum17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm finding it extraordinarily difficult to find out exactly who his parents were, and when he was converted. Fraser and Haynes ignore the issue, so I suspect they may have also struggled. Other than that I think its a reasonable stab. I might start on some of the other plotters, Bates should be a quick and easy job. Parrotof Doom19:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That "bloke" who does bishops is actually a foxy lady and a professional photographer. Well, to be honest I don't know whether she's foxy or not, and I don't much care either way, but in my mind she's a fox. MalleusFatuorum21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Having looked at that again, I'm wondering if it's perhaps block worthy. I made a personal comment about another editor that (s)he may possibly be offended by. Mea culpa. MalleusFatuorum21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That's just my Lancastrian proclivity to presume that anyone who does anything worthy must be a "bloke". A result of my flawed upbringing :( Parrotof Doom21:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
So I go into the article history to admire my name scrawled over and over again, and what comes of it? You. You you you you you. I've never been stalked by a copyeditor before :O Nice work fixing my, er, lesser inconsistencies. Cheers, ResMar03:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: If you don't remember me I'm the Ferdinandea guy from waaay back.
Both really. The whole {{Okina}} deal is a native accentation. I don't like it that much altogethor, but people come around and edit it in through and through so might as well stay proper. Ok I'll fix it. ResMar14:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe they are indeed as daft. They are in fact as daft as each other. I know a few in either category.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Gunpowder template
I've been mucking around with a template for the Gunpowder Plot articles, and wondered if you could advise on entries, etc? Also, do you know how to make a big "Gunpowder Plot" title at the top, and the "Robert Catesby" field slightly smaller? Parrotof Doom17:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually it looks ok there I think. Any ideas on further entries? "Conspirator number", "Converted on", that kind of thing? Parrotof Doom18:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't think of any further entries that might be useful; perhaps as we look at the other conspirators something will pop up. MalleusFatuorum19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I added a capture field, I don't know if anything fancy can be done with dates and things so people can see how long each plotter was a member for. I don't want a huge long box full of useless facts and figures, just the important bits really. I'm beginning to wonder if orange is a good colour, considering the N.Ireland thing, but IIRC the Parliament.UK website used orange. Parrotof Doom19:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As you don't object, I think I'll change it then, as those colours look just a little more subtle to me.
PS. Don't tell J3Mrs, but I'm just about ready to nominate Belle Vue at FAC. It's such a convoluted story that whole articles could be written on just one aspect of the gardens. For instance, a book's been written just on the bloody firework displays. MalleusFatuorum20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read any of it, but I am slightly struck by the number of headings at the bottom. I think that'll get mentioned, especially as Rugby and Bowling have only six sentences between them. I'm sure its generally excellent though. Parrotof Doom20:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I must admit that's kind of bothering me as well. I originally thought there might be more to say about some of those sports. MalleusFatuorum20:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The Jennison image can be seen here,[24] it's taken from a family photograph held by Manchester City Council Image Archives. If that's any help.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It does indeed look like it's been cropped from that family portrait. My understanding is that the current licence doesn't work because the photographer is unknown in the sense that Eccobola used that term, i.e., the source simply fails to mention the photographer, rather than says (s)he's unknown. I think that's perhaps an overly strict interpretation of "unknown", but we therefore have to establish a publication date before 1923, which under US copyright law would put the photograph in the public domain, although not here in the UK. On the other hand I could have completely misunderstood ... I feel the will to live slowly ebbing away. MalleusFatuorum01:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, "reasonable inquiry" is the actual requirement in UK law, not an interpretation - strict or otherwise. It's the idea, for example, that I may not personally know the architect of the Petronas Towers, but that doesn't mean someone somewhere doesn't know. So, a book failing to credit an author doesn't necessarily mean the author isn't known. There is, I think, sound logic in the notion that one ought not to declare "unknown!" without first putting forth a reasonable effort to find out. For what it's worth, I find this stuff to be soul-sucking too. Эlcobbolatalk01:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not complaining about your oppose Elcobbola, I expected it to be honest. I inherited these images from the (now banned) editor who did the heavy lifting on this article, and I couldn't find it in me to remove them. Which is what I think will have to be done with most of them. Speaking of which, I've just realised that I didn't include him as a co-nominator. MalleusFatuorum01:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks Malleus! Getting it promoted has really invigorated me. At one point I never thought we'd get there, but I'm delighted we finally did. Cheers for helping out. Tom (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have disabled email access to my account
I've recently started to receive abusive emails from a few editors I've never heard of, in an apparent attempt to chase me away from wikipedia, which I find I can really do without. For those who already have my email address, it still works; for those who don't, just ask and I'll email it to you. Or if I don't know you from Adam, then I won't. MalleusFatuorum03:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, if they are using the Wikimedia interface (the "email this user" process) to send you threatening or harassing emails, please do let us know; that is a pretty serious offense, and I would have no hesitation to sanction a user for such behaviour. Using the resources of Wikipedia to harass someone is beyond the pale. If you would like to send those emails to me, click email this user at my page and I'll respond forthwith so you have my direct email address (I'm one of the few arbs who does not publish her email address onwiki), or you can email them to any of the other arbitrators at WP:AC, who have their email addresses published. Risker (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Why would I bother to do that? The most likely outcome would be that I'd be sanctioned for having encouraged it by my "incivility". I haven't looked at them very closely as yet, as I'm struggling to clear a backlog of emails. From my very quick look through so far I think one of them is also rather critical of you (Moni3), and in particular your recent unblocking of me, which is what I guess kicked the whole thing off. I'm just not in a frame of mind to be bothered with it right now though, and even less with ArbCom. I do appreciate your offer nevertheless Risker. MalleusFatuorum03:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not shocked that someone is critical of me, but you know--are their fingers broken? Clearly not, so they can find their way to my talk page, which is the appropriate venue to complain about my actions. Otherwise, if you have not initiated a correspondence by emailing these folks first, send the ones you find troublesome to an arb. They're here to protect you just as much as they are to muzzle your filthy mouth. --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I really do think they should be forwarded to Arbcomm. If they're allowed to get away with harassing you via e-mail, who's to say they won't do it to someone else? Nev1 (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Very shocking and cowardly to do it via email where no one else can see. I really think you need to forward the details to arbcom so that the perpetrators can be dealt with. Aiken♫12:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The mind boggles at the sheer idiocy of people who take this place so seriously they feel they have to abuse people privately to gain some sort of satisfaction. Parrotof Doom14:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hemming's is almost clear...
So it's that time again... Miss Meyers or Ralph d'Escures or Walter de Coutances or Alexander of Lincoln or William de Corbeil? That's ... a racemare, two archbishops of Canterbury, an archbishop of Rouen, and a bishop of Lincoln. I'm slowly getting back into the swing of editing, somewhat hampered by attempting to get a manuscript into shape to send off to a publisher on a lark, to see if it's worth publishing. The stepdaughter's here too, which isn't helping my writing schedule at all! Ealdgyth - Talk12:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Miss Meyers is pretty much expanded as much as she can be, there just isn't that much more to mine on her. Ralph and William are pretty close to the same boat, they aren't *that* important in the grand scheme of things. Walter and Alexander are certainly "meatier" than the other two ecclesiastics, and that's certainly an argument for either of them. Alexander's part of a potential featured topic on the family of Roger of Salisbury that I have in mind... Ealdgyth - Talk14:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
All due to your copyediting, I'm sure. I won't say it was pain free to write (manuscript studies could put a hyperactive dalmatian dog to sleep) though... Ealdgyth - Talk14:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
As you're generally one of our two guardians of spelling-and-grammar (I'm also asking Tony the same question), can I get your opinion on this mess? (In a nutshell, someone demanding we use the American spelling "jail" even in British-English, to avoid confusing American-English speakers to whom "gaol" will be unfamiliar.) Someone is obviously being unreasonable, but I'm not 100% certain which of us it is. – iridescent16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
