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.
Thanks for fixing up stuff and the GA listing. I would have responded to the review and done the fixing, but I didn't know that a review had been posted. Apparently, those reviews don't appear on your watchlist if you watchlist the article (or perhaps I just missed it). Anyway, much thanks! I'll fix the other stuff you mentioned in your review as well. LK (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
They should show up on your watchlist as the review gets transcluded to the article's talk page. Anyway, no harm done. It's a nice piece of work. MalleusFatuorum11:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
(Had to have that title for Moni and Sandy..) and I'm in a quandry. Which article do I bother you to copyedit for me? The choices are:
Alexander of Lincoln aka Alexander the Magnificant. Bishop of Lincoln, known for getting into a quarrel with the king and for his high living. Also the guy who started the architectural work on the west front of Lincoln Cathedral, which I must admit is stunning.
Walter de Coutances another bishop of Lincoln, but only for a very short while .. this one becomes Archbishop of Rouen, which would be a first FA for a Norman archbishop. Nev1 likes him because he's the guy that King Richard I swindled the land on which he built Chateau-Gaillard
William Warelwast - a bishop of Exeter, we haven't seen one of those at FAC yet. He's heavily involved in being mean to Anselm of Canterbury, something that endears me to him.
Robert Burnell - going into a later time period, tried to be ABC, but didn't make it, had to settle for being King Edward I's main administrative man and a good family man, even if he was a bishop.
Deusdedit of Canterbury - obscure and going into the early ASE time frame, which we haven't had in a bit. He's the first non-Italian ABC... and has the distinction of hitting GA before the DYK nom ran on the front page
Jersey Act - this one you'd have to help with research on. It needs a bit more ... English/British reaction to it, but you gotta like an "Act" that wasn't a piece of legislation, and one that backfired so spectacularly on the people who put it forward.
These are ... close, but I think I need to run them through PR and past Deacon just to be sure they are comprehensive and make sense to both non-experts and experts:
Liudhard medalet This one needs to go past Johnbod before nomination.
So many choices, so little time. Just got word today that the stepdaughter is coming here to live with us since she's having "Issues" with her mother. Wonderful. Ealdgyth - Talk15:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I like Walter de Coutances and Jersey Act, but as my last choice wasn't a spectacular success I think you better pick one this time. MalleusFatuorum15:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I honestly like Jersey Act too, and my main sticking point is I just can't get the "contempary Brit" take on it, all my sources here are US-centric. Ealdgyth - Talk15:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Might as well see what the TPSs think too. Nothing will get nominated before next week at the very earliest. Art fair+stepdaugher+deadline at other job=Busy Ealdgyth. Ealdgyth - Talk15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, I wonder if you'd be prepared to look at this FAC, which has languished almost commentless until I weighed in this morning? It seems a pity that such an interesting article should be virtually ignored. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I did a little bit of work on that, although perhaps not enough to invalidate my "vote". It is indeed an interesting article and of course I'll look through it again. MalleusFatuorum11:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, well I've commented at the FAC, but I've got a feeling that this one may go the same way as the previous two. I've discussed what I see as the basic problem with the nominator before; as I expect you know, this was largely written by the now-banned Ottava, and NocturneNoir is perhaps understandably reluctant to make too many changes, but I've always felt that the article needs the judicious application of a scalpel. MalleusFatuorum17:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Your comment at RFA talk
"Or at least it's seemed that way to me since one administrator threatened to ban me from reviewing GAs..." I'm curious, can you tell me what happened there? AikenDrum23:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I thought it odd to say the least, you're hardly someone I'd consider to be disruptive to that particular process. AikenDrum23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. Then can you fix this sentence? "Redfish and Trout mainly lived in the lake until the construction of the levee, which brought the populations down. A large amount of silt is now diverted to the Lake, which has negatively affected the delta ecosystem." MalleusFatuorum03:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Non-USA may find "embankment" easier than "levee".
It's easy to see what happened, but I couldn't find sources - there are dozens of Green Lakes in USA:
Silt runs offs that "fertile soil" in the lake.
It makes the bottom anoxic and the top level overloaded with nutrients.
Cyanobacteria handle these conditions better than any else can do - cyanobacteria have lived these conditions for at least 2.4 billion years.
And they produce a green or green-blue tint.
I can probably find cites for the general mechanisms ("Silt runs offs ... green or green-blue tint"), but not for this Green Lake. --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll take another look through it later. One (probably) final thing: "... which ultimately found that dried areas of the lake belonged to the game, fish and oyster commission, and could not be sold." Is "game, fish and oyster commission" the name of an official body? If so, it needs to be capitalised. MalleusFatuorum17:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malleus; just a reminder that you're it this weekend. Are you still available to do the judging, Saturday or not too late Sunday, UTC? There's a good number. I need to say as a formality, please disregard your own nominations (but you'd have assumed that anyway). Tony(talk)04:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You need to write an article on that and let me get my claws into it at GAN or FAC. On the other hand perhaps not; you may not survive the experience. MalleusFatuorum23:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I thank you for taking the time to copyedit Battle of Quebec (1775) -- my ability to generate truly high-end prose has its limits, and I appreciate your contribution. I want to quibble over the removal of the word "liberating". User:EnigmaMcmxc also asked about this in the FAC -- the American propaganda story was one of planned liberation, and I think the language here should reflect this. As I said to Enigma, I can make it more explicit that this is what the colonists claimed they were doing. Magic♪piano21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a delicate subject, particularly as you're talking to a Brit here; from my perspective it was no liberation attempt. The article needs to take a neutral stance on whether it was a liberation or an invasion, but I can see no objection to you adding something to the effect the Americans believed that they were trying to liberate Quebec (although from what I'm not quite sure, as most of the Canadiens seemed quite content with their lot).
PS. My ability to generate that elusive "high-end prose" has its limits as well, as I'm sure Tony1 would be happy to point out to you. :-) MalleusFatuorum21:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I (a 2nd-generation American, no Brit lineage) don't think it was a "liberation" either. I'll add back a sentence or two on Montgomery's propagandizsing. Magic♪piano21:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to the popular opinion here on wikipedia both "propagandising" and "propagandizing" are correct in Br English. It's in the words ending in "-ence", "-our", or "-tre" that we tend to differ. MalleusFatuorum21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That's true, and the same applies to Hellenization and Romanization, as I discovered recently when looking over an article whose name I now forget ... they all seem to merge into a grey goo in my mind. As the old joke goes, you lose three things as you get older: your hair, your teeth, ... and I've forgotten what the third thing is. MalleusFatuorum22:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Here on wikipedia I'm often reminded of an old song by Tennessee Ernie Ford, "Sixteen Tons", one line from which in particular I think applies to you: "If you see me comin' better step aside, a lotta men didn't, a lotta men died." So you don't scare me. Much. :lol: MalleusFatuorum23:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This is so exciting
Learning how to create articles within wikipedia is so exciting. I may not have the language skills that many visitors to this page have; nor am I as well read. I am however really enjoying the quest for knowledge that results from researching for articles; from time-travelling-horses (erm, Freudian slip there) to town-based-riots that appear not to have even started at the said town!
I went to the library today and picked up five books, all about the riots. All the books bar one discuss the riots as starting at Littleport, whilst Goulden (2008) pp.21–36 has rioting in the first months of 1816 in West Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire; in early May in Bury, Brandon, Hockwold, Feltwell and Norwich; finally, a meeting was held on 16 May in Downham before reaching Littleport via Hilgay and Southery on the 22 May by which time the crowd had grown even bigger. The rioter who was shot dead (not yet in the article) in Littleport by a dragoon (on the orders of Sir Henry Dudley via Major Sir John Byng) was from Downham! The point is, if I can source and write this properly, keeping it balanced, there is a bigger tale to tell here than just five jobless and poor Napoleonic war veterans being hanged by a government lacky of a chief Justice of the Isle of Ely (Edward Christian, yes Fletchers brother!). Is there anyone not bored yet who would like to help? Erm, it is in early draft form at the moment but I am finding it fascinating --Senra (Talk) 20:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like an interesting article. There's so much almost forgotten history that needs to be told. I've been looking for ages on something about a "war" that apparently broke out between two towns very close to me some time in the 18th or 19th century, but with very little success so far. MalleusFatuorum20:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Well it's not Lancashire vs Yorkshire nor can it be Wigan vs erm the country and neither were 18th– 19th–century so it has me stumped
Heh. At this point, I'm just going to give up ... it's insane. I HAD thought I'd start working on the article, since I got a couple of books in, but... if I have to spend the whole time fighting that, I'll just give up and a (very important) article can languish. And folks wonder why our "high profile" articles don't get work... Ealdgyth - Talk23:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of articles I've just walked away from or ignored because of nonsense like that. There's really nothing else you can do. MalleusFatuorum23:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Butting in - Ealdgyth, would you at all be interested in adding to the Catholic Church the information about Pope Gregory I. I think Karanacs and I are about to land in the 5th or 6th centuries, but it's been slow going. Since you have sources and knowledge how about throwing in a few sentences? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not touching the CC article with a ten foot pole. Sorry. The atmosphere there is just poisonous and I don't care to join in. Ealdgyth - Talk00:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
By a curious coincidence I've just been watching a BBC programme called How to read churches, discussing Gregory's (very wise) decision to allow the integration of earlier pagan traditions into church building. MalleusFatuorum02:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Sore throat cure
The John Griffin collection is strange but true! More strictly, it is not his collection, but what his housekeeper did with it. Anyway, thank Charles Mathews — "Griffith, John (GRFT791J)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge. --Senra (Talk) 23:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I guess my copyedit skills are more tuned to mathematical articles than biographies. Do you suggest I delist it? At this point I think it best to leave it up and get the most input before I try for the fourth time 8-) -- Avi (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
My ignorance of 18th-century American jurispridence is almost as great as my ignorance of horses, but I found this a little confusing: "In 1704, Sherwood got into a fight with Luke Hill's wife Elizabeth. Sherwood sued the Hills for assault and battery and was awarded fifty pounds sterling." I don't believe that 18th-century English ladies would have been able to take out court cases, as they were basically their husband's property, so was it her husband who initiated this case? MalleusFatuorum23:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The article said her husband died in 1701 and the fight was in 1704, so (unless she remarried) she would have presumably have owned the farm. In colonial Virginia, property-owning women had the same theoretical legal rights as men; see Margaret Brent for the most famous example. – iridescent23:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
See? I told you that my my knowledge of 18th-century American jurispridence was almost non-existent; what I hadn't realised was that so is my ability to read. MalleusFatuorum00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I feel a little intimidated by the presence of an ArbCom member, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, sysop on my talk page, so if I appear a little nervous then please forgive me. ;-) MalleusFatuorum02:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
HEHE on you 02:36 post. We're here to help make a nice article, not use my bits ;-) I'll look over these comments tonight. Meanwhile, pls see my talk page for questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
How about reading about a Malaysian cartoonist named Lat?
Hail Malleus. Lat is a Malaysian who earned the title of datuk (equivalent to a knighthood) for drawing cartoons. His early influences were The Beano and The Dandy. I am planning to bring this to FAC in a few weeks (but not before it is polished to an acceptable quality); BrianBoulton has just given it a copy-edit. I would appreciate it if you could cast your critical eye on this article and see if it can be improved further. Its peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lat/archive1. Jappalang (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malleus! Thank you for your efforts at Andalusian horse - as always, they significantly improved the prose of the article. I've nominated it for FAC, if you have any last minute comments or suggestions. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
What about the article's structure is a problem? Is it the myth and reality sections? This is a very weird article to do - I'm not really sure of the best way to structure it. Please tell me in case I take it to GAN again. ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 04:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's an article on another legend that may give you some ideas, although it's by no means finished yet. The article needs to tell us about the history of the legend; it seems to be of relatively recent origin, so where was it first reported, and by whom? The present article also rather uncomfortably merges myth with reality. For instance, the second paragraph of the Myth section tells us that "No one has ever passed the fifth gate, but if they passed all seven, they would go directly to hell", as if that's true. How could anyone have passed through a fifth gate anyway, as there's apparently only one gate? Or is there? What's the source of this legend? Are there accounts from people who claim to have seen these gates? Basically you need to do a bit more digging into this legend. MalleusFatuorum13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
A couple days ago I came across an article on the Green children and remembered the wiki article. I noticed that just Cavila just added to the further reading section; we must visit some of the same webpages! I can email you the pdf if you like to read it (if you haven't read it already).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, given the amount of requests on your page I hesitate to ask you - but - I've given Pound another scrubbing. I'll be away from editing for some days, and would be grateful if you were to hack away at it again. Also, grateful for any comments you might have as far as achieving flow. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User:NuclearWarfare made Grace Sherwood the lead hook in DYK prep area 2 (YEAH!) on this page: Template:Did you know/Queue. In about 7 hours it should get moved to a queue and then we'll know exactly when it'll appear on the main page. It's a double hook with her hometown of Pungo, Virginia (my first double dyk hook). I've started on the suggestions, please see my edits on her page from 00:01 8 Sep onward. I still have stuff to add to the "cultural background" section. Feel free to help improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see that you haven't walked away because of that ridiculous ergot hypothesis. Let me know when you think you're done, and I'll be happy to take another look. MalleusFatuorum23:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Ergot may cause hallucinations, but I agree with you that it is clearly not applicable in Sherwood's case. I'll let you know when I'm done, maybe even tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
A thought occurs to me ... maybe the difference between youse with all the bits and us plebs without any is that we plebs don't walk away from a fight. Just a thought. ;-) MalleusFatuorum00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that the social and cultural context is crucial for these witchcraft trials, otherwise they make no sense to a modern mind. It's getting late here now though, so I won't be along until tomorrow. MalleusFatuorum01:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
If you could give this one more copyedit, especially the cultural background section, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I understand you're into witches, witchcraft and other weird forms of hysteria, so I thought you might like to help me with this article. Not witches, but definitely something bizarre from around the same sort of period. I'd like to take it to FA status - what do you think of it? Aiken (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
with your hangman... did we ever settle on something interesting for my next effort? I'm going to be busy this weekend (broom corn festival, I kid you not) and next weekend (art festival) but should be much more accessible after that. I'd love to do Jersey Act, but I don't have access to the English sources that (may or may not) exist. Ealdgyth - Talk20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Eald. Were you going to work on Lady Godiva, as I recently saw? Cracked has a thing about her. Not that Cracked is reliable by any stretch. They recently bungled a blurb about the Stonewall riots pretty big, but they're usually entertaining. --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a scout around for any English sources I can find for Jersey Act. The Times archive might be a good place to start ... failing that pick a bishop, any bishop. :-) MalleusFatuorum20:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Roy
LOL, same here - I've never actually read it, in fact, I'd never heard of it before I saw the Wikipedia article. :) Can't say what drove me to keep trying it at TFA/R, but glad my persistence paid off! BOZ (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Musings
I realise that the modus operandi on wikipedia is to suck contributors dry and then to spit them out, but I appear to be still here; perhaps there's more to me than administrators like Beeblebrox and his pals realise. Pretty much every day I help with an article I had no previous involvement with and have no particular interest in, just because I like to see good articles. Of my now almost 87,000 contributions to this project almost none could be considered abusive even to the most rabid of the civility police, yet I am painted as a bad 'un because some silly kid took offence to my use of the word "sycophantic", or was upset by a naughty word.
There's a dichotomy and a schism here between the contributors and the police that I have a great deal of trouble in reconciling. Not sure where that will lead, but I sure hope that the police don't win. MalleusFatuorum22:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
AWB
[1] Actually, AWB allows (and strongly encourages) manually reviewing such changes. It can't be a simple possessive; that would make it "the era of 1980". A plural possessive maybe, but a Google Books search doesn't show "1980s' era". I probably should have made it "1980s-era" with a hyphen, as a compound adjective. Art LaPella (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I used the Google Books search to dismiss the alternative of "1980s'", a plural possessive. Google Books searches are useful for determining what the prevailing style is. You haven't addressed "the era of 1980", so I don't think we're going to agree anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
We're not going to agree, no, particularly as you seem to misunderstand your own "era of 1980" argument. Does "of" not suggest a possessive to you? MalleusFatuorum00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not recast it to "gathering together a number of Roy of the Rovers stories from the 1980s" (or "from around 1980") to get round this impasse, and so I can understand which is meant? (I thought you were both making equally valid points.) Occuli (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom's done some stuff with Rowlandson so might be able to help. I noticed a couple of Rowlandson's pictures of visitors to the Royal Menagerie when I was putting together the article on the Tower of London. Apparently I decided not to use them, although it's likelier I simply forgot until now. Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't even know that Wikigallery existed, but for out of copyright works of art like that all you have to do is to upload them to Commons and stick a {{PD-Art}} licence on them. The source would then obviously be Wikigallery. Don't just take my word for it though, with luck a more knowledgeable image person will be along soon ... I find the whole image licensing morass to be an excellent cure for insomnia. MalleusFatuorum18:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There's plenty of Rowlandson images on commons already. I periodically add a bit to this, someday I'll finish it. I'm really only doing it so I can try and get genitalia on the main page. Parrotof Doom18:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure it's all that interesting, but it was a significant cultural influence on several generations of football fans, so it needed to be done. MalleusFatuorum00:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, congrats on that. Pity it wasn't selected for World Cup Final day, which I believe was the intention at one stage. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It'll be fine this time. You need to keep looking at even the smallest details though; I've just noticed that the citations following this sentence "Governor of Virginia Timothy Kaine officially pardoned Sherwood on July 10, 2006, the 300th anniversary of her conviction" aren't in ascending order for instance. FAs aren't expected to be perfect, but they're expected to be about as perfect as we mere mortals can achieve. MalleusFatuorum20:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I answered your jury question on my talk. Yea, refs out of sequence are a peeve of mine. I've fixed them a few times but copy editing changes the number they get. I keep checking and fixing this as we improve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this edit. I didn't capitalize witch there because "of Pungo" applies to mayor and first lady too. Or should all three honorary positions be capitalized? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll give you my pitch. You capitalised "Witch of Pungo" in the lead, so it looks strange not to capitalise it later in the article. So far as "mayor" and "first lady" are concerned, they obviously ought not to be capitalised, because they're not proper nouns. Obviously though if Tony1 chips in on your side then I'll buckle and agree that you're right. Maybe. MalleusFatuorum23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Tony is an Australian, possibly of criminal stock, whose family may have been transported to the country with the highest number of venomous species on our planet as some kind of a punishment. Personally I'd love to have been transported; it beats getting rained on every &*%$*( day. MalleusFatuorum23:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That comment about Tony is HILARIOUS! Lots of people have been looking at and improving the article and that's awesome, but I'm surprised there have been so few comments - and no votes, at the FAC page. Meanwhile I'll keep my fingers crossed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I was asked at another Internet site by a British dude what my forebears were convicted of. My answer: "sodomy". That put him in his place. Tony(talk)13:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. For the past month or so I've been improving upon 1949 Ambato earthquake. Recently it was designated a good article, and since then I've been expanding the relevant sections on the article and added two more. I think it's now comprehensive and so I intend to tighten the prose (which needs a good deal of work) to get it ready for FAC. Are you interested? ceranthor13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
There must be some mistake; it's not my birthday until January. ;-) I haven't finished yet, so don't rush off to FAC. I'll very likely have a few questions for you as well. MalleusFatuorum19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Let me share something with you ceranthor. Whenever an admnistrator pops up here my knee-jerk reaction is to say "fuck off". I have no great interest in this earthquake, but there's an old one in Manchester that you might be able to help me with one day. ;-) MalleusFatuorum00:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks promising, but someone else can stick their head above the parapet next year and get called a sexist, racist, animal abuser or whatever. MalleusFatuorum14:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
TFA request of Ayumi Hamasaki
Hello, I just changed the nomination date for the featured article Ayumi Hamasaki to October 1, and I would like you to reconsider the request. Thanks you. mx3話20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
We've allowed one day moves to avoid conflicts in the past. Plus Oct 2 in Japan is Oct 1 on the other side of the International Date Line.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments at FAC. I especially appreciate your efforts to copyed it yourself. I wonder if you go could a little furtherhelp me address the problems you identify. Your comments about the tenses in the Synopsis is beyond my perception -- perhaps I have stared at the text for so long. I would appreciate your further collaboration. The JPStalk to me21:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see this as an FA, but my overall feeling is that it's a little bit thin in places, and definitely a bit too weepy. Take a look at and compare it with this episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer for instance. Even in the lead caption it says "Victor Meldrew's hand and cap in the gutter after being knocked over." I wasn't his hand and cap that were "knocked over", it was him. MalleusFatuorum21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think that's an actionable objection. This FAC sees the conclusion of my work on this article. I've put in far too much time to something that I'm not paid for or will enhance my CV. It's up to you -- if you think Wikipedia will be better if you help, then great. If not, it will stay like that. The JPStalk to me22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Think what you like, and let's see whether your FAC nomination sinks or swims. I could well be wrong, wouldn't be the first or last time. MalleusFatuorum22:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
...this userbox. I offer it in the spirit of admiration and good humor. I made it some time ago after you and I had an exchange; your recent RfA comment prompted me to share it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I really should learn to keep my mouth shut I know, but I can't be arsed. I think that the wikipedia way is shite, and I look forward to wikipedia mark II. MalleusFatuorum23:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know when that would happen, unless there's a slow evolution to something completely different. What would you change? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It ought to happen fairly soon I'd hope. Changes like those needed here don't happen slowly, they happen suddenly. Once the number of at least decent articles meets some critical mass then the crap can surely be left behind. MalleusFatuorum00:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Witchcraft thesis
You would probably really enjoy this. It talks about the causes of witchcraft in England and the American colonies, how they were different and why, etc. Quite fascinating. Ucucha put this on the FAC page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure she could "fake" British spelling, but there's that whole business about the "neighbor" who edited Venezuela film articles. Anyway, I'm done, and wasted a heck of a lot of time there anyway, and all the other socks eventually outed themselves with no help from me. I coulda reviewed a dozen FACs in the time I spent there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It was a sad episode. I never want to see any talented editor banned, but maybe I'm biased, as I know that many would like to see me walking that ArbCom plank as well. MalleusFatuorum01:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, Malleus, I sometimes think you overestimate your detractors, and underestimate your friends. One of these days, I should nom you at RFA just to see who's right :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Malleus would fail in a heartbeat to be honest. There are just too many people who would oppose. Though there would also be a fair share of supports. He's just disconnected himself from the "in crowd" too much.....--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine01:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I discussed this with Iridescent and a few others a little while ago, when I was contemplating a wikisuicide bid. My idea was that if you oppose me then you're just a piece of shit and the world needs to see how corrupt wikipedia has become. For better or for worse I was dissuaded. MalleusFatuorum01:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I occasionally thought of "doing a Nev" and re-submitting myself, just to gauge how big an "I can't find anything wrong in your history but I just don't like you" torch-and-pitchfork wielding mob can get. MZM thoughtfully performed that experiment for me. – iridescent01:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was one of the many editors who opposed MZM and rightfully so. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I will not get "fooled" again. That's exactly why I opposed and will never support a subsequent nomination. You're comparing apples and oranges Iridescent. Malleus is actually a benefit to the project, MZM is turning more into a troll and a liability than being "mellowed out a bit" like he advertised himself as in that last RFA.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine02:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see an article on a 19th-century riot, but if you don't mind me saying so I think you've gone way overboard on the details of the trial. MalleusFatuorum21:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind at all. It was one of those "I have started so I will finish" things. It wasn't until it was done that I realised the same thing myself. It will get cut :) --Senra (Talk) 22:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Consider dumping that information onto the talk page for reference instead of leaving it in a collapse box. The box seems thoroughly unnatural in the prose of such an article. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭00:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Kea needs an expert copyeditor (dun duh duh dun!)
Mauna Kea is in shape, worked out everything and now it just needs a good copyeditor before a run at FAC. I left a note on your page a week ago, but I assume you missed it...? Anywho, would you mind :) ResMar22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting that one, and if you can see any way to improve it please do—I'm being a complete hypocrite (since I often rail against others doing it) and hot-housing it through to try to get the set complete before the 75th anniversary. I'm painfully aware that it's four times longer than any of its sisters, but (per my comments at FAC) I can't see obvious scope for shortening it; if the background isn't given there, readers will have to wade through the twin nightmares of Brill Tramway and Metropolitan Railway to understand the context. (MR isn't so long now, but DavidCane and I both have our eyes on it. – iridescent15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I had another look through earlier and made a couple of minor tweaks, but it looks fine to me. Like you, I don't agree with Fifelfoo's approach to present-day equivalent value, which is a discussion I've had with him on a couple occasions already. Must dash, I've got another hangman to write – only 13 to go now. :lol: MalleusFatuorum16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess you were right
Princess Charlotte of Wales made it through, and not one word was said about the "very fond of fucking" quote. Trying to decide if it is a case of broken clocks being correct on a regular basis, or if you really have something there! Is this now the only FA that can't be read on television?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Erm, driving-by; I must not lurk; I will not lurk; Oh sod it, I had to comment on the above post. Some of the artist Thomas Rowlandson's works might well be the most appropriately graphic graphics for that article. Consider this one for example :) --Senra (Talk) 19:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Gropecunt Lane is an article about a real place, which still exists and is photographable. There's nothing in the notes attached to that Rowlandson drawing to suggest that it depicts Gropecunt Lane, as opposed to generic cunt-groping. – iridescent19:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take a look. The general lack of reviews (not just at FAC) is a bit of a concern, and a disappointment for nominators. MalleusFatuorum11:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Out is out
thanks for the comment. when i log out i'm gone. I changed my password to random characters and won't be able to come back in. personal or not, it's disheartening that editors keep coming to me to take admin-like action without the tools to help them. the last comment is particularly disgusting about how "we need more constructive editors on here" seeming to imply i'm not even worthy of being a fucking editor. i work and work to try to mediate in talk space disputes i get the whole needs more mainspace editing shit can. fine. as if every single one of these people has a well balanced editing record. beyond that i see admins at ANI blatantly using works like ass and fuck and saying acceptable when you know damn well it would get a regular piss ant editor shit canned in no time. fuck this dog and pony show. i'm too old to waste more of my life playing referee to a bunch of whining bitchy little petty editors to be not taken seriously for the effort. to hell with it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Take some time to think about it. I've been through two failed RfAs, so I've got a pretty good idea of how under-valued you're feeling right now. Look at it this way; who in their right mind would want to be an administrator anyway? MalleusFatuorum18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The hurt that Torchwoodwho is feeling isn't to be laughed at. I expect that like me he just wanted to help out a bit here and there, and like me he was found to be wanting. Given all of the incompetent and childish administrators that there are on here it can be a bitter pill to swallow. From his point of view it's a shame that he left with that outburst, otherwise he'd very likely have been promoted to janitor next time around. Unlike me, he doesn't appear to have made any powerful enemies. MalleusFatuorum19:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I've said before and I stand by it; it may be hell on earth, but that ritual humiliation at RFA does serve a purpose. If someone's going to lash out when confronted by a mixture of inane good-faith stupidity and venomous insults—both of which all admins get bombarded with—it's better to find that out before they get their hands on a "block" button. It can't have escaped your notice that virtually all our problematic admins were given their magic powers back in the early days, before they had to go through this ordeal. This is one thing I agree with Roux on; it's a problem that will only be solved when we have a working desysop mechanism, and can give adminship out to anyone who asks in the knowledge that if they misuse it it can be taken straight back. – iridescent19:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
A working desysop mechanism unfortunately only gets shot down repeatedly. I think having something in place would be good for Wikipedia, but it seems unlikely we'll get consensus for one. Useight (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the next BBC Radio 4 "In our time" programme was about imaginary numbers and so, not knowing much about them, I went to the relevant article to find out what they were. As usual, I found a shite article that was almost totally incomprehensible to the layman and thought I'd have a go at restructuring it and trying to simplify it and make it more approachable - it's amazing how much you learn that way. I think I've managed to make it look like something that you wouldn't give up on after the first line, however, someone had put in some examples of their use in programming syntax and made a complete bollocks of the formatting by using spaces instead of colons to indent. I've fixed that but they still look very untidy and, as I know nothing about programming either, I'm not sure how they should be written. Could you, or one of the other clever techie chappies who knows about these things, have a quick look and fix them? Richerman (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The way to show program coding is like this:
LDN X // load negative X into the accumulator
SUB Y // subtract Y from the value in the accumulator
STO S // store the result at S
LDN S // load negative value at S into the accumulator
but what's in that imaginary number article isn't program coding. It seems to be trying to explain how expressions in different programming languages are handled by their interpreters, for God know what reason. I'd dump the whole damn lot as irrelevant. You wouldn't expect to be told that BASIC had a sine function in the sine article, for instance, or at least I wouldn't. MalleusFatuorum00:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
As both an aspiring computer programmer and a wannabe mathematician, I'd say those examples were thoroughly irrelevant to imaginary numbers; I'd liken it to a "In popular culture" section in a literary article, except far more confusing. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭01:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Pls review and copyedit my work here since your last edit there; especially check the big part I added to "cultural background". Many thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Some nice additions there, you're obviously getting the hang of this. Just two questions:
"Consequently the ecclesiastical influence in the Virginia courts was significantly less". Less than what?
"To avoid this possible outcome, justices dismissed unsubstantiated cases of witchcraft and prosecuted the accusers for slander, who found themselves 'under an ill tongue.'" I can't quite make sense of that. Apart from anything else, it seems strange that the justices would undertake prosecutions, as the article clearly says that Sherwood and her husband initiated cases for slander. MalleusFatuorum00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The thesis clearly makes a strong case than the VA courts shied away from witchcraft cases unless there was physical proof and would then allow cases for slander against those making accusations of withcraft. They felt witch cases would incite hysteria and cause more witch cases, so they shied away from them and in a sort of double blast would allow cases for slander against accusers, removing motivation for witch cases from both ends so to speak. ie, make sure your witchcraft claims is solid or you'll get nailed for slander. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The accuses witch, when the case was unproven, which was most of the time in Virginia, could sue the accusers, which Grace herself is known to have done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Manchester Mark2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Because it's not cool to work with non-free content any more (now all the cool kids work with BLPs) so those of us who still do have to trudge through bureaucracy or people get very angry and call out for blockings. (That's not the official line- supposedly, people may still want the old version or something, and so we need to give them time- I just noted the header on your talk page and thought you'd appreciate the truth...) J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Quick second-opinion
Do you (or the TPSs) have any opinions on the pros and cons of this series of edits? To me, this heavy comma use is an Americanism which looks out-of-context and awkward in British English (and makes the text less, not more, comprehensible), but I don't want unilaterally to revert the whole thing if nobody else sees a problem with it. – iridescent19:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that it's an Americanism. I've seen it discussed elsewhere, where the argument was that either you always write "In 1877, the Duke of ScratchMyArse ...", or "In 1877 the Duke of ScratchMyArse ...". The rule with commas is "if in doubt, leave 'em out". MalleusFatuorum19:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree; I'll give it a couple of hours at least before I revert it, in case anyone else wants to weigh in. As far as I'm aware, standard en-GB usage is always to keep comma use to a minimum. FWIW, Lynne Truss—at the moment generally considered the court of final appeal for British English punctuation—currently includes on her website"On the 27th May 2010 Get Her Off The Pitch was published in paperback" (no comma). – iridescent19:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I always make mistakes with these types of comma rules b/c I confuse American usage with GB usage. The rule in American usage is to add a comma after the prepositional phrase. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This isn't an article in American English; this is an article about rural Buckinghamshire. Inasmuch as non-Oxford British English has a rule, it's "if you can avoid using a comma, do so". To quote probably the best-known style guide on British punctuation, Eats, Shoots & Leaves, "A passage peppered with commas—which in the past would have indicated painstaking and authoritative editorial attention—smacks simply of no backbone. People who put in all the commas betray themselves as moral weaklings with empty lives and out-of-date reference books." – iridescent19:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I had this discussion with the late-lamented Ottava on a few occasions, and we never agreed on the proper placement of commas. My general view is that unless the comma is grammatically necessary to avoid some ambiguity, then it just marks a place to take a breath. Tony1 would probably be horrified by my barbaric disregard for such grammatical "rules" though. MalleusFatuorum19:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Iridescent - I agree with you. Personally, I revert the edits. Not sure why such a nice article is having commas added. I ran into the comma problem with two GA reviews where I was told to add more commas - or no pass. My view is along the lines of Malleus, but have reached a point of frustration with commas. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
My opinion of the League of Copy Editors is well known. I celebrated when they collapsed, and groaned when they were resurrected; they're a clear illustration to me of why "good intentions" aren't enough. – iridescent20:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Parrot of Doom. They ought to be used sparingly, and of course also to avoid ambiguity (as Malleus says). I think the diff is excessive use. Aiken (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I often have problems when removing commas - people soon start to have a go and I even got a veiled "punctuation Nazi" from one - I often see them restored after a couple of hours and have to spend ages arguing discussing things with them to get them to see that they are not needed (e.g. Nazi comment)
I wonder if it is because people are short of breath and need to pause after every five words to stop themselves going purple before the end of a sentence? (see thats three that just fainted reading this lol) Classically they write it as they read it and their brains cannot cope with sentences of more than 8 words - to overcome this they seem to stick commas in everybloodywhere.
I am a member of the guild of copyeditors and as such I see it my duty to restore the humble space in priority to the comma - removing a thousand or more unecessary commas a week is satisfying for me :¬)
I have just had a quick look at the editor in question and it seems they have a habit of adding commas throughout edits - summaries such as comma, commas and comma again appearing everywhere - seems a little ridiculous and no wonder the guild gets looked at in a bad light! I think it might be beneficial to raise your point at the guild pages as this is obviously a habit and they have lots of nice awards for copediting - I would have to say that I disagree vehemently with the edits I have seen where commas have been introduced during their copyediting process Chaosdruid (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going anywhere near the LOCE talk page. No disrespect meant to you; my attitude towards them is roughly equivalent to Malleus's attitude to admins, in that while individuals are perfectly decent, on the whole they're an overwhelmingly negative influence. If anyone complains on their talkpage, I can say with something approaching certainty that a parade of members (probably aided and abetted by a string of Mattisse socks) will line up to abuse them, until such time as that person finally snaps and says something rude, at which time they'll run off to ANI and demand a civility block. – iridescent19:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you'd copy edit this article; I want to get it to GA or at least B class but I feel like it needs an expert copy edit that I can't provide. Thanks, Access Denied(Bad revert?)09:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else see the irony in this request coming from someone with "This user is a member of the Guild of Copy Editors" on their userpage? – iridescent13:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I left the user a note suggesting that they attend to references (there were none in the article when I checked earlier this morning) before asking for "expert copyedits". And yes, the irony, oh, the irony. :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks in advance for the Statute of Monopolies review; I note that you and Parrot of Doom wrote the Gunpowder Plot article together. I'm currently writing a massive, perfectly referenced and stunning (eventually) biography of Sir Edward Coke, which will without a doubt be as close as I come to a magnum opus. Any chance you have sources on the trial of the conspirators which I could nick and use? Regards, Ironholds (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and naughty for not telling me about the Manchester computers GAN. Remember my standing rule; if you or Ealdgyth need a reviewer, I'm always happy to oblige. Ironholds (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
PoD's the one to ask. I took my books back to the library after we finished, but he's following up by writing articles on each of the conspirators, so I'm sure he'll have something. MalleusFatuorum15:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, I wanted to just by to thank you for the decisive help you gave me despite my being (well, at least in theory) an administrator :-) Also I must say I really admire your user name it makes me damned envious! ;-) Ciao, Aldux (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I try not to look and see whether an editor I haven't come across before is an administrator or not, and to forget as quickly as I can if I should find out, as it only prejudices me. ;-) Many congratulations on Alboin, a really great article. I'm looking forward to seeing what else you've got up your sleeve. As for my username, I think it's got me into a lot of bother in the past, sounds a bit too aggressive. I should probably have chosen something more in fitting with my personality, like Fluffy Lamb. MalleusFatuorum16:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Your article used both {{citation}} and templates from the {{cite}} family (a few instances of {{cite web}}, for example). Those produce slightly different outputs (separating fields with commas and periods, respectively); citation bot tries to make the article consistent by choosing one of the two formats. Ucucha20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Equivalent
Hi Malleus, can you settle something for me? Or if anyone else knows, please share.
Is it correct to say 'Equivalent of'? If I was saying, for example, "equivalent of 500ml of juice", would it be correct to say "equivalent of" or "equivalent to", or are both correct?
Here's one view. According to answers.com here It depends on the usage. If as a verb, "A is equivalent to B". If as a noun, "A is the equivalent of B". Richerman (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Would I be correct in assuming that the society mentioned in James_Eccles#Life (it's called the "Manchester Society" in the cited geocurator pdf) is the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society? You've done some work on the latter and so I thought you might know or – at worst – have a good hunch. My hunch is that it is, so I've linked it as such (on second thoughts, it might be the Manchester Geological Society, in whose journal his articles often appeared). Thanks, Ericoides11:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Malleus. I've started work on the Painted turtle article and was wondering if you could take a look at a particular section for me. The reproduction section is the only one I've really touched...it desperately needs another pair of eyes (not literally of course, I know how you like to pick on people for their grammatical ambiguities :-P). I can think of no better pair of eyes than yours!! If you have the time of course... :-} NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Once you do it once, each successive article becomes easier. Thus, I guess the work is a product of laziness (if that makes any sense at all).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to please run a very quick copy-edit of rodham, which is an East Anglian term for a dried-up old river bed? I have never asked you for such a favour before, although I do note you kindly drive-by many of my articles anyway, which is really appreciated. If you are too busy, no worries; I will not be offended in the least --Senra (Talk) 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll warn you now that that one has very little chance of surviving AFD in its current state, if one of the deletionists spots it. WP:Dicdef is one of the more pompous policies about, and honoured more in the breach than the observance in my experience, but it is officially still policy. – iridescent20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough but Little Thetford flesh-hook and flesh-hook seemed to survive and (I feel at least) this one is more defensible as it is a least used in archaeology (a lot) and it is a little quirky don't you think? Anyway, we will see. Thank you for the heads-up --Senra (Talk) 20:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deletion is very much down to who turns up on the day. If it does suddenly vanish and reappear on Wiktionary, don't take it personally. As Wehwalt says, DYK tends to bring out the hardliners. – iridescent20:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Preparing my defense already: Any help would be appreciated so consider other geographic terms such as silt, ridge, escarpment but I am probably clutching at straws here. Perhaps you can help make it less like a definition? --Senra (Talk) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks perfectly notable to me, and I seem to find myself voting delete more than keep in AfDs; it's cited to hell and back with notable sources and analysis from secondary, reliable sources. I'll certainly oppose any deletion. Nice little article, by the way. Skinny87 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look through and tried to put a bit of organisation into the article, to circumvent Iridescent's concern above. I don't think this will be taken to AfD, and if it was I think it would survive. After all, we managed to save pissing contest. MalleusFatuorum21:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Skinny87 but ha ha ha ha Malleus. I spend half a day trying hard to summarise sources; I even used a thesaurus for some terms. What happens? You come along (invited of course) and put words back that just happen to be in the original source! Still, I am grateful. Honest. Well, erm, except for the "messing about" ES. Just kiddin'. I appreciate the changes you are doing. Thank you --Senra (Talk) 21:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I've never read any of the sources it would be hard to bring a charge of plagiarism; sometimes there's only one good way to say things. If it was my article, one thing I'd do is try to expand on the settlements built in/on rodhams. MalleusFatuorum21:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Rodham is a dried up old river? We have one of those in the States, it is called Hillary Rodham (some add to that), it is dried up, not sure if it is a river but it might be, it has a big mouth.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer to comment here rather than clutter up the FAC. I agree with Ucucha, and I seem to remember that someone raised a similar point about the girl scouts cleaning the statue. What has that to do with Grace's legacy? There's always a temptation to try and include everything, but this is an encyclopedia article, not the definitive account of the Witch of Pungo, and it's pretty clear that the more easily available recent stuff (like the girl scouts) has somewhat unbalanced the second half of the article. I know how hard it can be to prune your own purple prose, so if you don't feel able to do it yourself I'll be more than happy to get my shears out. MalleusFatuorum21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I get a lot of crap from you administrators, but I really do think that I'm far more valuable to the project than the overwhelming majority of you. Discuss. MalleusFatuorum00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure we can discuss. Maybe I did, but I don't recall ever giving you crap. I figure you decided to help me on this article for two reasons 1) you are a witchcraft enthusiast and 2) you really respect people that work on high quality content, especially functionary types. You've been civil and productive in helping me, which I truly appreciate (yes I got a comment or two of surprise on that). You helping me, with me being an admin, crat, CU, OS, and arb, given your disdain for bit holders would surprise many if they don't realize item "2)". While it's true I haven't filed a featured whatever in awhile, I do have 30+ to my credit (FA/FL/FP/FT). But I always need help with copyediting. As I mentioned before, I am better at research and drafts, not smooth copy. IMHO no one is invaluable to the project, but let's face, some people help it out more than others. Wiki needs people working in many areas to function: admins, crats, DYK reviewers, etc--the list is virtually endless, but most of all good content production--but that does not mean we forget or ignore the other parts. Do you do more for the project than barely active admins? Yes indeed. But if we start trying to answer that comparing you to an admin that makes hundreds of edits a day fighting vandals, trying to settle big disuptes, etc, that's a slippery slope I think best to avoid. Let me make an analogy--an aircraft carrier's main purpose is launching planes so they can carry out missions, but if all the cooks on the carrier are gotten rid of, every one onboard would starve and the carrier would be useless. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Tired old comment I've made for over 3 years If we locked WP down, right now, so no-one could edit anything, it would have value for eight,10 maybe 20 years (look at the 1911 Britanica). If we disabled the block and protect button it might have value for 8 or ten months. To have value we need to keep the good stuff good. To have credibility we need to develop, and that's why we need content kings. </rambling> Pedro : Chat 21:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
1962 National League tie-breaker series
I really didn't mean for and of that to come across as a personal attack or anything negative, apologies if it did. The FAC process can be trying, I just want the article to reach it's maximum potential. Staxringoldtalkcontribs20:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether you consider my comments at your FAC to be "harsh" or "sarcastic" or not, I was simply expressing my view. Sad that seems to be no longer allowed. MalleusFatuorum21:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That's my point, I'm sorry for saying that. And I never said stop expressing your view, I'm working hard to get it! Staxringoldtalkcontribs
I think some people forget that I'm often on both sides of the FAC fence, and the GAN one as well. I very often have nominations at both myself, so I know how it feels dealing with criticism of your hard work, and I know that it's not always easy. I'm sorry if my particular style of reviewing seemed to you to be harsh and sarcastic, but I'll never be of the "with all due respect" school of thought, more the "call a spade a fucking shovel". I recognise that's not always welcome here, but to be honest I couldn't give a toss. I wish you luck nevertheless with your FAC, and I'd urge you to remember that my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's. MalleusFatuorum21:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh I know. The nom isn't going to fail because of you, it'll just be a contributing factor. :) (this isn't about you, this is me venting) It just seems arbitrary to me how some reviews will turn into supports once the comments from the original oppose/comment are dealt with, and other times the same reviewer will just leave them there as comments. Staxringoldtalkcontribs21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The nom may not fail at all, no point dwelling on the dark side. All I'm saying is that as a complete baseball ignoramus I found much of it incomprehensible. Whether that's an objectionable oppose is not for me to decide. MalleusFatuorum22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've now addressed each of your comments with improvements to the article, or occasionally a counter-argument :) I've added Moors murders to my watch list today, meanwhile, in case of any vandalism or other silliness. Haven't seen much so far in the page history today, thankfully. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)07:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Echoes of Life
Hi i just wanted to say thanks for the work you did on the article today, i am aiming to get it to GA status and will need a fair amount of help along the way :). With this edit [3] you changed the way the refs from the book are. Is it possible to have two reflists? I have seen it done on the Mass killings under communist regimes article and think it looks kinda spiffy to have separate sections for notes from the book and refs from other sources, thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You can note the code for the reflists: {{Reflist|group=nb}} compared to {{Reflist|2}}. You can make refs appear in, say group nb, like so: {{#tag:ref|Valentino p.9 {{Cite book|quote=Mass killing and Genocide. No generally accepted terminology exists to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants.}}<ref name=Valentino/>|group=nb}}. Hope this helps. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks but it refuses to work for me :( here is what i have tried
{{#tag:ref|Echoes of Life {{Harvnb|Gaines|Eglinton|Rullkotter|2008|p=10}}<ref name=Alfred Treibs/>|group=nb}}
;Footnotes
{{Reflist|group=nb}}
;References
{{Reflist|2}}
{{refbegin}}
{{citation |last1=Gaines|first1=Susan M. |last2=Eglinton|first2=Geoffrey |last3=Rullkotter|first3=Jurgen |title=Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0195176193|name=Echoes of Life}}
{{refend}}
I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to achieve, but I'm sure we could sort it out if you explained it to me in words of one syllable. MalleusFatuorum22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Just correcting the tag ref you quoted above. The error is in the {{Harvnb}} template which either needs refs around it thus <ref>{{Harvnb|...}}</ref>: or use the {{Sfn}} template which does not require them: {{#tag:ref|Echoes of Life {{Sfn|Gaines|Eglinton|Rullkotter|2008|p=10}}<ref name=Alfred Treibs/>|group=nb}} ;Footnotes {{Reflist|group=nb}} ;References {{Reflist|2}} {{refbegin}} {{citation |last1=Gaines|first1=Susan M. |last2=Eglinton|first2=Geoffrey |last3=Rullkotter|first3=Jurgen |title=Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0195176193|name=Echoes of Life}} --Senra (Talk) 11:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
See User:Senra/Sandbox/Nutley for an example. The example you are using above will produce an error if <ref name=Alfred Treibs/> is not defined elsewhere. You must use quote marks around the name= parameter like so: <ref name="Alfred Treibs"/>. Hope that helps --Senra (Talk) 11:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I've got no desire to edit war with you over it, but the IUP states: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult."
There are good reasons not to manually size images. First, users may specify a default image size in their preferences which applies to all non-manually sized images. Some users have extremely valid reasons for doing so: users with vision disabilities may intentionally increase the size of images; users with bandwidth issues may intentionally decrease the size of images. As the default size is 220px, it seems a shame to deprive these users of the flexibility that they need for an additional 30px. Users who don't choose to change their own default can always click through the image to see more detail.
The default image size is too small to see anything very much in those pictures of the moors, for instance, and the map obviously needs to be bigger to be readable. MalleusFatuorum18:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the map needs to be larger. Unfortunately, policy does pretty much expect clicking to see details of photos. I like to see larger images as much as anybody as I've got a nice big iMac, but I also sympathize with those with smaller monitors, bandwidth or visual disabilities. I see the article is featured today, so I'll drop it for now and perhaps bring it up on the article talk page later. Yworo (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. My apologies for that little spat we had a few months back. I'm much more aware of what's generally considered a PA now than I was then, and I was in the wrong... Yworo (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The postage-stamp sized default image is a topic that I seem to recall being discussed in some detail, perhaps on a MoS talk page somewhere, but I certainly don't agree with you that there's an expectation that you need to click on the image to make sense of it. (I thought your username looked familiar, but I have only the vaguest of recollections of any spat between us; life's too short to worry about stuff like that, so no apology necessary.) 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)MalleusFatuorum
The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their preferences. An option such as "|300px|" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:
Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px" ("upright=1.35").
Images in which detail is relatively unimportant (for example, a national flag), and which may need smaller sizes than usual.
Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual.
Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.
While WP:ImageSize does indeed say "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so", it goes on to say that the MOS guidelines should be the ones followed choosing when to force image sizes, and the MOS explicitly permits forced image sizes provided they don't go above 500px width in the body or 300px width in the lead. – iridescent19:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it's unfortunate that the information about images is spread over two pages. I also think the reasons for not manually-sizing images (which is policy) are more important that what the MOS guidelines permit. Really, what we need are technical changes so that preferences override manual sizing by default and a nooverride option to be added to images like maps and diagrams for which the manual sizing is significant. Then we could all have our cake and eat it too. Yworo (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The MoS is indeed a bit labyrinthine, I agree. I think this problem could be largely solved simply by having s slightly larger default thumb size, say 240px, but any improvement that depends on software changes seems doomed to failure as it just won't get done. MalleusFatuorum20:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That'll keep the TPS's ammused :) Regarding the 3RR note above. Whilst you may be a crotchety old git who on occasion over-steps the (surreal) wiki-line of "civility" from time to time (but never personal attacks I may add) clearly trying to keep things together for our readership is (or should be considered) far more important. You do that. Thank you. P. Pedro : Chat 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Quick, Malleus! Rotate counter-clockwise before you get to the bottom - we don't want you flashing on and off and then disappearing. Skinny87 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Heh, thanks (I think). You may have noticed that I've been trying to avoid situations that might tempt me to overstep the bounds of what risibly passes for civility here. Not because I've suddenly seen the error of my ways, or have changed my mind about the childish civility policy, but because it's just too much hassle for those like you, Moni3, Nev1 and others who then have to argue for my release. Besides, why give the civility police the prize they want? MalleusFatuorum20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm all out of reverts now anyway, so nature will just have to take its course for the next few hours. All I hope is that it may have helped the search for Keith Bennett's body in some small way. MalleusFatuorum20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that's one of the things that has moved me the most. I'm hoping to do a couple of things on that front too, via some contacts and sponsorship. A minor triumph for NPOV still being able to help out I feel. I'd never advocate any article being influenced - no matter how worthy the cause - but when a potential and incidental benefit occurs outside of our remit... that's simply good news. Pedro : Chat 20:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
If you really want to play wikilawyer, "editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page" explicitly doesn't count as a revert for 3RR purposes. Of course, "maintaining quality" is purely subjective. – iridescent20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I'm no good at that legal stuff. As I said at my trial, I tried to meet these gender warriors half-way. I rewrote one sentence to include two quotations from Hindley's obituary in The Guardian after the ridiculous {{dubious}} tag was attached to it, but then the argument changed to the quotations being uncited, which they were not. There's definitely of pov on display here, but it isn't mine. MalleusFatuorum20:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
So, yesterday I was reported for a 3RR violation (twice), threatened with a block, slapped with some kind of a fish ... TFA is a fucking nightmare. MalleusFatuorum01:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That's quite a jump from 1.6k the day before. I find that TFA is always hard work, but this one was particularly difficult because of the sensitive nature of the subject. I really can't understand why some editors think of TFA as a reward, because it's pretty stressful watching your baby being brutalised. To be fair though, there's usually at least some sensible input amongst the idiocy, and there was even yesterday. I begin to feel though that I'm being singled out for some kind of cruel and unusual punishment, as that's my second TFA this month! MalleusFatuorum11:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
When I've had articles on TFA, just ignore it and when the vandalism is over, just do a diff on the version prior to the TFA run and the current version and keep the good stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
What made yesterday bearable was that IPs and newly-registered users weren't allowed to touch it. Odd isn't it, that ignoring one of Wikipedia's most sacred policies could result in a better outcome. People should think hard about that. Parrotof Doom16:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
When I come across an apocryphal story that often gets the Snopes coverage, the story ends with some variation of "It really makes you think." Eehhhyeah ok, no, it doesn't. So, PoD, sorry to lump you in with folks who really want to make you think, but what part of Wikipedia's founding visions should be considered? It's what, almost ten years old now? It started, as I understand it, with the ideal that people would come together to form communal knowledge without reservation or desire for personal acclaim or occasional mayhem. Ideals are the root of idealism. So that part didn't work out too well (thanks, human nature). If Wikipedia didn't adapt to hurry up and start requiring citations to reliable sources, it would be even more of an Internet joke. --Moni3 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The first thing I'd change would be WP:CIVIL. Under my rule, that page would consist of one rule - "1. Don't be a fucking idiot".
I think Wikipedia is a great idea, but I also think that too many here rely on policies that many have never heard of, quoting them as though they are gospel, when in reality they've been drafted by a tiny portion of the community. Oh, and I think that there shouldn't be any administrators who haven't significantly contributed to at least one featured article. Parrotof Doom17:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
If you meant that policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, and WP:OWN are used as shields by editors who are unsure of the standards of good writing, reliability, and neutrality, I agree. It's much easier to accuse someone of something that sounds heinous to get him to back off than it is to make a reasoned well-educated argument and have a discussion. The FA requirement was tried for a time. What it caused was crappy FACs that were clearly unprepared so someone who desperately desired to close a dozen AfDs a day could do so. As I firmly believe that someone should not be trying to write an article about anything that he does not love unabashedly, I acknowledge that some admins should just close stuff and do mop-ups and whatever they want to do. But unfortunately, the folks who got their admin position to do rote work occasionally venture into content issues, which they misunderstand for lack of experience. Another opportunity to adapt. To what, I'm not sure. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any particular selection process for articles I decide to try and improve, its usually just a case of whatever takes my fancy on the day. Although if someone can find an lingerie-wearing Georgian Elephant article or something, I'll probably get straight to work on that.
I don't have any particular answers for getting rid of dodgy admins, other than to suggest that we all stop pontificating so much on what to do, and just do something. That's part of the problem with this place, too many people with too much to lose, winning arguments in the most boring pages that only those with "power" tend to frequent. Parrotof Doom20:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd go along with that. Pedro sometimes confuses my position as being that I believe administrators to be corrupt, but in fact I think it's wikipedia's system of governance that's corrupt. Individual administrators have to do whatever they can to maintain their integrity in the face of that corruption, and some do a pretty good job of it. MalleusFatuorum20:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Grace Sherwood, the Witch of Pungo, is now a FA. I couldn't have done it without you. Thanks for this and all the other articles you've provided superb copyediting on. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Glad you liked it. Lots of wikipedia articles are little more than a list of hardly related facts, but I like to try and tell some kind of a story to make it a bit more interesting. MalleusFatuorum22:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I always thought Janeway and Seven of Nine should have made out. You know, out there in space. With no one to turn to but each other...--Moni3 (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure neither Janeway nor Seven of Nine would have referred to themselves as such. Too much dignity for Janeway and Seven wouldn't have understood why she should. Although I have no doubt it would have been a soap opera with lots of turning on heels enough drama to put The L Word to its well-deserved shame. Srs, that show sucks. --Moni3 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, several times I think about giving you a barnstar, but would that be a conflict of interest for you to do future reviews to articles in which I am interested? If yes, then I'll hold off, but if it woudn't be a COI, then please let me know, and I'll award you one of the most amazing barnstars there are. --Sulmues(talk)03:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Now you've piqued my curiosity. What can this "most amazing barnstar there is" be? Whatever, I can assure you that it won't make the slightest difference if I ever review one of your articles in the future. Quite early in my time here someone gave me a barnstar only to take it away again after I'd upset them. Easy come, easy go. MalleusFatuorum11:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
All Around Amazing Barnstar
To Malleus_Factorum, the editor that not only reviews, but does the dirty job by copy editing whole articles, and truly understands their meaning by asking insightful questions and clearly evaluating responses. You are a true polymath, as I have seen very few around. If only you could be cloned, Jimbo wouldn't think twice before listing Wikipedia in a stock exchange and retire. Thank you for being around and for doing amazing things, hence an ALL AROUND AMAZING BARNSTAR FOR YOU! Sulmues(talk)11:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
...you're a troll, and I'm a POV-pushing article-owning editor who likes to throw insults around. I fear the art of the true insult has been lost somewhere, and all this while, nobody has bothered to check the source of the dispute, which is the removal of valid content. I think you're correct, in that WP:ANI is a waste of time.Parrotof Doom20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that, no, but none of it surprises me. Users like Baseball Bugs et al have long had it as their mission to do whatever it takes to have me at least blocked, and preferably banned. As for John and George, I'm sure you know what I think of that pair and their fan club. MalleusFatuorum22:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If "troll" is the worst I get called on here today then I'll count it as a good day. The word has rather a different meaning on wikipedia than it does elsewhere anyway; here it just means saying something unpopular, especially if it's true. MalleusFatuorum22:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Happy Malleus Fatuorum's Day!
User:Malleus Fatuorum has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Malleus Fatuorum's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Malleus Fatuorum!
You know, lots of us wind up getting called "out of step" with the system; actually, lately, by at least a few people, I've been called a lot worse. And, in some ways, I am out of step with those people; in that case, I see it as being something to be proud of. So, speaking for some of the less "organization-man admins", I'm happy to see that your substantive contributions to the project have earned the recognition they deserve. Believe me, I know how hard it is sometimes to not let the bastards get you down, to quote a phrase. But I, and a lot of others, are sincerely grateful that you keep trying anyway. Thanks again for all your efforts and contributions. John Carter (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It's different for those of you who are administrators John. I get threatened and blocked for the slightest thing, something that the likes of Georgewilliamherbert wouldn't do to you. MalleusFatuorum00:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
What a strange world wikipedia is. I've got User:Georgewilliamherbert on my case again, User:Baseball Bugs gleefully rubbing his hands waiting for me to be "banished" for God know what misdemeanour, User:Beyond My Ken characterising my efforts here as "bullshit", and me as "a walking, talking, life-size outlier of acceptable behavior [who] should ... have been permanently banished a long time ago" and now this. So I'd like to be able to say "thank you" Rlevse, and I will, but I'm sure you'll understand that I'm not feeling all that well disposed towards wikipedia and the way it's being mismanaged at the moment. MalleusFatuorum00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, believe me I understand how wiki can get to someone, but people like you and I stay around for a reason. I for one honestly feel you deserve this "your day". — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
En wiki is like a bandaged up TU-154 that eventually gets to its destination. Commons is like a group of humming birds hoping it makes its way to the next flower. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Moni, make that a drunken pub crawl by inmates escaped from the asylum without their meds and I might agree with you, not counting people like Rlevse, Kirill, and some others. But, yeah, probably including me, at least at times. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
More than once I've compared writing for Wikipedia like going shopping for bridal gowns on Christmas Eve with a passel of felon Bridezillas in a bargain basement when a reality television show is waiting to reward the most aggressive shoppers with the fame they feel they so richly deserve and heap a million dollars on top of it just for fun. --Moni3 (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Gods. Don't mention weddings. *mutters*. Somehow my second marriage ceremony morphed from "go to Vegas, do the ceremony at Caesar's Palace" (I dislike Excalibur, sorry to spoil any illusions!) into "small house ceremony at home" to "fifty some guests, caterer and minister" ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk01:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I just can't reconcile the inconsistency displayed by the head of the civility police, who sees nothing wrong with calling me a troll, disruptive, "a walking, talking, life-size outlier of acceptable behavior", but who gets excited about an edit summary like "only a dimwit wouldn't know that the US was the United States". That apparently leads to a "hostile environment", but abusing long-standing editors like me just because you can is apparently perfectly acceptable. I think that George needs to have his bumps felt. BTW Moni3, since your comment about "dykes" elsewhere I've been wondering what the preferred term is for same relationships between females, and those females who participate in them. MalleusFatuorum01:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Like your family if you had siblings and most any other minority, it's ok to make fun of each other, but as soon as someone else comes along to take a spin, it's really not ok. So my brother is a dingus dumbass extraordinaire, but if you call him that, you're a flaming asshole. Likewise, to him I'm the most annoying dumbshit on the planet, but only he's allowed to call me that. Women took on the "dyke" nickname in their feminist powermarches. If only to take the punch out of it. Part of the reason I call Mrs Moni queerbait and the like is to desensitize us when it happens. And it does. So unless HalfShadow is a carpetmuncher, he probably thought he was being funny. I was never too fond of the militant feminist movement's lack of a sense of humor about themselves, so...whatever. --Moni3 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I take your point. People are free to make whatever life choices they like as far as I'm concerned, even though I may not be able to understand them. A male acquaintance of mine is currently undergoing a sex change; the boobs are done but the wedding tackle is yet to come off. I think it's kind of weird, but I also admire his determination to go through with it. It'd be a sad old world if we were all the same. MalleusFatuorum01:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) Pah, ignore the shit-stirrers Malleus. As far as I'm concerned, you do more for this godforsaken wreck of a project than a dozen of those idiots. Don't let the bastards grind you down - there are a lot of people who recognize the good you do. Skinny87 (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Happy Malleus Day and may peace be with you all! I see some very respectable wikipedians in Malleus page, from John to Rlevse: the best of the best of Wikipedia. Cheers! --Sulmues(talk)01:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow! do have a Happy Malleus Day and every other day come to that. I'd remember you have more friends and admirers than detractors and nothing hurts the bullies more than being ignored or better still laughed at. I like to think they do what they do here to make up for what they lack in a real life. Have a great day and remember what you said a while ago, do just what you want, you do it so well.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The Hammer of the Fatuous
I blame myself. Sorry, Malleus. I had no notion my simple remark would draw in all those censored well-meaning users. George's page is apparently well-watched by bowdlerised the valuable Civility Cop Cadre. Have an award for outstanding contributions to WP:ANI! Bishonen | talk02:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
I put Minehead up for GA ages ago & it is finally being reviewed. I can deal with most of the issues but a general comment from the reviewer is "Quite a few stray sentences, especially in the Sport and Religion sections. Overall the prose is not really very strong." & I was wondering if you had the time & inclination to take a look at some point with your amazing copy editors eye?— Rodtalk20:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look through now and made a few changes, particularly to the Sports and Religious sites sections, hopefully enough to satisfy your GA reviewer. MalleusFatuorum16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw where this brewery was at and thought of you. Let's not forget, when the MF party day is over, we're still going to find a way to get you blocked unless you produce GAs--about this brewery for instance! ;) Drmies (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
.png)
