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.
Waaaaaahhhh :o(
Don't go forever ... I hate the feeling of losing you too. [Pesky piles on the emotional blackmail, manipulative bitch that she is ...] Pesky (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It might be an article that Dank would be interested in as a MilHist copyeditor. And then there's Tony1 of course. Can't immediately think of anyone else. MalleusFatuorum15:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm ashamed to have forgotten Brianboulton, and of course the Deacon is back, so I doubt you'll miss my comma-shuffling skills. Congratulations on your Core Contest prize BTW; making money from anything you do here is rare indeed. MalleusFatuorum16:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Comma shuffling? Every time I delete a comma I think of you, and usually I delete those commas because of you. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I've already decided. Nobody Ent used a rather colourful pioneer vs settler analogy a little higher up this page, but he's maybe not so far off the mark; certainly there are no prizes for repeatedly banging your head against a brick wall anyway. I can only apologise to all those administrators who'll now be deprived of the opportunity to block me for saying something they disapprove of under the pretext of disruption or incivility, but I'm sure they'll find another victim to latch on to soon enough, poor bastard. MalleusFatuorum22:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "there are no prizes for repeatedly banging your head against a brick wall anyway", of course there are: the knowledge that for every one unsavoury incident, there are tens-of-thousands of readers who have been helped by your efforts. At the risk of sounding trite, you can't make pearls without friction. GFHandel♬00:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The numbers don't stack up though, which is the point I was making recently elsewhere. I've made about 130,000 edits; let's suppose that once in every 1,000 edits I upset another editor who insists on adding yet more uncited "notable people" to the Southport article for instance, or who insists that every sentence must be cited. That's 130 hounds baying for my blood without even breaking sweat. By comparison your typical administrator has maybe a tenth of that number of edits, and hence proportionately fewer mortal enemies. And because I've upset 130 people as opposed to the 13 that less active editor would have done I'm branded as some kind of monster. Wikipedia is just about the only place I've ever come across where experience and tenure is effectively a crime to be punished. MalleusFatuorum00:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
While not disagreeing with the numbers and point you make, that's not the point I tried to make. The Southport article was visited about 10,000 times in May 2012, and all of those readers will have had a better experience based on your extensive efforts. That's the reward that makes the friction bearable. GFHandel♬01:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It once did, but it no longer does. Not for me anyway. Added to which there's absolutely no way to prevent it from turning into the same grey goo that 99.9% of Wikipedia articles are, given the ferocity with which 3RR is policed. All it takes is two nutcases and you're out the game. MalleusFatuorum01:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Now, call an asshole an asshole and it's a different thing. In other news: 13-yr old elementary school students are voting in AfDs. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Eric Corbett/Archives/2012, for your feedback at my RFA. I shall take it under consideration, although I do hope you know that I greatly respect you and apologize for any incivility. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I very likely wouldn't have opposed if I'd thought it would make a difference to the result, as I'd pretty much forgotten about our little contretemps, but go easy with those delete and block buttons. ;-) MalleusFatuorum21:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, if he screws up, I'll be the first one to block him. If I happen to be paying attention, that is. Also, I'm in the Netherlands right now, which is in Europe--how in the hell do you all manage to survive in this atrocious weather? Is it just the (delicious) beer that keeps you going? Drmies (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Andromeda...
...just got promoted! I couldn't have done it without your expert help. Thank you kindly - I can't tell you how much that means to me. Best wishes, Keilana|Parlez ici21:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Just have to say, when anyone wants to go on a Malleus bashing spree, all that's needed is to see this thread. You are such a sweet man to help with the article and you made someone very very happy! These things don't go unnoticed - or rather, some of us notice. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You must be thinking of someone else Truthkeeper, as the received wisdom is that I drive editors away. MONGO's thread above, linked to by Richerman, is quite revealing; had I, or perhaps even you, said anything like that we'd have been hauled up in front of the beak faster than you could say "fucking Hell" ... not that you would say anything like that of course, but I almost certainly would, and not infrequently do in real life on appropriate occasions. MalleusFatuorum21:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake, you haven't driven any editors away, quite the reverse. I've told you before most of your detractors are either jealous or have very poor comprehension skills. J3Mrs (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, you made someone do a happy dance! That's a lovely article btw - I noticed it at FAC. No, no mistaken identity. You can't please all the people all the time. Think of it as pleasing the people who count. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Malleus - you are one mean nasty SOB. You are one tough taskmaster. But I do want to thank you. Regardless of where you go - what you do - who you teach ... the lessons you've thrown in my face were not in vain. I have never seen a person who could be so hard and unyielding, and yet so kind, giving, loving, and forgiving until I ran into your sorry ass on the Internet. You are damned good people, and I'm proud to to have met you. Just had to say that. Yea .. I guess that's a pretty sorry ass way of saying thanks ... but that's all you're gonna get from me. Chedzilla (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Mean and nasty - when? Malleus is the master of the sarcastic put-down but I don't think it's fair at all to characterise the occasional caustic comment in that way. I would reserve that phrase for the ones who've hounded him and user:WebHamster off the project. Richerman(talk)07:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Richerman you aren't wrong. There's nothing mean or nasty about plain speaking, it's a pity many choose to misinterpret what he says, as he's rarely wrong.J3Mrs (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
And having met Malleus in real life, I can safely say he doesn't have a sorry ass - in fact it's quite unapologetic as far as I remember :-) However, I am disappointed that he's giving self-important people who make unsubstantiated, mean and nasty comments like this the satisfaction of thinking they've driven him away. My advice would be nil carborundum illegitemi.Richerman(talk)10:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You're correct there. And that's one reason I used you as an "asshole detector." Quite often the folks who went on tirades against you exhibited the same vicious tendencies against other users, just at a lower volume (sometimes). Gave me a real good idea of who I wanted to avoid here, and also pointed out some of the more reasonable/realistic folks. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Richerman, I don't wish to click on that diff: I think I know which one it is, and I am still disgusted by it. Words fail me. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, dear heart, you're one of many kinds of Typical Brit. Sometimes our English language genuinely offends non-English people. (Other times, that's just used as an excuse for chucking up the hands in horror and pretending to have been mortally offended.) English people, as a mass generalisation, chuck swear words about without meaning the slightest real offence. They're just like a kind of punctuation or formatting. If you want to say something in italics and bold, you insert the word "fucking" in there somewhere. But hey, the English language belongs to the English. It's our fucking language; all the others have just borrowed it, and may not understand all its subtle nuances in the ways that a true native speaker of the mother tongue can understand them. And then some of them have the gall to use the civility policy as a blunt instrument to bludgeon people with. It was never meant for that. Tell you what, though, if I had to choose between a team of swear-like-troopers stable staff to work with, or a team of mealy-mouthed, hidden-agenda social workers, I know which I'd choose. Pesky (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You may be slightly stereotyping stable workers and social workers there, Pesky! On swearing, I have no problems swearing in certain company, but avoid it in others. And I'm reluctant to type out swearing, because here it is a permanent record, viewable by many, not an evanescent verbal utterance heard only by the people I'm talking to. But times are changing and I think the next generation (or the current youthful generation) will treat things differently, and people who would previously have shown reserve and restraint online will be less inclined to do so in the future. And I'm not sure that is entirely a good thing, as I would hope even those who argue that frankness and forthrightness is a good thing, and that being able to swear freely is a necessary part of expressing nuances of the English language, can agree that sometimes restraint and reserve is appropriate, as is understanding the difference between swearing as emphasis or flavour and swearing as an insult or provocation (it can be both, of course). Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
(od)Reminds me of an argument I had a few years back. Bloke called me a "fat bastard" so I called him a "wanker". Then he called me a "fat bastard" so I called him a "wanker". He called me a "fat bastard" so I called him a "wanker". Then he dropped the broken bottle he was waving at my throat and ran off, proving that he was indeed a wanker. Ning-ning (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hehe! Mind you, I was careful to specify exactly which type of social worker I'd rather not have to deal with ... never said they were all like that ;P I'd always far rather deal with someone who chucked the occasional insult at me but wrote the truth about me than someone whose spoken words never went beyond the lines of "appropriate" but then wrote or told lies about me behind my back! At least you know where you are with the first sort. I've been called any number of names, to my face, most of which don't offend me; the only people I call names are usually called so in fun (regardless of how accurate they may be). It's kinda "Yes, you're a muppet, but you're our muppet, so that's OK!" Pesky (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The "usual suspects"? Sorry...I just found that comment amusing (at RfA for those who may have missed it). Seems one can't oppose anything these days without being tossed in a posse of some sort or another. Hope you're enjoying your reduced exposure to this place! Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I doubt he'll ever stop, they hardly ever do here. There's very little you can do about it, and nobody in charge seems to care. MalleusFatuorum22:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
What has become of England? Didn't the NIH used to sponsor men with butterfly-nets to deal with such problems? In Barcelona, they wash Las Ramblas's gutters every night, with real intent. Kiefer.Wolfowitz22:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
By "here", I meant Wikipedia of course, but if you've ever been to the Scottish Highlands in summer you'll realise the futility of trying to deal with overwhelming numbers of irritating insects. And to continue the analogy, when you've been bitten to distraction and begin to swat a few, you're blamed for upsetting them by being there. MalleusFatuorum22:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned you both in passing on another editor's page recently; I haven't had the inclination to look at AN/I for several days now. Maybe a couple of weeks, not sure. Fing is, though, fing is, that there's another editor (Montanabw will know which one I mean ;P) who is worse, in my opinion, than all the MF and KW-detractors would consider the both of you put together could be. Cusswords? Nah, the language is clean enough. But OMG the attitude! This is where people get it so wrong. It's not about calling someone a [choose suitable potion of anatomy, male or female]; or calling them an idiot (hey, maybe they can't help being an idiot, compared to some of us pure-genius-level types) ... it's a bout the snidey, disruptive, tendentious, confrontational, false-accusation-hurling, IDHT, making-life-a-misery-for-others, sheer nastiness ... of some people. That's what the civility policy is supposed to be about. Jeeze, the odd cussword here and there just isn't in the same league. It's petty.
Adding:I even thought of inventing the ultimate Wiki AntiAccolade – a kewl explosion-based userbox with WOBP on it, for donating in such circumstances – "This user was Written Off By Pesky".Pesky (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, whatever you may think about me -which you have no need to elaborate here - I am pleased to see you back. Your leaving was never my intention.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Back? No, just an occasional visitor. I bear you no ill will, but you did demonstrate quite nicely what I already knew, that Malleus's future was inevitably going to be an ultimate ban for some imagined disruption. See the quotation at the top of this page. MalleusFatuorum23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Eh, something's broken on Wikipedia. I meant to type "I know you distrust nannies but don't go murdering them like this guy" but something got lost... Parrotof Doom00:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I intend to take this to FAC in the near future. I'm still working to copyedit it, and there's a chunk of info missing on various conspiracy theories, but what do you think? I'm finding it quite difficult to pick my way between the "he's definitely a cowardly murdering toff" and "oh poor old Lucky eh chum, there's not a chance in hell he could have done this, what what?" versions of the story from differing camps. Parrotof Doom14:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll have a read through later and email you what I think. As a general rule though my conviction is that in any case involving members of the establishment then nobody is telling the truth, or at least they're being very selective in what they say. MalleusFatuorum17:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The book I'm reading now (Sally Moore - Lucan: Not Guilty) practically drips idolatry. Any hint of criticism aimed at Lucan is rendered in italics and punctuated with exclamation marks! It's quite laughable really. Thanks for taking the time to offer your opinions. Parrotof Doom17:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
BN
Thanks for your comment on my typo, it made me laugh a lot. A pity that all contributors do not first cross paths on a note like that. WilliamH (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps reconsider?
Hi Malleus. I've noticed Parrot of Doom was blocked and you've been fairly active at his talk page since, culminating in this comment. I was wondering if you could reconsider that comment? Primarily, Rschen7754 self identifies as 22, if he was 15 - he would have been 8 when he passed his RfA. The rest of it is just unnecessarily indelicate, though I expect that was the point. As for the blocks, I personally don't see any problem with them. They were handed out for going over 3RR, a brightline rule. They were even handed and standard. I'm happy to debate the merits of the block, here or at PoD's page, should you or he wish. WormTT(talk) 11:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Umm, butting in here ... if he passed his RfA seven years ago, and he's 22 now, that would have made him 15 when he passed. Pesky (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't give a shit what you or anyone else thinks WTT. This talk of "brightline rules" just makes me sick, as it only ever applies to non-administrators. Clearly any rational person would have either blocked both parties or protected the page, not both. If Rschen isn't 15 then he shouldn't behave as if he is. MalleusFatuorum12:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to give a shit about my opinion, I've no reason to think you would or should, I asked you to reconsider your comments, which were erroneous. I mentioned on Rschen's page, that I would have tackled it differently, hopefully he'll take that on board for the future, but what he did wasn't wrong by the community standards. In any case, I offered my thoughts in good faith and since you clearly would rather I kept my enormous nose to myself, I'll go and stick it elsewhere. WormTT(talk) 13:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlike you I have nothing, not even the rollback bauble that I notice was childishly removed from PoD, therefore nothing to lose. MalleusFatuorum13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if you or you know anybody who'd be interested in such a project. One of my chief loves is British country houses and I don't at present see a project set up to help coordinate it and to collaborate over. If interested let me know and I'll consider making a proposal.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Never say never, but it's going to be an awful long time before I again feel the urge to freely contribute my labour here in return for shit loads of abuse and disrespect. Twelve-second blocks can do that to you. MalleusFatuorum18:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
12 second blocks? You serious? It reminds me of something like some futuristic sport in some bizarre sci-fi movie where individuals can get stunned with a zapper for a few seconds as punishment or frozen in the past or something. The only benefit of a 12 second block is to make the editor more angry! Well, I think most of us who still contribute to wikipedia do it for ourselves and what we get out of it, pride in certain articles and seeing coverage improve, and the chance to turn shite into something distinguished, not the disrespect from certain individuals. I could produce 500 FAs and editors like Bob Rainer, R Haworth and Rambling Man would still be convinced wikipedia would be better off if I was banned for eternity and think I don't do enough... You've done some great work on locales and buildings in the Manchester area in which you appear to get something out of it personally writing them and knowing what you visit them wikipedia has a top article about it. That might motivate you, not to mention a considerable number of individuals who love the sort of content you produced and were passionate about and looked forward to seeing your next project. I am open to collaborating if there is any building or something you really want to see improved. I like passionate individuals on wikipedia as I find it often makes you go that step further to work with them and produce good content... But for sure the wiki douchbags can be a passion killer and at times make you seriously astounded how such people could be remotely interested in a project such as wikipedia when they appear to only be here for policing and wiki politics. I frequently find people, usually at ANI and village pumps who appear to be complete opposites and from my perspective it amazes me how somebody also seemingly human could think in such a twisted way! But they exist and are insignificant to what really matters on here, so they can go crawl down Gropecunt Lane and grope around in the dirt for all I care! Yeah its nice to be appreciated and know that people respect you for your work, I'll give you that, but the occasional douchebag isn't worth worrying about. ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Only one 12-second block to be fair, but there was also that block for using the word "sycophantic" ... I used to think pretty much as you've described, but the ArbCom case at the back end of last year fundamentally changed my perception, reinforced by Courcelles' subsequent ridiculous block for God knows what. I wish you luck in what you're trying to do here, but any project that demands we all be morphed into Jimbo clones isn't for me. MalleusFatuorum21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking a sub group of WikiProject Architecture would be more appropriate, and even if just an organization page rather than a full project its better than nothing I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld20:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, dear heart, there are far more people in here who have vast and undying respect for you thyan there are the other sort. They're just not as vocal, or as obvious to other editors. Despite my reaction to Courcelles' block of you, I'm personally prepared to give him some leeway due to some painful health issues which he is/was troubled with for quite some time. Evil pain isn't an excuse, but it's definitely a reason for some strange reactions or over-reactions (I speak from an awful lot of personal experience with Evil Pain!) The project is going through the pre-stabilisation stage, and any huge community throws up some damned strange stuff in this stage of development. It's somewhat comparable to the teenage years in humans. I think it will settle, eventually, into something that has developed more appreciation for what is really good and productive, and more mature tolerance of the odd kicks-in-the-gallop of its various members. Expecting everyone to adopt clonelike personas and Utopian standards is for fantasy-land (and OMG, wouldn't such a world be incredibly boring?); it appeals to the far-seeing (and actually somewhat laudable) goals of youngsters who want to fix the world. (OK, I'd quite like to fix the world, if it could be done with a magic wand, but really I cba/dgaf about doing so otherwise ...) It takes maturity, and community-maturity, to see that the "fixes" which are really needed are more appreciation of the differences of individuals, more tolerance for different approaches (provided that they're not clearly wilfully destructive), and a less heavy-handed and authoritarian approach to preventing the mixture from boiling over. I like the good Doctor's idea of a project; it's a very sound idea. Pesky (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that Courcelles had health issues, but I bear him no ill will in any case; all he did was to make the obvious even more obvious. MalleusFatuorum23:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I "know" you well enough to know that you'd bear him no ill-will in any event. I s'pose what I'm really saying is that the number of people who are (internally, emotionally, and intellectually) "with you" might surprise you. But, self-defence being what it is (and ingrained into our collective psyches), I believe that the vast majority of them don't have either the courage, or alternatively sufficient DGAF-ism, to say so on-record. Pesky (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Mally. Good to see you in article space. I like those redirects because the names match the parameter names |notes= and |refs=. They're just redirects. More significantly, what do you think of the {{HighBeam}} template being used instead of {{subscription required}}. I see that as pure spam. It links into the WP:namespace right from the articles, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see it as symmetry, but whatever, not worth anyone fighting over. As for the {{HighBeam}} thingy, it's always been as clear as mud to me what's actually required, but it seems that some kind of explicit attribution to HighBeam is, for various reasons.[1]MalleusFatuorum23:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh noes, don't make me read that! But a bit down Ling.Nut calls them "shout-outs to the refs section" which pretty much what's going on here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me that you're edit warring to remove it. Somebody, somewhere, needs to make a binding recommendation not just about the {{HighBeam}} template but about attribution to HighBeam in general. It hardly seems fair or reasonable for this issue to be battled over in just a single article. Is this an area where RfC might be useful? MalleusFatuorum11:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, George first added it and I removed it. WP:BRD would suggest that talk is warranted before it stays in, but he's having none of that. Ling.Nut is right, as are you, that this needs discussion at a higher level. I've got questions out to Andy and Ocaasi about this. We'll see where it goes. I was thinking TfD, but getting a wider agreement would be best. It's not going to come down in favour of this; the place is quite hard on such things. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
That Highbeam template looks rubbish. I've never been particularly fond of the subscription required tags either. It isn't as though clicking a link is a huge deal. Parrotof Doom13:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm by no means wedded to the HighBeam template, didn't even know it existed until a few days ago. I just wish there was a standardised way of dealing with the HighBeam issue, and I don't much care what that turns out to be. But I can see the general point about some kind of warning before clicking on a link that's potentially unavailable to those without subscriptions. Seems to me as well that the point you're making PoD could equally be made about most of the {{cite web}} parameters. For instance, if I'm interested in seeing who the publisher is, then why not click on the link? I'm struggling to see how that's significantly different from indicating that the link's behind some kind of paywall. MalleusFatuorum14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't be knocking cite template, now; ya know I like them. They're about standardised good structure and being able to be parsed by tools. That said, I'm not much of a fan of most web sources. Any twit can dredge crap up with Google. Good articles are known by good sources. The issue with these HighBeam shout-out is they are intrusive and promotional. For almost every reader, they're a dead end, with an offer of a "free" seven day trial. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I was actually arguing against PoD and in favour of the {{subscription}} template, although obviously not very effectively. I always use citation templates myself, partly because I find them easier than manually formatting and partly for the reasons you say. MalleusFatuorum17:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
You just want the pertinent information. Who wrote it, when did they write it, who published it, where can I get it. After all, if a physical document is only available in one library in London, we don't put an address and opening hours in the citation do we? Parrotof Doom17:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, missed that; ma'af. See what I get for not getting enough sleep:/ We'll see where this goes; I'm thinking del or redirect to the usual template. Pbalo did cut the link to WP:namespace which is a step in the right direction. (@PoD; the " class=texhtml" inside the style attribute in your sig is invalid markup and should be cut;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. There are currently 1845 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just a few reviews, would be extremely beneficial.
Oh, dear ... I have a feeling that one's "steamin' for a creamin'", along the lines of "Go forth and multiply" ;P So don't say it!Pesky (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow! I just clicked three times on "choose as random article for review" and got proposals for two television programes - one being the Greek X Factor. The other one was for an article about some professional photographer in S. Africa which was obviously submitted by himself. I realise now that we really are short of new articles on essential topics. Richerman(talk)08:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand that admin hopefuls might be persuaded that spending a few weeks doing stuff like this might stand them in good stead at their imminent RfAs, but what about the rest of us, the untrusted masses? MalleusFatuorum20:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Leave me with the image that the reward is to be welcomed into heaven by 70 (is it really 70, seems rather a lot, where would they get them all from?) virgins. MalleusFatuorum21:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Until I was 14 I thought the word "virgin" only applied to females, so I know nothing. Lets hope those hopeful Muslim martyrs are more knowledgeable than I was, else they may be in for a shock. Or maybe not. MalleusFatuorum21:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Well they can't be that knowledgeable, they allowed themselves to be manipulated by men who won't ever give up their lives or money, into believing that a mystical sky-fairy will warmly congratulate them when they die. The way I look at these things, I don't remember the formation of the solar system, or the dinosaurs, or 1757. I'm not afraid of those periods, so why would I be afraid of death.... Parrotof Doom22:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
But the idea is to encourage you to die in support of some map-cap philosophy or other. And by knowledgeable I meant that I really wouldn't be very impressed by being welcomed by virgins of the same gender as myself. MalleusFatuorum22:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's only a GA but lesser articles get plugged all the time at ITN and OTD. It is getting a couple of words in OTD though. Richerman(talk)23:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I was going to say "Bugger!" then thought better of it. Although now you have seen the unintentional pun anyway. Sorry.
I am astonished that an article concerning someone such as Turing is not already FA status. I've only had one involvement with the FA process (James Tod) but I am prepared to put some time into it if others are willing. OK, we have missed the centenary but the guy deserves better than a GA and I feel that it is entirely within our collective abilities to rectify that situation. There is tons of stuff out there and the real problem is likely to be that of where the cut-off point is with regard to detail. I must admit to not being aware that there was a nom process for ITN/OTD, but I suppose it figures. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've done loads of FACs, and it really isn't so tough. I see that I'm the third-highest contributor to the Alan Turing article, but the problem often is in getting the entrenched editors on board over things like the bulleted list in Tributes by universities. Very often it's just not worth the hassle, especially if you have any aspirations to one day becoming an administrator; it rarely makes you any friends. MalleusFatuorum02:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Adminship has been suggested, but working as I do in the India-related stuff would stymie that, and in any case I am primarily a content person (as is material, not necessarily state of mind). I have just had yet another botched complaint against me at ANI, which makes 20 or so in 18 months. If I carry on at this rate, I will surpass you! - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
If you know how many times you've had your arse dragged to ANI then you've still got some way to go. I just gave up caring about it, much less counting. MalleusFatuorum13:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
According to (a previous incarnation of) the YouTube video about me, it was 232. Not that I care. I suspect MF is ahead of me, not that he or I care about that, either. — Arthur Rubin(talk)21:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hug me!
I haz my first FA :D And a congratulatory hug from you has more value than a pretty star. One of these days, you'll have to come down to my neck of the woods and get a real, live hug. And a beer. Or three. Or more ... Pesky (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
That's very well deserved Pesky. Good luck with the rest of your pony series, which ought to be easier now you have an idea of what to aim for. MalleusFatuorum12:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm really looking forward to all the nerdy research required for the others, heh! The one thing I really wish is that we had some really excellent photographs of really excellent representatives of the various breeds. If you fancy trawling around for historical and prehistorical and archaeological references to horses in various parts of the British Isles, just for fun, y'know .... and then dumping links onto, for example, User:ThatPeskyCommoner/equine research material, and turning it into a blue link, I would be your slave for life. Or at least until the end of the week ;P Pesky (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hot chicks here
Now that I have the attention of all the talk page stalkers, can I just remind everybody that a bunch of us miscreants will be getting together for a few drinks in Manchester tomorrow - meta:Meetup/Manchester/13 for details, but all are welcome 13:00 onwards at The Sir Ralph Abercromby, 35 Bootle Street, M2 5GU. It would be really great to chat with you again, Malleus, but no pressure if you're busy. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd thought of coming along, but my wife's getting ready to go into hospital early next week for an operation, so I want to spend time with her. Hopefully I'll make the next one. MalleusFatuorum23:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Family comes way, way, ahead of WP. I wish you both well. Hopefully, we will meet up again at some point as there are a couple of issues on our personal agenda that we keep saying will be addressed. Nonetheless, I am pleased to see that you did not completely rule out the idea of attending if personal circumstances had been better. You know that you will be amongst friends. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed Malleus, family always first and I wish your wife a speedy recovery. There's always another meetup in a couple of months – and we'll all be looking forward to seeing you again when the chance arises. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
My very best wishes to Mrs Malleus; family has to come first! My own experience of ops is that they go extremely well indeed; I hope she has the same good fortune. And hospital staff are a laugh and lovely people. And the beds and food are much, much better than they were when I was a kid! Tell her I'll be thinking of her. Pesky (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I think we all hope and (as appropriate) pray that the operation is as quick and uncomplicated as possible. Basically, that it winds up being a quick vacation in a big building with lots of people in it, many of whom have little sense of fashion innovation. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Im back editing on Wikipedia now, and looked through your edits to Poppy Meadow. I have to admit the article looks great, but I did add back in the Development section, as although to you it may seem the same as the plot section, its not, its has quotes and interviews in. Anyway, thanks for all your edits to the article. Poppy has just returned to the soap, though not much critical commentry has become of this, and still some details are a tad bit shady, on whether she is staying or not.
However, the article is quite stable (which is surprising for a returning character), and if you would like to go over it one more time before I propose this, if your free, would you like to nominate Poppy to FA with me? Youve done so much towards the article, I feel its only best to allow you too put your name towards it. Of course, I will have to put some credit towards the other user (Frickative), whom edited the article with me when we first made it. So, if your still awake from my drivel, what do you say? — M.Mario (T/C) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This is crazy talk. Everyone knows that Malleus is just here to drive away good-faith editors and generally disrupt the entire encyclopedia! Parrotof Doom20:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that; I disagree. MF has never shown that attitude towards me, nor hardly anyone else as I know of. So, although I respect your opinion, I am going to chose to ignore it. — M.Mario (T/C) 20:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Just a touch, yes. Although sometimes that is hard to determine online. Personally I've always found Malleus quite even-handed. If you're polite to him, he's polite in return. If you're an ass, he smacks you. Seems fair to me. Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
@Mario. I'll leave it entirely to you whether or not to include the Development section. The article does still need a bit of tweaking though I think. For instance, "Poppy, Jodie's best friend, is a brunette beautician." What does that mean exactly? She's brunette and a beautician, or she's a beautician specialising in brunettes? Also needs a little bit of updating given Poppy's return. The section in development beginning "According to an EastEnders spokesperson, there is potential for Poppy to return in the future ..." seems a bit wrong tense-wise given Poppy's return. MalleusFatuorum21:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Give me an hour or so to look through the article again, but as for your generous offer of a co-nomination I haven't done anything like enough to deserve that; the credit is all yours. MalleusFatuorum21:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
(WARNING: Ignorant American post upcoming.) ... What are "Stretford scallies"? ... and I can I assume that "scallies" is the plural form of scally? Chedzilla (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Short form of scallywags, otherwise known as Scousers. And Stretford is where I live, looked down upon by the posh bastards like PoD in rural Flixton, about two miles away. MalleusFatuorum22:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
They call em chavs, skegheads, or safes around here in southern Wales. Basically the lads you see with shaved heads wearing navy and white tracksiuts, baseball caps, and drive Vauxhall Novas with unfeasibly large bumpers and alloys, unfeasibly powerful sound system, blaring hip hop, garage, drum and bass or other crap "music". Most towns have them, although probably a lot of towns in the "posher" areas of Britain like Oxfordshire and Nottinghamshire probably less so.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Ahem! Speaking as someone who lived in the allegedly-"posher" area of Oxfordshire for a while, I can assure you that the subspecies Homo non-sapiens chavii, in most of its known variants, was alive and kicking (often each other) across much of the county, although appearing generally in small pockets of sub-habitat within the greater ecosystem ;P Pesky (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
LOL, that's the correct subspecies name I believe LOL. Well, I'm sure most of the towns have them evne if in the minority but I tend to associate rural Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Notthinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Hampshire with a better class of people and those counties seem to have a higher proportion of wealthier folk I think than most other places in the country.
The Chipping Norton set etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah. Same meaning it had where I grew up, then. Except it was more an individual insult than a collective group term. Instead of calling someone a...uh...glorified term for a part of the male anatomy (or, to quote Anthrax..."sexual organ located in the lower abdominal area"...one must watch for the Civility Patrol these days), you'd call them a scrote. As in "What a scrote!".Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
