User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2010/May

This made my day

Remember when I said that I wrote an article in "Teen", well this just made my day.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did remember, that's why I knew you wouldn't mind. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You sure do have a way with words.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer_review/Objections_to_evolution/archive2

Hello, would you be able to comment on this peer review? Thanks. - RoyBoy 06:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

never said hi before...

and I don't know why. I'm a friend of Fred's (it was criminal how he was treated), and absolutely not a fan of Peter's. Keep fighting, if for nothing else than to piss him off, and thanks! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm

Is this an appropriate response? I would have thought that blocking someone for sockpuppetry, one would at least know who the person being blocked was a sockpuppet for. Parrot of Doom 07:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem surprised. That's par for the course around here. Malleus Fatuorum 12:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think blocking the account was the right thing as its only edits were trolling. While I agree that it's probably someone's sock, I think filing a request at WP:SPI would be interesting. Nev1 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely then the block should have been for trolling, not being a suspected sockpuppet of an unidentified user? Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That would have been less contentious, but the account does have the marks of a sock account. Proof would be preferable though, so I think I may file that SPI. Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you do, Nev. I'm all for a bit of common sense sometimes but I'm surprised that a hunch-block can be explained away with a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nev1 (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nev, suspicions confirmed. Parrot of Doom 21:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Whenever you're free is good for me; I'll be busy (again) this weekend so I won't be on too much, but I will try to get to any more concerns. Thanks for your review! ceranthor 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll take another look through over the weekend. Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm free for a little while if you are. ceranthor 21:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. ceranthor 21:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask you here; I don't understand what "enigmatic arc" (from the lead) means. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Other concerns should be addressed. "Enigmatic arc" indicates that the volcano is part of the strange arc which is separated from the other Cascades and appears to be different from all the primary volcanic ranges in the area (the Cascades and Basin and Range). Best, ceranthor 22:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ceranthor 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was funny

User_talk:21:48,_9_May_2008_(UTC). Anthony (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How many administrators can dance on the head of a pin? The Devil certainly makes work for idle hands. Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"

— Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord (1933)

"Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities"? Looks like logic wasn't one of Hammerstein's strong points. Ning-ning (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I take it back; he is being mis-quoted here. Ning-ning (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/OpenBSD/archive1

Hi. can you pop by here please? Many thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior

How about you leave John alone and act a little more civil in the future? All I have seen from you on his page are smart-ass remarks made at him personally. Do us all a favor, and get over whatever childish grudge you have towards him. –Turian (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you go looking for someone else to patronise and irritate the Hell out of? John is the archetype of the rude administrator complaining about the incivility of other editors while being conspicuously blind to his own. That's not a "childish grudge", it's a sign of the sickness at the heart of the admin corps. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. Didn't you post this only a few days ago? You civility warriors are a complete joke, but not a very funny one. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but admonishing me to justify your actions will get you nowhere. Interestingly enough, if you had an actual argument, I am sure you would have done something more than just be a pest yourself. Get over it, get over him, and ignore it. Your current behavior is atrocious. –Turian (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You have an opinion, and I have an opinion of your opinion that does not mesh with your own. Get over yourself and go play somewhere else. Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Turian, are you fucking kidding me? You're going to be all high and mighty, threatening to "visit ANI", while chastising the user about... being civil? Get the fuck over yourself. (anyone else, check the undid edits for what I'm referring to) Tan | 39 17:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Turian has finished commenting at Tan's talk page as well as yours, so I hope that this whole debacle settles down. Why'd this start in the first place? ceranthor 21:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It began with a discussion of Turian's hero, John, adding wp:peacock tags to Scarlett Johnson, instead of rolling his sleeves up and fixing whatever he thought the problem was. Interestingly, John's tags were removed by Newyorkbrad, but John thinks he's a slighted saint nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If that isn't loaded wording I don't know what is. –Turian (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what happened, live with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting enough, but certainly not worthy of such a conflict that it needs to involve exchanges of explicit words and rueful bickering ;). It certainly isn't helping that you guys are arguing over such a petty thing. ceranthor 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't give a flying fuck what the discussion was about. I didn't need to. All I saw was your uncivil behavior towards him, and I see your continued insults here. Old habits die hard, eh? And ceranthor, I know you just became a sysop, but insulting other members over and over is not a petty thing. –Turian (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So you jumped feet first into a discussion you had no idea about. Do you really think with the benefit of hindsight that was a good idea? Your hero John insults other editors on a regular basis, why not call him on it? Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Careful, Ceranthor, Turian might start flinging around threats of having your sysop bit removed, too. What a joke. Tan | 39 22:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Turian will one day follow through with one of his many threats. Until then ... Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Stop calling him my hero. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't in a mob.

2. This is a discussion about your behavior, not about Johansson nor John.

3. I have seen your insulting behavior for a while now, and I got a little tired of it.

4. I said I was going to bring the attention of one sysop's rights. Your piss poor of an argument is starting to get annoying. –Turian (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Turian, fuck off my talk page. You are boring, ignorant, abusive, and a generally obnoxious presence. Now go take that to ANI and see if I give a fuck. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be delighted to see you blocked. Good day. –Turian (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you will, so have it at kiddo. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave Turian a warning and advised him to not post here, prior to Malleus' last above.

I would like to encourage everyone else here to try not to escalate to hostility so quickly and come find an uninvolved administrator to try and calm things down when someone's provocative and in your face.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As Turian removed the warning, then posted here with further attacks after being told by Malleus explicitly not to post here, I have blocked him for 48 hrs for disruption, personal attacks, and harassment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm sorry to see Turian blocked for 48 hours over a minor spat. The way to deal with editors like Turian is to deal with them, not to block them. Wikipedia needs to become a little more robust, and a lot less precious about "civility". Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not his first block; nor his first recent block, unfortunately. He's been talked to about it, warned, blocked, talked to, warned, blocked.

I appreciate that you disagree with the policy as we're enforcing it, and regret that an example of that popped up on your talk page given your objections to the policy, but this really went from non-constructive to actively destructive and disruptive very rapidly and he's indicating he'd have kept escalating had I not done that.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Obviously I'll never agree with the policy currently being enforced, but equally obviously I'm not in a position to change it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow. This whole day was great. Tan | 39 22:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Look on the bright side; you've still your admin belt, at least for another 48 hours anyway. I on the other hand have nothing except another vengeful enemy (which I'm not exactly short of). Oh, woe is me! ;-( Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever turned an enemy into a firend or at least someone who's not out to indef you Malleus?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(raises hand) Tan | 39 23:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(Laughs) I would have never guessed that you of all people would have gotten along with Malleus.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

MF and I have a mutual enemy in sanctimonious bullshit. Tan | 39 23:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I recall that you have not always been my biggest fan White Shadows, and User:Pedro even went so far as to offer to nominate me at the bear pit after having sunk my first effort there. And as Tan says, he and I have not always seen eye to eye ... I guess my basic position is that you never really know someone until you've disagreed with them. What's important is how that disagreement is dealt with. Too many admins deal with it by treating editors as children who need to be put in the naughty corner. Tan is quite right, we have a similar world view. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit stupid here but what does "sanctimonious" mean? And I guess you're right. I got blocked because of you! but I still tend to look up to you in terms of article writeing.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are savvy enough to edit Wikipedia, but not to google up a word? Cmon.Here's a pass. Tan | 39 23:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Being a teen. I have the right to be lazy :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting old. my memory's not what it was ... actually it was never that good anyway, but that's by the by. Remind me, how did I get you blocked? Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Iridescent/Archive 12#Just a few words of advice.... Remember now? Julian blocked me for a day.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you check out "Turian mentorship" at WP:ANI please, you are being mentioned. SGGH ^ping! 23:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't be bothered, sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lost in all of this is why the same hot spot keeps popping on my watchlist, with unchanged behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I could explain, but the time probably isn't right. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find an RFA for Turian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Or for John, either-- who's got the magic stick? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

John changed his username. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm always curious to know who supports RFAs for admins who behave like this: I only support RFAs for candidates whose character I know very well. If anyone can link me to those RFAs, I'd be obliged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guinnog - his old name.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's one hefty list of Opposes-- wait til Ceoil gets a glance at who supported :) Why can't I find Turian? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He never ran for one as far as I can tell. He's never gottena name change either. Afterall, his did onyl join a month or two before I did.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm slow on the uptake: I see Turian is not an admin (apparently just a Friend of John, who stuck his nose in here?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh, I hope Ceoil doesn't come after me. I supported; though digging around I found this which makes it apparent I was still learning about RfA at the time. (I haven't been following this thread so I don't know what he's done recently that people are talking about.) Mike Christie (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Turian should be unblocked or you Malleus blocked because Turian didn't do anything you didn't do.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Redundant (you already said that on ANI, and it isn't needed or useful here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Turian didn't do anything that the administrator John didn't do either, so I'd agree to be blocked if John was as well. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little taken aback by the changes that take place on your talk page from one hour to the next. I was just trying to tell Turian that he should calm down, and the "petty" thing was actually referring to the conflict over the peacock tags. I have a inner sense that Turian is indeed a nice person; I sincerely believe he was frustrated. Hopefully this won't escalate any further, and I hope that it doesn't come off that I'm being naive. lol ceranthor 00:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's down to Turian. If he continues to believe that he is allowed to do what he so vehemently criticises in others, then his remaining time here may be even less than mine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems that this is gone out of proportion. This talk page. ANI. I think we're gonna take this to ARBCOM.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've alredy proposed it.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you going to be asking ArbCom to pontificate on? Malleus Fatuorum 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And exactly how many threats do there need to be against admins regarding arbcom? Even Malleus with his cynical view of administrators wouldn't bother with all the drama. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't bother, you're quite right, not least because I have just as low an opinion of ArbCom as I do of the bulk of administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean you don't consider insane hubris and needless bureaucracy at all endearing? : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I find all the pseudo-judicial mumbo-jumbo claptrap at best childish and at worst corrupt. Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

An absolutely top-hole spiffing idea chaps!

Why don't we adopt an unwritten policy of not blocking users for being rude to Malleus. He'll soon get pissed off with the unfettered abuse from other editors, especially after he's been blocked a few more times for responding to it. That way we'll be rid of him for good. It's brilliant! Why has nobody thought of this before? Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No offense to B, but I have no idea wtf he's on about. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's just another of his efforts to get rid of me, by hook or by crook. Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What's that? Beeblebrox said something retarded? Now that is a surprise. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If I ever said something like that, I'd be blocked or at least warned....--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to bed. I'm expecting a motion for a case to begin while I'm asleep. Perhaps something good may come out of this afterall.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tanthalas

...but it's standard to edit somebody's userpage to make it accurate wrt adminship. Lest others approach the user with adminly requests. I've seen it done countless times. I don't really care much either way, but removing the admin userbox is just housekeeping, and FWIW doesn't reflect on my opinion at all. JamieS93^❤ 13:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it's disrepectful. Tan has been unblocked, and he's perfectly capable of doing whatever housekeeping is required on his own user page. Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt the intentions were good, but making any sort of removal/change to another's userpage is just bad form. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Too bad for this. I hope that everyone gains a new perspective over here and it doesn't take another lost good admin to make us come to our senses. Hopefully Tan will return after a short break (or however long he needs). Maybe in the future, everyone could be a bit more respectful of each other on this page. I don't mean to beat around the bush, but disdain doesn't make a person go away and it certainly doesn't usually help them make good choices, either. ceranthor 23:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame "this page" Ceranthor, it's just about the only honest venue left here on wikipedia. Is there a secret procedure you admins go through after "promotion" to remove your consciences and any sense of decency? Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is when the master is inserted into our brainstems.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I originally posted a tl;dr message here, but I think I'll be taking a break from your talk page. Too much heat. ;) ceranthor 23:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And I promise to you that I didn't, nor will ever, undergo it. The second I feel I have stepped out of line beyond a reasonable doubt or someone I respect advises me to resign (with a good reason, of course), I shall do so. ceranthor 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ceranthor, with all due respect, you're a child, and ought not to be involving yourself in this. Go find a volcano to write about. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a page meant to be honest, that's what I meant to convey above. ceranthor 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm encouraged to learn that administrators at least have brainstems, and will wait with bated breath until they manage to evolve the brain to go with it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Even when measured in internet time, evolution isn't exactly fast. Hope you're in no hurry to see it happen :) MLauba ^(Talk) 23:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just say that I'm not holding my breath. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Somewhere in this mess you said to never trust anyone with a clean block log ... I'm gonna have to get busy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To follow-up, all I can say is "fairy nuff". I didn't mean any harm, and indeed, this entire situation wasn't a pretty one. So let's move on. JamieS93^❤ 17:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A favor...

...if you're not too engaged in the musical discussion on Sandy's page! I've been very slowly working on bringing Horses in World War I to FA status. Would you mind taking a look through it to fix my usual dismemberment of the English language? It's a bit different than my normal breed articles, not to mention a bit bigger, so your opinion on anything that's missing would also be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, but no worries if you don't have the interest :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you've come to me because of my deep knowledge of horses. Not. Oddly enough, I went to an exhibition on animals at war at the Imperial War Museum, probably a couple of years ago now; I'll be more than happy to take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

He's just stalling, 'cuz he doesn't dare come back to my talk page without something good. Like a picture or a song, at least! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

PS, Dana, you might entice User:Yomangan to look at that one. Remind him of War Elephants! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, not bad SandyG, but you'll have to up the ante a bit to get your first block. It's not enough just to say that Dana reminds Yomangan of a war elephant, you have to say it with real feeling and invective, preferably also with expletives. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, miercoles. And what about the essence of my character? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What does miercoles mean? I'm afraid that my Spanish would probably embarrass a three-year-old in Madrid. On the other hand, I can order beers and point vigorously. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As "sugar" is a euphemism for "shit" in English, miercoles (literally, Wednesday) is a polite way to say mierda in Spanish. That'll be $10-- Flo needs it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, wikipedia is surprisingly instructive in so many surprising ways. I had never heard of "sugar" being used as a euphemism for "shit" until now. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya gotta be a Pollyanna like me to know that kind of sh ... sugar. (Fudge, too.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Here in the Deep South, "Give Mama some sugar" refers to kisses and affection. It's all about location. And your current level of inebriation. --Moni3 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Betcha Bessie Smith used it for more than affection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ladies, please. There are gentlemen present. Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Where? I'm still waitin' for Yo-Man to show up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't say my name three times in a row. Or five. Now I suppose I have to do your bidding without so much as your firstborn in payment? P.S. Dana, you remind me of a War Elephant, don't know why. Yomangani^talk 12:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Well, it's not the worst of the things I've been compared to :) However, Yomangan, if you would like to shrink your war animals somewhat and read about horses, you would be more than welcome. The more the merrier before FAC. Malleus, haven't you ever heard anyone exclaim "sugar honey ice tea"? That's apparently what ladies say instead of the vulgar "shit".... Dana boomer (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Malleus is hampered by the fact he lives in England. They don't have Southern Belle's there... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No Southern Belles, but we do have Essex girls. (Can't believe there's an article on that!) Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Essex is North of course. Mind you, anything further North than Winchester is "up North" as far as I'm concerned :)..... and Dear Me - yes I can't believe Essex Girls is a blue link!! Pedro :  Chat  17:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I love this talk page. Do I lose my Southern Belle license if I've never heard "sugar honey ice tea" before? I'm like Moni - "sugar" means "kisses" (as long as you are talking to someone underage) and we don't joke about iced tea (I'm surprised there has never been a war between the sweetened and unsweetened camps; you should see the complex diplomatic negotiations that take place at our house before family dinners since I married into a family of heathens who drink it improperly). Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perspectives from this side of the screen.

Hi, on a positive note. I have more insidious goals in my efforts on Wikipedia than chasing an FA star. Success was verified when an English teacher commented on the dramatic improvement in writing ability of one of your mentees. I saw the same occur in my own daughter after working in collaboration with you. Some I suspect is technical improvement by noting your edits. However, it seems to be more broad in nature; perhaps an emulation of writing style. There are also less tangible, if not impossible to verbalize benefits involving confidence and accomplishments. My rapid response to any criticism of the project is fueled by emotion; perhaps, because I want the level of interaction between students and the community to increase as I see it beneficial to both the encyclopedia and the schools. The student's appreciated your support of the most recent criticism - they (like me)are hypersensitive, if not insecure in their place on Wikipedia. That first edit is a very big deal, it would take little to discourage them - not even the fear of a bad grade. Few of them attempt FA, it is not a requirement of the project, but rather a goal. Those who do receive acknowledgment of their efforts become somewhat famous (as nerdy as they may sound - the great ones from the previous years are held in high esteem). I do emphasize FA as part of the project. I'm not certain if that is the best approach; although I'm certain working with less lofty goals would not push them to the maximum potential. As always your support is far more reaching than you may suspect. Cheers. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm always conscious (or at least I try to remember) when looking at the work of others that another human being has invested time and effort in the article, and inevitably therefore has some kind of emotional investment in it. That doesn't mean that I won't be critical of it, but I do the best I can not to be discouraging. Which is why I reacted so strongly to certain of the comments made on your talk page. I'm glad to see your students and Ucucha now working together on the few remaining outstanding issues, and I remain optimistic about the success of this FAC. Why shouldn't your students be aiming for FA? There's nothing magical or unattainable about it, it just demands a certain investment, and a degree of dogged persistence. I'm struggling a bit with an FAC myself, it happens to all of us.

I'm really pleased but not a little surprised to see that comment by the English teacher. What's so encouraging is, as you say, that the benefits potentially transcend the specific article. I've noticed myself that I've felt it necessary to do less and less copyediting on the additions and alterations being made, as the writing is steadily improving. It doesn't matter whether your students ever go on to write another wikipedia article, but what does matter is the sense of achievement they'll get from this one, and what they'll have learned from having to deal with curmudgeonly old buggers like me who keep finding fault with their writing. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not ashamed at my less than perfect writing skills. Having someone correct the grammatical flow of certain sentences isn't discouraging at all, after all, every Wikipedia article (regardless of its level of success) is a collaboration. I may have never said this directly, but your help and time invested is vastly appreciated.  :) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and you're right. The vast majority of wikipedia articles result from a collaboration. I was very lucky in stumbling across one project that was bubbling over with great editors who tried to show me the ropes despite my bewilderment, and were very patient with me. As I say on my user page, the buzz of working intensively with such great editors over a couple of weeks or so to get this up to and through FAC was inspirational. Parrot of Doom wasn't around then, but I think if he ever decided to jack it in I'd be distraught. Not least because the world would be the poorer without masterpieces such as this and this. Anyway, enough of me. You're doing a great job, and with Ucucha's help and support I've got absolutely no doubt that you'll make it, then you can be a hero too. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Me...a hero!...oh stop, you're making me blush! My knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia are still pretty thin, however I do plan to stick around for a few years so I can help my sister when she decided to take AP Biology with the man.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sensing that for at least some of you, the man has been inspirational. What he's done is pretty brave, and somewhat innovative, and hopefully a path that others will feel encouraged to try and follow. Live long and prosper Jimmy. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to his evident vision, I found Jimmy's dedication and courtesy enlightening as well. Just thought I should mention that. ceranthor 20:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We should probably stop now, to spare Jimmy's blushes. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And mine. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember those "inspirational" posters you used to see in every office? They were mostly bollocks, but one stood out for me. It was an image of a father teaching his son to fish. The caption was something like "The future is what we leave behind us". (If it turns out that I'm wrong about that, then I'll reprint the poster with my much better caption. and make a fortune :-) ). Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I bet they were fishing for Dolphins though. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They were fly fishing if memory serves. I've only ever been fishing once, in a canal in Cheshire. I was so keen not to catch a fish that I only pretended to put bait on my hook. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's the one I'm thinking of, the caption was the cringeworthy "A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way". – iridescent 22:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, definitely not that one. I'd have thrown up over that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, can it be that you are not familiar with despair.com? E.g., this, or this, or this? I feel much more inspired by this sort of poster. Mike Christie (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and find the poster I'm thinking of ... but maybe it was all just a beautiful dream. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how a conversation can change over the course of a few short hours! :)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Damsel in distress

Thanks for your reply at Grand Central Station. Somehow the story of a bad-tempered lush who was held captive by the aristocracy, never to be set free, seemed like a strange metaphor for the later discussion below your reply, but I didn't want to lower the tone. She'll be going live soon at Lady Grange and any further comment is welcome of course. Ben MacDui 09:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it was me? I don't remember at all ... Malleus Fatuorum 14:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Fairy

Congratulations, its been promoted. More please; today or tomorrow is fine. Ceoil (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff Malleus, I thought you weren't bothering with that one though? You sneaked it in under the radar :) Parrot of Doom 18:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend to take it to FAC, but I'm glad I did, as it was improved during the process. I'm pleased as well that the strategy for keeping popular culture trivia out of Guy Fawkes appears to be bearing fruit. Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

haha. The ODNB entry for Fawkes has a very nice summary of his 'legacy'. I think I might copy the style a little. Its actually been more difficult than I thought it would be, to find decent sources on the man. Most books seem to be aimed at children. Parrot of Doom 19:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's surprised me too. Fawkes seems to be quite a mysterious character. Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting Cottingly Fairies to FA - a fine piece of work. I'm sure it will be appearing on the front page before too long. Richerman (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine that there have been too many fairy articles on the main page recently, if ever, but it's up to Raul. I'm not bothered either way. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ben Gascoigne

This article is, I think, nowhere near being up your alley: New Zealand-born Australian astronomer; most exciting thing he did was fall down and nearly kill himself. But he was of interest to me for a couple of reasons (spouse of an important Australian abstract artist, Rosalie Gascoigne; recalibrated our measurements of the universe by a factor of two), so i wrote his biography. As always, it would be a better article for your scrutiny if you have the time. It isn't too long. The GA review is just winding up, but if you wanted to wait 'til that was signed off, that'd be fine. Then I'm off to FAC with it i suspect. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks very nice. Let me know when the GA review's finished and I'll take a closer look. Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your initial tweaks. It has been passed at GA now. Thought I might also see if one of the science-oriented editors like Casliber or Serendipodous might take a look too. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The more the merrier. Congratulations. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ball lightning

From witches to fairies to ball lightning - there's no end to your thirst for weird phenomena is there? I never thought you'd be correcting my spelling to American English though - whatever next? :) Now what should we do about that "popular culture" section....? Richerman (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There certainly isn't. My current fascination is with a couple of aliens who landed on Earth in the 12 century as the result of a malfunctioning matter transporter. The answer to the question "What to do with the popular culture trivia" is always the same as far as I'm concerned. Get rid of it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's life Jim but not as we know it....Were they Flemish or phlegmish? maybe that would account for the green colour. Actually on the sign they look black rather than green :) Richerman (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some references for that story in google books here and here Richerman (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also found a good paper on the subject, which someone was kind enough to download for me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fearful

I'm fearful of editing Wikipedia. Will you help alleviate my fear? Volalo (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you fearful? Of what? It's just a web site like any other, what's the worst that can happen? Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well he/she could use a swear word. Parrot of Doom 14:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting analysis of the prissyness of some Americans Wonder what they'd make of this? Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fearful because there are moderators who leave me disturbing messages telling me to scram. Volalo (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just tell them to fuck off, that's what I do. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Or send them one of these Parrot of Doom 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Does that really work? They won't get mad at me and bash in my brains? Volalo (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, then it seemed just like an observation to me, nothing threatening. I guess we all have our suspicions about new editors who express "fear about editing", so I'd suggest that you just go about your business and do whatever it is you want to do here. It's only a web site after all, nobody's in a position to "bash in" your brains. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I think that it's kinda odd that you talked to use two at random but there really is nothing to fear about. IF you think that you'll be blocked, don't worry. Take a look Malleus' and my block log and you'll see what I mean.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a soothing note on Volalo's talk page, offering myself as a resource.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully Mattise will appreciate your concern. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I did my best for Mattisse, it was not good enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Better luck this time. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your encouragement. Who's Mattise by the way? Does he drop by often? Is he a moderator? Volalo (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

She (Me thinks) was a terrific article creator and an asset to our project but was indef blocked for sock puppetry. It's a shame to see her go....--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The pleasant manner in which you describe her makes me sympathize. It really is unfortunate. By the way, what's "sockpuppetry" and "indef blocked"?Volalo (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppetry is useing more than one account on Wikipdia and trying to hide it. She did it to get away from all the drama that was surrounding her old account but broke many rules in doing so. Hense the indef block, or her account was blocked forever and she had her talk page acess removed as well....poor thing. I do miss her but policy is policy and she did break it....--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you broken policy before? Volalo (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes in fact. I have been caught (and blocked) for useing my friend's account back in september of 09. I got his pasword and edited for him which was considered a light form of sockpuppetry. I've also been blocked for "hounding" and for violateing the 3RR a few months ago. However all of this took place when I was a very immature person and I doubt that I'll ever be blocked again.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to bed now. If you have any other questions or comments. I'll try to answer then when I wake up or if you want, I think that Malleus is still around to talk to :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your help. Have a good night! Volalo (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

you too. And if you ever need any help, just ping me or Malleus or even good old Wehwalt and I'm sure one of us will be online and can help. Keep up the good wiki-gnomeing!--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Volalo has been indef blocked as a sock.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly a surprise, surely. Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I suppose. I haven't seen the report, but the subject matter leads to obvious guesses. But if what you are saying that this is Mattisse herself, I very much doubt it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be some unnecessary secrecy surrounding Volalo's block, and I'm puzzled as to why there's no indication on the talk page about the specific reason for the block, as I don't see anything particularly troubling about that user's contributions.[1] It's clearly very suspicious though that more than half of them were about her fear of posting, even though she hadn't by then posted anything at all. That's a signature dish for Mattisse, surely even you'd have to agree. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the report will answer all. If we ever see it. I can't imagine Mattisse ever using the word scram though. Totally out of character, which is why I concluded it was not her.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

MF and PoD negligence

I hear that your fans are shocked at your negligence in article building; whatcha waiting for? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's so much to do, and so little time. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Problematic behaviour

Hi Malleus, it's me, 174.103.152.118. As promised, I've continued to monitor your contributions to this project and, until recently, I must say I thought it was having some effect. I just wanted to stop by and let you know how disappointed I am with your conduct at Talk:Guy Fawkes. I don't deny your expertise in the maintenance/improvement of G/F articles, and while I side with you in that dispute, what you did and said was completely inappropriate. As always, I'm available for coaching when it comes to these disputes. Next time, please consider it before sinking to their level. Your friend, 207.67.17.45 (talk) (aka 174.103.152.118) 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, I'm talking about is of little consequence. It's what I expect from you that's important. And I believe that you understand exactly what that is. 207.67.17.45 (talk) (aka 174.103.152.118) 21:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are, no idea what you expect, and no interest in either. Now, go play somewhere else. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

More of the same. I hope you're still considering that well-deserved wikibreak. Chronic editing seems to have taken a toll on your memory and demeanor. All the best, Malleus. I'll be watching. 207.67.17.45 (talk) (aka 174.103.152.118) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC).

Watch away troll. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone's had a few drinks of a Friday night... – B.hotep •talk• 21:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) As long as you occasionally feed me ;) 207.67.17.45 (talk) (aka 174.103.152.118) 21:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Would you like this editor to go away, Malleus, or do you want to handle it yourself? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm quite happy to ignore it Floquenbeam, but thanks for asking. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've asked them to refrain from editing this page without something saying something contributive. Hope that helps. ceranthor 12:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Best just to ignore it Ceranthor. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sherman Minton

Hello! I've finished a copy edit of Sherman Minton. Should you have time for a follow up review I would appreciate it. Thanks again. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's late here now, I'll try and look tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What an intriguing article! ceranthor 02:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Row, row, row your cloak

If you get the chance, can you take a look at Halkett boat? This is, to say the least, out of my comfort zone, but I'm quite taken with the way it's shaped up—I've been planning to do this one for ages (ever since I saw the picture currently in the lead) but kept putting it off. You should approve—it has cannibals, umbrella-propelled cloaks sailing down the Thames, Inuit-speaking Orkneymen and the line "the survivors were reduced to eating lichen, their own boots and the remains of rotten carcasses abandoned by wolves". – iridescent 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

For you Iridescent, anything. What are you aiming for with this article? Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In an ideal world, expand it enough that it can be split and Boat-cloak taken to FA, as it would be a shoo-in for April Fools TFA, but realistically that ain't gonna happen as there's not enough to say. As it stands, I was thinking more in terms of "making sure there's no obvious glitches"—I'm simultaneously not familiar enough with the topic to spot obvious errors, and over-familiar to the extent that I can't spot things that are obvious-to-me but make no sense. If you can't find any problems, I might see if I can poke it through FAC, despite its being short, as I'd love to see that image on the main page. I think it's got about as big as it can get—the sources just don't exist, and the only thing that's obviously missing to me is an "in popular culture" section, which I'm trying to avoid. As far as I can find, the only decent sources that discuss the boats in detail, rather than tangentially, are the 2009 New Scientist article and the 1955 article from The Beaver. Stromness Museum (home of the last surviving example) might publish something on them as well, but while Stromness may not quite be the middle of nowhere it's certainly nearer the middle than the edge, and I don't propose trekking out there to find out. – iridescent 08:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

PS While I'm here, if you or any of your TPSs want to complete this GA review, I imagine it would be much appreciated—the reviewer started it, but has now posted an "on a break" notice. I don't really want to do it myself as I'm too close to the topic. – iridescent 10:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer's left a note on his talk page saying he'll be back tomorrow, but if he isn't I'll happily take over the review. I'm going to take a look at the Halkett boat now. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Guido again

Do you have anything which might tie together his early life, and life as a soldier? Most of what I have skips that, and goes straight to the plot. There's a fair few cite reqs that either need fulfilling, or the relevant text deleting. His ODNB entry is quite good but I don't want to plagiarise it. I'm also trying my best not to make the article a miniature version of Gunpowder Plot but it isn't easy! Parrot of Doom 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up; I'm off to the library tomorrow anyway. I just looked at what you've done with the Plot section, and I see what you mean about a miniature version. I think what I'd try to do would be to recast it a little, with more of a concentration of Fawkes's role and less about the plot itself. Putting Fawkes at the centre of the account in other words, even though he was really only a bit-part player in truth. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Antonia Fraser's Gunpowder Plot has quite a good potted summary of his early life and time in Spain, IIRC. – iridescent 17:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm already using that. One has to be careful, she supposes many things (although to be fair its extremely well referenced and also obvious where she's guessing). I'm only doing this one so that Malleus doesn't throw his monitor through the window at the repeated V for Vendetta bollocks that goes on there :) Parrot of Doom 17:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm running out of breath on this one, I think. I'm not sure what else I can add. I've not yet read through it in full, and I've only played around with the "legacy" section (that needs renaming I think). Do you think anything is missing?

I might, if I'm bored enough, start working on the other conspirators' articles, and look to a Good Topic, or maybe a Featured Topic if enough is available. Parrot of Doom 20:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been avoiding it rather, but I'll take a look later. I was just looking at Thomas Crapper, which reminded of your pail closet. Maybe there's a GT there as well. I'm surprised you haven't put that forwards at GAN btw. Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never really thought about it, it was a nice little challenge and wasn't that hard to do. Maybe a "History of the shitter" Featured Topic... Parrot of Doom 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nominated it for FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes/archive1 Parrot of Doom 20:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Blimey! Let's see how it goes then. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Well I've run out of ideas to expand/improve it, so we'll see what people have to say. Psst, don't mention that film... Parrot of Doom 20:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm hoping that I've done enough to this to avoid ever seeing that bloody mask in Guido's article again, and to discourage any future merge proposals. I want to add a sentence or two to the Legacy section probably, but it's about as ready as it'll ever be I suppose. Faint heart never won fair lady. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Fawkes really avoid being drawn and quartered? My instinct is that even dead, they would have mutilated his body. Also, I'm sure their heads were placed on spikes but I haven't found it yet. Parrot of Doom 10:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, his ODNB entry (which does have some errors) says "Fawkes suffered the same fate in the Old Palace Yard, Westminster; his body was quartered, in fulfilment of his sentence.". Parrot of Doom 10:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible he was quartered, but I still think it's right to say that he avoided the latter part of his sentence, because by then, being dead, he obviously couldn't have cared less what they did with his body. There would have been little point anyway in carrying out some of the more colourful aspects of his sentence, such as burning his testicles in front of his eyes. I've certainly seen an old engraving of at least some of the conspirators heads on spikes, although I don't think it identified who they were. Strange that nobody seems to say what happened to Fawkes's body ... we probably ought to look deeper into that. Malleus Fatuorum 13:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems very likely from what I've been reading that Fawkes's body was indeed drawn and quartered, even though he was dead. Rylands talks about him being taken to the block, for instance, so I think we're safe in adding that. What's less clear is what happened to the various parts of his body after that. Some accounts talk of the four quarters being displayed in various locations, others talk about the heads being displayed on spikes, and yet others say that they were burned. I'm not convinced that anyone acually knows for certain. Maybe the best we can do is to report what usually happened in cases like this? Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done what I can with this now, see what you think. I think it's very likely that Fawkes's head was displayed on a spike, but I haven't found anyone saying so. Also, what do you think about changing the image in the lead for this one, if we can find all the necessary details of course. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've been distracted by other matters, mainly having to spend a good length of time checking and rechecking my sources based on the opinions of another, rather belligerent editor. Frankly I wonder why I bother when this is the thanks I get.

Your changes all look good to me. I've seen the spike image on a .gov website somewhere but it is odd that neither Fraser or Haynes (the two sources I have to hand) mention anything about it. I've always thought the infobox image was a bit rubbish (its a cropped version of a larger image), so I'd not object to its being changed for something a little better. Parrot of Doom 00:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw that unfolding earlier, but it's a cross we all have to bear; you work your butt off and then someone comes along and basically rubbishes your work. Just the way it is here. Anyway, back to the business at hand, Nortcote-Parkinson doesn't talk about what happened to the bits of Fawkes's body either. It seems that all of them lose interest once he's dead. I'll see if I can track down the details of that portrait; I've never really been fond of the image we're using right now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Ainsworth's book, like we did in Dick Turpin? Parrot of Doom 01:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, its a more skilled image but I'm not particularly enamoured with it. I've found this page, I like the image of Fawkes kneeling with the lamp, examining the powder, but I've not yet been able to find it in online version of Harrison's book, presumably because they're different editions. I'll keep looking. Parrot of Doom 10:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

From an artistic point of view I prefer the image owned by St Peter's School, but I can't find the artist's details for that. This picture is interesting though, because it's claimed to be the most accurate representation of Fawkes.[3] I don't know if the licensing will pass muster though ... Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that a few times and it's a good image. The present choice looks a little bit EVIL to me though, dark clouds behind, a vignette around his face... By the way, I don't mean to sound gloating but it seems that ANI can be useful after all. Parrot of Doom 15:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you almost got blocked there yourself. I prefer to keep administrators as far away as possible; they can be unpredictable, and once one of them cocks up all the others fall over themselves to make excuses for the miscreant. Unhealthy. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh, then the 3RR policy is badly written if it considers a constructive edit with new sourcing, to avert further edit warring, as edit warring in itself. Still, things seem to have calmed now, which is the main point. I'm glad he wasn't blocked for two weeks, that was quite excessive IMO. Parrot of Doom 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there, a very heavy-handed block. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the Pulleyn families of Scotton and Fawkes's headmaster while at school (Pulleiene or something like that) are the same family, but spelling differences between the various sources used prevent me from saying as such. Do your sources shed any light on this matter? Its just a bit more butter in the "converted to a Catholic while at St Johns/Bainbridge" sandwich. Mmm, sandwich. Parrot of Doom 19:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The best source on the Pulleyn's and their influence on Guido appears to be Herber's article in the Gunpowder Plot Society's newsletter, in which he says: "The Pulleyn family have occasionally been quoted as responsible for the reversion of Guy to the Catholic faith, either through the influences of his schoolmaster, John Pulleyn, descended from the Pulleyns of Blubberhouse, or through the influences of his peers while under the roof of his step-father and his mother." If you look at the couple of paragraphs above that quote, in the Plausibility section, you'll see that the Fawkes's and Pulleyn's were quite intimately connected.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good source to use. Has he published any more? At least now we have a rough date for when Fawkes left for the continent, something I could only generalise on before. Parrot of Doom 22:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he did write that Britannia article. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing I hate worst about maintaining FA articles....

Is the periodic need to go through and delink everyone's "helpful" additions, such as this or this. Come on, they are linked in the previous sentences!! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Much simpler to keep them watchlisted and check the changes as you go along. Nip things in the bud and all that!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got absolutely no doubt at all that Ealdgyth does indeed keep those FAs she's worked on on her watchlist, but it's an unnecessary drain to have to keep watch over them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's when you get on the road for a bit that you can't always keep track of changes exactly. And links are the hardest to track. I've just found it easier to just go through periodically and reread the FAs totally, looking for all the changes that need fixing. Not just links, but terminology changes, new links that need making, etc. I had time today to make a clean run before my month-plus vacation (which will likely cause issues with more "helps" while I'm gone, but what can you do?). It did motivate me to start on an article I've been kicking around for a bit. I should get it to DYK status before I go on vacation ... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've often thought that wikipedia might have reached a point where the ongoing effort of fixing these kinds of "improvements" to FAs, or even GAs, outweighs the benefits of "anyone can edit". "Anyone" isn't a synonym of "everyone", or vice versa. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

some day I feel like reverting all the edits to World War II to the day that it's GA was passed.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Unhappily, not doable. Some edits are helpful. Best way to maintain quality is to run those diffs, even though it can take quite a while some days. I'm still cleaning up from Neville Chamberlainj's TFA, though. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, it is a drain. It costs me time, and sometimes makes me too tense to write. Ealgyth has more quality articles written than me, I'm sure, she's been at it longer and writes faster. Don't know how she handles it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never even had an FA. I'd love to get one but I just cannot pass the GA to FA barrier.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is a girl. They handle stress better than us blokes. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, WS, you haven't actually tried. Have you even submitted an article to peer review with a view towards getting it to FA? Or doing a joint work with someone else more experienced (don't look at me, I am snowed with projects right now, but maybe someone in MilHist?)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have. Battle of Belgium, Coldplay, German Type UB I submarine to name a few. Ceranthor siad that he'll help me get the last one to FA status but nothing's happened so far. Battle of Belgium is also on it's way but It would likely fail an FAC right now.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

GA -> FA is a bigger jump than many realise, but what do you think's holding you back from getting one of your articles to FA? It's a tough gig, but it's not that tough. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of 100+ sources, article size, images, spelling. Overall coverage (U-boats don't report their position that often as they tried to maintain radio silence) and other obvious things that would speedy fail an FA.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, gee whiz, WS, then look for an article you can improve where the references are orderable by your school or county library or available on google books. Spelling you will just have to deal with. Images can usually be dealt with with imagination. You are also in an area not that far from university and government libraries, and if your parents are at all tolerant, surely this summer there's a couple of days you can spend in better libraries? A decent digital camera would help, I took home almost no paper from the National Archives, but plenty of digital shots of papers.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well White Shadows, I'm sure there is more than enough info on Coldplay, and as I'm sure you're aware of, the article is already a Good Article. Aaroncrick ^TALK 00:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You don't need 100+ sources. Lightning Bar is an FA. I actually find the horse articles easier to write than the bishops... I plan to get Miss Meyers to FA also, when I get back after the summer. For that matter, lack of coverage doesn't disbar if there just aren't sources - see Ælfheah of Canterbury who is basically known for getting himself axed, and Paulinus of York who has a 20 year gap in his biography... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wrote Ashford v Thornton with about five sources, another presented itself during the FAC. You can only play the cards you have, or can conveniently get.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

True. SMS Zrinyi is an A-class candidate for example and I wrote the thing from a two sentence article to a GA and a GT in a week or so. Battle of Beglium is also a good candidate. Just needs copy-editing and some other minor fixes. As for Coldplay, the article is very pro-coldplay so I'll need to make it a bit more neutral before It can be an FAC. I need to go the the library......--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no substitute for that, especially for articles on non-contemporary subjects. Sometimes those microfilm reels are worth blowing the dust off of.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh...I did'nt underatand a word that you said there!--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In olden days, libraries used to keep journals and so on on reels of film, that you went off and put into a microfilm reader by winding the film back and forth. I remember also using little photographic squares, that you moved around a bit like looking at a microscope slide. You don't know you're born WS. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Ok then. Come to think of it. I do remember that I had a science teacher in my Freshman year in High School that was really "old school" and liked to use one of those for the heck of it. I understand now. And Malleus, what did you mean by the last sentence you yours?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(smirking)Microfiche.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I needed to look at the LA Daily News from 1950 and I went to the LA Central Library when I was out there and had to look at it on microfilm. The technology is not yet dead. And if the younger generation gets too uppity, we can always have a secret conspiracy with all the old technology they've never seen ... film projectors ... slide rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as uppity as you think I am. I do have respect for old technology. However, I need to get my hands on a copy of Conway's all the world's fighting ships (the first volume) in order to finish User:White Shadows/Monarch class battleship.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely your local library can order it, if it does not have it itself?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me give you a piece of advice when using ILL for sources for FAs - make sure you keep a copy of every relevant bit for later use, as chances are that you'll need to refer back to the sources at some point during the FAC. This is why I tend to just buy my books I use, it's a lot easier, especially as I just keep using the same sources over and over again. Also, learn to use JSTOR and the like ... journal articles are your friend. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) And these might be useful for you... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I likely does. I just need to check and see this weekend. Perhpas I'll just buy all 4 volumes myself over the summer.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Conway's is one of the greatest warship books of all time. It's used in almost every FAC I've seen that deals with battleships. I'll be sure to buy a copy soon.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"You don't know you're born" is a British(?) expression suggesting that you don't know how lucky you are; specifically in this instance to have access to the Internet and so on, rather than having to hand-crank reels of film through rather poor quality projectors. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. It does ring a bell but I have a feeling that it's an English term. Never heard it here in America.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask the school librarian (I know very uncool but do it anyway) for the access code to JSTOR. Take advantage of it while you have access. If your school doesn't have access to JSTOR, other databases will be available. Most students get the codes as freshman and promptly lose or forget them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

An incredible resource, most of us don't have it. And thank you for the explanation of that term, I had run into it in one of Diana Wynne Jones's books and had puzzled over it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Worse than the hand-cranking, was the trying to read the fuzzy white on black lettering as it whizzed by. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm afraid that I simply do not have the time to do that though. My school life is very hecktic. since my HS is on two levels, I have to go up and down between classes, while carrying my 25 lbs bookbag and my guitar.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You and every other student in the States! You have access to a source that most want very much! Don't you have a free mod, or a lunch? Do students at your high school hang out in the library at all? If no to all of those, find the time anyway. In the meantime, I'll have a look at Jstor to see what's there for Naval history as an enticement, but not for a few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have about 20 minutes of free time bwtween my second class and my lunch. But I normally play my guitar that I carry. (What, you though that I carry a guitar around and don't know how to play one?)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You carry your guitar through a full school day, through overcrowded corridors (I'm sure) and into all your classes, in front of hundreds of teenagers, few of whom are emulating you?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In my day, teachers took the perspective, if it won't fit under your chair, don't bring it in that door.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The students have to carry their instruments to school and their sports gear, and their backpacks. It's a very different environment than it used to be. Do you think Malleus has gone to sleep? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. It's in a hard case so I'm good. And I leave it at the back of the room during class so my teachers are OK with it. And what does emulate mean?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

IDK (I Don't know) but I'm going to bed myself. It's 10PM here and I trying to go to bed before midnight like every other day.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Times have changed. It means "imitate", btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get how they would be imitateing me. I'm not the only one who brings a guitar to school.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see things through the standards of my own time. Don't mind me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I used to carry a Casio HT-3000 to school, and back (about a mile each way). That was about a million times less portable than a guitar... Parrot of Doom 13:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My mother supposedly waked immense distances to school each day, which is rather odd, actually, as she grew up in Newark (before the city went to shit).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

When I was in grade school, I'd walk to and from school for about 1 1/2 miles with my friends. However the neighborhood was safe so there was no worry about us. Hey speaking of FAC, can one of you tell me about Battle of Belgium? What else needs to be done?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. This is a review as if it were at FAC, so likely will appear far more nitpicky than what you're used to:

• Is this article in British or American English? Either would be acceptable, but at the moment it's a mixture of both; it contains British English spellings such as "armour", "metre" and "mobilisation", but also Americanisms such as "World War I"/"World War II", "vigorous" and "remilitarization";
• The reference in the lead used as a citation for the name "The Battle of Belgium or Belgian Campaign" is to a 1941 source. I'm uncomfortable with that as a source for this being the name generally used—a lot of terms which were in common use during the war are archaisms today. (As an example, Enemy Coast Ahead uses the term "Battle of the Barges" throughout to refer to the aerial attacks on the French and Belgian docks, a term completely out of use today.) Given that there have been numerous military campaigns fought in Belgium—the Siege of Liège, the Battle of the Frontiers, the Ypres campaigns, the German invasion of 1940 to which this article refers, the US–British thrust into Belgium following the Normandy landings, the Ardennes Offensive—what makes this particular campaign the Battle of Belgium? To the best of my knowledge it's not a term commonly used to refer to this particular phase of the war;
• The casualty figures in the infobox appear to have been plucked out of the air;
• What does "The Belgian General Staff was determined to fight for its own interests, alone if necessary" mean? That they were determined to defend Belgium regardless of other countries' opinions, or that they put their own interests above those of the country?
• There's a lot of overgeneralisation—"The French believed…", "The British thought…", "The British were…" and so on. This was the most politically divided age in modern European history, and you can't make sweeping claims like this; if factions within governments or among the general population believed something, you have to make clear who that faction was;
• All images are missing alt text, and one has extremely dubious licensing—if you try to put an article through FAC with a licensing rationale which reads in full "old photograph", expect to have a full and frank exchange of views with Fasach Nua and Jappalang;
• A few grammatical issues still in the article ("deprived the French any prepared defences", "the British was" and so forth) which need cleaning up;
• Five dablinks need fixing;
• "The choice of an established Allied line lay in either reinforcing the Belgians in the east of the country, at the Meuse–Albert Canal line, and holding the Scheldt Estuary, thus linking the French defences in the south with the Belgian forces protecting Ghent and Antwerp, seemed to be the soundest defensive strategy" makes no sense;
• Is "[For] the British, their communications located at the Bay of Biscay ports, would be parallel to their front" correct? Belgium is hundreds of miles from the Bay of Biscay;
• I know this one isn't your fault, but this map misspells "Luxembourg"—misspelling something as basic as a country's name looks unprofessional;
• Why is Vereker referred to as "Lord Gort VC"? Nobody else named in the article has their titles or decorations listed;
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1971-068-10, Erich Hoepner.jpg is looking out of the page;
• "Gort and to a greater extent Pownall, showed unjust contempt for the Belgians"—it's not down to us to judge what is and isn't "just";
• There's a rather dubious claim in the article about the Allied response to the Belgian surrender. ("Churchill's and the British response was officially restrained. This was due to the strong-willed defence of the Belgian defensive campaign presented to the cabinet by Sir Roger Keyes at 11:30 am 28 May.[133] The French and Belgian ministers had referred to Leopold's actions as treacherous, but they were unaware of the true events: Leopold had not signed an agreement with Hitler in order to form a collaborative government, but an unconditional surrender as Commander-in-Chief of the Belgian Armed Forces.") I appreciate that this is cited, but this view—which effectively says that France considered Leopold's surrender as treacherous but Britain recognised that he had no alternative—doesn't tally with the generally accepted history at all. Churchill's official position at the time was "At the last moment when Belgium was already invaded, King Leopold called upon us to come to his aid, and even at the last moment we came. He and his brave, efficient Army, nearly half a million strong, guarded our left bank and thus kept open our only line of retreat to the sea. Suddenly, without prior consultation, with the least possible notice, without the advice of his ministers and upon his own personal act, he sent a plenipotentiary to the German Command, surrendered his Army and exposed our whole flank and means of retreat."; long after the war when representatives of Leopold challenged him, he issued a public statement that "With regards to King Leopold, the words which I used at the time in the House of Commons are upon record and after careful consideration I do not see any reason to change them";
• A lot of referencing is to The Official Account of What Happened 1939–1940, published by the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in London in 1941; a book on a current military event, published during the war in question, in one of the belligerent nations, and under conditions of wartime censorship is pretty much by definition an unreliable source unless you're using it as an example of propaganda rather than a source for facts, which doesn't seem to be the case here;
• No legacy section, and a topic like this really needs one; what happened next? – iridescent 13:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My God theres a lot of work to do! I belive that We've kept the name Battle of Belgium because of the other articles such as Battle of France and the Netherlands. I'll get to the rest in due time.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't necessarily act on everything I've said up there; I've intentionally approached it as I'd approach an FAC, and reeled off a long list of every potential issue I can see. Part of the steep learning curve of FAC is that a lot of suggestions made there aren't correct, and you need to know when to agree to make suggested changes and when to stand your ground and explain why something's been done in a particular way. Have a look at successful FACs—look at the history of WP:FA to see what's recently been listed, and look at how the nominators have responded to various criticisms. (Get a second opinion from Malleus, who knows British English usage better than me, but I suspect this change will get you shouted at by Tony and Malleus at FAC if the article's meant to be in British English, especially given that the US wasn't even in the war in this period so Americanisation is more glaring that it would be in later stages of the war.) FAC looks daunting, but (aside from a few exceptions, most of whom are now on vacations from Wikipedia of varying degrees of voluntariness) people commenting there are trying to help, even when it looks like they're attacking you and/or your work. – iridescent 22:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Iridiscent is quite right. FAC is a totally different experience from GAN. You have to be prepared for all sorts of stuff to be thrown at you, not all of which will make any sense. You need to exercise judgement as to how to address the issues raised by the reviewers, and you'll find that sometimes they conflict; either you agree that the changes ought to be made, or you make a case that they shouldn't, it's your call. If you look at the FAC for this article, for instance, you'll see that PoD and I were adamant that certain changes were not going to be made, regardless of whether that affected the outcome of the review or not. I guess maybe what I'm saying is that you have to be an strong-minded b*****d at FAC, but still able to bend with the wind. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I still chuckle at this comment - "This is an FAC, not a UN debate" Parrot of Doom 23:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That sounds the sort of thing that I'd say. Did I say that? Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
      • In case you all did not get the memo, I do not live in the UK and the last time I was there was 6 years ago. With that being said, I write in American English. I made the change to make the wording consistend with the phrase World War II. And there are a few things that you posted that I do disagree with but I thought that FAC was supposed to be a "Do what I say and It will pass thing". Guess not.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Like all of wikipedia, FAC is supposed to be a collaboration, with reviewers and nominators having the same goal, article improvement. Sure, it doesn't always feel that way during a nomination, but it's best to think of it more as a "If I were you I'd look at this" kind of thing. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal thank you and FAR begging

Malleus - Thank you very much for your copyedit of Horses in World War I. Yomangan and I are still working out a few wrinkles, so it would be much appreciated if you would keep an eye on the article and make sure I don't butcher things too badly! Now, on to the begging for FAR: In your everlasting wisdom as an eminently qualified FA reviewer, there are a few articles that could use your oh-so-keen eye upon them :) :

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner/archive1 - This was nominated mainly based on linkrot, although many of the dead links are just convenience links and so don't really need to be included. I would love to get your opinion on whether this article has other issues besides those identified in the nominating statement.

If you could drop by these two it would be great! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've offered my opinion on both articles, but I'm wondering in general if I'm the best person to be asking. I don't share SandyG's view that FAR is a fixing-up place, any more than I share the view that GAR is; they're both reassessment places. I also don't think it's right to pass articles that would very likely not get through a current FAC. When we reassessed all those thousands of articles during GA Sweeps, they were assessed exactly as a current GAN would have been, and in the same time scale. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see this note until now. Different editors seem to have different ideas about what FAR is, but as a delegate (and a new delegate at that) I'm just trying to see the greatest number of articles improved that I can. I would rather see articles improved and kept than delisted, since improving an individual article improves WP as a whole, but I also hate to see FARs drag on and on for months at a time. My complaint is of course the complaint of every review process across wiki - lack of reviewers. Many times reviews sit idle with no comments, even when there are people actively working on the associated article, or a series of reviewers will give "drive-by" delist votes without specifying what work is really needed, despite active efforts on the article. Your views on any FAR/FARCs that you care to visit are welcome, as you can be depended upon to give detailed comments, whether a keep vote, a delist vote or a simple "comments" is attached. If you want me to quit asking you to look at articles, I of course will honor your request, but I truely look forward to seeing your opinions on articles - you and a couple of others are the ones I depend upon at this point to make sure that an article actually meets or does not meet FA requirements, and is not simply a victim of drive-by voting. Dana boomer (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to help Dana, it's just that I'm conscious I seem to be significantly more critical than some other reviewers. Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes in popular culture

The character of Satan in Milton's work is parodying Fawkes' actions. The reference by Nicholson says so (I placed a link in my edit summary). While it's not Fawkes himself who appears in the book, it's a character inspired in him, in an important work of a notable author. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that Milton wasn't thinking of Thomas Wintour? The citation you provided doesn't actually state that Satan was inspired by Fawkes. Parrot of Doom 15:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from my reading that Milton's Satan was not inspired by Fawkes; the situation is much more complex than that. Milton was certainly harking back to the Gunpowder Plot, but in the character of Satan he was reminding his readers that the evil (as he saw it) that inpired the plotters was still all around us. Malleus Fatuorum 15:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Where in that link you quoted does Nicolson state that "the character of Satan's in Milton's work is parodying Fawkes' actions"? Fawkes is only mention once in that book, on page 177, in relation to In Quintum Novembris, and all she says is that "Fawkes and eight other conspirators had plotted to blow up Parliament House on November 1605, when King James was present for the opening of Parliament". Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A few lines below that: Satan (...) speeds to Italy to urge the Pope to action against English heretics (the same thing that Fawkes asked), then call a council of devils of Hell to make his own plans-presumably to instigate the Gunpowder Plot" The Gunpowder Plot is the name of Fawke's plot. Hummmm, you are right, Malleus, it looks like Satan was trying to convince someone to blow a reunion building with gunpowder, a reference to Fawkes's actions. (search "gunpowder" in this translation of the poem [5]). My bad. I see that the text in the article is now incorrect: Fawkes and his mates does not appear in the poem, Milton is making a homage to them without mentioning them directly anywhere. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Milton was drawing on memories of the Gunpowder Plot, but he was doing so to draw a parallel in the minds of his readers between the evil of the plotters and the evil (Milton believed) that existed all around them. Hence Satan's gunpowder, and his trip to Rome to petition the pope, but it's a couple of steps too far to go on to say that Fawkes, or any other of the conspirators, was therefore the inspiration for Satan. I've yet to see any reliable source make that claim anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hum, I probably got the idea from reading the thread at wikipedia review.

Since Fawkes himself doesn't appear, but the poem is really inspired in the plot, should we mention Milton's poem in Gunpowder_plot#Aftermath? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Could do I suppose. The more important aspect though, I think, is to tease out the popular perception of the Plot that Milton was tapping into, particularly with Paradise Lost. There may even be enough popular culture stuff to justify a Gunpowder Plot in popular culture spin-off article, like the Guy Fawkes in popular culture one. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Move Guy Fawkes in popular culture to the Gunpowder Plot in popular culture title and stick with a single article. If you can find even one example of Fawkes appearing in popular culture that doesn't relate to the Plot and/or the reaction to it, I will personally print out the article and eat it. You think the dorky kids who shout at Scientologists wear that mask to show respect for his military service at the siege of Calais? – iridescent 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's probably not a bad idea. If PoD doesn't object I'll do that. Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No objections here. Parrot of Doom 18:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Good move :) Now, if we could re-add Milton... :) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In Quintum Novembris is already back in. Someone needs to write a little about Paradise Lost though still. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

... I've added a bit about Paradise Lost. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the refs in depth, but the text reads awesome. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hemingway again

Malleus, you deserve a huge thanks for your work on the Hemingway article. It's now an FA. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's great news, and quite an achievement on your part Truthkeeper. Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I had help along the way (from you, for example) and I think it's an achievement for Wikipedia. With 5000 views per day, I thought the article needed cleaning up. Your copyediting was extremely helpful, as were your suggestions. Thanks for everything. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I still can't get Gloria out of my mind ... :-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Four suicides: the father, Ernest and two of his siblings - and then Gloria! Something off with that family - but it was enough to cause a moment of genius as well. Honestly, I'm happy to be done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's quite an excellent article - an exemplary FA. But these articles are so worth all the hard work. I recently collaborated on a biography which I found very challenging to write as it was so close to the heart, and now it's on the Main Page. :/ ceranthor 00:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"now it's on the Main Page" My condolences for your pain and suffering :( Parrot of Doom 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)  ;)

I suspect the ;) was meant with humor, but it really can be painful to watch your hard work be written over with "poop" and the like. ceranthor 00:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; I think I would have preferred repeated and amusing vandalism, or an interesting and long-winded quarrel on the talk page, to the large "meh" that greeted American Beauty's appearance on the main page back in March. It was all a bit anti-climactic, to be honest. Only Mr Isotalo provided some limited entertainment value. Steve ^T • C 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1920–21 Burnley F.C. season/archive1

Thanks a lot for having a look at the 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season article and leaving some comments. I've had a go at addressing the problems you pointed out, so if you could find the time to have another read through and check the changes I've made, that would be much appreciated. Cheers, BigDom 19:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the changes are good, and I've made a few copyedits as well. If you're happy with what I've done, then I'm quite prepared to do more to help, but I'm equally happy to leave it to you. The story is a bit disjointed in a couple of places I think, but it's early days yet at FAC. I really hope the article makes it; we need more good models to follow. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for what you've done, sometimes it's hard for me to see what the problems are seeing as I wrote almost 100% of the prose. If you're willing to do more to help, I would really appreciate it. Obviously I also hope that this article can do well at FAC so any assistance would be very welcome. Cheers, BigDom 21:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I'm in mourning after today's results, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow, and list anything I can't resolve myself on the FAC's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed your latest round of comments, and I've noticed that you made a lot of changes yourself so cheers for that. You haven't half given me a job to do going through all those Times URLs, seeing as I didn't get them from there in the first place (the local library was my source there) but I will endeavour to get round to that tonight. Ta, BigDom 16:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The urls are just a "nice to have" IMO, not essential. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks as though they might just have to be a pipedream. Now I remember why I didn't get them off their archive in the first place - it's because it's not free! Nobody's going to dispute that the articles actually exist and even if I did, most people would be unable to view them anyway (unless they want to pay £75 a year, which if they're anything like me, they won't). So unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to do this one. Cheers, BigDom 16:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is free so long as you belong to a public library, but as I said, it's not a show stopper so far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I still can't get on to it, but like you say it isn't the end of the world. The changes you keep making are much appreciated, I never realised how poor some of my writing actually was! Cheers, BigDom 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

All of The Times citations are correct now, if your offer to add the URLs still stands. Cheers, BigDom 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll sort them out this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I discovered that one of the dates was wrong (for the Charity Shield Match), which I've fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a star. I think I'll consider getting a library card so where I can use the Times archives for free to save you from doing anything like that in the future (because hopefully I will be able to take other season articles to FAC before too long!) Cheers, BigDom 19:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's well worth it, it's a really useful resource. You don't even have to go to the library to join, you can do it online. Well, you can with Manchester libraries anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I joined Lancashire libraries online, so should be able to access the online archives from now on. Should help me to do a couple more of the Burnley articles now. Cheers, BigDom 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A shame that the article didn't make it this time. Thanks for the time you've spent helping me to improve the article nevertheless. I'll try and add a bit more over the next few weeks and then hopefully get it back to FAC in the not-too-distant future. Cheers, BigDom 16:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Stck with it, I'm sure it'll make it next time. A bit about the team's playing style and local reaction to their becoming English champions is all that's needed now I think. I may have a look through the online newspaper archives to see if I can find anything. If I do, I'll let you know. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Burnham-on-Sea etc

Thanks for doing a copy edit on Burnham-on-Sea - without even being asked. Do you fancy also taking a look at Radstock which I've also put up at GAN? In addition Pyrotec and I are very close to nominating River Parrett again at FAC.— Rod ^talk 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just idly looking through GAN and I saw you'd got a couple of nominations up. I'll take a look at Radstock after I've had a good look through Burnham-on-Sea. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

After my hacking away at your Burnham-on-Sea GAN, you'd probably prefer that I didn't now take a look at Radstock. Well bad luck buster, that's on my to-do list for tomorrow. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL - I always appreciate your "hacking away" & apart from the hyphens I think I can handle all the comments on Burnham & would welcome your comments on Radstock. Wellington, Somerset is the next one nearly ready after that if you want to get ahead of the game :-)— Rod ^talk 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Today I've worked on a town I've only ever been to once, a Michael Jackson song that I think is nauseating, and an Australian astronomer I've never heard of. Still waiting for my first salary cheque though. Meanwhile, those vital fairy and witch articles go unwritten. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Those magnificent men, in their...

This jolly caper is actually turning into quite a thrilling little adventure. I can just imagine the DYK - "...that a troupe of boy scouts protected Claude Graham White's biplane, as he ate biscuits in a nearby farm?" I might struggle a little with a source for the second attempt (and first race), but I have high hopes for this one. Parrot of Doom 17:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's already looking pretty good. BTW, shouldn't this "Paulson meanwhile had resumed his journey ..." be "Paulhan ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well spotted. Of course I did that on purpose, just to check you read it... Parrot of Doom 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Chortle. Didn't take as long as I'd estimated, actually. I needs to add me some more stuff about the history of heavier-than-air powered flight, why the Mail made the challenge, and the Mail's next challenge after that. Parrot of Doom 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A very nice article, I wish I'd thought of writing it first, but you need to get your act together PoD. I mean, "... was a heavier-than air powered flight challenge". What were you thinking of with that random hyphenation? Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It was another test :) Parrot of Doom 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How long before some colonial changes every instance of aeroplane to aircraft :hehe: Parrot of Doom 23:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, an hour two I guess. It amuses me to think that although some may think we're joined at the hip, we are in fact amongst each other's fiercest critics. I guess that's because we both have high standards, and we want stuff to be right, insofar as it ever can be. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The rather upsetting thing about this article is that the Flight magazine (linked at the bottom) archive contains loads of pictures of this event, and they're excellent. Lots of spiffing gentlemen with their ladies, gathering around amusing flying contraptions, while men with seriously impressive moustaches watch idly in the background. I really wanted to use more, and suspect that whoever the photographer was cannot be ascertained, but I can't be arsed. Instead I went for a fair-use image. Parrot of Doom 23:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Published in 1910. Upload them to Wikipedia (not Commons), slap {{pd-US}} and {{Do not move to Commons}} tags on them, and they come under Florida law where anything published pre-1923 is public domain. As the libel tourists flocking to Britain have amply tested, selling a single copy of a publication in a territory constitutes "publication", and they're bound to have had at least one subscriber in the US. – iridescent 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

PS—you are aware that "airplane" and "aeroplane" are both Deplorable Words on Wikipedia? Try navigating to either article and see where it takes you. – iridescent 23:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to add {{pd-US}} and {{Do not move to Commons}} to my list of useful links. Commons has become a mini-nightmare. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The more I deal with Commons, the more I think Redvers is right. Even on Wikipedia at its most bureaucratic, can you imagine this discussion being taken seriously here? – iridescent 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Redvers has gone up in my estimation by about a mile. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There probably isn't enough room now for more images on this article. I'll add some links to the ext links section. Parrot of Doom 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Moon FAR

Many thanks for your review comments and Support. The article has been kept! Iridia (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's very well deserved, after all the hard work you put into it. Malleus Fatuorum 12:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

AlexandrDmitri RFA

I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position at AD's RFA. I will redact my comment if you request so. AGK 13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My position at RfA is often misrepresented, I'm accustomed to it by now. Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is your position that nothing is a substitute for solid content work? If so, I agree with that. Perhaps I'm just blinded by the fact that it's 'my guy' on RFA today. AGK 13:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, I'd say my position is that nobody without solid content work should have the power to block those who do. I'd have no problem with any of the hardworking wikignomes and vandal-slappers having a limited sub-set of the admin tools, but not the ability to block established editors. The way that blocks are so often dished out here as a petty punishment for expressing an unpopular point of view is far too damaging already. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that, though I would contend that an editor who doesn't contribute content does not necessarily lack the clue needed to carry out more decisions which involve veteran editors instead of simple vandalism. AGK 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor who doesn't contribute has no idea of the problems and frustrations of wikipedia, and ought not to be in authority over those who do. It's very easy to keep your head down for six months playing whack-a-mole and playing at "patrolling", but it doesn't get the job done. It does, however, get you rewarded with administratorship, which was very likely the goal in the first place. How many of these anti-vandalism johnnies actually stick around after they've achieved their goal of becoming an administrator? Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am less fussed about it these days, heck if someone wants to spend their time here vandal reverting it leaves me more time to work on articles etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Cas. I don't see how an administrator would ever have to 'lord' it over a content contributor, unless said contributor was being dickish—in which case they deserve to be banned. Complex administrative duties, like applying discretionary sanctions, are the exception here, but only a select few go into that line of work. AGK 23:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then try it, as Iridescent says. I was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic". Would you have been? I very much doubt it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Malleus 100%. You can say "The only reward that the sysop bit confers is more work" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true. Wikipedia's environment is far more polarised than it used to be and people do see admin status as a marker for whether it's safe to pick fights with you. I extend the offer below to you as well; try desysopping yourself and count the minutes until (a) someone comes in all-guns-blazing posting abuse at you, and (b) the assorted people who'd usually wade into such a situation to back you up no longer want to know, now you're no longer "one of us". – iridescent 23:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My editing is confined to boring topics with no controversy and lots of hugs and niceness all round. I only become involved in the nasty topic areas as an administrator trying to figure out who the POV-pushers and fringers are. So that would at best be a redundant exercise :-) AGK 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A spectacular missing of the point. Try going into those same areas without admin status and you'll suddenly find a lot less hugs and niceness. – iridescent 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Try saying that. Your condescension irks me more than I care to describe. AGK 00:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've actually tried it for myself to see what happens. Have you? No, thought not. Aren't you the guy who was arguing for me to be banned for showing Insufficient Respect for Arbcom? – iridescent 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember. Are you often a dick? If so, probably, though, I'd like to be reminded of the specific incident (if only because my curiosity is pickled). AGK 00:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm misremembering; you were arguing for me to be desysopped, not banned, for showing insufficient respect for Arbcom. The principle's the same. – iridescent 00:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Links or it didn't happen. AGK 00:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"In the case of Iridescent, they ought to have made a ruling that disallowed him from being resysopped without community approval. This might be a moot question, though, as I would not think it appropriate for him to be resysopped by a bureaucrat with the issue of the Law affair remaining unresolved." – iridescent 09:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you sneaky wee thing you. No, if you actually read what I said: I suggested desysopping because you happily and knowingly supported the RFA of a banned user. That you'd be outraged at my suggestion that you are unfit to be an administrator is honestly laughable. AGK 11:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What's your first language, Klingon? "I suggested desysopping you ..." and "it [arguing for me to be desysopped] didn't happen" aren't consistent in English at any rate. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

When I said "what I said", I was referring to my comments at the question Irid linked to—not to my "links or it didn't happen" comment. AGK 00:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cas, you've been on Arbcom and have the clout that goes with that; people think twice before they pick fights with you. I'm sure that 90% of the Huggle-only editors who become admins don't cause problems, but Wikipedia does have a serious problem with people who don't understand the frustrations of working on content in the current environment, picking fights over trivial issues and demanding apologies and blocks for the most petty squabbles. It's why I've always maintained that all advanced permissions—from admin right up to founder—should periodically be removed and the user forced to spend a couple of months as an "ordinary" editor. Try it yourself—all it takes is 30 seconds at Steward requests/Permissions, and you can always flip back if you decide you can't take it—but I can pretty much guarantee you'll be shocked at how much crap comes your way once people no longer see you listed as an admin and decide you're "fair game". (Hell, have a look at this nonsense as a fairly representative sample.) – iridescent 23:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys -as I try to say in as many venues as possible - The place for review of admin misconduct is the arbitration committee - why do you then never initiate a request for arbitration (a short, succinct focussed issue over use of tools)? The arb committee tries to initiate cases as little as possible, so it is up to community to do so. We did quite a few last year and thought it was a step in the right direction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer is very simple. Very few have any faith in the integrity of a system in which administrators pass judgement on the behaviour of other administrators. I certainly don't anyway, which is why I very rarely bother with even the AN cesspits. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Cas, I'm sure you don't believe that any more than I do. If (for instance) Malleus had taken s blatantly abusive admin to Arbcom, the first thing that would have happened would be the usual suspects among the Arbcom clerks demanding it be removed because there was "insufficient evidence of dispute resolution"; the second would be said admin's friends going over the contribution histories of Malleus and anyone who'd posted in support of him, looking for pretexts to indefblock them as punishment for their presumption; the third would have been a systematic rewriting of Wikipedia's history to make Malleus the villain in every situation in which he'd ever been involved. (Seen any posts from Ottava lately?) There may be no viable alternative, but the current arbitration process is a miserable failure when it comes to dealing admin abuse, and has a huge, possibly unconscious, bias towards "admins good, non admins bad". – iridescent 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys leave me in the dust in the race for the Most Cynical Wikipedian award. AGK 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Seen any posts from Lara lately? How about Ottava? How about Undertow? How about Tan39? Arbcom has become a revenge platform for admins to get users they dislike booted from the project, regardless of the good intentions of most of those involved with it. – iridescent 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And that, sadly, I think is the truth. Ottava made a big mistake in initiating his own ArbCom case, just presented his head on a platter. There's no fairness there. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No comment on any of those examples, except from the Ottava case, which I have grave reservations about. AGK 00:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

umm..which way/how? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@ iri, You don't need evidence of "dispute resolution" for review of admin conduct. A succinct circumscribed summary of how the tools were misused is not the same as requesting a full case. iri both you and I know there is alot more to all those folks you mentioned than popularity or lack thereof of aforesaid vanished users. Come to think of it, I do, however, concede I see issues from time to time where I am concerned about how complaints are redressed, however, I ain't gonna discuss them on a public forum, so yeah, I agree to a point that a degree of political fairplay is unfortunately a prerequisite :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What you don't seem to get is that the tools don't have to be misused to be misused. Think of it like the Old Wild West: you've got a gun and I haven't. I call you you a cunt and you shoot me. You call me a cunt and your friends turn up to poke fun at my lack of a gun. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but can someone tell me what is going on? Why are you all argueing?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We're just talking (though admittedly a little louder than normal). AGK 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok the. Don't make me come over here again then! Though I must admin that I have the same feelings as Iridescent. I initially wanted to be an admin so I would be part of the "in crowd" much like the high school cliques that dominate my own HS today. (I'm a bit of a loser IRL to be erfectly honest. Why do you think that I spend all of my time here?)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A word to the wise White Shadows. If you have any aspirations to become an administrator this is not a talk page you want to be seen posting on. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And my formal reply will be "I don't care". If someone has an issue with me talking to you and would oppose based off of that...then I would'nt want their support in the first place.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Because we feel like it. (no, seriously) we are openly discussing differences of opinion. Which has led me to realising (actually) that MF and iri have a point when I do recall some other stuff. @MF though, the committee has made rulings based on conduct outside misuse of tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent, I recenty found out that you were an admin yourself for a long time. Why did you give up the tools back in July of 09'?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Iridescent make that perfectly clear earlier? He's taken a principled position that administrators should not be in position for all eternity. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So he felt as if he served his time as an admin and will never ask for the tools again?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he made his position pretty clear, so rather than me put words in his mouth why not read the whole thread before posting again? Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright MF and iri, here's a specific challenge and you can email if you fear reprisals - give me specific cases of admins showing unfitness/problem conduct/whatever, and the reasons why taking it to arbitration would not work (i.e. whose pals would short circuit and attack) I am half-way persuaded by some of the examples I have been thinking of but am interested to hear yours. As y'all know I am very familiar with the Law Affair, and to a point with Ottava. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you one example, User:John. He stalks his prey under the guise of enforcing the civility policy, while being completely uncivil himself. His pals in the civility police (I'm sure you know who they are) would shout down any attempt to have him sanctioned. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the diffs some time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to look very far. Not that the "threat" of bookmarking my red RFA will ever produce results, as it'll never turn blue. Parrot of Doom 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you another name to play with, in addition to the one I've emailed you: Cuchullain. As far as I can see, on every protect he's ever made he's either edited an article/template to his preferred version then protected, or protected the article and then edited it to his preferred version at leisure. If this went to Arbcom there's no possibility that it would end in anything stronger than "admonishment"—as has been said before but warrants repeating, Arbcom and Jimbo between them have desysopped a grand total of 49 admins in the entire history of Wikipedia. If Malleus had made six reverts in a row to his preferred version of an article and insisted that including the Hebrew translation of the phrase (!) constituted vandalism, the admins would be queuing round the block to boot him off, quite aside from the issue of abusing the "protect" button. – iridescent 16:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, why are you so down on John? I think you have him all wrong. Perhaps try looking at things assuming the best instead of the worst? ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If I tell you, then I'll just be blocked for making one of those "personal attacks", aka "telling the truth"; work it out for yourself. Open your eyes. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't really speak about the frustrations of a content-editor mentioned by Malleus — my mainspace edits are usually minor, and even when they are major, they are nothing to write home about. Nevertheless, there is one aspect I simply do not understand: The attempted enforcement of civility by pressing the block button. Blocks (and threats to block) of serious content editors for using course language or calling someone names, especially after having been baited "civilly", doesn't do the encyclopedia any good.

I have rarely seen these actions lead to anything constructive. More often, they escalate the situation and lead to even more frustration and disillusionment. It is difficult for me to understand why these blocks aren't seen as punitive. What they "prevent", in the long run anyway, is serious content contributors from dedicating their time to improving articles. Likewise, I don't understand why it is so important that a blocking administrator agrees, before the person they blocked gets unblocked. Surely the frustration and possible disenfranchisement of the blocked serious content contributor is less desirable than whether a blocking administrator possibly "loses" a tiny bit of face in the situation.

I am, of course, not talking about content contributors who are pushing their point of view, something I have never seen Malleus being accused of.

I am all for promoting civility, calm discussion, even kindness, but trying to enforce civility in these situations, seems like a dead-end to me. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The administrators I despise—yes, despise—are those like John, those who sanctimoniously and hypocritically sanction other editors for incivility while being far more uncivil themselves. I'm not too enamoured by those like Lar either, who consistently and persistently turn a blind eye to it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Still hurting? Malleus, it isn't my fault the community rejected you twice as an admin candidate. Nor is it my fault you have repeatedly been blocked since then for personal attacks, harassment and the like. All these things are your responsibility, not mine, and I suggest you find it in yourself to either forgive those you think have wronged you, or try to resolve your differences some other way - for your benefit, not theirs. We already discussed at length the incident you are worried about when I threatened to block you if I saw you bringing other editors' parentage into content discussions. The discussion was a month ago, and I don't think I have anything to add to what I said then. The edit I warned you for was on 11 April, a very long time ago in wiki-time. I have definitely got over it, and so should you. My offer of course still stands, that if you ever see me do anything you are uncomfortable with, you should let me know in the first instance. If you genuinely see a pattern in my behavior of "sanctimoniously and hypocritically sanction[ing] other editors for incivility while being far more uncivil themselves", and you are unhappy with my response to your complaint, I'm sure you're familiar with the various steps of dispute resolution you can take. Malleus, you're clearly an intelligent guy and a good editor. Let go of this chip on your shoulder and maybe you will find editing here to be more fun. Regardless, any comment about editor behavior (like the one you make just above about me) which doesn't come with diffs is pretty meaningless. Do you have diffs of me doing things you are unhappy with? If yes, let's see them. If not, making these unfocused complaints without evidence just makes you look silly, which I am sorry to see. --John (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck off John, there's a good chap. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What kind of dialogue to improve tensions between editors could be had by introducing one's point of view with the reminder of two failed and acrimonious RfAs? John, was it really your intention to bridge a divide or make it worse? I don't even know who you are or what you ever did to irritate Malleus, but I found your reply self-righteous and quite arrogant. It was not a comment befitting of any editor wishing to smooth over hurt feelings or bad relations, and certainly not one that should come from an admin. It should take more effort from admins to communicate to editors with whom they disagree, by listening, acquiescing, and acknowledging where they have valid points, not placing blame upon them and insulting them or rubbing lemon juice in old wounds. That's just taking cheap shots.

This is unnecessary to say to Malleus because he already knows, but I generally don't approve of telling other editors to fuck off. In the way, however, that I would not do it (most days...recently these sentiments are more difficult to rein in), not that I would block someone for it. --Moni3ontheroad (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think my point was, Moni, that Malleus doesn't have any valid points (or he would have made them by now), but is just posturing for the benefit of his fans. That's fine of course, but the distinction does need to be made. Malleus, if you don't want me coming here pointing out how poor your behavior is, don't behave poorly. Specifically, please make sure any future complaints against me (or any named editor) are accompanied with diffs. Thankee kindly, --John (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You still here? I thought I told you to fuck off. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the direct approach is the best. John doesn't listen, doesn't understand, and has an opinion of himself that is so much higher than my opinion of him that it might as well be in a different universe. I want him to play his sanctimonious fiddle elsewhere, and I believe I've made that plain. Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, adding this talkpage was a sure-fire way to spice up my watchlist. I feel, well, incredulous enough to comment on the above because I'm rather surprised John butted in here. John, surely (and I mean surely) you must have realised by now that Malleus does not like you and never will (even I know it). Therefore, if Malleus were to need lectured like some naughty and wayward child you are surely the worst person for the job. Telling Malleus not to behave 'poorly' if he doesn't want you to come here strikes me as ill-thought (at best). You must be aware that you scolding him isn't going to be met with a polite response ergo you're pretty much baiting him. Probably best to leave well alone, no? Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of other policy-happy civility police ready to come marching along next time someone is a bit nasty. On a brighter note, Malleus your work is great - as usual. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 23:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Like many other non-admins here, I have been vehemently abused by administrators, met largely by silence from their fellow admins. On the other hand, as I never tire of pointing out, I have been blocked for using the word "sycophantic". Hypocritical administrators like John and the rest of his civility crew sicken me, and make me embarrassed that I'm forced to share a universe with them. I certainly don't want them spreading their slime over my talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But that's not a valid point, remember. ;) ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 00:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It'll do for me. That neither John nor Lar see this kind of corruption as a problem speaks for itself. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ersatz Monarch class battleship

Hey there Malleus. In your spare time, would you mind takeing a look a this article that I wrote? I've nominated it for a GA in an attempt by me and User:Buggie111 to bring every battleship of Austria-Hungary to GA status and submitting it to GTC as part of WP:OMT. Thanks :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any spare time. Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give one comment: find a good source for the (currently uncited) statement that "It was assumed that following a victorious conclusion to the war in just two months…". Even the most optimistic interpretation of the Schlieffen Plan, assuming no British or Italian entry into the war and a rapid defeat of France, assumed a minimum of six weeks' action in France, followed by withdrawal from France, redeployment to the Eastern Front, and a drive to St Petersburg and Moscow (about 500 and 600 miles respectively from the Eastern Front). Verifiability Not Truth, and if you can find a source for it it can certainly stay, but a claim like that needs citing. – iridescent 01:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see. Well thanks anyway. Hope things are not too bad (with the john incident and everything) Ever consider takeing a wiki-break? You seem to be a bit stressed out.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Iridescent.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all stressed out. I just want planks like John to get out of my face. And if I never hear from Lar again, that would be too soon. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's just that you don't seem that "happy" that often. Hope that you are correct :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up}

Please don't try to patronise me. Let others do it for you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Radstock GA review

Thanks for your edits & comments at Talk:Radstock/GA1 hopefully all the issues you identified are now resolved & it would be great if you could take a look and let me know if there is anything you still feel needs further work.— Rod ^talk 11:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again.— Rod ^talk 15:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Credibility of Resources message to the AP Biology Team

Hi. There is a dark side to this project. Effectively dealing with those who were less than stellar on their assignment. My hope is that they will embrace the project with the same passion as my bog Turtle expert. Of course few do so. If you care to see the efforts that are less than stellar; check out this disaster. Talk:Black mamba. This example is why many of us in education stick with multiple choice test for evaluation. Two more weeks til summer break! --JimmyButler (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A disaster indeed, and a world away from Bog turtle, or Banker horse. I find it a little difficult to understand why students wouldn't pick something they were interested in, and just as importantly, knew they had access to proper sources for. I sympathise though; my wife lectures in biology at a local further education college. Currently she's teaching on what we call an access course over here. Basically it's a one year crash course designed to prepare students with poor exam results for their first year in university. Most days she's climbing the wall in frustration by the time she gets home. The truth I think is that a university education is wasted on most people, they're not mentally equipped for it, but if they fail their entrance exams it's always the teacher's fault, for not teaching them properly. The fact that too many students are lazy and stupid is immaterial. I've always been of the opinion that if you're going to be lazy, you have to be bloody clever, and if you're not so clever, then you have to work bloody hard. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Give them the grade they deserve. FWIW - they'll be called on shoddy "research" quickly in college - or simply be graded accordingly. Having them do this is a great final project; what else to do when the exams are done and senioritis has set in? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Goings On

Interesting userpage additions. Anyway, do you and Parrot of Doom already have a new plan for an article? I am anticipating yet another excellent read, and I need ideas for my own collaborative buddies. Hope everything is going well over there in the UK... some brilliant people over there. Best as always, ceranthor 01:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got something for you to do. Help me write this!--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm nowhere near finished yet, the truth needs to be told. I'm not looking for something to do WhiteShadows, I'm looking for a reason to continue contributing to this shit-hole, preferably one that doesn't involve any suggestion of self-abuse. Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe WS was talking to me Malleus. Sorry to bother you, remove the post if you wish. ceranthor 01:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I hardly ever do that, as it's an affectation; the post is still there for those who go looking for it. Administrators can of course really delete stuff, but of course we all know that they can't. Joke or what? Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't get all down Malleus. If worst comes to worst, just quit and create another account and edit from that one. That way you'll be left alone. Wikipedia can be a very bad place to have interactions with others. (considering that alot of people are here for reasons other than to write an article or to)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean well WS, but I've probably been on our planet a bit longer than you have, and I have perhaps a better understanding of how things work. If it becomes necessary for me to become a poster-child for admin corruption and double standards, then so be it. The facts need to be laid bare, not hidden away by every editor who is similarly targetted just starting again with a new username. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. Things cannot keep on going on like this. I've always been in favor of a "Post-RFA review" for every admin every 3 months or so but oh well...--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of sacking the lot of them, and I'd be prepared to bet whatever you can afford that the overwhelming majority of them would never get through an RfA. Not because "RfA standards have risen", but because they've shown themselves to be incompetent tits who behave the way they do because they know that there's no effective recall mechanism in place. Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know. (Man, If I ever became an admin, I sure hope that I would not end up like that) But what are you going to do you know?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to keep pointing out corruption, dishonesty, and double standards wherever I see them. Blocking me doesn't make those problems go away. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was never really interested in becoming a full time administrator; very few can endure the stress of that. I became a backlog-kind-of-guy just because I want to help. I hope I'm not counted in the corrupt ranks Malleus. And you truly are a hammer of fools. ceranthor 03:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a full time admin, and perfectly willing to be corrupted, but I can't find any takers. Sandy once suggested unblocking for money, but apparently it's too easy to create socks. :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm a little puritanical on this issue, and I don't see any room for slithering. Non-admins are routinely blocked for things that admins do every day, without comment. That's unjust and inequitable, and if it's not addressed then it will undoubtedly tear wikipedia apart. Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be curious to know when and why this absurd idea that the "janitors" are actually a police force took root. Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would imaging it was soon after the janitors discovered that they had been issued billyclubs in addition to mops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ceranthor there are still the articles for each Gunpowder plotter to be done. We've only just finished Guy Fawkes... Parrot of Doom 07:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Distributed element filter

First of all, thanks for all your helpful comments. But... as a courtesy I just wanted to let you know I have reverted most of this edit. It is going too far to say all filters. There are many kinds in electronics and they are not all wave filters (as described in this article).

You also asked in a previous edit why "prescribed"? Almost certainly a rhetorical question but I am going to be sad and give you an answer anyway. Not all design methodologies (especially very simple and archaic methods) are capable of delivering a frequency response which exactly matches something specified beforehand. In some procedures different parameters are used, the frequency response comes out at whatever it comes to, and a deal of designer experience is required to end up with something that is even remotely useful. The term "a prescribed function of frequency" is a stock phrase used by designers to encapsualte this idea. Anyway, we can probably live without it in the lede, only those who are already familiar with design will appreciate its meaning, it will pass by everyone else. SpinningSpark 15:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but there was really no need. You know best what the correct wording might be. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As I prepare to take off for your neck of the globe....

I'm leaving behind Hemming's Cartulary, Miss Meyers, Ralph d'Escures, Walter de Coutances, and Liber Eliensis as my projects for when I return. They all should be pretty much done with research, but a sharp eagle eye over their contents and such-like would be great. After those, Alexander of Lincoln, William de Corbeil, and Garrett's Miss Pawhuska are probably not that far behind. Us horsewomen are also looking at Horse, Appaloosa, and Arabian horse as one of our next pushes, but all of those need scanning for content concerns as well as prose. As for other things - William T. Porter is probably the only "odd" thing on my list at the moment. Well, besides Liudhard medalet. (p.s. hit 700 wikipedia articles created the other day... yay me?) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You've picked a good time of year to come to England. Beautiful sunshine and 80 degrees here today. Malleus Fatuorum 12:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the weather forecasts it looks pretty good. A bit cooler starting Tuesday or so, but nice weather and that's nice, as it's a scorcher here today - 90 plus a lot of humidity. We're just not going to be near enough to Manchester to drop by, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to be swinging by Waltham Abbey to pay your respects to Harold, let me know—I only live up the road. – iridescent 13:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

we might when we pass by in June on our way to York, but it'll have to see. I'm really a Norman partisan, I'm afraid. Never got into the Anglo-Saxon history at all.. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sydney is now miserable and cold....and with a climate just not cold enough to warrant central heating..so house is freezing (sniffle/cough)

(

PS: Hey malleus, here's a cool article --> Fairy ring with two of my favourite interests, fungi and folklore. Dulcem (talk · contribs) was going to do something with it but appears to have retired for all intents and purposes, but Sasata and I are (well I guess he would be) dead keen to buff and help out getting it Featured. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting topic indeed. Obviously still needs quite a bit of work before it's ready for FAC though. I'm not convinced that the balance between the science and the folklore is right, and the folkore probably needs to reorganised somewhat anyway. For me, it reads too much like "In Wales they beieve this ... In the Philippines they believe this ... In Scotland they believe this." Malleus Fatuorum 11:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree - it was/is still needs a fair degree of content work, not in the least buffing up the technical stuff. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Small request

Hi MF, when you aren't busy writing Yorkshire articles etc. I wondered if you'd look at Astley again. It's not as though it's a big place so it's difficult to decide what else I could do. Jza84 helped me earlier this year (do you know I hope he doesn't ever read this but he's quite scary in a helpful sort of way) and it's probably got most of the available info in it. Unfortunately I harbour a desire to get the townships of Leigh Parish to a decent standard. (Irrational I know, but nobody else will ever do it) --J3Mrs (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Hey, I've just looked and you're busy so no problem :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm on a mini article-creation splurge; I thought it was about time that someone had a go at finishing off some of my articles for a change. ;-)

I'm a bit disappointed you think I'm less scary than Jza84. Have I been wasting my time here? Anyway, I'd had a quick look through Astley, and I'll look through in more detail later. Where would you like me to comment? On your talk page or the article's? Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My little friend has asked if you start a new article is it a starticle? My talk page is fine. Sorry about you're disappointment but I never said you were less scary. Go easy I was told off by somebody with no idea of how to treat a luddite about not putting photographs in the right place again today (for the third time and I'm feeling a little harrassed). :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That editor who was "telling you off" was talking bollocks. I'm coming around to the view that it's almost always easier to ignore Commons, and always upload to wikipedia. God knows, wikipedia is bad enough, but Commons is overrun by petty tyrants stomping around unchecked. Certainly I've never bothered with that tool he suggested to you, and I very likely never will. I'll be as gentle as I can. Malleus Fatuorum 14:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I left that editor a message this morning telling him I would not be changing my ways. More to the point, I nominated Astley at WP:GAN so I can only hope. Thank you for helping yet again, for a scary person you really are generous with your time. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see you having too many problems at GAN, so I'd get in the celebratory wine and cake if I were you. I like that new Public services section you added, very nice. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at some of yours to see how you did them, not a lot of help I'm afraid. Wine is in stock, cake tends not to last too long here. But as my mother says, Don't count your chickens...--J3Mrs (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like your sort of place [6] page 17.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of interesting topics there. I'd forgotten about all those Winter Hill UFOs. Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sentence spacing FAC nomination

I invite you to return to the above FAC nomination to see if I have adequately addressed your concerns regarding the article. [7] It's my first attempt at writing/editing a Wikipedia article, so it's probably natural that I stumbled a few times in the first go-round. Thanks for your critical read and interest in the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I always double-space after a full stop. A hangover from my typing lessons at school (one of only two boys in a class dominated by girls...) but I find it easier to read sentences that are double-spaced. Parrot of Doom 08:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

HTML ignores them though, so ... Malleus Fatuorum 11:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In the edit window, however, I find them very useful. Otherwisetomyeyesitsallacontinuousstreamoftextwithfewinterruptionsthatjustseemstogoonandonandon. Parrot of Doom 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's because by default the edit box uses a monospaced font, but you can change that to sans serif from My preferences. That, coupled with wikEd, which has the considerable advantage of allowing you to collapse all the inline citations, makes editing a whole lot easier on the eyes. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WikEd doesn't allow me to move back and forward in my browser, while retaining whatever is in the edit window. Its good for other things though, such as mass-replacing bits of text repeated throughout an article. Parrot of Doom 17:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to switch it on and off as I need it, best of both worlds that way. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Parrot of Doom, I saw your post above. Miles Tinker (1950-1960s) and Colin Wheildon (1982-1990) conducted the most comprehensive studies on the readability and legibility of text in the last 150 years. They found repeatedly that text that people thought was "easiest to read" or looked the "most legible/readable" turned out to be false, on the average, when they actually tested it. Some caveats, (1) The testing was across the spectrum, so some people found some conventions easier to read - even if it contradicted the results from the average reader (so you could be right that it's easier to read for you individually). (2) This goes for both sides. So, people that claim single spacing is "easier to read" could be equally as wrong. All of the studies done so far don't seem to indicate one is easier to read than the other, but the direct studies done have been very limited (mostly on-screen), and the answer may yet still be out there. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Its an interesting point. Its also why when typing out citations I put a space between each value, like this - <ref>{{Citation | title = blah | url = www.blah | last = smith</ref>. Some might find it pointless, but it makes my life so much easier as for some reason it stands out a mile for me. I've never really questioned why, maybe I'm just a bit mental or something ;) Parrot of Doom 20:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind in future, as whenever I come across stuff like <ref>{{Citation | title = blah | url = www.blah | last = smith</ref> I often change it to <ref>{{Citation |title=blah |url=www.blah |last=smith</ref>, because for me the extra spaces make it harder to spot the parameters. Too many years wasted as a software developer I suppose, warps the mind. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

10 REM "Malleus training programme v1.0"

20 For I=1 TO 65536

30 PRINT"Malleus must not removes spaces from Parrot's citations!"

40 NEXT I

50 INPUT"Will Malleus continue to remove spaces from Parrot's citations?", A$

60 IF LEN(A$) = "Y" THEN GOTO 20

70 PRINT "You have learned an important lesson."

80 END

It's been a very long time since I wrote in BASIC (I used to programme a Commodore PET 8k when I was about eight years old, way back in 1980), but I believe this will work. Parrot of Doom 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If "60 IF LEN(A$) = "Y" THEN GOTO 20" will work, then I'm Chinese. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has been 30 years, and I spent far too long writing pages and pages of programming from the back of Personal Computer World, to learn everything :) Parrot of Doom 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to refresh your memory, the "LEN" function returns the number of characters in A$. You'd have to write something like:

60 IF LEFT$(A$,1) ="Y" THEN GOTO 20

Often as well you'd want to check for the length of the input, and maybe accept alternatives like "yes" and so on. Just thought you'd want to know that. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well lets recall something you did 30 years ago, and see if you can remember it with 100% accuracy :) Parrot of Doom 21:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember that first time with Anne with absolute clarity, but I guess you're thinking of something less important than that, like how to write a program in BASIC. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. If you read the Commodore mags of the time, then you may have typed in a few of my programs. One of my favourites was a debugger that allowed you to single-step through your program and see the value of any variable. Seems kind of Mickey Mouse now, but it was a big deal then. The article was even syndicated, and I got a fair amount of money for it eventually. Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah I got fed up of getting wrong one variable in 300 lines of code, and moved instead toward reading Zzap 64!, which was directly responsible for taking up most of my pocket money... Parrot of Doom 22:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've forgotten how we used to do it then, but I seem to remember there was some kind of check sum at the end of every 256 bytes, so you'd know you'd typed the program in correctly or not. It wasn't the typing that got on my tits though, it was having to store the program on an audio cassette, with the certain knowledge that you'd very likely never be able to reload it, and that you'd have to type it all in again. Happy days. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I once sent a program in to Commodore Horizons magazine, they printed it and I got £15. Which was nice. However, about a year later, I was reading back over the program and noticed an error which probably would have driven those patient enough to type it in mad. I thought I'd drop Commodore Horizons a letter to explain the error, not thinking for one moment they would bother printing it. They did, and, if memory serves, I got £5 for my troubles. – B.hotep •talk• 10:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A ZX81 for me; after typing some program in all morning from a magazine and saving it on a cassette player, I still remember the frustration of finding out after lunch that the batteries on the cassette were flat so there was nothing usable to reload... Bencherlite^Talk 10:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And who can forget the infamous ram-pack wobble of the ZX81. Spending an hour typing in stuff line by line, only for the faintest of summer breezes to cause the machine to crash. Fond memories :) Pedro :  Chat  11:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

8k of goodness

At our house we basked in the glory that was the Commodore Pet. We even had a sound cartridge for it. How I laughed at ZX80 owners and their blinking screens... Parrot of Doom 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar question

A set of measures (i.e. laws) were implemented or was implemented? Set is singular, measures plural. I think it must be was, but my brain is dead tonight. Thanks. Yes, even I think you're bit scary, but I know you know the answer to this... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject is "set", so it's got to be singular. Why "set" anyway"? I'd probably reword it to say something like "Measures were implemented ...", but even better if that could be recast to be active. Who implemented the measures? Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• sniff* I smell teh laws! Truthkeeper, feel free to pester me with content queries if it at all relates to England and Wales. And Malleus ISN'T scary, he's a widdle cuddly bear. Admittedly of the annoy-him-and-feel-agonising-tearing-death type. Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, agree it needs recasting but I'm working on a subject that I'm not familiar with. Will play with it. Thanks. The subject is Japan, written by a non-native English speaker so it's a bit tricky. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh. Didn't I GAR one of your articles on the laws relating to the flag and anthem? I'm up for doing the same thing again if you need a native English speaking reviewer to take a look at it. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not one of mine. National Treasures of Japan is up for FAC and I've been helping the editor with an entire series of articles about Japanese art. Interesting articles, tough prose to parse. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mornin' Malleus

Any chance you're up for a GA review? AGK and I have had Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom listed for quite a while. My standard offer applies :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Review's done; another nice, informative article. I'm not all that keen on what I think is an overuse of {{quotation}} boxes, but that's sadly not part of the GA criteria. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 11:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer {{quote}} boxes myself, since the lack of colouring makes it less overbearing, but that was the standard set; on the subject of "nice and informative" I also just finished Charitable trusts in English law, which you might enjoy (spoiler alert: trusts law is boring as shit). Thanks for the review - I'll work on the issues brought up this evening (or whenever my connection at home starts working again). Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the first two quotation boxes are possibly justifiable, but not the others. Anyway, that's definitely in the "I don't like it" category, so not actionable anyway. I'll try and get to Charitable trusts in English law, but probably not until tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to do anything with Charitable trusts - it's not a GAN yet. I just thought you mind find it kinda-interesting reading; there are some rather quirky elements of the law. Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I find the entire legal system to be "rather quirky". I guess that's a legacy of my life of crime. And what the fuck is it with those daft wigs? Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Butting in, but if you're planning to take Charitable trusts in English law all the way, I can't recommend strongly enough that you work from Russell-Cooke Voluntary Sector Legal Handbook (formerly just Voluntary Sector Legal Handbook). It's by far the most definitive current guide to charity law, and in my experience the only book that ties together the conflicting statute and case law. (The Commission themselves are actually surprisingly patchy at understanding the law; there are a lot of obscure but precedent-setting cases of which they're often not aware.) Any legal library or Council for Voluntary Service should have a copy; the most recent edition was only published at the end of last year so should still be up to date, and the author provides a (free) online update service cross-referenced to the book. – iridescent 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks kindly :). Yes, the Commission regularly gets my goat - when their guidelines contradict established case law, you know something has gone wrong somewhere. They also refused to grant Wikimedia UK charitable status, because apparently it doesn't fall under their established definition of an educational concern :S. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Will you never cease to amaze me Iridescent? How on Earth are you familiar with the definitive work on UK charity law? I'm beginning to think that you're not one person at all, you're a Borg. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We are the borg. Resistance is futile. Your knowledge of Mancunian history will be absorbed. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The miracle of crowdsourcing. I’m doing it for the child in Africa who is going to use Buckinghamshire railway stations, Eskimos in inflatable overcoats and Tottenham council estates to find a solution to the crushing poverty that surrounds him. – iridescent 17:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Appreciate the review Malleus. As Ironholds is doubtless too lazy to fix up the issue you highlighted, I'll get down to them at some point soon :D. AGK 23:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me know when you're done. As for Ironholds, well ... Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I am here you know. Also, AGK criticising my laziness with article issues is rather like Jumbo Whales telling Malleus how to write an article. Can't work, won't work. Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I think I ought to warn you that AGK is an administrator. So it doesn't matter what you think, you're wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Administrators are rather like the original generation of judges (from where precedent comes from). See, the idea was they knew all the law, and therefore if they said something was the law and had been for centuries, it was. No questions - they state it is the law, and who knows better than them? I mean, they were the ones entrusted with administering it, so who can really contradict them? They wouldn't have been appointed unless they were reasonable chaps. Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Just for the record, let me say I don't think that very many administrators could find their own arses even if they used both hands. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Oh, that's simple. You just reinterpret the definition of "arse" in WP policy until it covers whatever body part you managed to grasp. Ironholds (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Done, at last. AGK 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nag-drawn tram

I know you were doing something or other on Manchester's early public transport, so would this be of any use? Parrot of Doom 18:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just plugging a few gaps with the early tram operators, like the Manchester Carriage Company, a precursor to the Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company, whose livery that tram is carrying. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

History of the Yosemite area

Hi Malleus - I was wondering if you could take another look at the FAR for History of the Yosemite area, located at Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1. Mav has done quite a bit of work on the article since your last set of comments. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

assignment

The Biology education assignment has progressed onto the Loggerhead sea turtle now in WP:FAC. Your masterful prose skills would be welcomed by biology students and old duffers alike. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, and if it comes down to prose being the difference between a pass or a fail then I'll lend a hand. Right now though, it seems like the major problem is the article's US-centricity. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, very true. Much work has been done on the US-centricity part, hopefully you read about that issue from the talk rather then picking it up from the articles content. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Holdsworth as a source

Holdsworth is basically the guy for legal history; what Edward Coke was to moving it forward, he was to recording its past incarnations. I'm finding it hard to think of a parallel, but lets just say you can't get a more reliable and prestigious source than him (except where his research is contradicted by later people, such as Baker, but that's a rarity). Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bronwyn Bancroft

I've just found out that the above article is TFA for tomorrow. Would you like to run your eye over it in case there's anything worth picking up / copyediting? I've asked Tony1 as well. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Good luck tomorrow, hope the vandalism isn't too bad. Malleus Fatuorum 14:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So far so good. Thanks for the check-over. As is the way, i told someone about the TFA and they provided me with a heap of new information which i've since been digesting. All good though. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bancroft article

Malleus, I got an edit-conflict with you. Could you break for a minute while I paste mine in, including your two recent ones? Tony (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've finished, so it's all yours now. Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Randall Made Knives

Made lots of edits to the article under GA review. Please take a look & let me know if i'm heading in the right direction. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly heading the right way, so keep at it. I must admit I had some doubts as to whether this could be developed to meet the GA criteria during the hold period, but a determined editor can do wonders in a week. I have some reservations about the new Models section though, which at the moment is overpowering the article a little, and making it look like a list. At the very least I'd move it to the end, and start off with the History section, as before. Preferably I'd like to see that section summarised as prose, with just a few of of the significant models highlighted. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Telling an editor that "I think you need to grow up", as you did here, is a personal attack. Please review our no personal attacks policy. A negative comment about another editor like that is unacceptable. Please comment on the content not the personality or your opinions thereof. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck off troll. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, language like that directed at another contributor is a blockable offense. Yworo (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Taken to Wikiquette alerts, here, after a Wikiquette alert search and a look at your block log revealed a history of similar incivility. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As I already said, fuck off and take your poncey attitude elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good time to make some popcorn. --Moni3 (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, I believe that anyone who goes crying to WQA must be a child, and one who spells "offence" as "offense" is an American child. Bad mix. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Really dude, lighten up. Why act like you are having a bad day and try to make other people's days worse? What's the point? What's it gain you? Acting and speaking to other users in a civil manner just isn't all that hard. You have to make an effort to be rude. Why do it, when you know it's agaist site policy? Yworo (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Malleus: runs away and cries....--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck these people. And who are they anyway - editing wikipedia is a bit sad but I understand if you have passions you need to share and write about and that certainly applies to me. But to spend your saturdays and sundays forcing people to be nice? Makes no sence. What kind of burned-out fried hippy nonesence is that? Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading the eleven threads above this I see an editor nicely responding to queries and helping other editors write an encyclopedia. What's wrong with that? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a shame when an editor who is generally so helpful finds he needs to make negative personal comments about people, telling them to "grow up", "fuck off", etc. So unnecessary. Yworo (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled. Why do you think it's necessary to conceal the truth? It may make you a little happier to be shielded from your hypocrisy, but that's your problem, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Does that "American Child" comment apply to me?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't, no. You've changed quite a bit over the last few months, and all to the good. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus!--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because as clearly described at WP:NPA, refraining from incivility makes the whole project more pleasant for everyone. Therefore the community has set reasonable restrictions on making negative comments about other contributors. As they are nothing more than the usual principles of genteel behaviour, seems it shouldn't be too hard for a Brit (I assume), to get the hang of it. Yworo (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The intention sure was to make this place more plesent, the problem is application, as any casual reader of this talk is fully aware. We are tied to AGF when we know the other person is lieing through their teeth, ecetra ecetra. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Think about this troll. You're giving me a pain in the neck. Your contributions to this project amount to roughly zero. What's your agenda? To chase off every content contributor? Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Boy, if you don't get the point of why people should be polite, forget it. Sheesh! Yworo (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you fucked off yet? Who knows, maybe you'll be able to find another talk page more sympathetic to your sanctimonious bollocks. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But you are making it more hospitable to me here all the time! ;-) Yworo (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(To Yworo)As I noted on the incidents page, it appears some have difficulty understanding what a personal attack is. "Fuck off" certainly isn't one. It may not be very nice, but it's not an attack, and certainly not personal. Suggesting someone needs to grow up is an opinion, one you may not agree with, but it's not a personal attack. The best way to deal with what you perceive to be a personal attack is to walk away and ignore it and not try to get the person blocked in retaliation. That only causes more strife. Aiken ♫ 01:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yworo you are the worst kind of troll, its the veneer of please and thanks couupled with a moronic mind that makes your words so hard to take. :) Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quite. Do you have any suggestions for how wikipedia might be able to forestall these tendentious "Please Miss, Malleus said I should fuck off" complaints? Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts seems to encourage people to come and report it, but I honestly don't know. I personally wouldn't tell someone to fuck off, or anything like that, but I am well aware some are very forthright and are not afraid to let their opinion be known, so I think more should be done to encourage work on articles, rather than working on how long X needs to sit in the naughty seat. Clearly the way Yworo keeps returning here shows he cannot be much affected by your comments. Aiken ♫ 01:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree, but surely you agree it's a violation of the civility policy. And I would have ignored it, if this user didn't have a history of being blocked for personal attacks and incivility. I disagree that we should tolerate rudeness simply based on contributions. Good contributors of content, people who perform admin tasks, and people who Wikignome, even people who occasionally fix capitalization and punctuation on an irregular basis, should all be held to the same standards of civility. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. But thanks for your advice (see how easy it is to respond civilly even to someone who disgrees with you?) Yworo (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is worth less than spit to me, until I see you apply the same standards to the administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be, but bear in mind, what is "uncivil" to some, is just casual conversation to others, which makes it difficult to enforce. You might also bear in mind most of the blocks were overturned. I never said rudeness should be tolerated, but we are not a school, and if you don't like the way someone is talking to you, keep away from them, simple as that! Aiken ♫ 01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As Iridescent never fails to point out, I often draw attention to my block for using the word "sycophantic". What was that about? The problem is that those like Yworo just count the blocks, they don't look any deeper that that. Being blocked is bad in their mind, whereas it's too often the suppression of an alternative point of view. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If indeed some of your block were inappropriate, I apologize. Incivility sometimes get quickly out of hand here, and reviewing the details of every block can be time consuming. Responding "fuck off" is much more likely to lead to a long pointless discussion like this than a milder or no response. If you hadn't responded that way, I'd not have looked at your block log at all or even watched your talk page. As I said....let's forget it. (In other words, I'm "fucking off", okay?) Yworo (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm uncertain as to why you might think I'm at all concerned about your opinion on anything, but whatever it is, please take it elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the comment? You were blocked nearly 2 hours after making that comment for a week? Well overboard imo! Aiken ♫ 01:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks for rooting it out. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)