User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2012/September

In 2012, ...

Hi Malleus. Could I please get your opinion on whether you like a comma following "In YYYY" when it starts a paragraph? For example, do you prefer:

In 1999, Time magazine named Fleming one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century ...

or

In 1999 Time magazine named Fleming one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century ...

I have an opinion, but I would like to hear the thoughts of others on the matter.
PS. I have little to do with the (vandalised-prone) article from which that example was taken (beyond incessant anti-vandalism duties), but there is trouble-a-brewing there regarding "Scottish vs. British" that you might be able to soothe.
GFHandel ♬  07:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a set rule but I like to avoid repetition by restructuring. There are all manner of ways to do this but is it really that important to even mention the year? Parrot of Doom 11:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't use a comma in that instance. I've seen the Scottish/British thing brewing elsewhere too, at Robert Burns for instance. The only way to sort that problem out IMO is to use excessive force. Malleus Fatuorum 13:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll email you my password so you can use my stick when you need it. Also, you unlearned me to use commas in such instances; they are a matter of course in the US. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit

	Onwards and upwards
	Thanks for copyediting the lede of Oerip's article. It looks good.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick driveby comment on Melford

"He was released from prison on 14 April 1959 and became the first president of the newly-independent Kenya in 1964" is true but a bit misleading. He stopped being physically held in prison, but he wasn't released but was transferred to the remote outpost of Lodwar and kept under strict house arrest until 1961. I can't think of a way to word that that won't give undue prominence to what was a very minor aspect of Stevenson's career, but I dare say you can.

If you (or PoD, or any of your other followers) want another Odd Character From The Old Days to work on—this time an article which actually is of quite high importance—you might want to take a look at William Price. I came across Price when I was doing London Necropolis Company—he's either a heroic figure who revived traditional culture, inspired the oppressed people of the British Isles to shake off the Norman yoke, and forced the Established Church to reverse its attitude towards cremation (if you're Welsh); or an obvious lunatic who was afraid of his own socks and believed that the ancient Greeks lived in Caerphilly and that the Earth was an egg laid by a giant snake (if you're not). – iridescent 11:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"He was released [moved, transferred] from prison to house arrest on 14 April 1959 and [later, subsequently, eventually] became the first president of [the?] newly-independent Kenya in 1964" -does most of the job. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Clevedon Pier

Would you (or any of your talk page stalkers) being kind enough to take a look at the prose on Clevedon Pier. I've recently got a couple of relevant books and have been editing and expanding the article with the aim of nominating it at GA in a few weeks. As you may remember my grammar is not that brilliant and any improvements would be welcome - I am aware that some of the measurements are metric (imperial) and others imperial(metric) and I will get to this when I can, but I'm really looking for help with structure and grammar at this stage.— Rod ^talk 15:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I did a few tweaks, including (I hope!) all the metric/imperial conversions. Pesky (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you've standardised on imperial(metric) which is fine by me. I had been advised (at Template talk:Convert#pounds per square foot) to use |disp=flip within the convert template to achieve the standardised output while leaving the figures used in the source documents available to editors.— Rod ^talk 09:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about that |disp=flip parameter, that's going to be very useful. I'll take a look through Cleveland Pier this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had an initial root through, but I think the article still needs quite a bit of work. I don't understand this at all for instance: "The number of rail passengers crossing to South Wales which had been envisaged was reduced after the opening of the Severn Tunnel in 1886 linking South Gloucestershire in the west of England to Monmouthshire in south Wales under the estuary of the River Severn." And why is it "South Gloucestershire" but "south Wales"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your initial "root". I think the above is saying that the plans said there were going to be lots of passengers going to S. Wales but after the rail tunnel opened there weren't as many as they were expecting. I think South Glos is an official district name, but s. Wales is a general geographical term - taken from Severn Tunnel - happy to change it. Re: "The tests involved the placement of polythene tanks 50 ft (15.2 m) long, 5 ft (1.5 m) wide and 2 ft (0.6 m) deep filled to a depth of 10 in (25.4 cm), which created a pressure of 50 psf (2 kPa)." the source book actually says "which gave a pressure equal to 50lbs per square foot" - but I'm no engineer either.— Rod ^talk 06:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After Stevenson

As you and John have (almost) put Stevenson to bed now, perhaps the pair of you would consider collaborating on another legal biography, namely Lord Goddard. If Stevenson was something of a monster, then Goddard was a preternatural bastard, whose awfulness needs to be thoroughly exposed. There's plenty of sources, too. The present article is terrible; how about it? Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

An interesting idea; perhaps English judges might become our equivalent of Ealdgyth's medieval bishops. Goddard doesn't get many page hits,[1] but he gets quite a few more than Stevenson.[2] I'll see what John thinks, and what sources I can get hold of. Malleus Fatuorum 14:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the more obvious biographical stuff, Devlin in Easing the Passing has quite a lot to say about Goddard. If I come across anything that looks useful I'll drop you a note. According to his WP article, Goddard used to wank in his pants when passing the death sentence; I wonder if that is true. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that; seems a bit improbable to me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a very well-established legal myth; I see his valet's, er, evidence is mentioned, but I don't know about that. The article says, & the usual story is, he used to spontaneously ejaculate, an impressive feat for a man who was 55 when appointed to the bench. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Having now thought about this for a while my opinion is this. I had no interest in Melford Stevenson until someone challenged me to do something about his article. I roped John in to help because we'd worked together on Maggie Thatcher and I know what a great editor he is. But I really have no abiding interest in English judges, and I've belatedly recognised that many of my problems here have been caused by my frustration at feeling obliged to work on stuff I have absolutely no interest in. If I were an employee of Wikipedia I might feel differently, but as I'm a volunteer I'd prefer to work on stuff that I choose for myself. Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kings Hall

Quite happy for this article to be speedy deleted as I didn't create it! I did some moves in 2007 relating to Belfast's hall. The current text was created by a later editor very recently. MightyWarrior (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting choice of names to target for this, Mr EdwardsBot. I'm certain that were I to be choosing a group of people to discuss how to calm down disputes, Jack Merridew, Baseball Bugs, Penyulap, Malleus, Fæ and TreasuryTag would be right at the top of my list as well. – iridescent 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange indeed. I wouldn't even nominate myself. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

This may interest you. If it does, I'd like to hear what you think about it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Was hail!

Just because. No other reason. The offer of wassailing down here in the Forest is always open, should you ever like to. Pesky (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. My own thought is that Wikipedia and I are drifting dangerously apart. Dangerous for Wikipedia that is, unless I'm the only long-term editor who feels despised and disenfranchised. Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Meh. You really shouldn't be feeling like that; I suspect that you may be looking at the half-full glass as being three-quarters empty. There are a lot of people in here who recognise your true value, they may just not be quite as vocal as those who don't, or who mistake it. You might have the odd kick in your gallop, and pull evil ears-flat, nose-wrinkled, teeth-bared faces, but you're still a damned good classical dressage horse, and one who deserves a hug in his stable. Pesky (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you say this Malleus. Actually I thought things had been going well for you. Don't ever let one or two people bring you down on wiki. The world will always be filled with fools. If you're truly objective - I think you have to acknowledge that you are thought of as one of the brightest, best, and most valuable resources this project has to offer; by a great MANY people here. Only a truly petty and jealous person could ever despise you or your work here. — Ched :  ?  13:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What Ched said! Nortonius (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, ya ain't ever gonna leave (at least, never for long). You're an addict like the rest of us! Seriously, add the [wikistress thermometer like I did, makes it way easier to stay around. Montanabw^(talk) 19:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You are immensely valuable in here. And wot Montana said about addiction ... there are few people more qualified than addicts to enumerate the adverse side-effects of their chosen addiction. But, because they're addicts, they do it anyway ... yup, there are some seriously adverse side effects to the WikiDrug (Class A). But – we're addicts. Pesky (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not addicted to Wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination, and I'll be among the first to jump ship when a credible alternative emerges. But what I believe in is the idea of freely available knowledge; it's really as simple as that. If that's considered a fault then so be it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You can stop any time you want, eh? (grin) But if you want freely available knowledge, I fear wiki is sort of like democratic forms of government, messy, unruly, disorganized, and the worst system ever - until you compare it to everything else that actually exists!  :-D Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There will be something better along fairly soon, I'm quite sure. And when it is you won't see me for dust. Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe very strongly in the idea of freely available knowledge as well. I'd hate not to be able to see you for dust, I would miss you. It would be nice if we could actually turn what we currently have into the "something better". There are a lot of "it would be nice ifs". There's a lot I could do with a decent wand; trouble is that Ollivander's doesn't seem to have been able to source one for me. Pesky (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be changed except by fiat, but there's nobody in charge, and what we have now is pretty much set in stone; a rational alternative would be very different. For me Wikipedia is an experiment that has failed, but in the meantime a useful repository until something better comes along. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded that I've been blocked in the past for expressing far less radical views, and that those blocking administrators are still administrators. I've never been a great one for the AGF bollocks. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think change may come about by evolution. Pesky (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bosa of York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page See (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fuck off bot. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, please do not be uncivil to our bots. They may not contribute as much article content as you do, but they work very hard and their feelings should be important to us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I ought to have considered the bot's feelings before mouthing off like that. Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say that the nice thing about criticizing bots is that they don't go whining to ANI. But then I noticed that actual Arbitrators come to defend them instead, so I guess I've severely misread the bots' position on the Wikipedia totem pole. Anyway, I think the bot actually has a point, so I've made the change to the article. If I linked to the wrong page, please leave it anyway, as I am an admin and thus infallible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I leave all that kind of stuff to Ealdgyth. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

At least the bots leave opt-out instructions to keep them off your talkpage, which administrators and arbitrators typically don't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but I'm often quite surprised to discover that an editor I've worked with is an administrator. Which to me is the sign of a good administrator. It's curious to me that John and I have managed to develop such a good working relationship after our initial encounters, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, the robots deserve NYB's defense. Among Wikipedia contributors, they are unusually rational and good-willed and helpful, soft-spoken, and happy to run along after their message. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Floq may have a different view. Some like to edit war. — Ched :  ?  20:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

CBT

I really think Cognitive behavioral therapy should be an FA. If I take it on, would you be interested in helping, or being a sounding board? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to know that I'm rather anti all kinds of psychotherapy, especially the currently trendy CBT; I'm very much in the "for fuck's sake pull yourself together" school of psychology. I think it would be an awful lot of work to get CBT to FA. I'm not saying the effort wouldn't be worthwhile, but it's not something I could see myself getting very interested in. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. The psychology category here is generally woeful, but CBT is now ubiquitous in all of medicine's gaps, so it's the one part of psychology I believe we have to get right. I'm highly skeptical of the field's efficacy claims and unimpressed by its slack language, always erring on the side of boosting its clinical value. That's where I'm coming from. I'm going to retire for a while now and hit the textbooks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that called the Church of Scientology Malleus? Get the kids off Ridalin, they mask the problem!! LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL all. Actually, whoever does work on this article needs to use this as a source: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/09/0083100 (need subscription, but excellent article critical of CBT). As for Malleus, hoo boy, you just BEG to be trouted on a regular basis, don't you! :-D Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I always thought that Cognitive behavioral therapy was just the polysyllabic and posh way of saying "for fuck's sake pull yourself together" ;P Adding: these long-drawn-out and euphemistic ways of saying the same thing, though, are probably more lucrative. Pesky (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

References

I see you are doing something different with book references. Is it something I should be doing or is it just a preference thing? J3Mrs (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. Which article have you seen it on? Do you mean the {{sfn}} templates? Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Deansgate article came up on my watchlist.J3Mrs (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just an easier to use version of {{Harvnb}}, with the advantage that it automatically collects duplicated citations together without having to name them. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I get that, I'll perhaps try it sometime on something short with only one book. Why does this stuff keep changing?J3Mrs (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is there more than one way to do citations anyway? Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That has always puzzled me. It would make editing so much simpler for folk like me who are totally uninterested in how wikipedia works if there was just one simple way. I would have thought some clever soul would have a single citation button that comes ready loaded with the access date. Do you know I still copy citations from one or two articles I've worked on? My brain just refuses to cooperate with stuff I'm not interested in. J3Mrs (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

PS thank you for the lesson at Bradford Colliery. :-) J3Mrs (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried the {{efn}} thing but why is it labelled a in the text and 1 in the notes list?

Just to distinguish notes from citations. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't distinguish, notes and footnotes are both numbered in the references but in the text one is a letter, the other a number. I think it's confusing, and as I frequently tell you I am easily confused. Logically it should be a letter in the notelist if it's a letter in the text.J3Mrs (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Now you've confused me, as it is a letter in the notelist. Which article are you looking at? Astley and Tyldesley Collieries? Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Bradford Colliery and Astley and Tyldesley Collieries in the Reference section have numbering in Notes 1 2 3 4 and Footnotes 1 2 3 4. In the text Footnotes are 1 2 3 4 and Notes are a b c d. On the old system I think nb1 going to 1 is ok but a to 1 is illogical. J3Mrs (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Might this be a caching problem? Looking at Bradford Colliery for instance I see the Notes listed as "a b c d" and the Footnotes numbered from 1 to 28, which is what I'd expect. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It works OK for me, too. I find the {{sfn}} useful, particularly in the way it collates citations, but the {{efn}} is brilliant in comparison with the "old" cumbersome procedure. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Good morning Peter, I've got it now! and sorted out the cache thing!! Thanks MF, as you can see again I am still no computer expert.J3Mrs (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Mewling quim"

Following the dialog to The Avengers expanded my vocabulary. (Thor expanded my vocabulary when I was a kid, alas too late for Merry Marvel Marching Society.)

I wasn't sure I heard "puling quim" or "mewling quim". At first, I wondered if I had misheard a reference to Dylan.... Did "mewling quim" play well in the UK? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting take on that here which is germane to one of Mal's recent spats. And yes, back in the day we did used to sing "you've not seen nothing like a mighty quim" in the pub. Richerman (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the very distinct impression at that ArbCom case that many from across the Atlantic refused to accept that the word "cunt" is used quite differently outside America. But then most of them seem to believe in alien abduction as well. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That was the best description of the use of "quim". Thank you Richerman!

It's distressing to read about my fellow countrymen's beliefs about alien abductions, angels, evolution, etc. (I won't discuss their beliefs about The Beast, lest I be again blocked!) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Information Technology

Information Technology reminds me of It---threatened by a scary malevolent clown! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

an ANI discussion (no, not about you;)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Lucky102's GA "review" of Milan. The thread is User:Lucky102 && Talk:Milan/GA1. Thank you.

It was "passed", but I saw you fixing obvious issues afterwards; mebbe you'd care to re-review it in a bit more detail. Think of is as for Giano ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

now at:

• Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#User:Lucky102 && Talk:Milan/GA1. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Curious

Hi Malleus,

Quick question: have you changed your opinion about the various user "rights" (reviewer, rollbacker, etc.)? I just noticed that they have been assigned to your account again and thought it quite curious. I'm a big fan of your work! Thanks to you, T. trichiura Infect me 13:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My attitude hasn't changed, but Wikipedia has; for some bizarre reason it's now all but impossible to deal with article feedback without having rollback for instance. So although I've now got rollback I'll never be using it, and I'll continue to ignore any and all articles that have pending changes (or whatever it's called now) applied to them. Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just checking

Just checking before I do any more, I need to add separator postscript thingies to NHLE refs if I use citations? I am now becoming slightly paranoid about refs. :-) I am only doing this because it rains every time I go outside. I rather like the NHLE thing, not that I can remember how to do it without looking.J3Mrs (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure you've noticed that the {{cite}} and {{citation}} templates produce slightly different results. One uses full stops to separate each element of the citation and the other uses commas, so {{citation}} ends with ", retrieved on 11 September 2012" whereas {{cite}} ends with ". Retrieved on 11 September 2012". Therefore you've basically got two choices: either switch to using the {{cite}} templates or add the separator and postscript thingies to the end of each NHLE citation. There's a similar incompatibility with the {{sfn}} template, which is the reason for that trailing "ps=" parameter. The reason I stick with the citation template is because I prefer comma-separated citations. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You credit me with noticing something I haven't! I always use citations because I think I copied from some of yours eons ago. What a lot of palaver. I usually glaze over when I encounter anything that appears technical or go outside into the garden. Thank you again.J3Mrs (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wanna wordsmith (in US English)?

Hi Malleus, I'm working up Russell and Sigurd Varian for GA, want to hop over and take a whack at it? I'm still in the peer review stage, but my brain has fried and I need new eyes. Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What a strange looking pair. There's a problem with ref #32 BTW. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bugging you again. We put Appaloosa up for TFA and doing so seems to have attracted a grammar troll who enjoys snarky edit summaries. Can you do another run-through that article (after seeing history and looking at diff of my last edit to previous edit to see what the fuss was about) and if you think some cleanup is needed, do your magic (in US English?) I think you helped us here when we put it up for FA too, but new eyes after some time is always helpful. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

TPS here - fwiw, if you've attracted Yomangani you're lucky. He's far from a grammar troll. Make friends with him instead would be my advice. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've not looked at the article yet, and to be truthful I can't remember ever having looked at it, but as TK says, Yomangani is one of the good guys. I'll pop along later. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, he had a brain fart on that particular article, dumped some stuff that should not have been removed, and couldn't resist an overdone snotnosed edit summary; one bit in question may need refinement in phrasing and style, but he missed the point entirely. The other one could have been fixed without the snark. We all have off days, but when you are rude also, it's fat on the fire for the people at the receiving end. And I'd still like Mal to take a peek. :-) Montanabw^(talk) 04:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Phallic architecture

"DYK that the Leaning Tower of Pisa in Pisa, Italy, dating from around 1173, has long suffered with erection problems....?. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that a real one, or did you make it up? Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure it is! I spotted it on User:Carptrash's user page in "my failed attempt to create a Phallic architecture article"; the irony is that he implied that he "had difficulty keeping it up" (the article that is). I thought he could use some wiki viagra to assist him in the process. Obviously the "Leaning Tower has long suffered from erection problems" is intended as a double entendre, but true nonetheless. It should stick as a legit article, my Phallus paintings in Bhutan article did. Its still in its early stages, I've asked Bgwhite if he can access any sources in JSTOR which could further improve it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

WOW! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I can't believe the Washington Monument isn't listed there. Surely an oversight by the good doctor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Monument is the Jonah Falcon of phallic architecture, I had spotted it but it takes a long time to get that thing up and running on wikipedia!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep it up, but please keep links from headings down in articles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hehe!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you could pull the Jonah Falcon article out of your memory to link here is worrisome. I will admit your choice of new articles is rather interesting. My fascination has always been on the feminine side of that equation, however, yet I can't think of any examples of Yonic architecture. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Worrying why? The fact that he was in a tabloid newspaper article I happened to read a few days ago. I didn't remember his name, I remembered his penis size. I googled 13.5 inch penis to retrieve the name here! And I only remembered the size because its um,, and it was only a few days ago I saw an article about it. I had heard of the guy previously of course but had pretty much forgotten until I saw it the other day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

There's always the Vagina Building. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is why I come back to your talk page, Malleus: Every visit, I get to learn something new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Good Lord. DBaK (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My valuable contribution-discovery re this topic: Condom, Gers. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Phallic architecture is coming on nicely. Encyclopedic enough? Naturally I placed the one which most resembles a hard-on as the chief image. The Ypsilanti Water Tower for some reason reminds me more of a roll on deodrant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edward Pulsford GA review

Hi, thanks for reviewing this. I've left some responses on the review page. Frickeg (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your great review! Frickeg (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A request for action

Hey, Malleus Fatuorum. Dennis Brown tells me that you are a fair person with integrity. I must say I am very surprised, for it is rare to find such a person in Wikipedia but I take Dennis Brown on his word. Now, you know how difficult it is to write an FA article. It is only logical to take Codename Lisa on her word that she has gone through a lot of trouble to bring Microsoft Security Essentials to the standard that is expected of the community; she even says she has taken the article to a pro. Please assume good faith, i.e. do not assume that she brought the article to a pro to belittle you.

I'd like to remind you that she never commented on you. (I did though; it was before Dennis Brown told me you have integrity.) She said certain emotional things when she thought all is lost but since they were not personal attacks, please cut the newcomer some slack. Fleet Command (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I just replied on my page a couple of times, but I think that Lisa made some mistakes that she should address. I won't rehash my comments here, but Malleus might just read the totality of the comments on my talk page before replying. I'm hopeful that you all will work the issues out and that the article is able to reach FAC status, but the problem doesn't start nor end with Malleus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Well, you don't need to cut some slack unless there is something to ignore. But I actually think that comment on the professor thing was funny. From my experience, that outcome is expected, not just because the article was perfect but because of the person in question. Fleet Command (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I continue to fail to understand why I ought to be expected to give the opinion of a linguistics professor on anything other than linguistics any more weight than I would give to the opinion of a car mechanic or a bricklayer. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Who exactly expected you? Fleet Command (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you persisting with this nonsense? I've made my position quite clear and nothing that's happened since has gone any way towards changing my mind. Goodbye. Malleus Fatuorum 15:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Malleus,

The article obviously should have had a serious peer review by a good copy editor before being nominated again. You did more than expected to help her.

You were very restrained and showed a lot of patience trying to help Lisa with improving the article.

Fleet Command's blue-linking basic policy and guidelines and calling your review disruptive was indeed best ignored. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Fleet, you are mistaken and are just reading Malleus wrong. If you observe Malleus over time, you will understand what I mean. Lisa has apologized and I believe she is very sincere, and it looks like she and Malleus are likely to work together to take a good article and hopefully put a little shine on it, to make it worthy of FAC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Berners Street

If in doubt, always blame the cat reddit. ;) —Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That explains it, thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Spanish conquest of Guatemala

This is a note to let the main editors of Spanish conquest of Guatemala know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 21, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 21, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Spanish conquest of Guatemala was a conflict that formed a part of the Spanish colonization of the Americas within the territory of what became the modern country of Guatemala in Central America. The Maya kingdoms resisted integration into the Spanish Empire with such tenacity that their defeat took almost two centuries. Pedro de Alvarado arrived in Guatemala from the newly-conquered Mexico in early 1524, commanding a mixed force of Spanish conquistadors and native allies, mostly from Tlaxcala and Cholula. The Itza Maya and other lowland groups in the Petén Basin were first contacted by Hernán Cortés in 1525, but remained independent and hostile to the encroaching Spanish until 1697, when a concerted Spanish assault led by Martín de Urzúa y Arizmendi finally defeated the last independent Maya kingdom. The indigenous peoples of Guatemala lacked key elements of Old World technology such as a functional wheel, horses, steel and gunpowder; they were also extremely susceptible to Old World diseases, against which they had no resistance. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Mootness

Dear Malleus, I was interested by this. I certainly agree that "settled" is not an improvement, but I did wonder if there is some problem with the word "moot" which as far as I recall can have somewhat different emphases between American and British English. Is it not something like in BrE it means more that it is up for debate, whereas in AmE the suggestion is more that it's not worth debating - that the debate is already void? Admittedly I may have imagined this in a drunken stupor or be confusing it with some odd variant of "tabling" things or something with a similar effect ... but if I am along the right lines I wondered if we should perhaps look for a wording which says exactly what it should in both Br and AmE and doesn't confuse anyone or frighten the horses? With thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

(tps) Otiose? Ning-ning (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A perfectly cromulent word, but I wonder if "irrelevant" is better suited. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Moot" is a poor choice of word in that article anyway, but I don't know about any Br/Am English distinctions. Certainly the way the word "moot" is used on Wikipedia is very jarring, at least to me, although I may not be your typical Brit. To me, "moot" means "hypothetical", not "no longer relevant". Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably one of the words we should avoid using altogether, since it does mean something different in the US than the UK. Kind of like the old expression "knock me up"... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And "moot" is a Nordic word, meaning "meeting". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says the Luftwaffe "did not espouse" attacks on civilians, then it says that official opposition became moot- that's a bit of a jump from "not espousing" to "opposing". If this "official opposition" to bombing civilians actually did exist, was there a racial basis to it, given that the Luftwaffe were previously bombing Spanish and Polish civilians deliberately? Ning-ning (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

... and subsequently bombing Russian civilians. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Official Luftwaffe doctrine circa 1936 did indeed come out against "terror bombing" on principle, but did allow that it might become necessary as a retaliatory measure. Intothatdarkness 15:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the Baedeker Blitz is clear evidence that the Luftwaffe had no compunction about terror bombing. Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite familiar with that. I was simply citing prewar doctrine position. On the whole the Luftwaffe didn't buy into the Douhet theory of breaking civilian morale from the air. Much of the Nazi leadership did, though. It was a case of politicians shaping operational doctrine. And the impetus for the Baedeker Blitz came from Hitler. Intothatdarkness 15:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Another query

Where might I find a template (??) thingie like the NHLE one but for Pastscape references? That is if such a thing exists. I am revising one of my earlier articles (offline) as on reading it through it is unbelievably awful. Sorry to be so technical.:-) J3Mrs (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Cite PastScape}} might be what you're looking for. Failing that it wouldn't be too difficult to create a new template. Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks like it. Will it need the separator= , and postscript= ? Thank you, I can never find anything useful.J3Mrs (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

To make the display consistent with {{citation}} you would, but it doesn't implement those parameters; hang on for 10 minutes and I'll update it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

... and there you go, done. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried it in List of mills in Wigan and for some strange reason it appeared in the text not in the refs. It could only happen to me. :-( J3Mrs (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a regular {{cite}} template, so you have to bracket in with the ref tags, as in <ref>{{cite Pastscape |...}}</ref>. Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, my ignorance of these things knows no bounds. J3Mrs (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying it for myself in your list; it's possible that I've broken the template. Be back shortly. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks ok to me...J3Mrs (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it does; for some reason it didn't work the first time I tried. Maybe another one of those caching problems. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reflections in the media

I have no idea why, when Malcolm said "What the fuck is this? Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Cunt"? in The Thick of It this weekend, I was reminded of .... Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've obviously made the word my own so far as Wikipedia is concerned, yet I've only used it twice in five years. So far. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Carl Sagan had never previously said "billions and billions" when it became the expression that popular culture associated with him first and foremost. He ended up taking ownership of it and even titled his last book Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium. Funny how fiction becomes The Truth if it is repeated enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary my Dear Watson". Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Lead on, MacDuff" is another one. Pesky (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And another classic that wasn't, "Play it again, Sam". Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Houston, we have a problem".--John (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Questia

Hey Malleus, I just got my Questia account. Did you get one? I did a search for The Man in the Moone and found a couple of things, including an article by Poole, who has an essay cited in the article already. I can't see that essay right now but the titles are different, so I don't think it's a reprint (the article is from PQ, 1998, so it could be). Unfortunately Questia doesn't provide page numbers in the complete citation, and it's not a photographic copy of the article as it was published. I'll email it to you and then you can see for yourself. I'll see what else I can dig up; with real interesting things that have to be done thoroughly I'm very slow, and it's late already. Best, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• I might not be using Questia for long. I saved one article but the next one crashed my computer twice in a row, giving me all kinds of weird error messages. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the pdf, which arrived safely. I've had a look through Questia and I'm quite impressed; no weird crashing or anything like that, but quite a bit of stuff that might help me at last to finish The Coral Island – by "finish" I mean get it to GAN, which is the extent of my ambition for it. Then on to the The Man in the Moone, which we've probably got enough material on now to make a pretty good fist of it. The combination of public library access, Highbeam, and Questia is going to make things so much easier I think. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, that answers my question! Drmies (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Security Essentials

Hi, Malleus

Well done, you overworked yourself. Great job. You remind of myself three month ago when I spent hours after hours reading sources one by one and checking them with the other FA reviewer who was very picky about details.

When I come back, I'll make sure I'll read your edits blow by blow but overall, I see some new synonyms in place (which are good), some sentences joined (which are good again) and I think I see a lot more hyphens (no comment on it yet). By the way, a sentence says "OPSWAT report found that". Kind of got my attention: Do report find things? I thought investigators find things and put them in reports. I'll check this with Corpus of Contemporary American English when I first get the chance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, reports contain findings, but I think we're getting there. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Malleus. I thought I saw everything but this proves me wrong: [3]. Are such requests valid? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers can make whatever suggestions they like, so in that sense yes, it's perfectly valid. If you disagree with merging the Reception and Awards sections then just politely say so, and explain why. It's ultimately up to the FA delegates to decide on the merits of the suggestion/conditional support. Personally, I think Dmitrij D. Czarkoff has a good case, as the Awards section is pretty small. If I were in your position I'd rename the present "Reception" section "Reception and awards" and just remove the current "Awards" section header. Job done, no fuss, no hassle, nothing lost. The trick is to be strong, but to avoid being broken you need to bend with the wind. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Malleus. Like you said, sometimes we have to bend with the wind. Both you and me worked a lot on the article and surely it would be waste if it was all for nothing. Let's temporarily put the alt text issue to bed by restoring the so-called "Wrong Version". After the FAC, we can call an RFC and deal with it the proper way. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Chris is utterly wrong in his (mis)understanding of the purpose of alt text, which is not a requirement for FAC anyway. By restoring the "wrong version" we would be doing a disservice to all our visually impaired users, and I can't agree to that. No RfC is required either now or later, as this issue has been thrashed out interminably elsewhere. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what Chris's view of the alt text is, as it won't affect the FAC one way or the other. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again

I know that; I myself have some questions about the alt texts of the article and their rationale; but there is a risk that two things may happen: Fleet may pull his "My oppose stands" card and delegates may look at your discussion with Chris as "yet another dispute" and throw it out of the window. Please be patient. Some things need patience, order and proper course of action to be resolved. A consensus obtained appropriately solves a lot of things.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The consensus around alt texts was achieved some time ago. Whether Fleet maintains his oppose or not is of of no consequence, as it's without merit and will be ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll keep my fingers crossed. A lot is riding on this. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria's oppose is the only thing you've got to be concerned about now, as her opposition will carry some weight. Hopefully when she revisits she'll feel able to withdraw her oppose, and if she does I think you'll be home and dry. Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, Malleus. We did it. You did. I promise you, the next article will be much better. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Congrats to you both. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You did the hard work Lisa, I just pushed you in the right direction. I know pride comes before a fall, but I've never lost an FAC I've worked on, and only one GAN, which was quickly overturned at GAR, yet some people (not you) don't seem to hear what I'm telling them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The City of Beautiful Nonsense (book)

I was stumbling around random articles and found that this wasn't even a redlink, which I fixed, and subsequently created a poor stub for, figuring it was better than nothing. Then it dawned on me that you might have an interest in it. As you know, this isn't my specialty and I get a bit lost, but I figured if you had the time, you might enjoy adding a paragraph or two to make it a proper stub. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• This might sound odd, but maybe there is a DYK for it, as few best selling books have spawned both a silent movie and a sound movie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  I wouldn't bother with DYK, too much trouble for too little payback. I've never heard of the book, or the films. I'm very slow at writing literature articles though, witness The Coral Island, but I'll take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  I'm betting it just needs a small plot summary and some minor stuff. It is so old, I don't think it will be easy to get that much info, but the author and the two movies are both UK, so I thought that might appeal to you as well. No obligation or rush, you just came to mind after I started it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  DYK has hidden rules for literature articles, not worth bothering with. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  Oh well, that isn't why I started it anyway. Looks like a tps has already jumped in and started helping, which is appreciated. Being 100 years old, I hit a brick wall when it came to getting a plot summary and found only one weak summary on the 1935 movie, being used on over 100 sites. Still, a stub is better than a red link, or in this case, no link at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  I had no idea you were 100 years old Dennis. I must say, you've aged astonishingly well. --John (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  Ok, the last thing I need is for my poor grammar to be pointed out on this particular talk page. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello Malleus Fatuorum; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. It looks like you forgot to sign your post so you may want to go back and do that. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Duh! Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh gawd, is that STILL going on? Has someone nominated it for the lamest WP editing dispute in the entire history of the encyclopeida? ARRRGGGHHHH!!!! Montanabw^(talk) 17:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's already there. --John (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The competition would be tough, but I'd nominate this as the lamest WP editing dispute of recent times. Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps there needs to be a distinction between "stupid" (IT) and "silly" (T/the) Except debating that would also be extremely lame. SHEESH! Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahem

England? I think you meant Britain, ya big sassenach! --John (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the source says England, and I didn't really question it; probably written by an American. And I'll have you know that my mother is Scottish, so I'm only half a sassenach. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the relationships between Scotland, England, the United Kingdom and Great Britain are somewhat unusual and difficult for foreigners to understand. I know, and I'm sure your Scottish half is your good half. Ever read Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? --John (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To say nothing of Wales and Ireland... =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

One would think this would be an unusual place to forget about Wales.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Veni, vidi, vici

I learnt today that editor is a Latin word with two meanings; a sponsor of gladiatorial games, or the exuder of smells. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That just seemed so unlikely that I had to check with the OED. The first seems likely true, as in editor ludorum, but no mention of an "exuder of smells". Are you sure you got this from a reliable source, or did it come from a fellow in a pub? Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

From Fortean Times, which tends to cite most of its stories, no matter how unbelievable they may be. The piece was written by Barry Baldwin. Parrot of Doom 20:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe it's probably true in that case; the Fortean Times deals with whacky subjects, but it seems to do it in a relatively responsible way. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Franz Kafka PR

I've taken a stab at the translation section. Pls review. PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Brian's back on the job so you don't need me, not yet anyway. I've done a bit too much reviewing lately and I'd like to get back to writing. How Brian finds the energy and motivation to do what he does at PR is quite beyond me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I really like your edits, they are superb. If you have the time to finish, great, if not, that's ok too, best wishes in your real life and wiki endeavors. Thanks for helping. PumpkinSky talk 01:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You and I both know ... well, you know. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And so civility rears its ugly head again

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road....♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, for the outside reviewer your asshole kind of flew in out of nowhere. Drmies (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the talk pages of both Vej and Fram. Its funny how when Malleus complains about the civil expectations and calls somebody something he has tens of people here supporting him but when it happens to me nobody not even Malleus can utter a word!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What was there for me to utter a word about? I saw nothing untowards. But as Drmies points out, to anyone without the background your comment did appear to materialise out of thin air. Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld,

You should be happy that everybody at the post-PROD deletion discussion is supporting you, and saving you time.

Sincerely, Kiefer "My middle name is fucking civility" Wolfowitz Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dunno Malleus, I was hoping perhaps you'd say you've also encountered the same sort of lordly inconsiderate behaviour from Fram, I know Rich Farmbrough has.. Maybe you are on good terms?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fram was the one who blocked me for complaining about the double standard of blocking Lihaas for writing "bitching and moaning" while simultaneously letting stand the smearing of Lihaas as a "national socialist". None of the blocking heads retracted their smears or noted Lihaas's explanation of his politics, of course. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

On good terms? Hardly. But if I were an admin it would be you I was looking closely at, as your "asshole" comment appeared to come from nowhere. Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It did seem surprisingly out of character. Othertimes, Dr. B. has been one of the most pleasant personalities here. Sometimes when I have written something harsher than usual, an hour or so later I have realized that I'd been writing too long because back pain was then apparent, or that I had a fever or cold coming on.

All things in moderation, even moderation. Speaking of "assholes", has anybody seen this discussion of voter-identification/suppression? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary. Is that for real? Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The voter supression is the only way the Republicans have a chance, at least against Obama. Demographics and tolerance work against them, the same way that demographics and resentment worked against Democrats as predicted by Kevin Philips's The Emerging Republican Majority; The Emerging Democratic Majority from a few years ago is still a good read.

You should look at the gerrymandering of recent years to see nakedly partisan hijacking of the electoral process. Such voter supression efforts have a long history. In New York State, the Republicans passed a law long ago that requires New York City to have a uniformed officer at every polling place---only NYC. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in the rest of the world has much faith in the American electoral system since that chads fiasco in Florida. The photo ID thing is interesting though. I have an old-style driving licence, no photo, and to "upgrade" to a photo licence costs (from memory) £45. Why should I pay that? But when I went recently to collect a parcel from UPS I was asked to produce some photo ID, which I don't have. My recently expired passport wasn't good enough, so I'm now forced to spend £45 for what exactly? ID cards by the back door? Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Mrs. Thatcher already had a stroke when she pushed for the poll-tax, something so regressive that it shocked Conservatives.

Well, Billy Bragg once urged American voters to remember that they elected the President not only of the USA but also of the world, and so they should be more responsible. The only response I remember was David Letterman asking him if he'd been in Indiana. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Didn't have him down as a Sarek blocking admin but whenever there is a content "scandal"/hoo-haa it's usually him responding..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sarek does a tremendous job blocking vandals, and when he intervenes as an extremist (which is a small part of his use of tools) he does so as a predictable extremist and he doesn't whine when his blocks are reduced.

Fram doesn't strike me as insane, but sometimes his judgment needs greater inspiration, e.g., with the "Malley baiting" incident where he confessed succumbing to the temptation to write something to see Malleus's reaction....

I would just worry about something else, unless you think that there may be hounding, which I don't think you've said. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, Sarek does do a lot good work blocking vandals but he can be a blocking extremist and seem trigger happy. I didn't say Fram was insane, but he does seem heavy handed in his approach and stubborn and seems to have little regard for the feelings of editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes Kiefer that's generally true, but not out of character; as Malleus might remember, I can be particularly nasty on occasion.. I think he still resents me for that one! And I'll happily admit I was wrong about him... I'm a Taurus star sign which might explain it better, depends on whether you believe that stuff. I used to think it was rubbish but my May 4 entry is virtually exactly true.. The No Asshole Rule should be made one of wikipedia's core rules...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You might be surprised to learn how short my memory is for that kind of stuff. I'd completely forgotten about Fram's baiting until KW reminded me of it for instance, and I've only got the faintest glimmer of what we might have fallen out over. Was it what I called your "micro-stubs"? But as my mother says, life's too short to bugger about. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I was more than a little surprised by your "Maybe you are on good terms" comment above, and I came back having decided to give you a piece of my mind (I have lots to spare). If you seriously believe that I'm afraid of falling out with anyone, or afraid to call it as I see it, then you and I are living on different planets. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, something like that Malleus LOL. I didn't think you'd be on good terms given what he does its about as "I'm an admin I'm superior to you" approach as you can get, I was treading carefully. I was surprised that Andy the Grump was very well liked here, I must have missed something, so I wondered if Fram was too... Wikipedia:The No Asshole Rule is now up and running. It might take a certain type of individual itself who might try to delete it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I had a "couple" of beers this afternoon, so maybe I'm not operating entirely at peak efficiency, but what makes you believe that Andy is "well liked" here? I hardly know who he is. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer said he was a great editor and Dennis also implied that you all really like him...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer may well be right, but I've hardly encountered Andy to the best of my knowledge. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The only editors who get special consideration from me are those I've collaborated on an article with. I won't embarrass them by naming them, but they obviously know who they are and Andy isn't one of them. Maybe he will be one day, who knows, but you never really get to know an editor until you try and work together. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy does more work than the rest of Wikipedia on enforcing the BLP policy, and thus he can be forgiven venial sins. Without Andy, Wikipedia would have continued to have published the names of women who have complained that somebody raped or sexually molested them, for example. When he expresses irritation (perhaps not complying with the Barney and Friends policies of WP), he has good reason, in my experience, and deserves some slack. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I was considering starting Phallic worship, the cult of Priapus, the biggus diccus of ancient Rome. JSTOR had a wealth of material on it from what I saw. Women still worshiped phallic objects in 18th century Sicily. Wonder what he'd think. Or maybe Hohle phallus, the Bruce Forsyth Brucie "Boner" of the phallus world, almost as old as he is at 28,000 years. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How about dildos in English literature: Donne had the line "out do dildos" somewhere. "Do" has a long history, as in "do me". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt you're right Kiefer, but as I very rarely get involved with BLPs I wouldn't know. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of inflation template for capital sums...

Malleus, I've left you a note at Talk:Manchester Ship Canal. Your last change on the article was labelled "don't talk wet" but I can't quite see how this links to the use of the CPI inflation template! (other than I guess you disagree). Hchc2009 (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had this discussion several times before at FAC. I'll explain on the talk page, but basically I don't approve of you simply removing the material instead of replacing it with whatever you believe to be a better conversion. Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Academics prefer a share of GDP measure for evaluating capita projects (which is why the inflation template labels its use for capital projects as Original Research); I'm happy to insert a figure for that into the article backed by a cited economist source. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy for you to do that. I can't now recall why I/we chose the CPI as the conversion basis; it may have been the fact that following Adamson's vision the capital was to be raised from the working people, or that the essential funding came from Manchester's rates, or it may even be that we just didn't think about it all. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Later on, it turns out the article uses GDP deflation as well for the same calculation, so I've updated the figure for 2011 and inserted up the top as well. The footnote duplicates as a result (you'll see what I mean), but I don't think there's a way of deduping with that format - I had a similar problem with another article. Should look okay though. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely deduped! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You'd be amazed at what I can do. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

About time they found something else to talk about other than me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone wondering why there's a lack of reviewers could do worse than read this dishonest nonsense. Why should anyone be expected to put up with that? Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

At least you didn't get blocked and then unblocked and blah blah. The kids are watching TV, I made some coffee, it's bright and nice in Florida at 7:30 AM: I'm going to have another look at the JSTOR results for your adventure. Drmies (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My first preview comment had a couple of lines defending Malleus, and then I realized he didn't do anything that needed defending, so I left them out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And how many times has that happened? I'm of the opinion that anyone making an ANI report about me should receive an automatic block. Who's with me comrades? Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a trap! You'll be tormenting people just to get them to report you. After all, everyone knows what kind of a person you are based on how many times you've been to ANI... ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you've seen through my dastardly plan. The quote at the top of this page tells its own story: "It was reading the ultimate paragraph of this post that finally convinced me it was time to go, yes, Hans is quite right, I am stuck in a vicious circle and there was no likelihood of things improving." Mind you the tense mismatch there is rather jarring to a pedant such as myself. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, your efforts in helping Lisa earned you a page worth of gold stars in my book. It is a shame that too few people notice those things, and only focus on the imaginary negatives. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite used to that by now. Lisa's evident delight at getting that little gold star is its own reward, and now she knows how it's done I'm sure she'll feel confident to go on and do it again. And maybe even help others to do it as well. That comment of Fleet command's about me being jealous and envious because all of "my" FAs are basically crap still rankles a bit though. Good job he and I aren't sitting in the same pub. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fleet command couldn't have written something that stupid sincerely. He must have been amusing himself by saying something ridiculous. Maybe he's a comic account parodying certain editors....? Perhaps he's a fabrication that will make a book on Wikipedia more interesting? Sometimes, life seems like a sitcom. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I know that editors such as Fleet and Fram go out of their way to try and wind me up, but they ought not to be surprised or go running to Mummy when they get what they deserve. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In Fleet's defense, he came to me[4] admitting he made a mistake, with a genuine concern about Lisa's efforts "going down the drain". He did come with a lot of misconceptions about Malleus, which I corrected, and I think this took him by surprise. He knows I've worked with Lisa, and I unblocked Fleet once a upon a time, which is why I assume he picked me to notify. I think it turned out to be a good coincidence. He really has good intentions from what I've seen but he seemed to be assuming a lot of things, based (again) on the false Truths spread around enwp. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that as in any way admitting that he made a mistake, but it's water under the bridge now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am disappointed that nobody wants to discuss my theory that Wikipedia is a sitcom. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comedy = Tragedy + Time, and you are a bit early. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• So Malleus, I know you dislike talkback templates, but I thought I'd mention that there is a message awaiting your attention on my talk page. I apologize for bothering you again, but I'm due to archive my talk page, and you still haven't elaborated on your comments about my status as "fucking pissy". Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see anything there that requires any kind of response from me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Eric Corbett/Archives/2012. I'm dropping you a note because you've been using the Page Curation suite recently - this is just to let you know that we've deployed the final version :). There's some help documentation Wikipedia:Page Curation/Introductionhere that shows off all the features, just in case there are things you're not familiar with. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review Carr Hill

Hi Malleus

Just wanted to post a couple of little things now that the GA review on this one has now closed (and I figured here is better than a completed review page).

Firstly, and contrary to your closing comment, I actually don't think you were being especially harsh. As it happens, I much prefer thorough GA reviews, because no-one but me ever adds a thing to my obscure, Gateshead-y articles so a fresh pair of eyes is always welcome because I tend not to pick up silly errors that I make. And I agree that the article is better for it, especially now that I have a reliable source for climate data. Additionally, I would eventually like to get at least one of these articles through WP:FAC, so a comprehensive GA review helps a lot.

Secondly, as regards our disagreement re:WP:UKCITIES. As you said, for the purposes of the review now concluded, the point was moot, but your reading of the guideline is genuinely new to me and isn't one I would have even considered to be honest. This is important to me as I tend to concentrate my wiki-efforts on articles like Carr Hill and I would like to know whether you are right to prevent my having the same discussion again in future. I am not a 'wiki-expert' – I concentrate mainly on editing and offering the occasional review – so I have no idea how I might be able to clarify this point, and wonder if you have any suggestions?

Thanks again... Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I always tend to look at well-developed articles like Carr Hill – and it was well-developed – with an eye to FAC, otherwise GAN just becomes a rubber stamp, which I don't think is very productive. I also prefer to fix the easy things myself rather than clutter up the review, as you may have noticed. So far as our differing interpretations of WP:UKCITIES is concerned, I'm certainly not in any way trying to prevent you from having a similar discussion in the future; my comment was localised to this specific review. I'm not sure there's any general answer to your question though, maybe it's horses for courses, but has it never struck you as odd that an article such as Montpelier, Brighton has extensive coverage of church buildings without ever mentioning the religions of its residents? For me, that's a clear breach of GA criterion 3a, but no doubt other reviewers will have their own interpretations. So basically I have no right to stop you having whatever discussion you wish wherever you wish. If you go on to FAC though the rules change, and you have to satisfy all the reviewers, not just one old curmudgeon like me, which is quite a different game. Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it occurs to me that I may have misinterpreted your "... I would like to know whether you are right to prevent my having the same discussion again in future", when what you really meant was "I would like to know whether you are right, to prevent my having the same discussion again in future". If that's so, a good place to kick off the discussion would be WT:GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason why it has never struck me as odd because I have never considered it a requirement of WP:GAN. The failure to include that information in my view would certainly preclude success at FAC (something I tend to know a lot about, annoyingly) but my reading of 'broad' precludes 'comprehensive'. As you say; perhaps it is horses for courses?

I am going to raise the issue at WT:GAN, simply to ensure that I don't end up crossing swords with a future reviewer– if it should be in, I'll include it in future articles– and also as I have dipped my hand into reviewing over the summer and it would help me provide better reviews I think. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

GAN's "broadness" criteria obviously isn't well-defined, for obvious reasons. Should be an interesting discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If I know an editor's keen, I'll try to give a article a big a shove as possible towards FAC....aaaah and I've now seen Sherriff Hill. I am reminded of a scene in Green Wing where they decide to do an operation in Geordie....but my accent would be atrocious I think...apart from "alreet" and "howay then".....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I did try to give a big shove; maybe the issue is whether I shoved too hard with this particular article. Reviewing, especially GA reviewing, is a pretty lonely and thankless place by and large, but all we can do is the best we can do, and I did the best I could. If that's not considered good enough then so be it. Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well all I can say is that Sherriff Hill FAC will be mmarginally less lonely. I've left Meetthefeebles some stuff to do. I'd be intrigued to see what else you come up afterwards with as I do like reviewing villages and towns but not hugely familiar with it like plants, mushrooms and birds...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that Sherriff Hill was at FAC. I seem to make almost as many enemies there as I did at WT:RFA; I expect that'll be the topic of my next arbitration case. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooh err, I hadn't realised until I read this and I've been up there weilding my pruning shears after it popped up on my watchlist. :-( J3Mrs (talk)

I expect I'll be doing a bit of pruning too. I notice immediately that there's nothing on climate ...". Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

... and I see you're not the only one with the pruning shears out. Hamiltonstone's been having a good go at it as well. On the face of it this nomination looks to have been a little premature. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And no Public services. It does need a really good copyedit — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs)

It does. I'm a bit disappointed that nothing seems to have been learned from the Carr Hill GAN. To be brutally honest I wouldn't have passed Sherrifs Hill as a GA, so I've had to oppose its promotion. Maybe the work required can be done within whatever time remains at FAC, but it's getting towards the bottom of the queue now, so I'm dubious. Basically, it ought not to have been nominated in that state. I actually think that Carr Hill would stand a better chance at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To cut the editor a bit of slack, I was "precious" about my prose until I learned it was better to be precise but I was lucky in that it was frequently improved by an expert, and though I'm still incredibly sloppy, I do try to keep a simple past tense and use as few words as possible. I'm working on another of my "masterpieces". The important thing is learning the lesson not carrying on regardless. J3Mrs (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm lucky I guess, in that I've always found writing easy; maybe a consequence of having read so voraciously as a kid. But the problem with Sheriff Hill isn't just the prose, there's far too much detail on stuff that just doesn't matter at all, unless you're writing a tourist guide I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been there too! I've removed some things that were plain wrong too, about the turnpike and the colliery. (see edit summaries) I tried to copyedit it before but some just got re-added in a different way.J3Mrs (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Have just read this. Wow. Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I guarantee that your Sheriff Hill article has got no chance at FAC until you start to listen, and take on board what you're being told. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not some wiki-expert and nor do I think I am. I have learned in the two years I have edited here that there is a difference between writing here and writing, say, academic journals which is my usual domain and area of expertise and where my natural verbosity is considered 'flair' and is actively encouraged. I struggle with anything other than basic HTML and things like the 'cite-web' template and ndashes cause me endless editing problems and which often results in my making daft drafting errors which I don't spot as I would in a normal word document. I have no problem with any of that, none at all, and I always try to take on board constructive criticism where any of these, and other areas, are concerned. I have never discouraged more experienced editors from edit 'my' articles (J3Mrs has done some work in the past and helped me with this sort of thing, in fact) and very rarely revert (frankly, I don't even know how to revert) or amend those changes. That is why I spent hours considering the suggestions made by others in the FAC and making a lot of changes, because I do want to make the articles better. Check every single GAN or FAC that I've nominated and you can see that, where a reviewer leaves detailed comments, I consider all of them and make amendments accordingly nine times out of ten. Your review of Carr Hill was fine, because you provided detailed examples of things to consider/correct. I like that approach and generally react cooperatively to it.
What has caused my reaction, which I am annoyed at about because I never act like that in real life, let alone online, is that your comments in the FAC read as extremely confrontational. I have no idea whether or not this is deliberate (and I'm assuming good faith) but statements such as "I would have hoped that the nominator would have applied the same fixes to this article as were applied to Carr Hill, but obviously not.", less than 24 hours after the first review had been completed do not help me improve the article in the same way that hamilton and the other comments do. The same can be said for "looks like it was written by an estate agent." Additionally, your final response to J3Mers above comes across as patronising; again, you may not intend this to be so, but it does nonetheless and is even more so in light of the fact that I research, write and teach (in a non-encyclopedic environment) for a living (which you probably didn't know or less care I'd suppose). Look at your last comment at the FAC and tell me that this doesn't read as confrontational? And, for the record, I erroneously missed one word from that sentence which was otherwise taken from the example provided at WP:UKCITIES.
When faced with that type of approach I react badly, because I have less to work with and it feels like I am fighting a losing battle. I spent hours, and I mean hours, considering Hamilton and Casliper's comment and making substantial amendments/corrections/removals/paraphrases, then when I was done you simply dismissed them with a "we will have to agree to differ and my oppose will stand". Can you see that this is going to frustrate a far less experienced editor who is trying to make an article better?
I've gone on a bit here, and for that I apologise. I simply wanted to explain why I reacted the way I did. And for my over-reaction to the above, I also apologise. It was wholly inappropriate. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise, we all have bad days and better ones. You did though accuse me of "duplicity" because of the discussion in this thread, a thread that you yourself started, and you did start an ANI report, so I don't see much "good faith" being applied there. The thing you have to understand is that FAC is quite unlike GAN or peer review; if I were to list every single issue I see with Sheriff Hill it would likely double the size of the review, which would simply put new reviewers off. So the best thing is to give a few examples and general guidance, which I think I've done. You've chosen to ignore my advice, which is perfectly fine, your choice. The idea is though that articles presented at FAC ought to already meet the FA criteria, but I still believe that Sheriff Hill is a way from doing that. And don't make assumptions about whether or not I might also "research, write and teach". I'd make a substantial bet that I've done a lot more teaching than you have, including beyond undergraduate level, and more paid writing. Now, shall we start again? Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very good idea. I've re-read your comments and consequently made what feels to me like drastic changes to the article today. You noticed that I re-wrote the lead and I've now restructured several sections (including removing various subheadings and removing the housing section entirely and incorporating some of that material into the history section) and removed large chunks of potentially superfluous material (notably from the history, religion, education and health sections). Would you be willing to pop over and cast an eye over these and tell me if I am any closer to the mark? Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, no, as the article isn't on my watchlist. I'll run an eye over it later, but I guarantee that if you listen to what I'm telling you it'll be third time lucky. J3Mrs's advice is good; you're writing a summary encyclopedia article, not the definitive history of your patch. It takes a while to get into that mindset, and I'm sure we all struggled a bit with that at first, even me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Cresswell

Three left; the oddities, plus whatever I'm missing about ODNB ;) Up to you. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that the ODNB citation is to a web site, not a book. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

bah, wrong direction. I /changed/ it to {{cite web}}. It is still a source and can go in the "sources" section. :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The published book version may well not be as up-to-date, and may disagree with the online edition, but fundamentally the material didn't come from the book, it came from the web site. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what the section name is; how about bumping those to "online sources"? But you've tossed too much :/ I'm fine with cite the online version. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• *that*… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  problem solved :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  It's getting late and I'm getting very tired of this. I know I'm right, but if you're unconvinced ask someone like Nikkimaria, who checks citations at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  one of your edit summaries said let's do it right, and I know you believe in the sfn templates, even if it's with the ‘(’ornaments‘)’. You've taken things backwards and annoyed an ally. And I've little use for nikki's opinions ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  No, you still don't get it. You've annoyed me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Likewise. You seem to think I want to cite the book, and not the website for ODNB. I don't. It was on {cite book} when I got there and am fine with it being cite web. Or {cite book}, which you reverted to using. And I don't much care how the sources are listed; biblio, online, or simply sources. But you've introduce *one* use of {{sfnp}} and reverted the others, which makes little sense to me. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  You were citing the book by moving the citation into the Bibliography, which is fundamentally what I was objecting to. Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  At the time, the section was named “Sources”. I see you've restored most of what I'd done ;/ although you've not linked Turgeon or Woodfall… and there's a loose copy of the De Sola Pinto cite just above the “Political affiliation” section. I think all the full citations should be in a single section, possibly with the books sub-labeled as the biblio. Having most in a biblio section, but some embedded in the footnotes is messy and inconsistent. Oh, and it's back to using {{cite book}} for the ODNB website :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't agree, and I believe I've done this kind of thing a damn sight more times than you have. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  And as it happens I've got some doubts about that Turgeon citation, which I'm investigating; it's not all about your preferred citation style, veracity has to play its part. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Having the sources in a form organised other than by usage-order is useful, and keeping the collated footnotes distinct from the full citations does that. If a source such as Turgeon is dodgy, that's a wholly different issue. I'll certainly leave that to you. And don't be too such how much of this I've done; I've run over forty accounts ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Look, I'm not going to keep arguing with you when you're so clearly wrong. Let me give you one more example; the DNB article wasn't written by Woodfall it turns out, but by J. W. Ebsworth. Getting the citations right isn't just a matter of making them look pretty according your idiosyncratic aesthetics. Now can we please drop this, as it's boring me to tears. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting favour?

Malleus, would you be willing to do me an editing favour? Nikkimaria and I have New Worlds (magazine) up at FAC, and in Jim Bleak's review he says: "Lead is disappointing, doesn't flow well, and only two paras is insufficient for an article of this length". For some reason I found this a particularly hard lead to write, and I am having trouble figuring out what to do here. Would you be able to have a crack at this? I would really appreciate it. Even adding a couple of sentences would be helpful, as that would help me see what I need to do. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at the lead tomorrow. Looks like a pretty comprehensive article, well worth a little gold star. I don't think the number of paragraphs is a valid objection though, maybe they're just not organised in the best way? Anyway, demain. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I rarely see " U.K.", pretty much always UK these days. Is "U.S." still common? Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed; I think I would normally use "UK", so I don't know why I did that. I do see "U.S." and "U.K." in the sf template at the end.

Someone just took out all the red links in the lead -- is that a preference these days? Haven't seen anyone do that before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I took out two. Put them back if you prefer. GFHandel ♬  09:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks for the copyedits! I don't have a strong preference, though I think people undervalue redlinks -- they are a good thing, I feel. I was just curious if there's a general preference these days for removing them from leads. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Iron Lady (film) poster image

since you have a fair use concern re the thacher film poster, i mention that i got the img from this article: The Iron Lady (film) and maybe there's rationale there --or maybe there's another image you can remove. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no justification for using that image in Thatcher's article, and I'm quite happy to have no image at all in that section. Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

New Worlds?

Hi, Malleus; I don't want to nag, but since it's a FAC I don't want to leave it stagnating for long if you're not going to get to it -- let me know and I'll take a crack at it myself. I'd really appreciate it if you do decide to take a look, as I think you could really improve it, but if not, that's fine too. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Mike, I keep meaning to take a look and keep getting diverted into something else. I'll have a shuffty now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There you go, hopefully enough to satisfy those dreadful FA reviewers. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Much improved; and Jim has switched to support. I appreciate it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Howdy sir

Every night when I pick up my book I remember that I forgot to tell you something--the book is Greene's A Burned-Out Case. Quite a good read, really; it's been a while since I read a traditional (FWIW) novel, so thanks for the suggestion. I had a question for you as well. I wrote up a little stub, Leiden Glossary, and searching through JSTOR I find that there's another Leiden Glossary, a papyrus containing some lines from the Illiad. It's a less common use of the term, but I would like to make it clear, in the "not to be confused with" way. I could write a stub on the other glossary, of course, but if I don't, is it worthwhile pointing out in the text that the title can refer to something else? and where do I do that? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As a lapsed Catholic myself Greene's book had a certain resonance for me. As to your question, no, I wouldn't mention it in the text. If there was ever an article on the papyrus then I'd add a hatnote to the top of the article, something like {{for|the papyrus containing lines from the Illiad|Leiden Glossary (papyrus)}} But until the other article exists I wouldn't bother about it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism is a theme through pretty much all of Greene's works. Probably all, in fact. The first that I read was the one about the whiskey-priest in Mexico - The Power and the Glory, IIRC. I'd be surprised if I haven't read them all by now but as an irreligious person I do sometimes find the Catholic subtexts a bit tricky. Still, he is an eminently readable novelist who draws on interesting life experiences, which is more than I can say of John Updike, for example. I just don't get him at all, Great American Novel or otherwise.

Not sure why I am writing this: I guess I just felt like being human after a demoralising first day of fettling Aurangzeb. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

what's ya problem??

1. the walls in question are in the south eastern part of the city 2. st martins gate was built to facilitate the building of the ring road, if there was no gap where would the road go? Accommodate means to provide "Provide lodging or sufficient space for." the road went through it not between it

Not grammatically correct pah? What do you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.218.250 (talk • contribs)

A great deal more than you, obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh really? So the Eastern sections of wall which is usually meant to be the stretches between the Kaleyards and the Newgate now includes Barnaby's Tower? Likewise an image of Morgan's Mount which incidentally has just been refurbished after a 10-month restoration project isn't worth a simple mention in an image caption? BTW that image is now out of date as the new tower has window glass. So it should have a date added to it. 109.151.218.250 (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you been blocked yet? Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If any one of you had warned them while it was going on they would have been, yes. :) Drmies (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

I have blocked you for one week for this edit summary. You obviously know better (or should, by now). --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Utter crap. I have already asked the admin to explain themselves. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Black Kite, why not reverse this? Ryan Vesey 23:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I probably will do, but I will give the blocking admin a chance to do it themselves. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not bothered either way; it's Wikipedia's loss, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• You're very clearly a dishonest idiot Bongwarrior, who ought to be desysopped without delay. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)VERY bad block People in primary school playgrounds go unpunished for MUCH worse than this! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Just the way it is here, we're all under the cosh, and it's completely unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And cue the cries of "Wheel Warring"! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have unblocked you and posted at AN. Ping me if there's an autoblock kicking in (I can't find one). Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I think I'm autoblock immune. Let's hope you don't find yourself in one of the inevitable lynch mobs that gather whenever I'm unblocked. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Whatever will be, will be. I've just got back from a trip to Bristol to watch Leeds win, and am sitting watching the mist fall over the moors whilst trying to work out a good speech for an interview on Monday, so there are more important things. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• There are indeed. I'm still in mourning about Man United's performance today; that's a pretty crappy defence. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't seen the goals (I got home just as MOTD was showing Sunderland v Wigan) but it certainly sounded pretty painful. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Spurs at Old Trafford woo hoo! :)))))))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  I think Rio Ferdinand was wearing the wrong colour shirt, well past his sell-buy date. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mark apologized for being utterly out of line, and he will take his lumps.
• Most of the early respondents behaved like hall monitors finally able to complain about the popular kid. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of the hypocritical and insulting nonsense here. I want to see Bongwarrior desysoped and my block log cleaned up. That's the deal. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I hate to add more to your worries, but you are being discussed on Jimbo's talkpage [5]. I see that AQFK did not alert you to this. Ripberger (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How strange. Obviously it's too much to expect civility from those who so stridently demand it of others. Malleus Fatuorum 07:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was because of the British spelling of arsehole?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Some Americans (3:20-4:20) do have issues with Brits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Malleus, thought as I was in the area ([6]) I'd drop in and say hello. I have been a gnat's whisker from editing today; I've been working on a big country house plan and thought I had been away long enough and it was time to upload it and expand a page; but then I say all your problems (and those of Bishonen's) and felt the blood starting to boil again. Nah! it'snot worth the agro.Idiots do my head in! Bes wishes to all the old crew. Giano | talk 10:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  I didn't realise that Bishonen was having any problems, but it would be nice to see you back one day Giano, be a bit of company. Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not having any problems. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC).

Would that Jimbo Wales would lead the hall monitors to Wikia, a safe harbor indeed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)