User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2011/February

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I was wondering what your thoughts are on a time limit for reviewers to keep a nomination open for without making a final decision? Shouldn't there be some sort of time limit, especially if all the issues the reviewer has highlighted have been addressed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've occasionally kept GA reviews open way longer than the nominal seven days so long as issues are actively being adressed. If everything's been resolved though, then I think it's only polite to close the review promptly, and if the reviewer appears to have gone awol, then it's only fair to the nominator that the review is brought to some kind of a conclusion. I'm not sure I'd be in favour of any kind of strictly applied time limit, but I probably wouldn't object to one either if there's a real problem that it would solve. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the article. But if the issues have been addressed and the reviewer himself has said it meets GA requirements then I don't think the reviewer should rightly keep the nomination open for days upon days and should either pass it or fail it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If the reviewer has said that the article meets the GA requirements then why would would the review still be open? Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself.. I think he wanted to be doubly sure the images met requirements but those images were approved days ago.... But a lot of things Tony the Tiger mentioned during the review were really not necessary for GA... Clint Eastwood as it stands passed GA yesterday but it certainly took a major effort and time to do so!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This thread caught my attention yesterday, and I agree with Malleus that the length of a GA review, hold period, etc., should be flexible and adaptable to the best interests of the article/review, and I've encouraged that perspective for some time. Reviewers going AWOL should be brought up at WT:GAN.

It looks to me like the problem here was a different one, though, namely GA reviewers imposing requirements that go beyond the GA criteria. There is a handy essay, What the good article criteria are not, created by WhatamIdoing, which may useful in such circumstances. I've added a paragraph to it on article size issues today. Geometry guy 22:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. Speaking of article size, Malleus, you may be interested to know that I revisited Joseph Moir recently: this was an article that you failed as not broad, and the subsequent GAR endorsed the fail and also found close paraphrasing. I went back to fix the paraphrasing (on my to do list), but got carried away, and expanded the article threefold! An interesting character...

I'd noticed you working on that. He was indeed an interesting character, and the article didn't do him justice. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It still doesn't, but it's an improvement, I hope. Geometry guy 23:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It may just be my jaundiced view, but I think there's an increasing trend for GA reviewers to use the arena as a means to get their own way, as opposed to simply assessing whether or not an article meets the GA criteria and offering suggestions as to how it might be improved. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It has always been a problem, and I don't think it is getting worse. I call it when I see it, at GAR and other fora. I know you do the same, and encourage others to do likewise. Geometry guy 23:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I do, but it doesn't make me many friends. Just as well I'm not here to make friends, :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well to be honest I think the reviewer was "milking it" to see improvements he wanted made to the article which weren't even necessary for GA.... I agree there's nothing wrong with keeping the review upon for improvements but in this case I had to address things which even the reviewer said wasn't compulsory for GA. I don't mind that to a certain extent as it holds it in good stead should it be proposed for an FA later but I think he went a little too far with the demands.... The article did improve though and it passed GA eventually....♦ Dr. Blofeld 00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I review the occasional article at GA, I have to be honest and say that off the top of my head I don't know what the GA criteria are. I tend to look to see if its well-written, if it tells me what I need to know, if it's neutral, if the sources look reasonably ok. This was the last article I reviewed and it certainly took longer than 7 days, but I don't think that's a problem. Parrot of Doom 00:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming to you for input because I noticed your opinion at AN/I re: civility versus public attacks. I believe your opinion would be valuable in helping me in the future with these situations. When you have time, please look at the exchange here and provide any opinion(s) you wish to share. Thanks Tiderolls 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than insisting he strike his comments, you should have just laughed at them. That's about as much attention as they deserve. Parrot of Doom 01:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with a general assessment that the remarks were, for the most part, impotent static. Also, the user to whom the remarks were directed all but said &%$# it. Was the disruption not important? Tiderolls 01:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no disruption unless you allow it to be disruptive. So don't. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

TR, The IP's stated intention to edit-war their version into the article was worth a block to prevent genuine disruption (check their edit history). Blocking for Personal attacks after they failed to obey your instruction to strike their remarks, doesn't put you in a good light. The way to avoid that in future is simply to ignore or ridicule such nonsense on talk pages. Once you've made a demand, you're either going to have to back down or carry through a block (which then could be seen as punishment of defiance). Best not to put yourself in that position. Regards --RexxS (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rexx and Malleus, I agree with you both (I was not going to "back down" as I saw it the IP was not going to back down from their initial post). I ignore threats/taunts/trolling when they are directed at me. I injected myself in this instance to help the editors on that article do their work without interference from someone that, to me, was only going to muck up the place. I understand that any reaction can be seen as improper so I will be most careful in the future. Thanks to all for your input. Tiderolls 09:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is wonderful:

I'm not some delicate flower that needs to be protected from a bit of robust disagreement. Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

May I use it on my talk page? Bielle (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free. I have no copyright on anything I write here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand; none of us does. I have always thought it polite to ask, nonetheless. Thanks for your response. Bielle (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Most ingenious.... At least we now know you're not a wilting daffodil LOL...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In botanical terms I would think of myself more as some kind of a thistle. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cactus. The species' power of preservation against all odds seems more apt. The spikes, too, seem to add to the metaphor. Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Or plain holy-thistle? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thistle is good though. People try to get rid of em, but they just keep coming back! In any event, better to be prickly than spineless like the smelly, hairy, fly-infested Stapelia. I took this silly quiz. Apparently I'm a type of Canna. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Being half-Scottish I chose thistle deliberately. An English rose really wouldn't have been appropriate, not even a red one. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But aren't you a shrinking violet? Bishonen | talk 03:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

By no means. You may even be seeing me on the telly later this year, but Mum's the word for now. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That quiz is fixed. It told me I was a Canna, but I know that we're all mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed on bullshit. --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think Adlington Hall is ready for GAN? If not, advise please; if so, would you be prepared to do some excellent copyediting? Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Easily ready I'd say. I'd suggest nominating it and I'll go through it in detail later. One question, what does the "its" refer to in this sentence: "During the 19th and early 20th centuries the gardens and parkland became overgrown, and the condition of some of its buildings had deteriorated"? Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

... and done. Good luck at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Many, many thanks again. Submitted as GAN. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted already, largely thanks to your contribution! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 3, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 3, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugger! Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Joys. And I've got someone helpful who insists that you can't say "Name (archbishop)" but it must be "Name (bishop)" because some obscure naming guideline says something silly. I love Wikipedia sometimes. I'll try to keep an eye on the article for you while you're sleeping. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got a soft spot for the fairies, it'll be hard watching them get vandalised. And of course there are the inevitable rants from the Mr Angries to look forward to: "it's ridiculous that this article got through FAC without mentioning some film, video game or other". Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Haa haa Parrot of Doom 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I just noticed from The Signpost that you've succeeded in getting the Gunpowder Plot to FT. That's a great piece of work, far more than I'd ever have had the patience or commitment to undertake. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably missing Henry Garnet but it'll do for now :) It'll be a while yet before I can bear to look at those books again! Parrot of Doom 00:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd had just about enough after the plot and Guido, so God knows where you found the motivation to carry on. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a wonderful article, nice work. J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was quite pleased with it myself. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking through the whole thing again, and on looking at the image licensing I think that ought to be beefed up just a little bit, but as I'm sans tools I can't do it. For instance, although the lead image was taken in 1917 it wasn't published until 1920, which as I understand it is when the copyright clock starts ticking. It doesn't make any difference to the copyright claim, but still ...". Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically, Template:PD-US-1923-abroad is more specific than Template:PD-US, but the latter is acceptable as it includes the former. These are for images published before 1 January 1923, if it's any help. You could always prod Bishonen to beef up the licensing sometime in the next 21 hours, if you really felt it necessary – and it wouldn't cost you anything more than an amusing image for her talk page in return :) --RexxS (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I know the licensing is fine, I'm just irritated that I can't edit the lead image's details until after it's appeared on the main page. Still. of all the frustrations here that's definitely a very minor one. I'll just wait. Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the one. The licensing is OK, but it could have been better. Malleus Fatuorum 03:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Anything I can do? I'd prefer to use tools for something other than blocking people and deleting stuff once in a while ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you ask, could you change the description to "Taken in 1917, first published in 1920 in The Strand Magazine", and the Permission from {{PD-US}} to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}? I know I'm fussing like a mother hen, but I can't help it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 04:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's galling not to be able to fix little things like that, but I've come to terms with the idea that I'm not trusted here to do anything very much. Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You're trusted enough to write that which is our welcome mat for 24 hours. I'm trusted to block the idiots who put "poop" on top of it and to not somehow delete it in the process. I know which one we really need more of... Courcelles 04:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This just sums it up for me. Why should everyone be expected to be on standby in case some pillock comes along? Malleus Fatuorum 04:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You know me, I stick to my nice safe little corners of Wikipedia, so I'm not often confronted with less than optimally done articles but something on Johnbod's page piqued my interest so I looked at George Washington (bust by Houdon). I don't want to AfD it, it's apparantly written by a fairly new user (see Johnbod's page for a bit more detail) but since when is a plaster cast of an older work .. notable? And take a look at it before I cleaned on it. I really need to get out more. This isn't meant to have one of your TPSs bite the newcomer, I just .. was amazed that someone thought that was notable enough for a wikipedia article. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

After a few minutes watching all of the new pages being created here you'll start to believe that one is an exemplar. Try adding this to your js profile if you don't believe me:

importScript('User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js'); //New Page Patroller

Make sure you've got lots of tissues handy though, because your eyes will water for sure. Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I spent a couple of days over the weekend doing "hit random page, fix anything I see right off, tag if needed"... it was .. enlightening, and scary at the same time. We have entirely too many stub articles on obscure villages. And footballers who played one professional game. At least my small stubs on bishops .. they were a BISHOP, and there were only at most 16 of them in England throughout most of the middle ages. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've pretty much given up on trying to get anything much deleted here unless it clearly fits in one of the CSD categories. I did start an AFD on this earlier today, but I have no confidence that it'll stick. Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There's an unresolved tension in wikipedia between those who believe that even the slightest of micro-stubs on any dot on any map, or any sportsman however minor, somehow adds to "the sum of all human knowledge", and those who believe that to add anything worthwhile takes more than an incoherently written sentence or two. There are large parts of wikipedia it's just best to avert your eyes from; pro-wrestling springs to mind. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the small stubs Ealdgyth has been creating on these minor and long-forgotten figures known as bishops. They simply don't compare in notability to footballers who played one professional game: I mean, there were at most 11 such players throughout the game, not nearly as many as 16, and they received global coverage on Sky. The bishops don't even have any product endorsements! Geometry guy 20:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC) ^{PS. Did someone mention pro-wrestling?}

Ealdgyth is one of my wikipedia heroes, and rather an unsung one I think. I'll say no more lest I embarrass her. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(blushes). I spent today on cleanup. Another snow day for the kids tomorrow, I may lock them outside for a few hours just to get some peace and quiet! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree with Malleus: the mindless football fanatic commenting above clearly has no clue. Geometry guy 14:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning to appreciate your sense of humor. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a sense of humour, just ask SandyG. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should amend it to say sense of perspective. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

William de Braose, 2nd Baron Braose .. if I do say so myself. Now for a picture and to let him stew for a while .. as I'm on the road later in the month, nothing is going to GAN until I get back. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's coming along nicely; it's nice when articles start to mesh together. Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ever so slowly I'm managing to pull The Sentence part of this into some kind of semblance, but I'm wondering what to do with the long list of people killed in this fashion. I have a feeling its best to get rid of most of it (moving sections into the subjects' articles where those articles are in poor condition). What do you think? I reckon if I can get hold of some more of the sources used in that essay I'll be able to pull together a very good article on this. Parrot of Doom 15:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be coming together very nicely. I can't see any long list of people killed in that fashion, am I missing something? Strikes me though that "The sentence" isn't really the best section title, as the sentence is what's passed in the court after someone's found guilty. Which is in fact the way the word's used later in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Use in England" just smells a bit...funny. I don't know, I keep thinking that I could work the most obvious examples into the "Sentence" section, and lose the rest. Parrot of Doom 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I see what you mean. Is there a list article somewhere you could farm most of that stuff out to? The more I look at it the less happy I am about its organisation by royal dynasties ... it's obviously far too long in any event. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe I could create List of people Hanged, drawn and quartered and stuff it all in there? Parrot of Doom 16:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you done the Witch-hunter yet? Here's a nice chap - Richard Topcliffe. Parrot of Doom 18:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What a charming fellow! No, the with-hunter isn't done yet either; I'm finding it hard to settle to anything substantial here, just dipping in and out doing little bits and pieces here and there. I haven't really written anything worth spit for months, motivation tank's running on fumes. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've felt a bit the same, I really want to improve Commodore PET but there doesn't seem to be much out there to work from. Still got a few original manuals and stuff to browse through. Parrot of Doom 21:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well this has improved a rather shit day for me:

"Questions were sometimes put to the prisoner, on matters of allegiance and politics.[29] Priest-hunter Richard Topcliffe asked Edmund Gennings to "confess his treason", but on hearing Gennings' response of "if to say Mass be treason, I confess to have done it and glory in it", ordered him to be quiet and instructed the hangman to push him off the ladder." Of course it isn't funny. Well, maybe a bit :) Parrot of Doom 22:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. That you were attacking may by some standards be considered a mitigating circumstance. However you chose to create a poisonous atmosphere on a page where we would normally hope to attract new editors, which is unacceptable. Past experience suggests there is little reason to expect you to discontinue to the behaviour so I have blocked you for 24 hours.©Geni 13:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight .. you blocked him 10 hours after that diff? When nothing else seems to have occurred since then? Good heavens, that looks punitive. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have told the blocker that the block is foolish. (My turn next?) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the block is an overreaction and should be reversed in this case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The matter is under discussion at the bottom of WP:ANI now. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor's "why you ... is beyond me" has the appearance of baiting Malleus. Malleus assumed good faith rather than recognizing sarcasm and criticism, as many of us would have done. (Good that the block was reversed.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked. Apparently Geni will be holding me "responcible for any bad behaviour" in the next 24 hours, but it seems like the majority of commentators disagree with the original block. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how Geni proposes to hold you responsible is a mystery to me. What a daft affair! Geometry guy 14:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Simple question: The block was unnecessary. But what was the point of that Malleus, really? Kingturtle was making a simple suggestion, based on what he thought was correct practice, nothing more. It would have been enough to tell him that the literature universally used the names in this way. Kingturtle has blocked maybe two people since 2008 for anything but vandalism or sockpuppetry, and those were straight-up WP:3RR violations. Hardly the type of abusive sysop you complain about Malleus. His article creation record is again, maybe not the most extensive, but is harmless and varied. There was no need to go out of your way to insult him or his editing history. So why did you do so? NW (Talk) 14:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the mere fact of having an article you've nourished and cared for up on the talk page makes you incredibly nervous. Note his comments to me on my talk page. It's a very stressful time, no matter how many times you've done it, and it's only worse when it's a subject that's "close to your heart", so to speak. It's a day when folks crawl out of the woodwork to pick apart something you've lavished attention on, sometimes for years, and the constant pick-pick-pick of nitpicky comments can get you down. And it usually starts before the article actually makes it to the main page. There aren't usually a lot of "Wow, what a wonderful article" but instead everyone seems to think it's required that they find SOMETHING wrong with it to prove ... something, I don't know what. I've had 10 articles I've slaved over on the main page, and most of them have been nerve-wracking experiences of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Another mystery to me is why we punish editors (via the TFA ordeal) for creating excellent content. Geometry guy 14:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why I advocate for mine, they generally are either ignored or eviscerated during TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@Geometry guy: You make the common error of assuming that Wikipedia's purpose is the creation of encyclopedic content (excellent or otherwise). Wikipedia is first and foremost a social experiment. The encyclopedia merely provides a context for the experiment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I'm not that cynical, but this when I began to tackle a 2 year old cleanup mess kinda proves your point... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That (now reverted) was a driveby isp on his 12th edit, probably off random changes, so a bit different. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've stopped nominating articles I write for TFA because I hate TFA days. "Collaborative encyclopedia" seems to mean "I have a complaint that must be addressed immediately and I shan't be the one to do any work to resolve my own complaint. Furthermore, discussing issues with whoever wrote the article does not fall under this definition. Instead, demanding things without consideration for the article's formation is the way to go." In fact, I stopped nominating articles for FA for this reason also. FA only means TFA at some point... --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So Ealdgyth and Wehwalt find TFA an ordeal, Moni3 has stopped nominating articles for FA because it means pain with TFA in the near future, and Geometry guy says "Another mystery to me is why we punish editors (via the TFA ordeal) for creating excellent content." How many others who do or would go for FA think TFA is an ordeal? If enough, it looks reasonable to suggest that TFA candidates could be fully-protected from a week before the potential TFA day to a few days after (or when the article is not likely to make the main page). After all, we're talking about recent FAs, which one would think were already excellent. --Philcha (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Add me to this group. I'm not at all in love with the review process and dislike TFA. I write articles and let them sit. A few I've taken to review - sometimes the experience is fine, sometimes awful and not worth the trouble. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I wouldn't go that far, but a little understanding from admins would go a long way. There's a difference between "I found a punctuation error" or "I found a factual error" and "I think this is a bad way to word something and you're wrong". I've found that about half the edits made to "my" TFAs are sorta useful, but I'm notoriously tolerant of people fiddling with my prose. Most others aren't so much. And a bit more liberal use of semi-protection would help also. A lot depends on the subject matter too... some subjects just tend to attract the "crazies" and others.. don't. Horses are usually a safe TFA. The day my tax article was on was relatively .. painless. Bishops - well, it's usually a crap shoot. Sometimes I get really strange edits.. sometimes it's easy as pie. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest the MoS also goes on to say:

Family members with the same surname

• To disambiguate between family members with the same surname, use given names or complete names to refer to relatives upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to relatives by given name for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing.
  

I realise that it may be hard for some editors to differentiate between the matter but as they were sisters at the time being discussed in the text they had the same maiden name, just as we talk of "Constantinople" and not "Istanbul" when we discuss the city in its youth, it simply was not called that then. If surnames had been forced to be used it cannot be that their surnames would have been their married names, and the correct request should have been "should this not be using the given + surname?". In that sense the editor bringing up MOS (sic:lol) was wrong. He should have suggested "both" or just applied logic and let it stand as it was - after the first sentence with both names I would not expect have to keep reading their surnames all the time. I am pretty sure that Malleus is aware of the guidelines on naming. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the guidelines and I also employ common sense. I'm very happy with the naming convention that the article presently uses. To use the surnames of two girls, one aged sixteen and the other ten, when one of the surnames is shared with two other protagonists in the story, and both of the girls' surnames change as the story unfolds, would be ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, well, well, blocked again on some ridiculously trumped up charge. I'm rarely disappointed with the behaviour of wikipedia administrators as I have such a low opinion of most of them. By no means all, but most. I also see that poor Nikkimaria has been made "responcible for any bad behaviour" from me in the in the next 24 hours, but it's not clear to me who's been made "responcible" for any further bad behaviour by this out of control blocking administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Chaosdruid: To be accurate, Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths (maiden names) were cousins and didn't share a surname, but their parents are mentioned at various times, so "Griffiths" or "Wright" would be ambiguous anyway. The most important point for me is that I find it bizarre to refer to children by their surnames, especially when written. Perhaps it's a cultural variation, and others might think differently. If it is the case that this is just personal style, then I'd expect editors to respect the principal/original author's style. If the MOS fails to recognise this, then the defect is with the MOS and it would need to be changed to reflect actual practice. --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

[1] Wow, that was DEFINITELY one of the most abusive comments I have EVER SEEN. You should probably be indef-blocked. </sarcasm> Yet another example of why civility blocks are one of the worst things on Wikipedia (what ANI has become is another example). Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it wasn't a civility block, it was to prevent "dissruption". Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for your trouble. I missed all the drama as I was working or otherwise busy. Is there anything that can be done after the fact to make things better, do you think? --John (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, just another addition to my block log that those so-minded will only look at the length of. I missed all the fun anyway, and I already felt embittered by this kind of nonsense anyway, so no harm done. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you got dumped on again - and this time for being sensible in opposition to a poor suggestion for change. A couple of people came out of this looking bad, but you weren't one of them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm the only one with the extra block log entry though. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, yes, there is that. It means FA to me, mind, and hopefully also to the people who count - those who recognize that encyclopedia content is what matters -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, sorry to see this happened. I was absolutely shocked when I logged in for a moment before work in the morning to see you had been blocked for last night's comments. I'd read your comments and agreed with them - should have added something to the talkpage to support you, but it seemed such an obvious argument, having gone the through the same thing on the first Olivia review. Certainly I'll be rethinking taking Olivia to FAC. I'd be fairly disgusted if I were you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just par for the course here I'm afraid. I'm way beyond disgusted. 22:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thought so. The day is almost over though, so that's good. I'll be around to keep an eye on it for the next few days in case you're out. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm counting the minutes until midnight, then it's some other poor sap's turn. The article has been improved today in one respect though, by the addition of the image that PoD found and clarification of the author of Princess Mary's Gift Book so it's not all bad news, just mostly bad news. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Simple question: The block was unnecessary. But what was the point of that Malleus, really? Kingturtle was making a simple suggestion, based on what he thought was correct practice, nothing more. It would have been enough to tell him that the literature universally used the names in this way. Kingturtle has blocked maybe two people since 2008 for anything but vandalism or sockpuppetry, and those were straight-up WP:3RR violations. Hardly the type of abusive sysop you complain about Malleus. His article creation record is again, maybe not the most extensive, but is harmless and varied. There was no need to go out of your way to insult him or his editing history. So why did you do so?"

• I want to respond to this "when did you stop beating your wife" question from NW, posed above. Let me begin by saying that I did not need to go out of my way to do anything, and I am unaware of Kingturtle's editing history. I suggested that I find it disturbing how many administrators and bureaucrats couldn't write an article to save their lives, and instead try to impose half-understood rules inappropriately on those who can and do. If Kingturtle is one of those, then so be it, but it seems very clear that the blocking administrator certainly is a member of that group. After I had explained my objection to Kingturtle's suggested renaming of Elsie and Frances he still refused to get the point, stating "Make valid points to support your position", which I and others had already done. I replied by saying "I will respond to any sensible suggestions you have to make Kingturtle, but so far I haven't seen one", which has the virtue of being both truthful and direct. Perhaps I should have preceded it with one of those sickly "with all due respect"s though, to satisfy the Californians amongst us. The rest is history, and not one that reflects well on wikipedia or its administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare, I wasn't going to bring this up at all, but need to respond to your comment about Kingturtle's opening comment - when I reread it, it didn't come across as a simple statement, but more "I'm going to walk in and change this, does anyone object?", which to me carries somewhat of a presumptive air about it, and a bit of forethought or more open-ended way of asking about it rather than announcing an major style change might have been a better way to go. I don't know Kingturtle well and he may not have meant it that way at all, but I guess if someone had posted that one a page I'd been working on alot, I'd possibly find my hackles a bit raised, although I'd discuss it proactively and constructively. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I read it pretty much as that, but I thought to myself, the page has been through an FA review with consensus that it was fine as written, so no need to change, particularly on TFA. Malleus has also been through this issue with me very recently at Talk:Olivia Shakespear/GA1 where I had an extremely uncivil (and not blocked) reviewer, so we're a bit sick of the first name/ last name issue at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm so with MF on this - the number of times I've been confronted by a persistently fatuous refusal "to get the point" - yes, I've wanted to hammer them, but restrained myself to polite and patient reference and re-reference to sources - and I'd emphasise reliable sources - only to bit hit again by a seemingly wilful refusal to get the point! Aaaarrgghhh! I could go on, but enuff said - MF, I appreciate your thoughts on the "virtue of being both truthful and direct", and sympathise wholeheartedly with your feelings about how WP "works" (and with Reaper Eternal's "sarcasm" above!). Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus: Looking back on it, my question was indeed phrased in a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of way, so my apologies for that. But let's look at the history of the discussion. Kingturtle made his original comment, and you responded at 02:14 and 02:18 with two simple and clear reasons why you felt he was wrong. Now, you could have left it there, but you instead chose to go on and say that his suggestion was daft and that all administrators (including Kingturtle) should try their hand at actually writing an article. May I ask why you chose to do so? That's really what set off the downwards spiral of the thread, in my opinion. NW (Talk) 03:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Then your opinion is at odds with mine. In my opinion the tipping point was this comment from your admin colleague: "Your initial answer was sufficient. Why you had to add more later is beyond me." Which came after the issues had been explained to him in almost excrusiating detail, but he still failed to understand: "The way family members are distinguished is to provide a relative's complete name for the first mention; then for further mentions, use only the relative's given name". Some cases are hopeless, especially when there's a nightstick being waved around. Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Colleague is an interesting turn of phrase. I consider Kingturtle a "colleague" just as much as I do you, perhaps less even, as you have helped me very much with a few articles of mine. But in any case, while I agree that his statement was not optimal, to some extent there is validity in it. What purpose at all did your post of 02:26 serve? NW (Talk) 03:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What purpose do you think your postings here are serving? Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want me to stop posting here, just ask. NW (Talk) 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care whether you post here or not. Malleus Fatuorum 04:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish alot more editors would make a concerted effort to write articles, especially trying to take them through a good or featured process. I think experience in is integral to better understanding of the whole shebang - and would hopefully lead to a different point of view. Yes, we sometimes are tired/frustrated etc. and sometimes we make intemperate posts. I realise mine are generally esoteric and so avoid alot of the palaver elsewhere, although discussion on hte talk pages of schizophrenia and vampire has had a draining effect....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to point out that the two girls were cousins, not sisters, as someone said above, but someone has already corrected that. So I'll limit myself to saying that I enjoyed reading the article (the only slight criticism is that it seemed a bit short - it took longer to read about the on-wiki drama), and I really don't think those who help write the articles that appear on the main page should get so stressed when those articles appear there (before anyone responds to that, I can expand on that if needed), though I agree the support system could be better. Has Raul ever written a guide for those with questions about what will happen when an article someone has worked on appears on the main page? Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There's the start of one here. Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Alphonse Alley - I've been doing a GAN review for about a month. We're down to an unreliable source for a death date. I really don't want to leave it in but don't really think I should have to take it out either, at this point the nominator is just not ... doing anything. He's sorta active (he's edited today) but the GAN stuff is just ... sitting. I'd like to finish this off before I hit the road, but it's doing nothing. Any advice? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked at the article or the review yet (will do later), but in general if the review stalls with some significant issues then I either take the bull by the horns and fix them myself or I fail the article. A month is plenty long enough to leave a review running. Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a decent amount of digging in Google Scholar/Books, LexisNexis, etc. Couldn't find anything to confirm the death date. Is there anything book on the man this editor could check out? NW (Talk) 19:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I did some of my own digging. I just don't see that site as a RS by any way shape form or fashion. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've found Alleys: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases[2], which gives a year of death, 1987. That seems like a more reliable source, and if you agree then the easy thing is just to remove the day and month from his date of death pending a reliable source being found to support them. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

that'll work. I'm busy with pictures (getting snow shots up for friends to go "you didn't get as much snow as we did").. can you handle that and I'll go ahead and close the review when I get done? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'll do that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

... done. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That book is a compilation of Wikipedia articles; definitely not a reliable source. Ucucha 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL... Malleus? Just drop the whole death date, and it can stay passed as GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it? Judging by the name I thought it had something to do with Webster's Dictionary. Are we sure? Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Icon Group International - see Philip M. Parker#Automatically-generated books. I didn't click through to the link you showed, or I'd have noticed. My bad. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It has [WP] after the entry, which means Wikipedia. See [3] for some more discussions. Ucucha 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just looked more carefully and I noticed that the Alphonse Alley entry is attributed to wikipedia. Bugger!. Not all of the entries are though. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I've found one you'll like, from the African Press Agency. I'll add it now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

that worked fine, thankee. I just have to trust your French! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My French is good enough for that at least. It was a strange thing though, an IP was adding the url to the lead as I was adding the citation to the end of the article; we must both have found it at about the same time. All fixed and consistent now though. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To me, that looks like a quick-and-dirty list of Benin's rulers from independence to the present day, thrown together by a journalist. The dateline is "11-07-2010". If you look at our article on Alphonse Alley at that date, it seems quite likely that the journalist could have got his information from Wikipedia (or from rulers.org). You really need a source that predates the creation of the Wikipedia article, or some confirmation from the journalist that they used reliable sources, or some further check on how reliable the (named) author of that APA article is. Is it not possible to contact rulers.org and ask them what sources they use? Carcharoth (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's for us to speculate on the sources used by the journalist who wrote the article for the African Press Agency. Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not even when you look at the French Wikipedia article at the time of the APA article? Compare the Alphosne Alley section of this (there is a problem with the link, the Google cache is here) with this. Maybe the details in both accounts were independently obtained from some offline French language source, but it would be nice to be able to do better than this. I also looked at the early editing history of the article here and on other language Wikipedias, but will put that on the article talk page, rather than here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus! I've expanded this GA and think it could be nominated for FA status. It's quite comprehensive now, but I'd appreciate very much if you copyedited it. Vladimir (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help VVVladimir, but good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

VVVladimir I'll take a look in the next few days. Your articles are fascinating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

thought I would call by to see how you were and what space / time / imagination you had for our friend Matthew Hopkins. I see that you still tread interesting byways. Take care. Recently spent a pleasent couple of hours at a lecture on the Green children of Woolpit; my what ever happened to all that sex, drugs and rock and roll...Edmund Patrick – confer 21:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look above you'll have your answer, which is none I'm afraid. Did anything interesting come out of the lecture? A few months ago I listened to a 30-minute Radio 4 programme on the green children, which I found rather disappointing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I left you and Parrot a gift at Hanged... its from the new biography of Edward II, which eventually I'll have time to fully read. Ah, well, I have all that time in the car.. when we eventually get on the road. (Looks to be another week for us, the camera repairs are taking longer than expected). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, looks good. I'm just trying to be supportive, I've contributed practically nothing to the article. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Email. Not urgent, or indeed particularly serious... well.. :) Pedro :  Chat  23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd give it at least 10 hours, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Some administrators seem only to choose what they foolishly believe to be easy targets. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We're losing :( Parrot of Doom 17:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, another heads up. It doesn't concern you directly but since your name has been mentioned there I thought I'd notify you. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Some people just never give up. Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well unfortunately he/she has been blocked for 48 hours, so while I may get some respite, and more time to expand it, I don't think this is over yet. By the way, I know your disinclined to do so but if you could offer any input on the article I'd be most grateful. I think I have the execution well covered but I don't think I've wrapped it up very well. Parrot of Doom 20:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a read through. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is a bit hard to follow: "These and other executions (such as those of Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle and Hugh Despenser the Younger) happened when acts of treason in England, and their punishments, were not clearly defined in common law." Presumably this means "happened before acts of treason ... were clearly defined in common law"? Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll have to check but my understanding is that the 1351 act set in stone, in common law, exactly what treason was. Before that, justices relied on feudal law (ie, made it up as they went). I think. Parrot of Doom 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've had a good look through now, and it seems to me that maybe this article's title is wrong. There's actually rather little about the mechanics of hanging, drawing and quartering, so perhaps this is instead about the punishment(s) for high treason in England? Or perhaps even about high treason in England? I think it might hang together better if its focus shifted slightly in that direction, but of course it's up to you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's certainly a possibility but then I'd have to incorporate all the changes to the Treason Act, and also this article, which I'm not sure I can face doing. Parrot of Doom 12:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually I think what I might do is, once the basic description of what happened is over (where it talks about quarters, parboiling, heads on sticks), reduce the detail on the later executions to just single sentences to demonstrate the changing sensibilities and finally its outlawing. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 14:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think that could work. Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mall, whose passion is picture layout? A name?

I want to get the 8 images in Description in Painted turtle arranged into a format that eliminates a lot of the empty space and makes the pictures fill the space. I need to get one new picture (WPT top in a sideways shot), then crop all to same aspect ratio, rotated all to match EPT (bottom). (Since the purpose is comparison, want them all in same alignment, head left.) Would like a general header on the top saying subspecies of painted turtles, top and bottom. Then below each column put the subspecies, maybe the Latinate, and probably location (is actually relevant info as the subspecies have a little variation, and I have the dope to share).

Who is a good person to help me fulfill my vision?

TCO (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you have a number of images left-aligned under level 3 headings, which doesn't really work. I've changed a few things, but to tidy it futher I think you need to have a few less paragraphs. I'll leave that up to you. Parrot of Doom 22:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the work, PD. Will leave much of it. I agree with you on the more right aligning. Was trying too hard to follow the pseudo-policy on alternation. In actuality, I am a right image fan based on the section header issue.

But the main issue I want done is the gallery of 8 images, not just defaulting all the images to thumbs in the other parts of the article. FAR had asked for 240px. Actually I think some pics are better smaller than 240 and some better at 240 or bigger, depending on the level of detail in the picture (for instance on the trap picture to see the turtles, and saying the user can click is NOT my editorial design philosophy, would just have a link then). And maybe a little depending on if the article is more decorative (picture of a raccoon) ore really explaining something strange to the reader (basking trap). And the whole text wrap issue.

Yeah would be easier with more text (not easy to generate) or with less sections. But I'm not going to eliminate sections. Given the technical content of the article (does not have a narrative like a history or biography article) as well as the length, we need the sections for the reader. But right aligning does less damage, agreed.

Anyhow, my main issue is the gallery of 8 images. I want some table that uses all the page space across, in a 4 by 2. These are illustrative images (species identification) and also seeing them next to each other, in article (not clicking to a new window) is useful for compare contrast.

Oh and am opposed to less paragraphs. Like to break thoughts properly. Especially for more difficult or dry content, making people confront larger block paragraphs (I think) is not best for reader.TCO (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to set default image sizes unless the picture contains something with fine detail (the map for instance). I can't help with the gallery, I have no talent for coding :( Parrot of Doom 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The coding expert is User:Jack Merridew. --142.59.85.244 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC) (Diannaa, in Canmore)

Earlier today when I found that I'd been blocked in my absence for nothing at all my initial reaction was to ignore it as just another bit of the systemic silliness here. But as the day has worn on and several administrators have tried to make excuses for the inexcusable, my position has changed.

Wikipedia values new contributors and degrades established contributors. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that Dr. Blofeld is right, and like him I will be taking no further part here until there are some changes. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But earlier you were lambasting him for micro-stubs and heterochromatic cats? I'm confused. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You should be given an award for staying here for so long and dealing with the endless drama. Best of luck, Tommy! 02:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dr. Blofeld and I have had our differences, but on this issue I think we're probably in agreement. I'm not "retiring", simply withdrawing my freely given labour until I see some recognition that our efforts are appreciated, and that we're not treated as units of work. Call it a strike if you will. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not surprised to see this post. I think you made a valiant effort to stay with the article while it was on the main page. Had it been me, I think I would have walked away, though it's very hard to walk from an article, particularly when featured on the main page. I think this needs discussion somewhere. I was absolutely shocked to see the main contributor of an article blocked from editing and the unblocking admin made responcible [sic] for his actions. Something like this should never happen again. For those of us contemplating writing FA quality articles that inevitably end of up on the main page, it's nothing less than chilling. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd encourage other contributors to join me in my strike, but I know that it would make no difference. Makes me feel better about myself though. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We all go on strike at one time or another. I've spent most of this week happily away from Wikipedia when I realized I was coming close to edit warring on Olivia. I'm afraid I'll have to shelf that for now, which is too bad. But I have just started a new article I've wanted to work on for a few months, and you know how it is when the juices are flowing. Gotta go with the flow. I'd be on a serious strike if I were you. Give it break for a few days. Be on strike. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's more than a short break; I need to see some changes. Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much on strike already, as far as contribs to articles go (again - I was for a couple of years from mid-2008), and for similar reasons, so I'll join you in that. I have one or two "pet pages" on my watchlist, and a top secret (yeah, right) article in incubation, but otherwise I do very little with articles these days, so often it doesn't feel worth the grief - you feel better about it by all means! And, I'd like to see some changes too. Nortonius (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Feeling better about yourself is the only reason to do such a thing, because nobody else gives a damn. The MMORPG will carry on and Jimbo will continue collecting his speaking fees. That's the bottom line here, not that sweetness-and-light pablum about producing a reference work. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new to see here. Mr Boris regards it as a "standard punitive block", others see it as unacceptable. Some will join the strike, others will contribute more content of their own. Until there are changes, that is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My sarcasm at WP:ANI apparently was too subtle for the proletarian masses. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Malleus, from my perspective you weren't blocked for "nothing at all". You were clearly falling short of Wikipedia's standards of civility. The fact that you were arguably provoked, that it wasn't a particularly noteworthy breach, and that there was no gain to Wikipedia from blocking you all add up to make the block an overreaction, but the nature of crowdsourced project management is that it's particularly prone to exactly this kind of lapse of judgement, either individually or collectively. The only way to improve the situation is through positive, active, and patient leadership. You're (pardon me for saying so) an irascible codger, but you're also an experienced and intelligent editor and I'm not really sure how anyone, especially yourself, benefits from a protest strike. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I benefit from it, no more having to put up with ... well, fill in the blanks for yourself. Enough is enough. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm an admin, and I make no excuses for anyone, and I offered to help you correct the problem, but you said it was no big deal at the time. My offer is still open. I regret that you were blocked for whatever that is worth. I would not have blocked a user in that situation. I might well have a word with the blocking admin anyway. You're welcome to take a break, but I expect you back at the salt mine to get Maggie to FA in early March. Deal? --John (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  I hadn't then seen the blocking admin's sneaky attempt to have me reblocked, but short of a show trial followed by a swift public execution there's really nothing that anyone can do. So far as Maggie's concerned, we'll see. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  I'd say a word with the blocking admin is definitely in order. The block itself was bad enough, but the belligerence in the face of near unanimous opposition, followed by this (which was quickly hidden), was particularly destructive. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done. --John (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm, I hadn't seen that. I wonder what would have happened if I had been around at that point? Anyways, Malleus, I replied to you at my talk before I saw all this, and it still stands. I hope you find whatever you're looking for here. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just work on your own projects Malleus, and anyone that comes calling, tell them you won't help because...well, just point them up there. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You mean more like a work-to-rule? Perhaps. I see you're having some fun at the old Hanged, etc; I fully expect to see you blocked in the not too distant future. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh yes. It's great fun to take an article almost single-handedly from this to this and receive nothing but abuse and criticism for doing so. What I want to know is, where are all these people who concern themselves with such matters when it comes to doing the hard graft? Nowhere to be seen, that's where. While I'm spending money educating myself on these things and attempting to spread some of that knowledge, they're...doing what? I rightly (hindsight is a great thing) received a fair bit of criticism for the Jones essay but where I've attempted to resolve the situation by investigating the sources she used, most other people have moved onto the lasted ANI squabble. That's why I hang around your page Malleus, because most of the people who post here are content builders, like us. The ones who aren't are the ones to keep an eye out for. FYI Parrot of Doom 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I didn't even know that noticeboard existed. Seems like there's a noticeboard to suit every variety of crank. This is the kind of thing I find so disspiriting about wikipedia; I had to spend a not inconsiderable amount of effort yesterday arguing about whether two young girls should be referred to by their first names or surnames, and ultimately got blocked for my trouble. You've been battling to include one external link that some have taken a dislike to. Are there really no more important things that we should be concerning ourselves with? Like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I can be pretty stubborn when I like, but I'll always back down and apologise when necessary if enough people tell me I'm being an idiot. What I don't do, ever, is lie and bully my way into getting what I like. That's what seems to be happening on that article, unfortunately. I get accused of all kinds of nonsense and rarely bother complaining about it, as do you, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let some bossy little liar tell me exactly what I can and cannot write about. I'm rambling now so I'll shut up. Parrot of Doom 17:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh yeah, I forgot Parrot of Doom 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I think it's good to vent once in a while, else you start to get the feeling that you're the odd one out and everyone else thinks that things are going swimmingly. I'm reminded of a discussion yesterday on Moni3's talk page, about the stress of TFA day, where she says that she thought until recently that she was the only one who hated it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
            • It can be difficult dealing with the nonsense but some goodness sometimes slips in. Its just a shame that they're not protected by default. Parrot of Doom 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "Just work on your own projects Malleus, and anyone that comes calling, tell them you won't help because... well". I've been thinking about this over the last few days and I think that's the way it has to be; I've been too kind in offering help and support to other editors while receiving very little myself in the face of clearly deranged administrators. No more. I'll still be happy to help those who help me, like you and Ealdgyth, but no more Mr Nice Guy, the rest can sod off. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that way in moments of frustration too. Only for moments.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there, Mall-man. Let me know if you need me to troll some candy-ass admin.TCO (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

TCO's comment and many comments on this page and by Malleus make me wish that WP have a "like" button, at least for users' talk pages.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And I've needed to return the favour by looking at one of your articles since you were kind enough to look at Royal Maundy.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Which article is that? I don't remember taking anything to GAN or FAC recently, and right now I have no intention ever to do so again. Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, my point is that you did me a favour and I ought to do one in return by reviewing one of yours.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Forget it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing as I said to Dr. B: you need to look in the right place for appreciation of your contributions, and it can no more be found at ANI than at Jimbo-talk. Some admins have an air that they know better than everyone else, perhaps because they they have been around so long. They are not worth anyone's time, save as a valuable object lesson in how not to wear one's experience.

I hope you don't down tools for long, but enjoy the break while you do. Geometry guy 12:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm very sorry you are the target of yet more shoddy behaviour from an unaware administrator. I missed the ANI, but it seems the stage has been reached where blocks for experienced content editors should now be regarded as de rigueur on Wikipedia, minor badges of honour and rites of passage. Can anyone now contribute genuinely over a significant period of time, without having to continually keep their head below the parapet for fear of being blocked by the Wikipedia equivalent of a village idiot? The integrity of the block process has been undermined and degraded by administrators who lack competence when it comes to dealing with actual content editors. They have little skill or experience themselves in real content creation, and consequently no real concept of the processes and psychology in play. It is very wrong that such persons should be given the absurd and arbitrary power they now have over genuine content editors. The solution is simple – only a special type of administrator who has established his/her credentials with genuine content editors should be handed the right to block such editors. Far, far too much self determination has been removed from the hands of the content editor, and put in the hands of... well... outright incompetence. We have administrators now who focus on blocking as many genuine content editors as they can. Administrators such as Sarak of Vulcan, with no record of real content contribution, seem to run around with a mission to block every substantial content editor they can on the flimsiest of reasons. This behaviour is among the most dysfunctional on Wikipedia, and does far more damage than an army of vandals. Nothing happens to these people, they are given free passes to intimidate content editors at will; I see this happening in the back waters of Wikipedia all the time. If a content editor tries to defend themselves they are blocked for "incivility". Why do other administrators not protest at this? The dysfunctional administrators are a very small minority. Most administrators do good and even superb jobs, but a minority do disproportionate damage, leaving a serious havoc in their wake that is not addressed by the rest of the administrators. It is increasingly demeaning to be a content editor on Wikipedia. We are expected to genuflect, like serfs, to Wikipedia apparatchiks who are saturated in the blood of unjustly subdued content editors. This is miserable and wrong, an undignified and unjust environment! Now, having said how it is, I suppose I must inevitably await a trumped up block. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Geometry guy: I don't expect appreciation, not for me personally anyway, I simply expect not to be treated like a naughty child. My point about appreciation is a general one that applies to everyone who produces content; we ought not to be treated as easily replaceable and therefore essentially worthless units of work. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Treated by whom? This is like asking a hive of bees not to sting you. Even if you are a great benefactor to the hive, there is no telling what an individual bee will do. Beekeepers either develop a thick skin, or don appropriate protection. If you let others make you feel like a naughty child, or replaceable, you give them power over you. Geometry guy 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

They already have power over me, and exert it periodically just to prove that they can, as happened yesterday. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, a headstrong admin proved to be powerless in the face of consensus in your support. I could block you now for disagreeing with me if I wanted to, but that would not mean I have power of you. It would only make me look like a total prat. Geometry guy 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I couldn't block you for disagreeing with me, not that I want to of course. I understand what you're saying though. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we understand each other pretty well. I would rather be without the block tool: it is pointless to have it unless one is dealing with vandalism, point of view pushers and the like. The idea of admins sans block has been discussed here. Would you like to have the block tool or not? Geometry guy 23:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Would I like to have the block tool? Definitely not; like you I'd very rarely, if ever, use it anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

When I first got involved in GA it was an unaccountable process. Reviewers imposed their own standards and GAR was a vote along the lines of "Delist. Not enough inlines". We subsequently learned that one of the best ways to create accountability was to ensure all actions are not only recorded, but easy to find. I suggest that unaccountable uses of the block tool be dealt with in the same way. As a first step, I propose creating something like WP:Blocks of established editors which were overturned and listing examples there (including the name of the admin making the overturned block). We all make mistakes, but unless we record those mistakes, they will be repeated again and again. Geometry guy 00:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'd support such a proposal, but I can't see that many other administrators would. Most seem all too keen for their mistakes to be swept under the carpet, even though their victims are stained by those mistakes, so this would probably just be labelled as some kind of an "attack" page and deleted. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to know without trying. In the worst case, the MfD would be illuminating. Geometry guy 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd have used the word predictable rather than illuminating. The culture here is that it's perfectly acceptable to record the alleged misdemeanours of the peons in the form of their immutable block logs, but not of administrators. That's partly why it's so hard to get rid of the buggers, as the system allows and encourages them to hide their tracks. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You remind me of Sept, who was just as defeatist about GA in 2007. Revelling in injustice and victimhood makes defeatism into a self-fulfilling prophecy. To break it you have to let go of the past. Geometry guy 02:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Epipelagic: I think your idea of removing the block button from the present administrator package is a good one. So good in fact that it'll absolutely never happen. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you're going to have a long wait. Jimbo makes no bones about the fact that he considers us all expendable peons. (Remember he's a self-declared "objectivist to the core.") And the social aspects of this place far outweigh the lip service given to content creation. It was always like that to some extent, even in the old days. I have my hypotheses as to why the social-club aspects have accelerated over the past two years or so, but that's another discussion for another time. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what Jimbo thinks, he's irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I always thought the social-club aspects went into reverse with the deletion of WP:Esperanza. Are you (SBHB) talking about the less organised social aspects, or do you mean the WP:MMORPG aspect (which is different)? Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a social club a la Esperanza, but more the MMORPG stuff. Though I don't see a whole lot of difference between a MMORPG and a social club since it seems that at bottom an MMORPG is about building an artificial society. (Disclaimer, I don't actually play MMORPGs). "Social experiment" might have been a better choice of words than "social club." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In re, g guy's idea a few indents above, what would constitute an "established editor"? Two years tenure intersect/union 4000 edits at the time of blocking? Had one featured article credit (I think there is a parseable log page for FAs)? If the parameters can be quantified, I could interrogate the database. Not in the next two days, but it would be a fun project. I would also show the total number of blocks which ran their full course, for "fairness" - so Malleus' 10-second block would appear as legitimate of course. Not sure how to handle blocks that expire while the subject editor is still asleep. Franamax (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That the administrator issuing that 10-second block is still an administrator is to wikipedia's eternal shame. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question, I suspect that looking for unblocks of autoconfirmed editors would already restrict the search considerably. I would suggest proceeding from there, adding more requirements (such as months of tenure and/or thousands of edits) to reduce the list to a reasonable size. I don't think it would be helpful to go back more than a year or two anyway: the point would be to provide an ongoing record. Geometry guy 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

... after two weeks of vacation ... besides that you were blocked again (gasp, surprise), what else did I miss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, me too, after two weeks of zooming about in the snow, I return and can only assume some admins have also been blinded by the snow, on the piste and skating on thin ice. Little changes it seems.  Giacomo  14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Giano, we must stop meeting on the slopes, and you shouldn't have tried to dump me on the ice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah it was you! The spray of virgin snow was too heady an aphrodisiac, our goggle clad eyes met, the orange glass failing to mask our our impetuous feelings; I felt the soft caress of your minken headband against my manly cheek, as you eyed my well padded salapottes for one brief moment we felt the rush and adrenalin of the off-piste allure, but we knew it was a love that could not be: ”Addio mia cara” I whispered into your tiny, muffled ear as the dreadful roar of the blizzard screamed around us, deafening your sobs as I skied off into the twilight—you watched as my diminishing blue and red figure blurred into the swirling snow — only the trembling bobble on my hat hinted at my emotions; a small, solitary, frozen tear rolled down your face. It was love in a cold climate as you realised Giacomo had but one mistress, her name Wikipedia. He turned for one final glance, as he raised his pole in heartbreaking salute — he saw, high on the ledge above the banned editor in a black ski-suit holding her shotgun aloft, she fired, and the avalanche headed towards you, on perfectly edged, parallel skis, he turned—his heart racing — he must save Sandy.......<to be continued. Installment 2 has a price of $5—all major credit cards accepted>  Giacomo  16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank heavens you don't write architecture articles in this style... Risker (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He does, but Malleus copyedits them so well that no-one would ever guess. Bencherlite^Talk 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bloody Hell Giano - are you writing a chocolate advert? Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I liked the "raised his pole in salute" part... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Boris, you naughty boy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"And all because the lady loves appropriately used non-breaking spaces and consistent use of date formats". Bencherlite^Talk 22:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't really know what's going on but I'm glad I have Malleus' talk page on my watchlist. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a story about a banned editor in a black ski-suit, Stax. I'm trying hard to raise the $5 to get the next episode ... --RexxS (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Myles of the little ponies… do you not admire his cuteness? Ning-ning (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Guild of Copy Editors needs your help! The Guild of Copy Editors has a Requests page where editors can list their articles to request a copy edit. During January and February, the requests have been arriving at the rate of several every day, and we are getting a bit behind! We are putting out the call for a little help to get caught up. If you are interested in lending a hand, please select one or two articles from our Requests page and do a copy edit. Help a little or a lot; it's good karma! Thank you very much for any assistance you can offer. Your GOCE coordinators –S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), The UtahraptorTalk to me, and Tea with toast (Talk)

I'm not in a frame of mind to help anyone with anything unless it interests me in some way, but I wish you luck with your drive nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all the same. See you later --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a good job, just not for me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just thought you might like to try something different. Hey, have you ever considered vandal hunting? The seamy underside... the hilarious inclusion of the word "butt hole" in places you never dreamed possible... it's fun. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not being able to do anything about vandals I'm not about to go looking for them. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Liston? Parrot of Doom 22:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a strangely written article, obviously still needs a lot of work. But what little motivation I can muster I'm going to reserve for this and this. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you need someone really pedantic and MoS-wonky to look at those, just raise a finger and I will go through them. I need a job to do, as I am avoiding some real-life work that I will otherwise have no excuse not to do. --John (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but it'll be a while yet before either is anything like ready for that kind of scrutiny at the rate I'm going. Malleus Fatuorum 05:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"quite a few"? And you are seriously satisfied with that as a source? How many is "quite a few"? 1 per 100? 1 per 1000? 1 per 10000? She doesn't cite her sources, and yet you will put this out to our readers as an authority? What a fucking shame, and I really expected better of you. I think you should stop trying so hard. A clutch of featured articles really does not exempt you from meeting basic requirements. Let us part our ways, since it's clear that you have lost the way as far as reliable sourcing goes. Other admins may see fit to block you, but as far as I'm concerned, if you want to destroy the integrity of Wikipedia, you are on your own in that regard; I have never ever been here to do that. Rodhullandemu 02:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is perhaps not an optimal source, but this strikes me as a serious overreaction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Try to get a grip Rod, and please take your interminable ranting elsewhere. For what's being claimed an Oxford University Press specialist dictionary is perfectly adequate. There may be better sources to be found, but the reliability criteria don't demand that only the very best sources should be used, just that they're reliable. Which I'd argue that an OUP publication can reasonably be considered to be.

As for your block threat, I'm sure you know where you can stick that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Who in their right mind thinks Wikipedia has integrity? --Moni3 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may not have so in real terms, but as regards what we are meant to be, I do have a dustbin. But sources are sources, and should not be overstated. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, but if we are to use vague sources, we should at least have the balls to say so and not cite them as if they were be-all and end-all. We wouldn't accept that for cancer, and neither should we for any other disorder. NYBrad, I'm here daily, and I see unsourced and poorly-sourced material flowing like shit from a sewer, and I resist it. Or are we no longer an encyclopedia? Fine if we are a personal blog, but nobody told me that, and if so, I'm outta here. If standards are not to be upheld, I want no part of this. Rodhullandemu 03:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sooner the better. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

:::(edit conflict) - Shut the door on your way out. Off2riorob (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Malleus and Off2riorob, that didn't help. Rodhullandemu, I haven't looked into the source in question and have no particular opinion whether it's a good source for Wikipedia in general or for this assertion in this article in particular. What I do know is that you are taking a relatively routine editing disagreement and unnecessarily personalizing it in a highly inappropriate fashion. Stop doing that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry Rod it was a bit gratuitous, I agree with Brad though, mountain and molehill come to mind. Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should stop caring about this encyclopedia and go back to selling pornography on eBay. At least I'd make a little cash from that. Never mind, I thought I'd found something of real value for once. Rodhullandemu 03:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have any octopus-based hot man-on-man videos, would you? --Moni3 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

PZ Myers is your man for that. Ning-ning (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's forget yesterday and move forward. Much of Clown depends upon Coulrophobia, a shed of an article, which I have recently tried to move into the realms of credibility. Once that has been done, we can look to Clown. I'd rather work with you than against you to improve this encyclopedia, but if you really are not interested in that, TBH, I have better things to do, in particular not stretching sources beyond their natural limits. Up to you. Rodhullandemu 01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Strangely I was just about to make a similar posting to your talk page, despite the fact that you and your friends apparently don't even consider me to be human, suggesting that we try to find a mutually acceptable form of words for the clown article's lead. I also have many things I'd far rather be doing, so if we can put this one to bed and forget about all of this nonsense then it's a win for both of us. Let's start by accepting that a direct quotation from an OUP publication is in no sense "stretching a source beyond its natural limits". Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what you've done with coulrophobia, but I think it's certainly an article that could do with some serious attention. In particular I think its history is interesting, but there's a dearth of reliable sources as yet. I don't agree with you about the clown article depending on the coulrophobia article, rather it's a bit of a side-show I think; the clown article has got far bigger problems than that. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as we treat it as a "claim" and not anything more, I'd be happy with that. Now look, you've taken articles to FA, and you know the standards to which we should aspire. If I had the time then so would I, but most of my time is spent here fighting off the stupids, and I'd rather do other, more creative stuff. I have a wallchart next to me of about 180 articles that need to be created. As regards "being human", we all choose what we want to do here, but it's the way in which we do that in relation to our colleagues that defines how were are so judged. You may have your supporters in certain areas, but elsewhere, I don't see that support propagating. Sorry, but I came here to contribute with a level of humility and self-awareness that I don't see much here. That's all. Rodhullandemu 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As regards Coulrophobia, it's a WP:NEOLOGISM that has little support in the psychiatric/psychotherapy community. It should be stripped back to its sourceable essentials, if any, and the merged into Clown. As it is, it does Wikipedia little in the way of credit as it currently stands. Rodhullandemu 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And what support do you feel you have for your continual blustering and bullying? None from me I'm afraid, but I was almost convinced there for a second or two. Please just leave me alone. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please make your mind up; your recent edits to Clown have been uncontroversial and even helpful. If you can't take constructive criticism, I don't see why you should be here for much longer. That's the price we pay for trying to improve this enterprise. I have my own paranoias, but I'm certainly not going to accommodate yours. JFDI, perhaps. Goodnight, and long overdue. Rodhullandemu 02:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rod, I've forgotten more about writing than you will likely ever know. You came here with an olive branch that very quickly turned into your usual birch rod. Now why not run along and do something useful for once in your life. Elsewhere preferably, as I'm sick to death of you. I don't see any reason why you should be here for much longer, but I know that as you consider yourself to be far more important than me, a mere sub-human, and that you've got the ear of Newyorkbrad, I can see why you'd think that trying to chase me way might be within your remit. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it takes a lot more than just time to write an FA, or even a GA. I suggest that you try it one day; you might learn something. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Sorry, but I came here to contribute with a level of humility and self-awareness that I don't see much here." That's rich, coming from the most pompously self-important windbag it's ever been my misfortune to encounter here on wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that article just isn't comprehensive enough unless it has a big fat Pop Culture Section...and even better, we can adhere a soundtrack to this, with this played at Max Volume and a series of Fair Use OGG files....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is by and large obviously rather poor and needs a lot of work, which is why I was astounded by the minutiae that so animated Rodhullandemu. I think there are far too many administrators like him, with no idea about what it takes to write a decent article, but who launch crusades over a single sentence in one they couldn't have written themselves, dedicating their lives to abusing those who could. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the article clown because I have good sense to stay away from anything involving pasty-faced harbingers of death masquerading as the personification of humor. Their deceptions are their source of evil. I hate those fuckers. --Moni3 (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Streisand is scarier than the clowns...they probably sing better and have smaller noses. Such an article could be counterbalanced by Dr. Bandura's Bobo the clown experiment which gives clowns the perfect right to be scared of kids. Thank goodness some of his original videos are still around. ...and all those little kids became Wikipedians.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aha MF, you mean like this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Something like that. Unlike Rod I think that the emergence of coulrophobia is an interesting phenomenon well worthy of an article, but not that the clown article depends on it in any sense at all. Rod appears to me to be completely unbalanced and a net negative to the project. But then that's my view of most administrators, so what do I know. Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No discussion involving clowns can ever be reasonable, so tainted is the very air surrounding the vibrations created by voices speaking about clowns. Rodhullandemu is clearly under the evil spell of Satan's minions and his palpable state of distress is influencing this discussion. Holy water, flagellation, celibacy, and getting the fuck away from clowns will fix all this. --Moni3 (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ironically I've had very little to do with the clown article, almost nothing in fact, and I have no investment it. I just made a few changes when I was fleshing out a couple of redlinks on these guys for this article. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm scared of clowns though, just highly suspicious of them, or at least the ones who use that grotesque makeup. Malleus Fatuorum 04:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I like to come to this page for the witty repartee-I didn't realize there was a real term for my bozophobia! Thanks Wikipedia! Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus,

The esteemed Anthony Cole suggested that your page might be worth looking at, and so I have put it on my Watchlist. I was recently dobbed in by someone for telling off an idiot, and ended up on the admin's "Explain yourself, young man" page. (Notice no ladies ever end up there. There should be a couple for crying out loud.) You can read of the entire sordid escapade there, and share my indignation.

The complaint took the usual form of "I was just minding my own business, looking up quince, as I have an interest in that subject, when I came across a myles325a contribution. I happened to look up his contributions, not because I was looking for anything wrong, just out of curiousity mind, when I came across THIS, and THIS, and then THIS, and then THIS, and well, I shit my duds, or I would have, I should say I shit my grass skirt. Because I never saw anything as absolutely outrageous as this. I told him he was being "watched" and he would be reported, and then he goes and does THIS and THIS and then THIS, and well, my jaw hit the ground, and I shit me grass skirt. Again!" And so it goes.

I would write more, but I don't want the usual cabal with the tar and feathers keeping an eye on me. Nevertheless, I prob will have a few more words to add to this matter. As for your stuff here, well, I had a perv on it, and just about wet my frilly white panties at a first gander. Well done, and keep up the good work. Myles325a (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was very well said, statesmanlike almost. --John (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say one thing before I'm blocked again; I never, ever, thought that you and I would be able to work together John, but we did with Maggie. I'm not sure what's changed: you, me, perhaps both of us, but I'm glad that it did. Malleus Fatuorum 06:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you will be getting blocked again, Malleus; I haven't seen anything blockworthy in your recent contribs. I'm really glad that I had the chance to work with you on article improvement; although I don't always agree with every single edit you make, the overall package is of very high quality. Still up for FA? --John (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be anything blockworthy to get blocked. I'll let you decide if and when to go to FAC, as I don't want a repetitition of the fallout from the Grace Sherwood incident. Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, there does. There needs to be. I'm not familiar with that incident; if you feel like telling me about it by email I would be happy to take a look. Regarding FAC, I am too busy IRL right now but may be able to do something in the next weeks. Take care, --John (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The only thing relevant about that incident to our discussion is that I ended up being accused inter alia of encouraging another editor to take Grace to FAC in the full knowledge that it wasn't ready. I haven't looked at Maggie for a while, so I'll have another look through over the next few weeks after a visit to the library. Whether or not it gets through FAC is less important to me than the high-quality feedback it will almost certainly get there and can't get anywhere else, although obviously I'd want it to get through and would be working to that end. You need to have time available though to deal with any issues that crop up in a timely manner; that can be the making or breaking of a nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware we have never corresponded apart from on the talk page of Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered so I am not sure why you need to be so vitriolic towards me. I would have thought that we can hold differences of opinion without the need to make assertions about the abilities of the counterparty.

You are of course free to think what you like, but if you had made comment of fact ...I see from you block log and ANI trail, that we are standing on well trodden ground so I will not trouble to link in the policies and guidelines on this issue as you must by now know them and for your own reasons are choosing to flout them. -- PBS (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You confuse "vitriol" with pointing out your evident misconceptions, which I can't help you with. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, which I could help you with, but only if you were prepared to listen instead of pontificating. Malleus Fatuorum 06:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the two of you should step away from the dispute you are having in article talk. If you want a third opinion on the matter you are arguing about I can maybe have a look. --John (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Third and fourth opinions have already been given, but PBS isn't listening. Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting and nuanced point and probably needs the attention of a wider audience. --John (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

apologies that it has taken so long to get back to you, interesting times in public service especially when not statutory in UK! Anyway good lecture informative, two points made:- the number of Flemish mercenaries used by the losing side in the battle of Fornham fought by Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester and that their "uniform" was dyed green. It is recorded that they were hunted down after the battle and slaughtered if found. The other point made is that it is recorded that neither the boy or girl ate the red meat offered, possibily as they did not recognise it as a food source and may have suffered from Chlorisis. As you know once they started to eat the condition improved for her (he died) ending her life married to a merchant in Kings Lynn.Edmund Patrick – confer 07:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Who gave the talk? Has it been published anywhere? Has the speaker published on the subject? Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded St Mary's Church, Astbury and think it may be suitable for GAN. If you agree, would you copyedit it? I've got a bit close to it and think there may be plenty to do. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to go for GAN to me Peter. Seems like a rather interesting building. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Gone for it. Many thanks as always. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I hope you are the right person to raise this issue with. If not, then perhaps Wikipedia should slowly grind to a deserved halt. You must have a sense that if Dr. Blofield is allowed to be obliterated, without protest, then this is yet another nail in the coffin of all content editors. Wikipedia is the cumulative production of content editors, full stop. Administrators (of course there are exceptions) have little to do with the advance of Wikipedia. It is long, long overdue that content editors stand up and defend themselves from assaults that are mounted against them by warmongering administrators. Wikipedia is one of the few lights in the present age. Blofield, quite aside from his countless microstubs, has made huge contributions to Wikipedia. It is irrelevant whether Dr. Blofield nurtures a measure of neurosis concerning how special he is. All of us are ultimately full of fear, apart of course from American deep south deluded fuckwits and some Wikipedia administrators, wondering whether we matter or not, and this should be taken as a given and not held against us. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The going of Dr B is, I guess, a symptom of a WP disease that needs attention. I don't know much about Dr B, other than he was a prolific performer, and for him to take a mega-huff and leave the project, is a massive signal. WP is a fantastic idea, and contains much material not easily available in such an accessible form elsewhere. Something is going wrong, and it seems to me that the source of the problem lies within its management. It is probably too "democratic", with its middle managers, the administrators, not being adequately controlled by senior management (whoever/whatever that is). WP should not be allowed to die, but should develop into something even bigger and better. As an editor, I find it fun (having a thin skin I avoid controversial topics), I have learnt a lot, and I hope I have provided material for reference now and for the future. I know little about the founder, other than that he seems to enjoy publicity. But is he taking care about the day-to-day issues of his (now rather big) baby? So how do we address it? I've no idea. But I know a lot of people watch this page, and someone may be able to come up with a way of addressing the issue; preferably in a non-confrontational sort of way. I don't know. But I've had my ramble round the subject. Must stop wasting time and go and write and improve some more articles! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no senior management! Nor does JW want to do that, & I don't blame him. The Foundation is concentrating on things outside en:wiki space, or analysing that from a distance. I think we are seeing a lot of 4-5 year burnouts - Dbachmann seems another drop-out. no doubt some will return, but others not. But the number since last summer is rather scary, & the lack of participation at FAC, CFD & project talk pages a warning signal. New heavy content writers don't seem to be emerging to replace those dropping out or downscaling. The table "50 recently active wikipedians, excl. bots, ordered by number of contributions" & "20 recently absent wikipedians, ordered by number of contributions" below here are starting to look a bit alarming. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There's rarely a single reason for anything, but there's a clearly discernable theme in the disrespectful way that non-admin content creators are treated. Dr. Blofeld took exception to being labelled a sexist troll amongst things by JW, User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back was blocked indefinitely because some humourless administrators didn't appreciate his style of humour, I've scaled back my involvement considerably after one daft block too many for absolutely nothing other than spite ... the list goes on. The fundamental problem is that administrators, taking their lead from the top, regard content contributors as easily replaceable units of work, hardly worthy of proper respect. Time will tell if they are right, but the signs so far seem to be suggesting that they are not. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice BTW that the username UnitofWork hasn't yet been taken ... tempting. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the Dr is back with us as of today, happily. One should have predicted that from his career in fiction.... Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed. I'll be interested to hear more about that mysterious issue the Foundation is supposedly sorting out; I suspect though ... well, I'll keep my suspicions to myself for now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wise move. You don't appear in any of the various mailing lists that discuss the future and governance of Wikipedia, so I can only assume that you aren't that interested in such discussion. As regards "mysterious issues" there aren't any. Let's just say that if you don't have input into the debate, you have no locus standi to criticise what may emerge. Meanwhile, and beyond that, I have nothing to say to you, and it would be helpful if you would respect that wish. Also, it's comforting to see Dr Blofeld's return. Rodhullandemu 01:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have nothing to say to Malleus, and want him to say nothing to you, it may be a good idea for you not to hang around here making patronizing comments. Wikipedia is a big place; you don't have to involve yourself with Malleus. Ucucha 01:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's be clear here; neither does he have to spend his time in his cloister; as you rightly say, "Wikipedia is a big place", and I do know that. My email inbox is full of wider issues than this, and I'm only suggesting that if Malleus has anything to contribute in the context of the big picture, he should do that, rather than continually playing the role of the wasp at the picnic. That's all; and if you don't get it, fair enough, you don't get it. That's not my problem. And you only have to look at the comment below to see the problem. Rodhullandemu 01:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Still here? *Yawn*. 02:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am. Do you have a polite response to anything, or are you driven purely by arrogance? I note that you haven't addressed my previous comments, not apologised for the comment immediately below. Make no mistake, neither you nor I are immune from scrutiny here, but you are sailing perilously close to the wind on the abuse front, for no apparent reason. Do you feel confident of surviving an request for comment or an ArbCom case? There's a lot of history involved, but on balance, I'll willingly take the time to put it all together. Goodnight, and sleep well. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you entirely in possession of your faculties? All of them? Just above here you said quite clearly that "I have nothing to say to you, and it would be helpful if you would respect that wish". Yet here you are again with more of your bullying bluster. I'll do you a favour and forget that you ever existed if you'll just go away and bother someone else. Surely you're such an important person with important things to think about, as you've told me many times, that a little minnow like me can just be thrown back into the sea? As for an RfC that's up to you of course, but if I were you I'd think twice about it. You might end up being bitten in the ass, and you've got more to lose than I have. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rodhullandemu just can't help himself. He's a disgrace really. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a good thing that Blofeld has come back, if only for the higher proportion of aggressive-looking cats that return to Wikipedia as a result. I suppose some people might see the addition of a content-creator as a negative thing... well, that's up to them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Just in case there's any doubt, so do I. Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Content contributors and reviewers are declining all over the Wikipieda and the party line to address the problems are to promote more unqualified admins and get more women on board (at least we'll have 20-somethings to block all those bored women old enough to be their mother!), Moni's hanging out at your page instead of mine looking for hot man-on-man action, and Rod still can't resist the desire to be Close to You (I hope that's not related to what Moni's looking for). Now I'm all caught up on everything that matters and can sleep peacefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just been watching a BBC programme on Venezuela; what a mess Chavez has made. Apparently about 20% of all crime in the country is committed by the police! A bit like wikipedia I suppose really. Malleus Fatuorum 05:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha-- you mean the 20% that is reported?? And did they mention the worst murder rate of any capital in the world? And I used to haul in and out and around there alone, with no fear, as a "gringa"-- don't even feel safe in the airport now, even if I speak perfect Spanish and can fool the chavistas. I asked an Egyptian fellow who owns a little market next to me what was going on in Egypt and why couldn't Venezuela do the same, and he replied, "but at least Chavez helped the poor". Amazing the PR one can buy with oil money :) Most people outside of Venezuela honestly believe he *has* helped the poor; I almost can't blame them for their blind POV, they've never been there, and read biased accounts bought with the oil money that used to belong to the people. Since when is unleashing crime and arming the populace to encourage the poor to steal, kidnap and murder to support themselves a good way to help them? This movie is real, day-to-day life in Venezuela now: you leave your house to go to the supermarket with care, or you'll be "express kidnapped", even if you're a 85-yo grandmother (she fortunately survived). But that's only the wealthy: his solution to managing the poor is to arm them, give them no police protection, and let them kill each other. More murders in the barrios than elsewhere. It's the real deal, and everyone knows several people who have been "expressed kidnapped" or murdered or forced into exile on bogus charges so the chavistas can take over their businesses. Like Wikipedia. You won't get any of the real story out of the "sum of all human knowledge" no matter how many reliable sources report it and more. Then there's the corruption: I waited patiently in a shoe store two years ago while a freshly minted chavista bought more shoes than I've owned in my whole life. I didn't notice her filling out the reams of paperwork I had to fill out just to buy a belt, so the government can track our expenditures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

SG: Wait, they made you fill out paperwork to buy a belt? (Sorry for imposing, but this popped up on my watchlist and it pickled my interest.) AGK [•] 00:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Pickled your interest? Is that like tickling your fancy but with the best cognac? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be a Scottish thing: it's a phrased used up here. I had never thought about it before now. Thank you, dear sir, for ruining my fantasy that the Scots' grammar was impeccable. AGK [•] 22:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. It was almost exactly two years ago (Feb), so I don't know if it's still true, but when making purchases, you have to provide address, identification, etc-- the purpose is for the Chavez admininstration to track expenditures, apparently. It was quite a PITA for me, since I was not about to reveal my Venezuelan national identity number to a merchant (for various reasons, considering the security situation in Venezuela these days), and there was some problem or another with identifying myself with my US passport. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt was interesting for some similar reasons - I was there in 1995 and 97 and the slums I saw there were worse than anything I saw in the West Bank or Syria, with police checkpoints everywhere (police were nice to us as we were tourists, but you got a sense lots of folks were pretty miserable there), every 5-10 km of driving (!). The adage goes that the media were nicer to the gov't as they were a US ally. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"What "other causes"?" Being killed. Are you really this dense?Jswap (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not, but apparently you are. Have you bothered to read the discussion on the talk page? You seem to be in a minority of one. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You asked the question "What "other causes"?". Your willful ignorance is disappointing. You've actually made the sentence you reverted incorrect due to the omission of one of the causes of death. But I doubt you will let facts get in the way. Jswap (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"eating those who had succumbed to starvation, sickness, and other causes". "Succumbed to other causes" doesn't make any sense at all but I don't suppose you'll let bad grammar get in the way. Richerman (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it's not Donnor Party, it's Donner Party. Jswap is now blocked at 5RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange that someone with such strong feelings on the subject can't even spell it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange also that since the above user was blocked, several new accounts have been created purely to abuse you. Parrot of Doom 01:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Which one besides MoSemike, who also hit my page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see: Malleus FatButt. MF, that's what you get for riding that Grand Cherokee around-- try walking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Jswap blocked 18:25 UTC; MoSemike created 23:59, blocked 00.03; Malleus FatButt created 00.02, blocked 00.05. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

All I need now is for Rodhullandemu to show up again and my day will be complete. Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. Malleus FatButt is the reason you got started on Wikipedia, isn't it? You knew at some point someone was going to create a bastardization of your username by including a description of your fluffy rufous rump. --Moni3 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Stay away from titmouse articles. If he calls me Flat Butt, I may have to activate the Jennifer Lopez defense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So what did you do to upset Denial of Access (talk · contribs) / Access Denied (talk · contribs) that he's held a grudge this long? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jswap#20 February 2011 --RexxS (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of this, a little bit of that. I oppposed him at ArbCom and tangled on several RFAs, and I'm sure DYk is in there somewhere too. I don't know about Malleus, but I lose track of my socks and stalkers-- sorta like flies on the windshied. So Jswap is innocent, the usual AD mimic. How about the recent IP on my talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Access Denied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember that bit in Die Hard, where the chap with the long blonde hair smashes up the office because he's so completely pissed off with John Mclain? And Mclain's wife whispers something like "only John could piss somebody off that much"? Well that's Malleus on Wikipedia :) Parrot of Doom 01:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How far away is Turtle from GA? I'm very hesitant about the work to take it to FA, as it's such a huge and important topic. But maybe GA could be something to get us some exposure, and then come back to it later for FA. At least would get us into looking at it. But how far away is it? TCO (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Talk page stalker - a very casual read over the article suggests to me it's close, although not quite ready to submit yet even taking into account the improvements-during-review process. I haven't looked at image licensing and tagging, and I don't personally have experience in setting out scientific articles, but the prose looks good and the scope and tone are okay. It appears to be undersourced - there are entire paragraphs with a single citation - and while an article like this often has many images you should consider exactly why you are using these images and what they contribute to an encyclopaedic understanding of the topic (as demonstrated through their captions). The big list in the middle of the article looks exceptionally ugly but it may be that this is standard for articles of this sort? - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good analysis, thanks.TCO (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You've also got problems late in the article with some single-sentence headings (eg "Distribution") that should be expanded or merged into other headings, and for a topic as wide as "turtle", that "further reading" list needs to be either greatly expanded or chopped altogether. (Likewise the "See also" could use reconsideration.) (NB. GA doesn't cover "further reading" so that last one is just my recommendation, not a GA requirement.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I just broke down and read it. Am back to being scared of it. Need to go off and read some books first. Also think about the "shape" of it. IOW, what sections should there be and what should be gotten across. Hmmm...TCO (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You could limit the scope of the task by breaking off sections (like that list) into their own subarticles, so that you only need to do the main article in summary style. This limits the expertise you need to finish the article and also deals with some of the format issues. Whether it goes to GA or not you should feel proud of tackling such a high-level and important article, and remember that every improvement is valuable even if you don't come anywhere near perfecting it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's probably the way to get traction. Just start pecking away at some easy things, that are a bit more gnomish and then come around and think about the real structure and such later. That said, it would need to move to plus sign eventually. I think the whole thing needs to be substantially rewritten and rereseached. Although pecking away at it, would be a way to get motivation.

I'm even trying to get my head wrapped around what the major topics should be and the amount of content. I think we would want to show what turtles have in common. Then also show some idea of the spread of differences. The classification part does not worry me. We can tidy up the text and the list and taxoboxes and get the right content as well as an appealing way to discuss it. I think anatomy is important and foundational, but would want it done better. Like the shell should come first, duh. Probably makes sense to have the turtle versus tortoise thing up towards top. Maybe boxed. The range thing is pathetic. Hmmm....TCO (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that people carrying flaming torches may be marching toward Wife selling, which, apparently, was a sexist practice. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't (I don't think it was), but I forsee a huge bunfight because apparently the article "whitewashes" that fact. Parrot of Doom 09:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, well, attempts to deal with that editor went the usual Way of the Wiki Lately, where we're more interested in indeffing editors like The Fat Man because we don't agree with his sense of humor, than dealing with POV pushers. Generally, with respect to categories, it strikes me that we've got more important problems to worry about on Wikipedia than whether James Joyce is Catholic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That article has been nothing but trouble since we wrote it. At the the time I just thought it was an interesting legal backwater; I never imagined that it would become a feminist rallying point. I find it quite alarming when people form groups based on their gender, race, or other immutables. I also find it quite extraordinary that there is so much navel-gazing about the gender makeup of wikipedia editors since the NYT published its guess that only 13% are female, as I've never seen any similar analysis of Encyclopedia Britannica contributors, for instance. I think I've asked most of the regular editors I've worked with in some way and have good reason to believe are female what their view is of the gender imbalance. Every single one has said pretty much the same thing, that the focus should be on the content, not who wrote it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, I recommend ignoring the Category debacle on the LAME factor. Generally, I think the "Women in Wikipedia" claptrap is bunk, to overshadow the problems in the general decline in editorship and, along with the recent trend of promoting unqualified admins, a way to avoid looking at the real problems. I can't come to Wikipedia anymore without spending most of my day dealing with POV pushers, trolls, vandals, socks and attacks on good faith editors, while the disruptive editors are allowed to continue. And all of this is because Wikipedia does not value content contributors, does not have a mechanism for dealing with POV, and does not value high-quality articles and editors any more than the random troll. None of the problems I encounter on Wikipedia have any relation to gender. So, we're now seeing a push to get more marginal content on the mainpage, right up there with Plagiarism Central; why do we work for so hard for the one area of Wikipedia that turns out our 1% of decent content? I left the US years ago to work in countries where a woman's contributions were valued for what they were, not because of some Equal Opportunity claptrap where I got thrown in with incompetent promotions in the corporate world; I don't need to work here under similar gender-based bunk. Bottom line is if you write featured content, be prepared to spend the Rest Of Your Wiki Life trying to keep it up to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always ignored categories, never seen the point of them. The only reason I include them in any new article I write is to get rid of that annoying "no categories" tag. Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, you have a point on the featured content, can't say much about the rest of it. The downside of TFA is that it gets your article noticed, which is not a Good Thing because everyone and his brother come in and insert the little fact that just has to be in there that they are sure they learned in ninth grade, to say nothing about other rotgut, like the article is suddenly tagged by a WikiProject and expected to conform to the way they do things. Frankly, we should make it clear that FA and FAC override the standards of wikiprojects, since FA and FAC are the entire community (all right, in theory!). And I agree on the categories, they are just one part of the extended ritual dance you do to get an article through FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree (I'm sure James Joyce would get a kick out of the Category discussions on his talk). I had hopes that WP:OWNERSHIP#Featured articles would stem some of the tide, but I'm not sure it has helped much. Wikipedia will likely eventually go the way of most internet ventures, as it is gradually overtaken by the disruptive editors (a recent Arb Enforcement decision comes to mind [4]), and our hope is that at least our featured contributions will survive in decent shape. I doubt it-- unless we stay on top of them, they deteriorate back to the level of the rest of the Wikipedia. BTW, I started working up a list of missing FA writers, but have been sick for two days and haven't finished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We will all be missing, eventually. I agree, I think eventually Wikipedia will be overtaken by a site with different rules better enabling quality content to be generated and preserved. Wikipedia's place as an elephant in the market is undermined as all its content may be freely siphoned off. I think in ten years, those of us not yet missing will be doing this someplace else. But I think the idea of a global memory and database for the human race will remain, and Wikipedia, in time to come, will be seen as an early venture in that direction.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Some may be missing sooner than others :) Missing Eubulides is what inspired me to start the list. I'm gradually unwatching more and more articles, since some days I feel like I'm turning into a typical WikiDramadian for having to deal with the BS everywhere I look. Increasingly, I'm restricting my editing and watchlist to those articles that receive high page views, and trying to remind myself that I came to Wikipedia to improve two horrible articles: 50% success rate is good ? Five years in, one is featured and holding steady, the other is in worse POV shape than when I started editing.[5] [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ten years is an awful long time, more like two or three years I'd say. To paraphrase something I've seen User:Hans Adler say, wikipedia might have a great way to start an encyclopedia, but it's no way to finish one, or even to run one. Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Credit where it's due—that quote originally came from User:Kelly Martin, one of the first significant people to get the full Wikipedia non-person treatment. The original context was here. – iridescent 2 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that one of wikipedia's fundamental flaws was so evident to Kelly even four years ago, and that still nothing has been done about it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It was obvious to Jimbo and Larry back in 2001; the original model was a twin-structure where the best of the bubbling froth of the open-editing Wikipedia, would periodically be skimmed off and transferred to the (verified, and locked to further change without discussion) Nupedia, which was always intended to be the core site; it was intended to be similar to what Britannica do, where anyone can edit the "suggested version" page but nobody except the admins can touch the live articles. Neither ever expected Wikipedia to supplant Nupedia so completely, and virtually all Wikipedia's uniqueness—good and bad—can be traced back to Larry Sanger's miscalculation in 2001. (This is also why, on very early articles, you see them appear ab nihilo fully-formed in the histories, as they were moved from Wikipedia to Nupedia and back again.) – iridescent 2 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

True, I'd forgotten about Nupedia. The way that wikipedia has developed though would make it impossible to introduce anything like the Britannica model I think; how many administrators would even know where to find an article, much less write one? (There are of course some honourable exceptions.) Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to the gender gap; I have higher aspirations in life than a 50% success rate. Sure, along the way, FA standards have improved and we're putting better content on the mainpage, and medical articles have improved. Not enough to make me feel that we're serving our readers well, and not enough to compensate for the endless BS we have to put up with here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they have improved, less than two years ago I was being told that a fair use image was OK because it was the only one in the article. I went back and replaced it about three months ago, it was in Checkers speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ack. My "not enough" comment above referred to medical articles, not FAs. Yep, they've improved across the board, but I was up all night the other night sorting a TFA debacle, and noted that a UK IP opposed the article as POV, and a UK IP trashed it while it was o the main page, so the issue with FAs is not their quality, but what it takes to maintain them to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, and that's only part of the problem(s). We need more severe penalties for vandalism and for Randy in Boise than for alleged incivility. For vandals and Randys I suggest: block for 3 offences with no cleaning the stale; escalate blocks, e.g. 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, indef. I'd suggest that, if a revert war breaks out on a GA, A class or FA, the article be restored to before the war and where it's something like GA / A class / FA and then locked until consensus is reached at the Talk page. And perhaps every admin that blocks for alleged incivility should be barred for another blocks for alleged incivility until the admin has helped resolved a revert war without blocking. --Philcha (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what I'd like to do to every admin who blocks for alleged incivility. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum

Ouch - such violent men who hang out here, you'll scare away the poor little females! ;-) Speaking of violence, a few months ago you reviewed Eastbourne manslaughter for GA and had a few questions that I couldn't answer. I've dug up some more sources and expanded the article - would you mind casting a quick glance at it to see if it makes more sense now? No need to spend too much time on it, though - or any at all, if you've better things to do. Segueing into "better things to do", don't worry too much about Wife selling - the categorization debacle should die down before too long, and the fuss'll move on to another drama magnet. Hopefully. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Very good, your additions flesh out the story nicely. Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has nominated Cheddar at GAN. In a pre-GAN review comment User:SilkTork has commented "I've just taken a look and I feel there is a bit of work to do regarding polishing the prose, and tidying up the organisation and presentation." If you (or any of your talk page stalkers) were interested in improving my mangled prose it would be really appreciated.— Rod ^talk 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through and it doesn't look too bad to me, but I'll look more closely later. Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and also thanks to User:Nikkimaria who had improved it some before you got to it.— Rod ^talk 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have told SilkTork that if he did review it, it would have to be reviewed on 3rd of March (topic here). However, I will be away for a few days so I cannot contribute to Cheddar if the review would be held before then, but if somebody would take up the GAN I will be willing to do anything to build it up to GA in the meantime. Regards Jaguar (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC) (please don't refer me as a WP:JAGUAR - the page talk stalker!)

Are you around to deal with any issues if the review was started in the next day or so? Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes if the review would be started in the next couple of days I will still be here to look at the GAN and deal with any issues. However, as User:SilkTork said that he might review it on March 3rd I will definately not be there to look at it as that is the exact date of my exams. Don't worry, I should still be here in the next few days hopefully! Jaguar (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you've got exams coming up, shouldn't you be revising? I never bothered much with revising until the day before (my view was rather a Victorian one, that gentlemen ought not to need to work hard to succeed), but I now realise that was a sub-optimal strategy. If you're sure you'll have the time I'll do the review myself. Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, even though March 3rd is nearly two weeks away I still have some time left for other issues before I can panic at the desk and completely forget what I was meant to be doing. I still have lots of free time for a few days or so I can look at the review if it is reviewed by then. I'll start revising later but it is really the week before March 3rd I have to get off Wikipedia! Jaguar (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You sound a bit like I used to be, and to a large extent still am: "I'll get to it tomorrow". SilkTork is a great GA reviewer, so what I propose is that I'll help you get the article ready for him by going through it as if I were doing the review, and list the issues I find on the talk page for you to deal with when you can, without any of the pressure of a time limit. Then when your exams are over the real review should be a piece of piss. Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will be happy to go through the article now as a pre-GAN review. If you do that, I will be willing to go through the article's issues now whilst I have the time. Again, thanks for the help! Jaguar (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's a deal then. I'll probably start looking at the article seriously tomorrow, got some RL stuff to deal with later today. In the meantime you start revising. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by to edit my cheerleading partner's page. It seems that you felt most content was appropriate, but I am not sure about the removal of the fact that her parents had been married 56 years. I actually consider that as relevant as it would be to say she is the daughter of Mrs. X who has remarried and Mr. Y who has remarried, which I think would be considered encyclopedic. Can you comment at Talk:Rose_Catherine_Pinkney#Parents.27_marriage.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that it's important, even though I can't understand why it might be, then just put it back. I'm not going to fight with you over it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Topic: "Botched move lacking consensus". Rodhullandemu 22:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Have fun. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked and decided to bite my tongue. Rodhull, you really need to stop this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

He can't help himself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I keep typing and striking ... ah, so many clever things to say, but ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Least said soonest mended. Rodhullandemu is what he is, and I doubt he'll learn anything from this. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the adverse affect of clowns. --Moni3 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, coulrophobia, such pleasant memories. Not. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

He has signalled his willingness to stay away from you; can you possibly stay away from him too? I think that will provide an easy way to de-escalate this situation. Cheers, --John (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have never gone looking for Rodhullandemu and would never go looking for any editor's contributions. Ralegh was on my watchlist, I saw the "discussion" about the man's proper name, I agreed with the now-blocked editor, moved the article, began to tidy up afterwards, and then found myself dragged once again to ANI before I could finish by a ... well, fill in the blanks for yourself. If Rodhullandemu stays away from me then I'll certainly be very glad never to hear from him again. If he doesn't, then I guess we'll each have to take our chances. I have absolutely no intention of pretending that I am in some way at fault, particularly over this most recent episode, just so that the usual "both parties are to blame" clause can be invoked. Rodhullandemu started this and he can very easily stop it, perhaps by diverting his harassment to another editor. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I have many more than just two sides to my character. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, point taken, no offense intended. Thanks for the substantive response, I appreciate it. --John (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, he's just cursing at and insulting everyone. I found the old ANI, where he was requested back in November to stay away from Malleus. Shall I launch the RFAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it must be done. Given his reaction any time this comes up, I don't have a lot of confidence the RFC process will have any effect. We have a documented pattern of behavior. I'm willing to certify an RFC if that route is decided, but I recommend RFAR at this point. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what he does, and keeps doing, and then makes excuses for. Apparently he hasn't slept for more than 48 hours according to his talk page, so maybe someone ought just to do the decent thing and choke him off until he returns to his senses. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I did an RFC/U on an admin once for misuse of tools, where there wasn't a pattern-- in that case, it didn't seem logical to go straight to the arbs for a desysopping. But here, the pattern doesn't stop, no matter how many times he promises and how many times he's asked, so I don't see that RFC/U is a useful route. I backed off last time because of the sympathy factor, after so many editors explained his problems to me, but the disruption must stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But I don't have all the pieces and will need help with diffs; I was traveling end of Jan, beginning of Feb-- what was Malleus blocked for then, and how did Rod come to comment on that? Was he involved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rod did not get involved in Malleus' last block. He was blocked for this remark. As you can see here, it was quickly overturned and even the usual critics didn't turn up to defend it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, unless something changes in the next 12 to 24 hours, I'll launch the RFAR. Speak now or forever hold your peace; the only pieces I have are the ones at ANI. I remember there was much much more, but wouldn't begin to know where to find it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's enough to begin a case. If they accept the case, there is the whole evidence phase. I can help, as I've been informally tracking this issue for a while. In filing the case, I would emphasize his repeated rejection of community feedback and disdain toward criticism with things like "Go on then; make my day" and replacing the contents of his talk page with "too many idiots". --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there other admin's actions whose blocks of Malleus also need to be examined in the same RFAR (that is, are they related)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reccommend stick to the present annoyance rather than opening it up. Will be too confusing and not helpful.TCO (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

From a strategic perspective I agree with TCO. Make sure the case stays about Rod and doesn't become about Malleus. –Grondemar 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks-- I'm going to be traveling a good deal of March and won't be able to follow the case closely; I worry about launching it unless others are able to keep it on track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've decided not to go forward at this time, mostly for two reasons: 1) my pending travel (I feel it irresponsible to launch an RFAR when I can't follow it closely), and 2) community and arb intervention. I'll add that I was additionally concerned, in this case, that Andy was in the midst of pr/aring at FAC when this surfaced. I don't know how Andy does it, but when I go into pr/ar mode, I "put on a different hat" to fully focus on FAC. You might notice that I don't make typos when I'm promoting to the extent I do in my regular editing, and the distraction to so much of the FAC community due to the issues with Rodhullandemu was a concern. For now, though, I hope we can all let it rest and hope there won't be a recurrence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you like quirky articles, what would it take to get Turtle racing to GA? (Content has been hard to come by, review papers or books lacking.) Really want the plus sign on there, so what would it take, what should be worked on?TCO (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Turtle racing eh? Who'd have believed it. My overall impresion is that the article's a bit fragmentary, with too many relatively short sections some of which might be better combined. For some inspiration take a look at ferret legging, an even more bizarre "sport" that was at one time threatened with deletion but is now a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Malleus. I wrote most of the article but I don't have any experience with bringing something to GA. I'm working on bringing a "serious" article to GA soon to learn some of the tricks. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Would this be your first GA? In some ways it's easier to get the less "serious" articles through GA (and even FA), as there's usually far less material available from reliable sources. I was quite chuffed when we got ferret legging through GA, it's a great feeling. I'll take a closer look at turtle racing and let you know what I think needs to be done in more detail. With your permission I may even help you with the editing. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You're a good man, Charlie Brown.TCO (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

TCO, that edit summary...I need to go bleach my brain now ;-). Anyways, have you ever been to Boissevain? It's a nice little town, and that turtle statue is much more imposing IRL. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You really have gift there, TCO. And yes, Malleus, this would be my first GA and any help would be very welcome. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Way, way back, when I was starting out here I fell foul of a more experienced editor who told me that I should just do whatever he said, because he knew how to get articles through GAN and I didn't. He may well have been right, as he's now an administrator and I'm not, but his approach was wrong. This is an article you've invested a lot of time, effort, and emotional energy in. I'll have suggestions to make, but ultimately it's your choice as to whether I'm right or wrong. Malleus Fatuorum

Thanks for the good advice. I will definitely keep that in mind. Qrsdogg (talk)

Hi Malleus. Do you think this article could pass GA with some minor work? There appears to be no information in google books or web about its production but a lot about its themes. I believe its a pretty sound summary of the information which exists on it at present. As you said previously a GA it doesn't have to be "comprehensive" or particularly long or detailed. Your views on it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so I'll get back to you later. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ooh I managed to compile something on production!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ernst, I think that in principle it could be, of course. At first glance it seems broad enough and well-sourced, but I haven't looked very closely yet. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that content-wise it looks about there or there abouts, but the prose needs some work. For instance, almost throughout the entire article there are spaces missing between sentences. There are other problems as well, such as the repetition of citations after this sentence from the Reception section: "The film netted a reported Rs. 1,06,35,95000, making it the highest grossing Bollywood film ever at the time". The second paragraph of that same section contains a quotation, but there's no indication of where that quotation ends. And what does "heavily watched" (from the lead) mean? Basically I think that if you can find a willing copy editor then this article could be beaten into shape. It's probably not a terrific amount of work that's needed, but needed it is. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that I am having a blast reading The Green Child, as irritating as it is to read a PDF novel on a computer screen. I'm only on page 41, but it's a pretty wild ride. Thanks for writing that article and pointing the way. All the best, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're enjoying it. It's a strange little book, but it fascinated me. I was studying psychology when I came across it, and this idea has fascinated me ever since: "words and things grow together in the mind, grow like a skin over the tender images of things until words and things cannot be separated". But to be honest I didn't really understand the book until I'd written the article, so it was kind of cathartic for me. Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

When I read the Green Children article, from a link on the Woolpit page, I was reminded of an episode of a British TV drama series in the 80s, I think, about a female(?) doctor in late 19th or very early 20th century England who came across two children who were orange - maybe based around this story? - they were orange supposedly due their miner father only being able to provide carrots...I am now thinking I should also read this novel as Woolpit is pretty close to here and I have been through it many times. Gotta love Narfowk for its mysteries and tales. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been labouring away for far too long now on the original story of the green children of Woolpit, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever finish it. Malleus Fatuorum 05:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was reminded of Peter Reich's A Book of Dreams (and those really need to be blue links), if only for atmospheric reasons. As for the Green children--Cohen's article is very interesting (though dense, as befits a postmodern scholar), and I've used his work in classes on monsters and race. Maybe I'll have a go at a summary. (BTW, he has "children" with a capital C: we can move it back and forth and start an edit war, of course.) I wish I could print out the remaining two chapters of Read's book and take 'em to bed, but for tonight The Return of the Native will have to do. Drmies (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For my money you can just skim the second chapter. It's really just a Boy's Own Adventure kind of thing, exploring Read's developing ideas on dictatorship and anarchism. Interesting from that perspective, but irrelevant to the overall story. Malleus Fatuorum 05:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. If you feel like helping out at the green children's article (or if anyone else watching does) you'll be more than welcome. I was hoping yesterday to add something about the various extraterrestrial theories, dating back to the 17th century, and literature influenced by the story, but, well, events intervened. Is there anything else you can see that's missing? Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You may be aware of this already, but an interesting use of the green-children story can be found in Randolph Stow's novel The Girl Green as Elderflower. Deor (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but I'm aware of it. There are a surprising (to me anyway) number of books that have taken their inspiration from this story. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has the time and lives near Bury St. Edmund, or Suffolk, there is a lecture planned on the Green Children for 9 March 2011 at Moyse's Museum [7]. Unfortunately it is mid afternoon so I cannot attend :¬(

There was also a half-hour radio programme on them on Radio 4 back in June 2010 which I cannot seem to find a copy of [8] - although there is one it seems to be a dodgy site. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Radio 4 programme was available on iPlayer, may still be, but it didn't really have much to say about this particular story, more an investigation into the theme of "green" in folklore. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I managed to get hold of a copy in the end, you were right (as always lol) as it was mainly a waste of time with some dickwad going on about representing fertility rights and other ephemeral crap, the second half being about some musical for children.

One thing did come to light though, about the Flemish weavers who moved into East Anglia around 1600. The lady talking about them seemed to be more normal than the other spaced out weirdies, and described a battle that took place against the weavers at Fornham St Genevieve in 1173 and said that may well account for them wandering about the area. I will try and locate some info on that event (unless someone already has any info?). Chaosdruid (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The battle wasn't against the Flemish weavers, but against the Flemish mercenaries. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol - so maybe she was spaced out after all! I suppose they could have been part of the entourage, unless you have further info? My sources are rather lacking on Suffolk, being mainly general histories of England in books from 1680 onwards and some of detail on the Gtr. Manchester area> I do have more archaeological excavation detail based ones on Norfolk, rather than history books. Still, I would be more than happy to start collecting some on Suffolk. I will get on to it tomorrow. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus, I see you're much in demand, but if you could spare me a few minutes, I'd be grateful. Long story short, I've spent four days and 200 edits taking an article on an outspoken, whisky-drinking, cigar-smoking General from this to this. I've nominated him for GA and would be keen to take him all the way up to FA. Since you're one of the best GA reviewers and copy-editors in the business, I'd appreciate your feedback (if you don't have the time or inclination to take on the GAN, just a few suggestions would be great), particularly on MoS compliance and prose. Thanks a lot, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'm at best a D-grade reviewer.[9] I've not done any GA reviews for some time now, nor FA ones come to that, as recent events have sapped my willingness to do so. But I'll take a look at Mike (probably tomorrow) and let you know what I think. Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I always admired your work when it popped up on my watchlist! Don't feel you need to rush on Jacko, but I'd appreciate any feedback when you have the time. I can see how "recent events" might have caused your enthusiasm to wain. I don't know if it's the same for you, but I find writing and reviewing quite invigorating. It's why I joined in the first place and it certainly makes a nice change from dealing with vandalism and backlogs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Writing is difficult and reviewing can be pretty labour intensive. Or at least it is the way that I do it. But after one block too many it became clear to me that any future involvement here has to based on what I want to do, not on what anyone else would like me to do. I will never come to terms with the idea that in a project notionally tasked with building an encyclopedia the actual writers are treated with the degree of disdain and disrespect that has become the norm here. Still, that's for another time and another place. Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh Malleus, don't be facetious. Look at all those on this page who come here to proclaim their love and admiration--including the editor you linked to in this section. You even have admins on your side! Of course some may hate you as a human being, of course, but surely they love you as an editor and a writer. BTW, I don't remember if I thanked you for The Land of Green Plums--if I didn't, forgive me, and thanks, belatedly. But you're right about labor-intensive: it took me an hour to produce this, and it's basically just a stub. Writing is for the birds. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty good for an hour's work, much more than a stub. Dr. Blofeld and I sorted out our differences a little while ago, I just like to keep his observation as a memento. Malleus Fatuorum 05:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Malleus, you could always strive for C-class, that should suffice.. LOL. Honestly Malleus, please resume GA reviewing....♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't immediately recognise the name, my first thought was that this was about some American Confederate general. I've signed up to do the review, so may God have mercy on your soul. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How is it decided if dates should be formatted as 'day month year' or 'month day year' in an article? There are certainly English speakers who would argue for either method. BollyJeff || talk 18:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You can indeed choose either "day month year" or "month day, year" for any article, but whichever you pick has to be used consistently throughout the article, which Mother India currently does not do. Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as that .. if an article is on a subject where they'd usually use one format or the other, you should use the appropriate format. Thus articles on English/British subjects (such as Gunpowder Plot) should use day month year and articles on American subjects should use (such as Statue of Liberty) should use month day year. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and articles on Indian (former British colony) subjects usually go with 'day month year'. Most of the dates in Mother India were this way until you stared changing them. BollyJeff || talk 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they were not, and are not. Almost every date in the body of the text is in "month day year" format. But look, just do whatever you want with the article, I really couldn't care less. The bottom line is that as it stands it will not get through GAN, and not just because of your inconsistent date formatting. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, the text. You were changing formats in the references, not the text. I can fix that. If you have other suggestions for the article to get to GA, please inform Dr. Blofeld as well, thanks. BollyJeff || talk 20:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I was, to match the date format used most commonly in the body of the article. But there should be a consistent formatting style throughout the entire article, including the citations, whatever it is. As this is an article on an Indian subject I'd favour day month year, but it's your choice; just make sure it's consistently applied everywhere. For reasons that ought to be apparent I'm rather reluctant to have anything further to do with this article; I prefer to work on those where my assistance is appreciated, or at least not unappreciated. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So sorry if I offended you. I just didn't want to see you doing a bunch of work that I thought was going to be reverted by someone else. Happy editing! BollyJeff || talk 03:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Harcourt Brace, since at least when I was in school, mentioned that day month year was a pleasant format. Obviously, it is not majority usage in the states, but is known. What they advocated was of the form, 24 February 2011, as they felt the word breaking up the numbers was pleasant. And of course military usage has 24FEB11. Still, arguing about this is down there in the U.S. versus US realm, although still a notch better than the endash hyphen arguments.TCO (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

when I was in college, us medieval history students were taught to use XX Month YEAR as our method, and that habit is something I've never broken. I have to conciously think month day, year when writing on US subjects. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Then stick with it instead, and establish better usage. This is the English language Wikipedia. The Month-Day-Year convention is about as helpful as Roman numerals. The first three digits of pi are 3,1,4, not I, III, IV. Geometry guy 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,Malleus, after your good work on the Margaret Thatcher BLP , there is more, User:H J Mitchell is reviewing the Tony Blair BLP for GA assessment, Talk:Tony Blair/GA1, if you or any contributors that see this note have any energy to input towards the ambitious upgrade please join in. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Awa was going to copyedit it but... she seems AWOL. What do you think of it? And do we know of anyone American who can check my spelling of things (I'm half Brit at this point... )? I'd like to get it up at FAC when I hit Minneapolis, as I'll be mostly home then and can handle the FAC pretty easy. I haven't forgotten Hygberht, he'll be next on the chopping block. After that, I think it's back to the ABCs - Theobald of Bec is substantially ready to go, I think, at least as far as the research. I haven't forgotten your pirate bishop either.. I'll take a look at him when I get home. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The differences in spelling are fewer than some people make out, the real differences are in phrasing ("gotten" just sounds so archaic to a British ear, a bit like "thou"). I had a few questions when I looked through it before; I'll look through again and post on your talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

gotten's a bit archaic even in the states - I tend to use it more since i lived for almost two decades in the south. We have some funny turns of phrasing down there... thanks, I appreciate it. It's a neat little carousel, and certainly something ... different. I even took the pictures, so it's a all around work by me for a change. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

52 instances of the word "animals" in one article? Even the Tea Party article only uses "animals" 27 times. Ning-ning (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll work on that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about your last comment, btw. Let me cogitate on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cogitate away. I'm not always right, even though I always think I am. Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Before I go ballistic, would you be so kind as to have a look at the review here. OK I made a mistake, which I have corrected. But the rest of it ...? The reviewer has re-written parts of the text, and then reformatted the article in a way that is IMO stupid. Is it the function of a GA reviewer to re-write and reformat? He (assuming it is male stupidity) has re-named the Present Day section Location, and moved it to between History and Architecture. The section has ONE SENTENCE on Location, the rest being about the present day activities of the church!!! On a smaller scale, Assessment has been changed to Assessments; just a quibble, but surely assessment is assessment whether carried out by one agent or many. To deal with the "GA points". IMO the lead is quite long enough and detailed enough for an article of this length. Then to what length should one explain technical terms; where does one stop; how do I know what is "tricky for the general reader"; what are blue links for anyway? On the Heritage Gateway Note, I should be able to deal with that; this technique has been used and accepted for a number of FLs by myself and others, so it should be good enough for a GA!

So where do I go from here? The reformatting is absolutely unacceptable to me. Should I make some revisions acceptable to myself and wait for him to return from holiday; or pull out and renominate, asking for a different reviewer? Your advice is always valued by me. (And Liverpool have just scored, so life is not all bad.) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And they've won. Come on Kenny! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry to hear that (about the review I mean, not that Liverpool have won). Sometimes the only thing you can do is to refuse to make the changes, encourage the reviewer to fail the article and then start again with a different reviewer, or take it to GAR. I've had to do that myself on occasion. Anyway, for the sake of your blood pressure ( ;-) )I'll take a look later and let you know what I'd suggest in this case. One thing I'd never do as a reviewer is to reformat an article, and certainly not without the explicit approval of the nominator. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to PIV) Well, that saves me having to watch the highlights later! Perhaps MF's talk page should have a footie spoiler alert? Incidentally, Peter, your reviewer added a "location" sub-heading to St Tyfrydog's Church, Llandyfrydog (which is probably justifiable there, but which may have given him the idea for your article) and is suggesting at talk:St Mary's Church, Pentraeth/GA1 that I change "assessment" into "descriptions" or "listing and descriptions", a move that I am resisting, partly based on your usage of the heading(!) I'm not sure that I like "present day" because it doesn't seem to fit with WP:DATED / WP:RELTIME about avoiding language that might date, but the great and mighty MF might have a useful suggestion. Bencherlite^Talk 20:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The two of you are great pals! I feel better already. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I included a Present day section because in an earlier GAN the reviewer argued that in addition to a church having a history and architecture, it is also a group of people living now. I took on that point as valid. So what I try to do in this section is make links to sites that (I hope) are being regularly updated, or that are unlikely to change, so that the "present" time continues to be appropriate. I don't think that goes against WP advice/principles. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. One GA reviewer didn't like my use of the phrase "The church is still used for worship [etc]" which followed on from discussion of what had happened in the nearly 1,400 years since it was established. The argument was that this situation could change overnight and without much public attention, and so should have a "as of 2011" caveat. In his view, I could only get away with not using "As of" terminology for things such as "Canberra is the capital of Australia" and "K2 is the second-highest mountain in the world", since these were the only types of statements that were not likely to date quickly. By that argument, of course, every sentence in the physical description of any church would have to say "As of [year of source]", just in case someone rebuilt it tomorrow. I stood my ground on this point, and he didn't press it. Mind you, this was also the reviewer who said that I needed to make clear that the Church in Wales was a religious body, in case people thought it was "A civil body dedicated to the preservation of historic churches"... Bencherlite^Talk 20:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My ears are burning! I am, of course, the "one GA reviewer" in the comment above. I'm not sure that my arguments are being presented in their full context, but Bencherlite and I both agree that the articles got better as a result of the reviews so it's a moot point. My reason for stopping by is that, having GARred a bunch of Bencherlite's church articles, if you want to put my powers to work for good instead of evil I'd be happy to stop by other church-related Good Article Reviews and weigh in for the sake of consistency, if anyone would find it helpful. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Common sense sometimes seems to fly out of the window here. I'm quite happy with "Present day" as a section heading, largely because of the point you're making; ultimately nothing is forever, we're just making arbitrary judgements based on how dynamic or volatile something is or appears to be. I'd insist on an "as of" qualifier for statements such as "Mildred Compton is the director of the Children's Museum", as that could change tomorrow (thus casting some doubt on the usefulness of saying "as of 2011", but that's a separate issue), but not for a statement such as "the church is still used for religious services". I think there are far too many people here who feel the need to apply inappropriate, barely understood, and sometimes even contradictory guidelines to every aspect of an article, quite often to its detriment. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I guessed who this would be before I even clinked the link! See Talk:Sutton Hoo/GA1, not even my article, but by the guy who wrote the National Trust guidebook. Every 2 years I nominate an article, & each time the result confirms my belief that GA means nothing & is a complete waste of time, as you are totally dependent on a single reviewer, who may be a complete idiot. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That a small number of GA reviews are less than optimal doen't mean that the whole thing is a waste of time. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a very high proportion of a small sample. Rembrandt was nominated by someone else despite me saying it wasn't nearly ready, and sailed through. We'll see what happens in 2013. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Rembrandt, but it's easy to expect too much of GA. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Having just read the review you linked to above I can see why you would be feeling a little jaundiced about GA reviews Johnbod. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Wow, that started something! Well, I've slept on it (do you never sleep MF?) and my mood is unchanged. At the moment I'm of a mind to revert the article to where it was when I presented it (plus the correction), ask for it to be failed, and then submit it as a fresh nomination. The way it is formatted at present is nonsense; I would not nominate it like that, nor would I pass it for GA as it is. I had not realised how many reviews this reviewer was dealing with simultaneously; too many IMO for the job to be done properly. The questions asked could be answered by a more thorough look at the sources and applying a bit of common sense. I must agree with Johnbod that the GA process is potentially flawed; one reviewer with maybe twisted ideas can pass or fail an article with little accountability. So why nominate? Well there's a bit of personal pride of course. And then it probably makes one work at raising the quality of the article so that it can stand expert(?) scrutiny. And of course articles can be improved by going through the GAN process. One personal reason for my nominating articles is so that something can be seen to be happening in the Cheshire Project (little else is). Thanks to DustFormsWords for the offer. I am never sure about inviting reviews from specific reviewers; there is a risk of a too cosy relationship developing (canvassing?); that may be comfortable but not necessarily good for the article. I've done it only once — and another reviewer beat the invited reviewer to it! So thanks to everyone for their comments. I'll give it a bit more thought before I take any drastic action. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Dunnit. Feel better. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you've done the right thing. Articles ought to be improved during a review and this one wasn't. There's no harm in inviting specific reviewers or in accepting DustFormsWords' offer. There's no doubt in my mind that the article meets and even exceeds the GA criteria, just a shame you'll have to wait a little longer before you can put it to bed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got most of your points. I'm not entirely sure if my "fixes" on your first two comments made things better or worse, so I'd appreciate it if you could have a look when you get a moment (not that there's any rush). Much obliged, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked one of your fixes and have listed the article as a GA now, so congratulations on a nice piece of work. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. How do you think it would fare at FAC? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, I'd take a bit of a breather before thinking about FAC, and then look at it again with fresh eyes. I can't speak for whether or not the article is comprehensive, but I think it still needs a bit of a prose tidy before FAC. For instance: "During the Iraq War Jackson dismissed claims that the army was at "breaking point"; he admitted that the war was putting the service under strain, but called the claim 'nonsense'". That's the kind of discrepancy you don't tend to get away with at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll look at the prose when I've finished another project or two and then maybe get a peer review. WP:MILHIST is a well-organised project, so I should be able to recruit more eyes there. Thanks again for all your help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not looking for anything in particular with Calabozos, and seeing as you seem rather busy, I won't bother asking for any specific commentary, but do you think that you could give me a general opinion of it? I know that you felt my prose was not so tight in the past, but I've worked on spending more time on the writing instead of just typing information as I do the research for articles, and I think that my writing has, in general, improved. What do you think? ceranthor 23:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks quite nice actually. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the changes. As I said, I spent a lot more time writing it than just churning out information. ceranthor 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a common theme that binds together most of the editors I get on with here is an almost passionate desire for learning, and for disseminating that learning via wikipedia. That applies just as much to writing style as it does to presenting facts, so I applaud your efforts to think as much about presentation as about content. I hope that doesn't sound too condescending, but this article really does look like a step up. Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather embarrassingly I'll probably be making my 100,000th edit to wikipedia in the next week or so, if I don't get blocked again before then. So what what should it be? The transclusion of a doomed RfA? A vitriolic "resigned" posting? Perhaps a posting on Jimmy Wales' talk page explaining to him in words of one syllable or less where he fucked up? So many choices. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

100000 (number) (a concrete suggestion) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a few - year 100,000, Project 100,000, asteroid No. 100,000 or chocolate bar 100,000 hiding page names for a bit of mystery ;¬)

Congrats though btw, you really have made a difference and you should be proud of the work you have done so far. Lets hope that you are looking forwards to the next 100,000 - wiki would be pretty much worse off without people doing work of such quality that you have contributed over the years. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Turtle racing

Ask Moni-- she'll come up with a true winner. Slacker !! My suggestion would be to add French (language) to Category:Sexism, or add the Category:Ageism to all languages that distinguish between men and boys, girls and women. That would in true keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Add Category:Sexism to the Lesbian article. Collective heads explode. --Moni3 (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, wait ... is there no such thing as a transexual lesbian? [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is. I would like to see the Sexism category justified in the Lesbian article. Clearly lesbians are sexist because they do nothing but discriminate based upon sex. You know someone is out there writing 3 months of incoherent justifications for this in rambling 5-paragraph posts that recall quotes from Marcus Aurelius and Phyllis Schafly. --Moni3 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Add Category:Racism to the Kentucky Derby article - it's a race, isn't it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Make your best post ever to User talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of your note at ANI, I have reduced the block to 2 days (with a warning to him that I'll put it back myself if he goes after you again). This can't go on though - I don't know if Sandy is going to file an arbitration, but the committee are looking at it anyway. In the intervening time, I'd recommend not responding to any hostile contact - if he comes after you again (which I hope he won't), I'll deal with it, or one of the admins will deal with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've said all I can say on the matter, so I'll leave it to others now. Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI: [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have anything to add. It's no secret that I did not consider Rod fit to be an administrator, and the reasons why ought to be obvious to any unbiased observer. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to comment should you desire to do so, although the conversation (word used advisedly) seems to be entirely focussed on some deficiency of process which seems to largely consist of not having personally sent User:ANUser a summary of the salacious details :(. If we had held a full blown arbitration, I'm sure we would have had just as many criticisms for persecuting the guy instead of quietly sorting it out behind the scenes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I really have said all that there is to say as far as I'm concerned. I've noticed some ill-informed comment about my "chronic incivility" having in some way incited this sorry situation, and suggestions that I ought to be sanctioned as well as Rod, but that's life here. Anyone who was paying attention – which doesn't seem to include many of those commenting – could very easily guess what's going on, and why Rod is so reluctant to make the correspondence between him and ArbCom public. His pretence that he has no idea why he's been desysopped, and that it was almost certainly in his own best interest, simply beggars belief. Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I agree-- hang in there :) Nobody said being an arb was fun :/ Malleus, I've avoided correcting statements about you because it's really best to keep the focus here where it belongs, which is on ArbCom processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It was inevitable that some would look to use this situation to even a few old scores though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe that this is still rumbling on. If Rod wants a full and public hearing all he has to do is to ask for one; it's rather telling, and understandable, that he hasn't. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turtle_racing&diff=prev&oldid=415963325 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.216.178 (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hah! I'd forgotten about deleted edits. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You could still do the other 100,000 and have two, like the Queens birthday :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Malleus! It's been a while since we encountered each other, but I'm happy to see you are still editing. Given the excellent work you've done on a couple of my previous articles, and providing you have time for it, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at 1906 French Grand Prix for me. I'm hoping to take it to FAC, and I know from experience that extra eyes to help smooth out any mistakes or awkward prose can be invaluable. Thanks, Apterygial 10:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. That's a very nice article. I particularly like the photo at the end, of Szisz (or his mechanic) pouring petrol into their car with a fag hanging out of his mouth. Health and Safety eat your heart out. Good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but they were real men. They'd just spent hours speeding along in a car with a huge engine that could disintegrate at any moment, over roads that were not only poor quality but were trying to blind them. They were entitled to a bit of luxury, and flammable liquids weren't going to stand in the way. Apterygial 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to copyedit iLoo?Smallman12q (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to help with that, sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Too right, Malleus is preparing himself for Drunkard's cloak :) Parrot of Doom 21:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Where do you find them? Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)