Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank God, at last! --Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for another book to clarify matters in the 35-odd years since the Lee book, and it needs a couple more read-throughs to trim the rough edges, but what else do you suppose I could write about this bloke, before sending him to FAC? Parrot of Doom 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Have you has a look at Edward Lowe? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's another damn fine piece of work PoD, just about ready for FAC I'd say. Here am I wasting my considerable talents on bawdy trivia and you're churning out masterpieces like this. :lol:

On a completely different subject you mentioned on this page a week or so ago that you were contemplating a career change, or at least a return to full-time study. What are you thinking of studying? Answer privately if you'd prefer, or not at all if you think I'm being too nosey. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The Lee book I'm certain has a few things wrong which Konstam has since corrected (new papers found, etc, correcting dates) so that's what I'm waiting for. The post office have it somewhere.

I'm thinking of an English Degree at the Open University. Work isn't too bad at the moment, but there are no guarantees in television and I have no other advertisable skills other than pointing a camera at a fast moving object or sticking a microphone in the right place. Teaching is something I reckon I could do quite well, and its the only thing I could see myself doing other than television, so I figured I may as well get the qualifications and training out of the way. I have to wait until October now, though. Parrot of Doom 23:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, astoundingly, Trafford libraries have come up trumps again and found what I think is going to be an excellent source for Elizabeth Canning, so that'll be another 18th-century scandal to work into shape. Parrot of Doom 23:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OU degrees are seriously hard work; I've got a lot of respect for anyone with the determination and drive to get down to studying after a normal day's work. I did my degree the easy way, three years full-time on a maintenance grant most of which was spent in the Student Union bar. I did once enrol on an OU course on formal specification languages, but I abandoned it after I discovered that the course leader was someone I'd had a public falling out with in the pages of a computing magazine. Tosser.

Teaching is also seriously hard work these days, at least for the first couple of years anyway, after which you can just regurgitate the same old crap every year and look forward to your long holidays. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. In recruitment-speak it's "transferrable skills", not "advertisable skills". You'd be amazed at what "transferrable skills" you could lay claim to if you applied your mind to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be a little easier for me, I work between 2-3 days a week on average so I have a lot more spare time than most. Plus I think they're quite flexible in when you take the courses, its all split into little segments (makes it easier to afford also). I was going to start in Feb but was too late to enrol. Parrot of Doom 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey PoD - sorry to butt in - but have you thought of lecturing? Several people I know have transferred from journalism to journalism lecturing without a degree... they simply take a Masters degree (paid for by the Uni they are working for) - and Bob's your uncle. (And, of course, universities have even longer holidays than schools!). Your type of skills are, I have just been assured by one of these new lecturers, highly sought after. (Salary from £30k).--79.64.134.71 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly enamoured with the idea of lecturing students on, presumably, "meeja". Many of those students are part of the reason why I'm getting rather sick of this job, one can only work for so long with people who think that waving a Z1 around and filming everything that moves constitutes programme-making. Standards are slipping woefully low. Besides which, I earn far more than £30k actually "doing", rather than "teaching", so if I change career it will be a big change. I do, however, like the idea of being able to encourage youngsters to develop their language skills and historical knowledge, which are two things I think are very sadly lacking these days. These are all early musings however, and I may well change my mind at some point. You only live once... Parrot of Doom 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Given what I've seen of your interests here on wikipedia and what you've just said I'd have thought that history was a more natural fit PoD. You've even made a start on your first history book; Notable 18th-century hoaxes. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The degree sounds great! As far as teaching goes why don't you spend some time in a school (not on your doorstep, 5 miles is about right otherwise you trip over someone who "knows" you every time you go out). Get in touch with a head, and don't just think of the "best" schools, there is such competition for jobs in them, look at some of the others (the inner city can be very supportive not only to pupils) and be realistic. Schools have changed such a lot, mostly, but not always, for the better. I have seen some fantastic late entrants to the teaching profession and a few with high ideals who clearly didn't research the job properly. Unfortunately these days teachers can't always chose what to teach, even within their chosen curriculum area, but in my very humble opinion, it's how teachers build relationships and earn respect that makes it possible to pass on a love for learning and an enquiring mind (which you already demonstrate here). --J3Mrs (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice. While you're here, can I ask you something? Was DSCF0233 really taken on 1 January this year? There's bright sunshine, a chap strolling in a short-sleeved shirt, and no snow on the ground, but the snow lay for weeks here in the big city and it's still ball-chillingly cold. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hijack your page Mal but I know a few admins pay attention. Can any of them read this thread and sort out the mess, please? It needs a simple article move or two. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

They only watch my page looking for a pretext to block me, but occasionally useful nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Malleus would have been much more exciting, but unfortunately I couldn't find a reason, and I'm not creative enough to make one up out of whole cloth, so I've gone ahead and fixed PoD's issue instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks pal. The original "mover" did so without any warning or discussion, and then claimed that the Little Boots song was not a secondary topic to a Pink Floyd album. I'd issue a sentence of death for that, if I could. Parrot of Doom 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, death threats! Now there's something I think I can block for. Blocking you wouldn't be quite as exciting (no offense), so I'll just wait for Malleus to agree with you and then spring into action! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to go on record as saying that I think PoD was completely out of order in not assuming good faith, and that he ought to be taken to task and given a civility warning and told in no uncertain terms that personal attacks are unacceptable. Now you have your excuse Floquenbeam, my account has obviously been compromised. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But, if your account was compromised, wouldn't the Cabal be happy with the exchange, and therefore overturn my block at ANI and send me in for social reprogramming take away my mop? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a trick, check out the links. Besides, the Cabal do as they please anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For someone whose sense of humor is not failing them, "civility warning" is missing an entry. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, another of my many interests (I do have many!) is this twin beam pump in Radcliffe, which I finally got to see today (its my thread, and my piccies). I've emailed and pestered enough people now that things are in motion. I want to see it working again, or at the very least put back in order so it looks nice, and can be a tourist attraction. Another good example of how contributing to Wikipedia can expand your horizons - I'd never have found out about it were it not for doing Radcliffe, Greater Manchester. Parrot of Doom 16:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done for geting things moving on that. Looks like an awful lot of work's going to be needed there. I was amused by your "that crack may be a problem" comment. It's not a "crack" man, there's a bloody great chunk of the wheel missing! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It may end up in the Museum of Science and Industry, who knows, but I'd prefer it to stay where it is. Heavy machinery will be needed to move that wheel though, lol. The pipes are interesting, riveted along their length. Never seen that before. Its one of those things that I'm happy to spend as much of my personal time on as I can, and my own money too. I have ideas for public access and everything, I've thought about it all, the council want to open that area up to the public a bit, and I have the ideal solution for them :) Parrot of Doom 16:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fuck sake. Guess which twonk ordered two copies of the same book then? I opened this morning's mail, hoping to find the Konstam book I need for this article, and finding instead another copy of Lee. I think I'll donate it to the library, that'll make me feel all warm inside. Or maybe that's just the wee leaking down my leg. Parrot of Doom 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Did it come from Amazon? I've had the same thing happen with them. I ordered three books with their 1-click system and I got two copies of two of them, luckily the two cheap ones. I keep meaning to put them back up for sale on Amazon. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I use Amazon all the time for cheap books. It was my mistake, I ordered the book I wanted from one seller who cancelled, so I re-ordered, but I must have re-ordered while drunk and got the Lee book again. Oh well, its only 8 quid, pales into insignificance with the mortgage etc. Parrot of Doom 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No. BigStupid.

I've obviously missed something then (again). Any clues? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have caught up. This is to do with Mr Rodriguez again. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't feel my feet. (ask moni) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy. You crack me up. --Moni3 (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll pay tmorrow ... this is new terrotory for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I broke a fingernail, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Friends don't let friends edit drunk. MastCell ^Talk 07:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, shhhh! Yes they do. Just pass Sandy the beer bong and bask in the moment. --Moni3 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

all i want is a manicure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do *not* send chocolate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What about some aspirins? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Allergic. I'll just have to wait this one out. The day-after evidence indicates that only three glasses does me in. No wonder I don't imbibe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

At least you're cheap on a night out then. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can usually find other ways to compensate for being a cheap date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

O_o Must...look...away...and scrub brain with cleanser after visualizing.... --Moni3 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Me too, and my post was intended as a general comment without any implied criticism. All reactions I've seen to this are understandable in my eyes. This morning, I shared the disappointment and surprise of your first response, but did not have time to comment. Best wishes, Geometry guy 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth (and it would be worth nothing to Mattisse unfortuntely), I too have been saddened by this for months. I do not wish to think of people irredeemable and I was grieved to find every olive branch I extended rejected. I don't understand it. I regret that I may have been problematic to her mentors because I was very genuinely frustrated a few times. My own inability to reason away my frustration I consider a personal failure. I apologize, Geometry guy. I read over the talk page of Mulholland Drive recently, and I remember the way you and I began editing that article. I respected you then and I still do. I hope we can collaborate again and be friends. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to take part in a straw poll on my user talk page, Malleus. (I'd really like your input!)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you my input right here. Don't even think about it, it's a stupid idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, everyone I know thinks its a stupid thing to do. (sorry for the pun, though you may not get it to be honest.) Anyway, I was not the one thinking about it. Rather, NSD was. I created the poll to show him that any RFA of mine go down in flames.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I don't understand your banter. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine to me; surprised to see it tagged for deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What about this one: User:ChildofMidnight/Mermaid problem? Here's the deletion discussion [1]. There does seem to be a fair amount of synthy original research, but on the other hand it seems kind of notable, interesting and well sourced to have been noted and recognized as an issue in various works of art and literature. Is there a way to include the content appropriately? Should it just be a small section in Mermaid? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, seeing a Fortean Times article as the first entry in the reference section is about as red as a red flag could be. – iridescent 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(adding) And seeing a Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy entry cited as a 'source' pretty much kills the credibility for me. – iridescent 22:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that article, but I think you do the Fortean Times a disservice Iridescent. I'm preparing an oeuvre on the Green children of Woolpit, and there's no doubt that the Fortean article is some of the best scholarship available. Mind you, I suspect you'll point out that that's perhaps not saying very much. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that FT article that you mentioned about blood rain online? Nev1 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look through the FT site and I can't see it. I think I may have seen it Fortean Studies, which is a periodic collection of the more academically oriented FT stories. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

FT does indeed have some genuinely good researchers; Jenny Randles, for instance, is probably the world's leading expert on aerial phenomena, and Jan Bondeson practically keeps Parrot of Doom in business. However FT suffers from the same problem as Playboy in Wikipedia terms; the legitimate articles are interspersed with froth and fluff, and without verifying from footnotes it's impossible to tell what is what. (Heck, the very essence of Forteanism and "one measures a circle beginning anywhere" is that the loons are given equal airtime to the sane and there's no editorial judgement as to which are which; the disclaimer within every copy of FT says inter alia that "FT is a forum for [...] observations and ideas, however absurd or unpopular".) – iridescent 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. In fact Bondeson has been very useful to me as well, with some of the premature burial stuff – from his books, not from his FT articles. The problem is though, of course, that lots of the whackier stuff is ignored by the more mainstream journals, so often it's only published in the FT. With the green children, for instance, I've come across a scholarly article on a novel inspired by the story that references the FT article, as an authoritative source on the origins of the story, so it's horses for courses. Bit of a nightmare for Ealdgyth though, trying to judge the relaibility of sources; not enough to look at where something's published, but also at the wider reputation of the author. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Heck, the very essence of Forteanism and 'one measures a circle beginning anywhere' is that the loons are given equal airtime to the sane and there's no editorial judgement as to which are which". Kind of sums up wikipedia as well, don't you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Fort would have had a lot to say about Wikipedia. Not so much the 'one measures a circle' part, but The Book of the Damned; the preamble to TBOTD could practically serve as a user manual to that peculiar beast, "Wikipedia consensus". – iridescent 23:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I expect he would. Actually that link contains quite an extensive discussion of blood and other coloured rains that Nev1 was asking about above. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look now, and I've got so many issues with that Mermaid problem article it's untrue. Starting with the basics, who has ever used the term "mermaid problem" other than the author of this article? The Examples section might just as well be renamed Trivia, and the whole thing gives the very strong impression of being a piece of original research. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights Iridescent and Malleus Fatuorum. I pretty much agree. The options I've come up with are an article on mermaid morphology, an article on mythological animal morphology or integrating into the article on Mythological conundrums I created, that is not good at all so far. I think there's some subject there somewhere with sources, but I haven't found it. So it's an uphill effort so far, but I'm hoping that a great inspiration will arise in an epiphany or, better yet, someone else will come up with a good idea. Anatomy of mythological creatures? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say you're on a hiding to nothing with this topic. To do it justice, you're going to need to cover 3000+ years of history in multiple cultures. Just as an example, think of how much work would need to be done explaining the origins, characteristics, cultural background and possible basis in dinosaur-nest fact of:

• the ancient Babylonian Sirrush;
• the Dacian Draco, the Welsh Dragon, Níðhöggr & Grendel, Cuélebre, the Wyvern and the Lambton Worm in Western Europe;
• the Slavic dragons of Eastern Europe;
• the demonic Near Eastern dragons of the Golden Legend;
• the Vedic Vritra;
• the Chinese Lóng, the Vietnamese Rồng and the Korean Yong;
• the Bhutanese Thunder Dragon;
• the North American Thunderbird.

Then, once you've done that – which would be a long book's worth of research and writing in itself – imagine doing the same for the mermaid, the giant, the cockatrice, the griffin – even my personal favorite mythological critter (inexplicably overlooked by J.K. Rowling and the writers of horror movies alike), the Enfield Archived 2017-03-24 at the Wayback Machine.

And once you've done that, you'll have written a lengthy high-traffic article which by its nature is going to implicitly criticize major world religions, The X-Files, and the Harry Potter books. Once it goes into the mainspace, you'll then have an object lesson in the less savory implications of "you can edit this page!", and within three days the whole thing will have degenerated into an incoherent soup with little if any resemblance to what you meant it to say.

Wikipedia is superb at covering low-interest, low-traffic topics but the Wikipedia model is awful at covering topics like this. Seriously, don't try. – iridescent 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Just because my account is pretty new doesn't mean I haven't been reading Wikipedia for a while. You seem a little paranoid, maybe you should step back from the vote? QuattroBajeena (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW i don't think this warning is warranted. Malleus posed an observation that went no further than being an (in my view accurate) observation, and drew some off-topic ire from a third party (Hammersoft) to whch he then responded. Some of us who have spent time at WP:COI, battling vandals and POV-pushers are quite willing to assume good faith but also put up red flags as soon as we see them - such as was the case here. Lots of us read Wikipedia for a long time before we edited here, but to enter debates such as this one at the start of one's editing history does appear unusual to others of us too - which is what Malleus stated. All it was was a flag. Quattro, i invite you to strikethrough your tagging here, and particularly the suggestion that Malleus is paranoid, which appears to assume less good faith than did Malleus. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you accusing me of having a conflict of interest on? And accusing a new user of being a sockpuppet for voting in a Request for Comment is absolutely being paranoid. If you can't see that, perhaps you need to take a step back as well? I thought that anyone could edit Wikipedia.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Quack quack quack quack... The old, I've been reading Wikipedia for a while schtick. And I'm all for being nice to noobs, but it doesn't demand we be silly about it... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Quattro, i obviously didn't make my point clearly enough. Long-time editors like Malleus or myself or many others (CoM too it seems) see a lot of editors come in to Wikipedia with a lot of agendas, whether they are particular POVs in articles, or commercial agendas, or conflicts of interest, or a desire to vandalise, or helping out a real-life friend (AKA meatpuppetry, sometimes), and so on. Sockpuppetry is also very common. After spending a lot of time dealing with these things, it is common to assume good faith, but also to immediately, and sometimes directly and bluntly, raise the possibility of alternative explanations. In a relatively heated and intensely watched RfC, a newly-registered account coming straight in and engaging in an RfC about the management of administrator functions (something most new editors aren't even aware exist) is the sort of thing that will trigger this kind of questioning. I wasn't accusing you of COI or of any other particular problem, but trying to explain the kinds of experiences editors have that lead them to raise these issues. Paranoia is in the eye of the beholder: you think i exhibit it, i think you exhibit it. You can be sure neither Malleus nor I will be taking any steps back. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You got that right Hamiltonstone. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

MF, you've been templated by a duck; lots of those goin' round :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I lodged an Alert; someone else can file the SPI if that's necessary as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

An analysis of QuattroBajeena's contributions is rather revealing. Issuing a templated 3RR warning on your second edit? I mean, come on.[2] --Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

my first edit was an afd. maybe QuattroBajeena has previously contributed anonymously without an account. maybe QuattroBajeena is a new account created by an established user for this exact purpose but even if that is what it were so long as it is not being used "to alter the apparent weight of an opinion" it is not sockpuppetry. i find your overall cynicism of wikipedia very refreshing but am disappointed by this display of cronyism. attacking a user simply because they are new is the textbook definition of ad hominem. Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you've met before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand much of what goes on at WR. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You missed out on the opportunity to be on a 10th grade pep squad with the girls who thought they were popular. No wonder you don't get it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what a pep squad is. So much to learn ... --Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pep squad: Girls who weren't elected as cheerleaders but get to wear uniforms and cheer in the bleachers anyway. Sometimes they dance (the crowd usually hopes they don't). Generally take themselves and their role seriously but are egregiously teased by everyone else. This may be more practiced in the Southern US, where high school (American) football is king. At my school we called the pep squad the "whore corps". Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some schools they are the Pom-pom squad, instead. And some lucky schools have all three! Cheerleaders, pom-poms, and pep squad. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are times when I am so thankful I am not a girl in an American High School I could weep.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a dose of musical theatre that might help you understand, Malleus; what drives some people is quite simple. Karanacs, only a Texan could describe pep squad girls so well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If Lord of the Flies was rewritten for girls, it would be about girls on the pep squad and those who are not on the pep squad, either because they tried out and did not make it (to be forever scorned for wanting to do something and failing at it), or they never imagined someone would want to be on a pep squad (which would translate for the pep squad that they really want to be on the pep squad but are too ugly, poor, clumsy, or otherwise imperfect). For a week following the choosing of who gets to be on the pep squad, the pep squad is a united group, uniformly dressed and similarly rejecting those who are not within their ranks. Following that week, however, chaos unravels when the pep squad members continue to reject outsiders while simultaneously competing with each other for whatever their individual goals are: boys, trophies, titles, clothes, facebook pages, etc. It's a fascinating society. --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

April Fools 2011: a Moni, Malleus, PoD collaboration. That oughta keep you all inspired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy, Sandy. Once you write an April Fools FA you are forever immune from being recruited from writing another. Like chicken pox. Have you written one? Hmmmmmmm???? --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it. Ask MastCell. "The World's No. 2 Authority

I have an absolute blinder for 1 April next year, I just need to find more sources on it. Raul has shown himself to be quite brave with a certain article being TFA'd last year, but this one is easily as objectionable. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Go on then you little tease, what is it? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You've already seen it :) Parrot of Doom 14:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The best part about that CDA thread was Hammersoft accusing you of insulting him. Now, I'm fairly positive that you and I are both well acquainted with insults, in both directions. What I saw was you going miles out of your way not to insult anyone. It's hard for me to support a process that has editors like that slavering at the bit. Of course, you might be itching to implement it as well - but at least I moderately trust your judgment thereabouts. I dunno, I might stay out of the whole thing. Tan | 39 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If I'd intended to insult Hammersoft nobody would be in any doubt about it, as I'm sure you can imagine. I've supported the CDA proposal as a protest against the "admin for life" culture really, not because I particularly want to see it implemented or think there's any chance that it will be. I couldn't ever imagine using it myself anyway, just like I've never been to RfC or ArbCom, except as the defendant. In truth I think the fear some of the opposition has expressed that groups of editors may gang up on individual administrators is a reasonable one, and it would almost certainly happen. Whether they'd be successful or not though is another matter of course. My preference is for fixed terms of two years or so, with the option of some kind of straightforward renewal process in which other editors have the opportunity to voice an opinion if the administrator opts to carry on in that role, but nothing even remotely like RfA. I well understand the reluctance I'm sure every administrator would feel at having the run the gauntlet at RfA again; it's a harrowing enough experience even when you haven't been blocking and deleting for the previous two years. Despite my well-known views on administrators there are probably only half a dozen or so out of the 800 odd who're active that I'd actively oppose at any renomination, and I'd be surprised if they didn't know who they were – you wouldn't be one of them btw. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. Whatever problems we've had seems to be in the past; as you've mentioned in passing, we see eye to eye on more things that we admit. Fixed terms makes complete sense; it's too bad this wasn't implemented from the start. The Wikipedia society has too much inertia now to make sweeping changes - especially controversial ones like a fixed-term proposal is bound to be. Thus, our communities' answer is to create yet another process. You can probably draw parallels to various governments. Adding a bureaucratic layer - as I perceive this proposal to be - is hardly a good thing. Yet I still find myself wanting there to be any way to desysop other than Arbcopm. I'd probably be the first one up against the wall when the revolution came (see the latest thread on my talk page). Tan | 39 14:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to you reading over German Type UB I submarine and telling me what's left for an FA? Slipped your mind? If you just don't want to you can go ahead ans tell me. I'll be ok.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It did slip my mind, but I've also been a bit busy over the last few days with some RL writing, so Ive been popping in here from time to time as a little break from the serious (i.e., paid) stuff. I'll try and take a look later. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. I would imagine that your job would be more important than this place. (The joys of being a minor inculde no work) When you get the chance, just read over it. Thanks and enjoy your semi-wikibreak, AKA:Work (that is, if you enjor your job).--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When your time comes you'll find that Work is like the curate's egg, good in parts. When there are bills to be paid though there's little alternative. Anyway, I've just about finished what I had to get done today, so I ought to be able to take a look at your sub shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. For both parts.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've a quick look through and I think there would likely be a few problems at FAC. The first is to do with the prose, which ought to be fairly easy to fix, but needs fixing. For instance, "... built in Germany during the beginning of World War I" is at best awkward. How long did "the beginning of World War I" last? "Construction on the first boats ..."? Obviously what's meant is "construction of", as no construction could take place on the boats until they'd been built. You also really need to look very carefully at the whole article again for obvious grammatical errors like "over the UB Is' first year of service ..."; it's a singular type, so it should be "UB I's". You'd also need to be prepared to field questions about the German and Bulgarian sources used, or at least have the help of someone who could.

Overall I think the article is a reasonable GA that still needs some tidying up, but it's got a way to go before facing the lions at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ALright then. Thanks. Perhaps I shall wait until I'm fully ready to handle a task like that to take it to FAC. For now, I'll just do DYK's and GA's.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I weep for the loss of common sense. This edit just sums up for me the malaise at the heart of wikipedia; too many toss pots who think they're allowed to reinvent history as it suits them.

For anyone interested in the facts, causing harm by witchcraft (not witchcraft itself) was a crime in 17th-century England, and those poor unfortunates were convicted and executed as witches. Obviously causing harm by witchcraft is a crime that's inconceivable to a 21st-century teenager living in Randy's home town of Boise – it's an absurd notion to me as well – but that's what they were found guilty of nevertheless.

I've got an idea. Why don't we change the words in all of wikipedia's articles to suit the narrow-minded world view of Randy from Boise? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

*snark* "Live with it". I flew here to read this because the subheading matches a very good long forgotten ABBA song from their post-divorce cynical phase. Anyway, understand your frustration. Won't someone please think of the witches? Other than Roald Dahl? --Moni3 (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec with Moni the gadfly) Oh, my (I liked your response). What's a "toss pot"? @Moni: Laugh (and send balloons). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an ... err ... don't we have an article on it somewhere? Remember spitoons in those old Western movies? Well, spit isn't the only bodily fluid that can be ... to cut a long story short, "toss" is a slang term for masturbation. There I've said it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you have towels over there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahha! Malleus is embarrassed about wankin'. I think that's choice. --Moni3 (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If my extremely poor eyesight and hairy hands would allow me to reply to that, then I would. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't told me why you need a pot ... never been to a baseball game in Venezuela, I see (where you'd need the pot to protect your head from the flying bodily fluids). Moni, stop beating me to the punch; I just figgered out it's a wanker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a pot, but apparently others at some other time did. It does seem a strange idea when you come to think of it ... ah well, such is life. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you need to be quicker. Or have the lyrics to She Bop memorized. Good vibrations. Goin' out with a lion's roar, goin' south, that is one weird video--hahah self service...messin' with the danger zone, oh, Cyndi. You're so awesome. --Moni3 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, wait, dude! Dr. Siggy's Masterbingo! I totally missed that the first time because I was typing. That's so awesome! Lulz! That was 1984. Nancy Reagan must have shit a gold brick. --Moni3 (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Malleus is wankin' and you're mentioning skinny girls on diets? Where is this headed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't even have soap according to the Australians. "Hide the cutlery Sheila, I smell a soap dodger approaching." I suppose they felt they had to get their own back for us deporting them all though. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually Malleus it was all an evil plot to get you to disclose your sex life. Tosspot means drunkard. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see ... now Malleus is calling me a drunkard. That's what I get for indulging on his page ! Next he'll call me SandyChillin. Reading further on this thread, I detect a grand scheme between PoD and Malleus to avoid April 1, 2011. Serious 1b issues remain at tosspot.

1. Why did the Brits have the need to collect said bodily fluids in a pot?
2. Were they afraid to dispose of all of their future heirs?
3. Don't they know those tailed little buggers die quickly?
4. Was there an alternate use for the contents of the pot?
5. What became of the contents once the pot was full?

Inquiring minds want to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the witchcraft talking, Sandy. --Moni3 (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've responded here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit seems fair, just the edit summary is broken. We know (with moderate WP:V) that a number of people were executed. We have no real evidence for how many of them were witches. The history of witch burnings (and one reason why it's so misogynistic, in comparison to burning heretics) is that it was often used as a way of murdering someone in a dispute over property, and the targets of this were disproportionately women. Alleging witchcraft was a good way to remove a widow and capture a "rightful" inheritance. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If the law decided they were witches, then they were witches. Otherwise that woman who lives in Buckingham Palace isn't a Queen. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Gordon Brown should make an formal apology and give them a postumous pardon - hold on though, would they still be witches then? He could then give their decendants some compensation as they probably haven't got a pot to toss in. If someone was convicted of homosexual practises when that was illegal does that make them a queen? Richerman (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a quotation I had to take out of the Pendle witches article at FAC along the lines that "to the modern mind, witchcraft is a crime that doesn't exist". Nevertheless, to the 17th century mind of King James I it most certainly did exist, and a substantial number of those executed as witches considered themselves to be witches, Alizon Device among those hanged at Lancaster. Although there have been efforts to obtain pardons for at least some of those convicted of witchcraft, the official government view is that it is inappropriate to pardon those tried and convicted under the laws of their time. So these unfortunates found guilty of witchcraft and executed for witchcraft, are still considered to be witches. In much the same way that St Augustine is considered a saint I suppose. Once again, to a modern mind the idea of sainthood is absurd, or it ought to be. I do know that the Swiss government granted a pardon to Anna Göldi, executed in 1782, the last person in Europe to be executed for witchcraft on the basis of her haviing being tried illegally, but nothing similar has happened here, or looks likely to happen, despite periodic campaigns. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Something that always needs hammering home - especially to people who don't have the same cultural context - is just how ingrained witchcraft and witchery is in European culture. While some of these trials were "persecution of the local crazy old lady", a lot of the witches genuinely believed in what they were doing; the same cultural phenomenon lives on in the US as Louisiana Voodoo. Remember, the last successful (for the the prosecution) witchcraft trial in Britain was that of Jane Rebecca Yorke in 1944 (not Helen Duncan, despite what most sources say), well within living memory. That said, the authorities in Britain formally ceased to recognise witchcraft as real with the Witchcraft Act 1735. – iridescent 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The 17th century was a complicated time in England, in no small part because because of the religious turmoil that was going on at that time, as you know. Some of the "spells" that witches were accused of using were actually quite well-known Catholic prayers, and as you say, many did actually believe that they were witches, although not in the caricatured "flying on broomsticks" kind of way, which even King James dismissed as nonsense. I gave the example of Alizon Device earlier, who was quite convinced at her trial that she was responsible for the stroke John Law suffered after their altercation. The English experience of witchcraft was quite different from the European one though I think, and there just doesn't seem to have been the appetite for hunting witches in England – incidents like Matthew Hopkins were unusual. Reading the account of the Lancashire witch trials, in particular the the trial of the Samlesbury witches, makes it evident that "witchcraft" had rather little to do with what was going on. Recusansy and being seen to do something about it were at least as important I think.

Those later trials you mention (Yorke and Duncan) are interesting too though, and deserve a bit more work than has been put into them so far. They weren't convicted of witchcraft though, but of pretending to be "witches", which is rather a strange crime in itself. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

All English witchcraft convictions post 1735 were for pretending to be witches; once the Witchcraft Act 1735 had passed, the state (and hence the church) formally recognised that witchcraft didn't exist, so the convictions were always either for fraud or vagrancy. ("Pretending to be witches" isn't that odd a concept. Go down to your local Psychick Fayre or Spiritualist church, or read the small-ads in FT, and you'll see people claiming all kinds of dubious powers. – iridescent 20:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Moni, so glad to see I'm not the only one who likes The Visitors. The title track and Day Before You Came are IMO the greatest work Abba ever did. – iridescent 20:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. "The Day Before You Came" is hypnotic. --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, no offence to the ladies above! <Drops hat>...Any interest in a collab on a fairly harsh condemnation of the political motives and exploitation of popular superstition that lead to thoes trials. I've been building it up for a few weeks, though it has not come together for me yet. Its necessarly an ugly article, my hope is that by the time it is finished (about a month) it will be a proper eye sore. Nay worries if you are preoccupied, I'm just chancing my arm here. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's shaping up to be a lovely little article. Unfortunately I'm not any kind of an expert on either art or European witchcraft, but I'd be happy to help out where I can. I see the article already mentions the Spanish Inquisition, so that's a good start. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lovely? Eh, thanks I suppose! I might ask you for help with a c/e at some stage if thats ok.

No problem. One thing that struck me immediately is that the lead images are a bit too wide. I'm on a widescreen laptop, but even so the images covered more area than the text did. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not following things closely, but I keep seeing witchcraft mentioned here. I once read an article in a scholarly journal that retold an anecdote... from my vague memory... during some plague or other, a scholar was walking down the street and wiped something off his hands onto the wall of a house. It was probably ink, but someone reported him as a witch who was cursing households. He was arrested, horribly tortured and killed. I might be able to find that anecdote again, if it interests. • Ling.Nut 02:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Certainly sounds interesting. What I think is obvious is that hardly anyone really believed in witchcraft in the way we understand that term today, but it was often used as a device. As in the case of poor Anna Göldi. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with speedy deletion of Cousins Properties. It was deleted because there was "no indication of importance". I will concede, per WP:LISTED, that the fact that the company is traded on the NASDAQ does not make it inherently notable, but I should think that fact should at least save it from speedy deletions and force any deletion attempts to be done through an AfD. But then again, I suppose "thinking" is the problem, isn't it? For example, I shouldn't think anything of the fact that 22 wikipedia articles mention Cousins Properties [3] (even though most don't link to it). I shouldn't think anything of the fact "Cousins Properties" can easily be made to be a non-orphaned article whereas articles like Highland (Capital MetroRail station), despite being almost guaranteed to be orphans, per the afd, are "inherently notable" and thus apparently immune from deletion. Neither should I think the fact that, according to Google News, the company has been mentioned in news articles 5,000+ times since 1976, satisfies the An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources criteria stated in WP:COMPANY? That argument was good enough to keep the article on Cuil but I suppose I shouldn't think that that argument is good enough for this article.

I will concede that the article could use improvement, but that's an argument for making it a stub (which it already was) - not for subjecting it to a speedy deletion.

Also, I'm not interested in userficiation and indeed, if the article is userfied, I will delete it as my userspace is my own. I just think the article deserves better than a speedy deletion. If it was decided, through an AfD, to delete the article, I'd be content, but that's not what happened, now is it? TerraFrost (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article, I just drew attention to its inadequacy by tagging it for speedy deletion. If you believe that you can make a case for notability then go right ahead, but if you restore the same self-aggrandizing fluff piece then it'll be deleted again, sure as eggs is eggs. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I just did make a case for it's notability. I mean, what do you think my initial comment on your talk page was? The same sort of fluff you think the article I created was? Funny, because I think your reply is just as full of fluff as you seem to think mine is.

And regardless of whether or not you deleted it, the fact that you would call it a "self-aggrandizing fluff piece" means that you might as well have. So tell me - what, exactly, made it "self-aggrandizing fluff"? I don't believe it was at all. It was intended as a purely informative piece. It had like one sentence as I recall. It said it was founded by Tom Cousins, who has a wikipedia article, already. It said it was a REIT. How is any of that "self-aggrandizing fluff"? I didn't add any information that wasn't already on wikipedia. If the article I created was "self-aggrandizing fluff" then so to is the information I mentioned in the article. So if you think the article I was made was fluff, here's an idea: go delete List of public REITs in the United States, Tom Cousins and Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange (C) since they must obviously be self-aggrandizing fluff, as well.

Wikipedia has a policy: Assume good faith. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it because apparently you're not. TerraFrost (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has several policies I believe to be more appropriate for a nursery school project than for an enterprise undertaken by responsible adults. AGF is not synonymous with "suspend all reasonable scepticism and powers of rational thought", as too many seem to assume. Now if you've finished ranting please clear off. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) If you folks are enjoying this argument, don't let me stop you. But from a practical matter, it's serving no purpose: (a) I've restored the article and added a reference from the Atlanta Business Journal that will likely make it immune to a speedy deletion (b) it wasn't really a fluff piece, and (c) it's really annoying when someone shows up on another editor's talk page, posts in a needlessly snotty and aggressive manner, and then demands that they get an assumption of good faith in return. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly Tom Cousins himself has been nominated for speedy deletetion, and not by me. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties TerraFrost (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No thank you. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This 2nd cousin properties AfD is bizarre. I am finding so many sources its mind-boggling to weed through them.--Milowent (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What was bizarre was the motivation for opening it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes: several DYK regulars, including myself, are strongly supporting toughening DYK standards; we can't make it a written policy, but reserved right for reviewers to reject based on informal criteria. The key issue is having enough men*hours of good reviewers, and your help would be appreciated there. A few editors who keep the project running are doing their best, but simply can't cover up everything. Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I think that DYK has lost its way. For amusement I not infrequently look at the mainpage DYKs, and I'd estimate that about 25% are an embarrassment and about 75% of the hooks are "who gives a fuck?" The time for rewarding new articles has passed; it's time to start rewarding good articles instead. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're better than the best writings of many a "leader" or "policymaker" on wiki....not that this means much YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If I ruled the world and could make just one change at DYK it would be "for Christ's sake, make the hook interesting!" I mean, "Did you know that politician X runs an antiques store in smallville Y?" just makes me yawn. Maybe the criteria for DYK ought to be that the subject is actually interesting to more than half a dozen people. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what happened in the old days with only two people operating DYK in early 2006, but some people just went nuts and gave everyone an earful each time their hook got questioned, when the hook was just "...that X built this house" or whatever rather than "that John Devitt won the 100m freestyle despite clocking a slower time than silver medallist Lance Larson?" but the culture on Wikipedia rewards people for turning a blind eye to anything, so these BLP reforms aren't going to work either except teh usual posturing. Everyone who runs for ARBCOM etc makes the usual specch about standing up for NPOV but how many of them rv pov pushers? If they did they would get opposes at elections YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"... the culture on Wikipedia rewards people for turning a blind eye to anything". You got that right. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That what I was saying above - we failed to do that by setting solid DYK rules and can only press as reviewers - every nom has to be approved or rejected, and only extra voices at T:TDYK can help that at the moment. Materialscientist (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a disinterested commentator though is what I'm suggesting. I think DYK occupies too much real estate on the main page to the detriment of GAs, which aren't featured at all and are far more hard work to write. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(i) Sectioning of the main page is decided above DYK project. (ii) A large percentage of DYK articles go straight to GAN (I monitored that by seeing GA tags while tagging the articles). (iii) There was a move to bring DYK standards closer to GA, and again, it's all about (lack of) manpower. Sure, GA standards are higher, but it is much much slower and can't keep up with those recent events which are not good enough for ITN. Materialscientist (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps we may disagree about the details. My experience would be that hardly any DYKs are taken to GAN, and any move to align the DYK standard with the GA criteria would effectively result in the elimination of almost all DYKs as failing to achieve that standard. Your point about "recent events" is of course a red herring, as wikipedia is not a news source, and any sensible editor would delay writing about an event until the dust had settled on a few reliable sources. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You can check yourself that almost any DYK article written by Yzx, Sasata, Ucucha, Sturmvogel and a few others goes to GAN (some might not like their topics, but their quality is high even by my standards). Johnbod, Spinningspark, Cbl, and many others, also write quality content. User:Stone - a hard-core encyclopedian was turned to write for DYK ;) and find it refreshing, not to mention user:Dr. Blofeld (his edit stats would tell much). "Not a news source" is my background, but, that part makes WP No1 information site and thus attracts serious editors, whom we desperately need for quality content. Materialscientist (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though I never put anything up for GA; I feel about it pretty much as Malleus does about DYK, and judging DYK on the basis of what goes on to GA is a pointless exercise. Ceoil for one puts his future FAs through DYK if they are new. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not doubt that some are taken on to GA, but your assertion was that "a large percentage" were, which I think is at best dubious. In an attempt to establish some parameters here, would 5% be a large percentage in your eyes? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

5% is large for me, considering the numbers of GA/GAN articles and number of new/all articles. I am too lazy to get an estimate, and this is beyond my point, which is, with enough reviewers, DYK standards can become closer to GA. Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you are clearly not a scientist, material or otherwise. Your claim was that a large percentage of DYKs were advanced to at least GA, which is clearly rubbish. I think we've discussed this enough now. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I also remember seeing GA nominations fairly regularly while doing DYK updates, so I decided to check the manual updates I have performed since February 15. That was a total of 101 articles, which included 1 FLC, 2 GANs, and 3 GAs. Ucucha 19:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, 6%. I'm surprised it's even that high. I wonder what happens to the other 94%, if anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They join the ranks of the other three million articles that never see much action, I guess. I actually agree that Wikipedia should focus more on improving existing content, instead of adding new articles. Creating the right incentives may help in getting people to focus on that, but doing so is complicated by systemic inertia and by the difficulty in achieving well-functioning incentives. I would be interested in exploring possibilities, even when they are as radical as replacing DYK by a list of the newest GAs. Ucucha 20:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The overall percentages are about the same as those above. Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles has 34873 members, Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles has 1972, Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles has 517, and Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured lists has 287, giving 8% of DYKs which have become good or featured. Dr pda (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent)I'm with Malleus on this.

• The DYK criteria are to create an article or expand one by least 5x, so that the result is at 1500 chars of pure prose, all within 5 days.
• The GA criteria are more complex, but the ones I think most about are "reasonable coverage", WP:V and reasonable presentation (incl prose). IMO coverage and references are the most work, even if the article is B-class before work starts. The % of articles of B-class or lower that reach GA is very small. IMO the gap between B-class and GA is so large that in my experience it's usually a re-write.
• What % of articles reach DYK at all? I'd expect that only a insignificant % of GAs have early reached DYK.
• I'd expect that only a insignificant % of DYK articles reach GA within 2 years.

As Malleus said in another discussion, DYK is a quick and dirty job. --Philcha (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The expansion part of the DYK criteria annoys me. I've completely re-written articles in under 5 days, and eliminated virtually all the old (and bad) content. Yet still, my editing hasn't produced a 5x expansion, or, by the rules, a "new article" (even though it is). I say we should look at more tabloid style hooks, for instance yesterday Michael Foot died, and I still remember one tabloid headline from years back, that said "Foot Heads Arms Body". Parrot of Doom 09:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The general focus on new articles as opposed to decent articles is a relic of wikipedia's early days, but DYK has to evolve. I've been made to feel like a second-class editor because I've only created maybe 30 or so articles in my time here, but how many have I improved, and like you often improved very substantially? Wikipedia has over 3 million articles now, but the overwhelming majority are complete crap. Time for a rethink; son of DYK ought to be turning its attention on article improvement, not more of the same old rubbish that'll never be more than the barely adequate stubs that too many DYKs are destined to remain. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note This user has been blocked for ban evasion. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bloody stupid. What's more important, a technical detail that can't be enforced anyway or improving an important article? That's a rhetorical question btw. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to pretend that I don't know what rhetorical means and say that I don't think the community making a decision that someone is no longer welcome here to be a technical detail. It is the duty of admins to enforce such community decisions, otherwise the community would be without recourse towards persistently disruptive users. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is the duty of every editor to act in the best interests of Wikipedia. That means improving articles or creating an environment in which that could happen. Peter had stated that he just wanted to work on history of logic. This is a cock up to be expected of a bureaucracy where common sense is discouraged. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to follow common sense, not the supposed decisions made by a mythical community. You know as well as I do that there is no way at all to enforce blocks or bans, thery're just pointless willy waving. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting hypothesis, I hope you never try to test it as I really do appreciate your content contributions to our project. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, more veiled threats already. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No hidden code there, I was being sincere. Regardless, good day. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How many times have you said that on this page? Pardon me if I'm wrong but hasn't Malleus repeatedly requested that you not post here? Parrot of Doom 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

With your experience on Witch stuff, I wondered how you'd go about summarising a trial. The issue I have (and I've raised this on Richerman's page) is that Moore (1994), while apparently a very thorough piece of scholarship, is more interested in presenting the facts of Elizabeth Canning's perjury trial in minute detail, rather than telling a story. This makes it difficult to pick out a narrative, and to work out exactly when things were said and done (although I know exactly who said and did them). So is it acceptable simply to present a week-long trial as a summary, with "x said this, y said that, etc"? I think if I tried to present it chronologically, my brain would explode, but that would surely be the more acceptable solution from a scholarly point of view? Parrot of Doom 21:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Accounts of trials tend to be pretty tedious I think. I prefer to summarise (dates, defence and prosecution barristers, judge, how long the jury deliberated and so on) and just pick out anything significant or that paints a picture. Like 9-year-old Jennet Device being placed on a table to give evidence against her mother, or well-known addresses to the court before sentencing. I like to try and paint a picture rather than relate all of the tedious detail – anyone who cares about the detail can go to the source – but what do I know; I write like a journalist for The Sun apparently. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mess, but here's an interesting address to the magistrates before sentencing which turned out to be a hoax. You don't write like a tabloid journalist! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed a truly dreadful article. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it is. Plenty of work to be done around here... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tabloid journalists are pretty good are expressing points clearly and concisely. Fortunately Malleus also checks his facts and reasoning. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In some respects I don't mind being compared to a tabloid journalist; they at least make stuff look interesting. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The expense account is pretty cool too! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

NOW you're getting frisky, Fred ... hold the oysters! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You obviously haven't heard the "Fred the Oyster" sound effect from the Goon Show :p --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There must be a YouTube! Since I'm so "exercised", maybe I should watch one LOL !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised, I can't find one. As I've piqued your interest I shall get one sorted for tomorrow. I think it could even be a fair use ogg for the Goon Show article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Harrrrumph, you already spoiled one party today-- you ruined my joke at ANI. Are you trying to grow up and be like Malleus, who took down my best joke thread ever (he hates it when I remind him of that, so I'm doing it for fun ... MF, silly hat on !!) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Which joke was that? It was hard to differentiate due to the amount of joking coming from the other parties.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Way back when he called me a "slag", and I had to look it up, then I started a poll to find out which kind of slag. He removed my poll just as I was setting up a trail ten pages deep to get The Fat Man to come and vote! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I was probably joking when I called you a slag SandyG, ;-) and I'm sure that when Ceoil called me a cunt yesterday he was speaking in the heat of the moment. No harm done, sticks and stones. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If one of you called me the "C" word, I'd probably get out a mirror and report back to you on the status of said apparatus ... now, for Chillum or Shankbone, I'd say far worse things to them in Spanish, and they'd never know what hit 'em :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Malleus, next time you get blocked, can you please not make it on a Saturday when I was reading FAC? Can we not find a way to get admins to take Saturdays off? I'm going to sleep ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see all of them suspended until they can pass a basic common sense test. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• For your indulgence: File:Fred the Oyster sound effect.ogg --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently, I don't have *something* installed. Once I figure out what that is, and install it, I'll indulge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Following its appearance on the front page a couple of days ago Mendip Hills (which became FA in early 2007) has been put up for FAR. Some of the reviewers comments include "Choppy prose" (which I would be really grateful if you could look at) + lots of stuff about references & citations, which I will work on.— Rod ^talk 12:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, not much of a reward for your day in the limelight. I'll try and help out with the FAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your ce so far. Please put the questions on the talk page then others can have the chance to help address them.— Rod ^talk 07:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I got blocked last weekend in Welsh WP for correcting a page error that the Welsh sys admin, it turned out, personally favoured.
He blocked me for 1 year. For correcting an actual error, according to external verifiable sources.
When I asked the English sys admin community for some advice or guidance or direction in this matter, as to whom I might raise this issue with, one of them shut down my question, declaring it to be Resolved. No response, but Resolved regardless.
Then I got threatened with blocking for still seeking a response, even a "Sorry, we can't help you" response.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I got blocked once because I criticized a vandal. Go figure.

Was is it a North Welsh admin?  Giano  17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in Canada. My Welsh relations are in the south.

I assume you are asking, Was he a native Welsh-speaking nationalist? Absolutely, I had wandered into a Welsh nationalist minefield without realizing it.

Varlaam (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, just personal interest, nothing to do with nationalism, I have always found that the South Welsh are easier to get on with then the North - probably just me.  Giano  18:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The English sys admins automatically sided with the Welshman without hearing anything about the circumstances.

Circumstances are always irrelevant. I am merely some stupid user with a rhodium star.

It's the accent that does it... the southern Welsh have a much less annoying accent. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think it was I that told you that we really can't help you. That's because English Wikipedia administrators really can't help you. At http://cy.wikipedia.org, enwiki admins are just regular editors with 0 edits. You could try asking the stewards if you want though. NW (Talk) 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Several admins were sympathetic. Others were boorish and dismissive.

There seemed to be disagreement as to whether stewards would be of assistance.

So I just went to the top as I am accustomed to doing from my IMDb experience.

Varlaam (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Over here, we debate about whether "incivility" (guys are going to clash with each other, we're guys) warrants a 24-hour block, or not.

When I got blocked, I got blocked by a girl admin who butted into my chat with Mr. Vandal.

Over there in Wales, fixing an error gets a 1-year block, and he blocked me from editing my talk page and his as well, and the English sys admins are like, "Well, you deserved it, and we don't know anything about WP standards, structure, hierarchy, we're just a bunch of administrators, why expect anything from us."

Varlaam (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Over here, wilful page vandalism will get you 8 or 10 mild-mannered warnings in a row.

But don't you dare get uncivil.

Varlaam (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He's forum shopping, folks. This complaint is recycled from a week ago: he had already been referred to the stewards (before he had reopened a second ANI thread to re-complain) until someone looked up his Welsh Wikipedia contributions and turned up the real reason for his one year block there. Entertaining reading, if one needs a diversion. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#Help_with_another_language_of_WP and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#Unhelpful_sys_admins_who_dismiss_simple_questions_that_could_be_answered_in_a_second. Durova⁴¹² 22:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. I am not fucking forum shopping. I. am. not. fucking. forum. shopping. Is that sufficiently clear?

(Thank you for your help last week, Durova. I haven't had a chance to follow up.)

I am attempting to speak to another user like myself who I have spoken to previously.

Why are other users reading my private fucking communications?

Do you open other people's bloody mail as well? Jesus.

And what real reason are you referring to?

1) I was fixing a POV page by bringing it into conformity with the IMDb.

2) I was making it NPOV. Isn't that what all of us, sys admins included, are supposed to be doing around here?

3) I had earlier been attacked by an IP user who reverted my corrections.

4) Then the Welsh sys admin accused me of making POV changes.

5) Well, obviously, he was in error, since I was doing just the opposite.

6) Obviously, he had misread the log and confused me with the POV-pushing IP user.

You are welcome to reread the history -- a little more closely this time please -- since I am 100% in the right in this matter.

100%.

That page in Welsh WP is still wrong, and what have you done to correct it? Nothing. It's up to us users to do the heavy lifting around here apparently.

And not everybody was in agreement that the stewards were the correct people to whom to refer a problem of this type, this gross misuse of authority by a Welsh sys admin with a private agenda.

I got into this in the first place because I was working on my WP page that covers films about poets. I was working on a poet movie. The most innocuous topic in the world, you would think. If I had known all this was going to happen, I would have said, Fuck the stupid Welsh poet movie, I really don't give a shit.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

New day, new clown. Will it never end?[4] --Malleus Fatuorum 05:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Think of the average man in the street, and remember that perhaps 50% of the rest of the country is more stupid than he. Parrot of Doom 08:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You said it, brother.

So how are you doing anyway?

Varlaam (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is your page normally like this?

You were the subject of a great deal of controversy over in admin land, so I thought I should drop you another friendly note.

Apparently you can't do that around here.

Varlaam (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(I'm the one who speaks Latin.)

You might ease up just a tad Malleus. You are often correct and put up with an awful lot of nonsense here, but not everyone who disagrees with you is a jester. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone who disagrees with me is right either, and often they are just as "incivil" as they accuse me of being, if not frequently more so. I've never been one to be shy about telling somebody they're talking complete cack; if they consider the truth to be rude or incivil that's their problem, not mine. Perhaps if more people did the same we might at last begin to see a reduction in the amount of bullshit we see around here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There are those advocating for bullshit to be the fuel we run things on. I don't think it qualifies as "clean", but it's renewable. I see Wikipedia as something of a trial run for this effort. :) But seriously, I'm not intending to antagonize you or to call you out, but I did want to remind you that not everyone who disagrees with you is an oblivious moron. :) Sometimes disputes are just expressions of reasonable differences of opinion. And I freely acknowledge that you are "right" more often than not. But don't let your frequent dealings with boobs influence you towards being fresh with those who aren't complete asses. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair comment. Stumbling from one problem to the next it's hard to approach each one without just a little residue of the last. Just over the past week I've been blocked, bullied, insulted, and had to bite my tongue when others are allowed to make comments that would see me blocked again. So I'm a little jaundiced when someone comes waltzing into an old discussion on a witch trial article, for instance, objecting to the use of the word "witch" on the grounds that I'm a credulous old stick in the mud who shouldn't be so silly as to believe in witches. YMMV of course, but I when I see bullshit I call it bullshit rather than fannying around the bushes. That's just not going to change. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just seen it Sandy, thanks. The image Raul's chosen needs to have alt text written for it though. God, how I hate writing alt text! --Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Raul doesn't use alt text (shhhh ... don't tell Eubulides :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your last edit (and Misterdiscreet's too), as the discussion is closed. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. For some reason I didn't notice that it had been closed. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're still in the mood for some AfD discussion for one that isn't closed... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P90X (2nd nomination)‎ --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule I try to avoid AfD, as it's just a breeding ground for the next lot of administrators. Despite my better judgement though I've had a look, and I have to say that I'll be surprised to see this one deleted. Sure, it's written like it's a mixture of the instruction manual that comes in the box and an advertorial, and the sourcing is decidely dodgey, But basically it needs to be cleaned up, not deleted, I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I didn't expect a delete, but I do admit to disliking the advert article, so I think once in a while AfD can be useful in shaking things up and getting done things that need doing but no-one else has bothered to yet. I would have charged in and done it myself, but for the fact I can't be arsed, haven't got time, finding that images are far more my forte than words. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This sort of attack isn't appropriate. I have blocked you for 24 hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone told me to watchlist this page because it housed drama, but that comment by itself was pretty pedestrian to win a block over. Perhaps I missed out on juicier stuff. Oh well.--Milowent (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that is really taking the piss, especially given the accuracy of the statement. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On the surface, this block seems to be of the utmost of assness, Ten. Seriously. Bad. Block. In my non-editing-on-a-regular-basis opinion. What happened to civil warnings? Seems really pretentious, Mr TOAT. Keeper | 76 03:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Best part is, everyone knew Chillum would do this ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. Because I need more crap. --Moni3 (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it by a few seconds. Anyway, fully support unblock. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but plenty of us are tired of seeing Malleus as a whack-a-mole target, while admins themselves commit worse abuses. Chillum did not need to take it upon himself to revert all those edits, when they were clearly under discussion at AN/I ... it was an unnecessary provocation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You win, you are more stubborn than I am determined. Being abused by drive by trolls and single purpose accounts is one thing, but when the abuse is sanctioned and protected from rebuke by admins then that is to much. I am going to spend time on a project that does not endorse abusing its members. I hope you are proud Malleus, you have often said Wikipedia would be better without me and now you have your wish. Please know Malleus that is it not you who gets the credit for this, but rather those who enable you to do this. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bye. Keeper | 76 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

HOly moly, we're to rage quit in record time!!--Milowent (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

We should make an "I've quit, this place sucks, fuck everyone" template to save time. With an option for "I'll be back in three days when I've calmed down". Tan | 39 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. BTW. I'm still blocked. Have you all thrown me to the wolves? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Moni didn't remove the autoblock. Done. Tan | 39 04:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked again by some half-assed willy-waving clown. Sad. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with block. Moni3 is not a disinterested or objective editor when it comes to Malleus. She is misusing her tools once again to unblock a chronically uncivil editor who does much to lower the tone on wikipedia. I am not an admin, but I am plenty tired of seeing Malleus get away with murder (so to speak) and driving awayt other editors. As an editor that was driven away by barbs, attacks and harassments by Malleus, I see this as a sorry day in the history of blocking. It is too bad. The endless persecution crusades against Chillum should cease, if there is any decency in (or on) wikipedia. Talking image (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, now you're whack-a-mole and the socking-editors-attack target of the month! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I find the whole thing incomprehensible, but then I'm not an infallible administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure Malleus? There is nothing in the block log, and I can't find autoblocks. Ucucha 04:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Tan removed it just while I was looking - speaking of coordination. Ucucha 04:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Chillum ... oh, never mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c re to User:Talking Image): Stating that someone is "misusing the tools" is a serious statement, especially with a "once again" attached. You got any diffs to support your ridiculous accusation against a well-established editor, Mr. Talking Image? I doubt you do, just a personal beef against an editor that likely told you "how it is" somewhere along the way, to which you took offense. Seems your accusations would be blockable per your own standards of civility and fairness, no? Keeper | 76 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keeper, you're talking to a duck (quack, quack) ...I've filed the alert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. When will she ever give up? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, never :) But we all knew that long ago :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been gone awhile, forgive me for not noticing the unmistakable mallard noises :-) Keeper | 76 04:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There's some sort of initiative about blocking going on. I dunno if it's good or bad, but if prevents moronic blocks such as the above, it's OK. • Ling.Nut 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Morons do what morons do. but what advice has been offered to User:TenOfAllTrades so that he may improve his lamentable performance in the future? None? There's a very profound dishonesty on display here; Chillum's apparent retirement can only be a step in the right direction. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's just hope that it's not just the one step eh? Journey of a 1000 miles and all that... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave advice that editors who disagree with you and are upset by your comments should talk to you. I hope you're open to that, Malleus. --Moni3 (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to talking, so long as it isn't baby-talk like "You've upset my friend, I'm going to block you now". --Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I envisioned. Something perhaps slightly less nuclear than what you and Ceoil had it out about the other day. I am always surprised to see the ways guys, and when appropriate, boys, work out their disagreements. Bad words, a few flying fists, and then handshakes all around with me standing by going, "Wtf just happened?" Women, and when appropriate, girls, will either stick loyally right by you and cry, scream, and hug a dozen times to settle a disagreement, or carry on a clandestine campaign of silent but dangerous reputation assassination that you will have never seen coming. I'm for something in the middle (a shock, I know). A confrontation, tense words, back off a bit, see where the other person is coming from, then handshake or hug it out. If you can't seem to agree on anything, then separate corners. --Moni3 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Men will be boys. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this before, but Moni is spot on I think. Men tend to fall out, have a fight, shake hands afterwards, and it's all forgotten. Women though ... --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how depressed Chillum will be when his flounce off into the sunset doesn't attract as many supportive comments as MF's block. Anyway, for someone griping about grade school I really can't see them giving up the perceived kudos, cachet and power that the admin bit brings. He'll be back in a few hours/days, if we're really unlucky that is. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Careful, Fred. Hurtful comments like that could keep him away for a week or more. Keeper | 76 04:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Golly; wouldn't want that, would we? HalfShadow 04:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, no. What's the opposite of wouldn't again? HalfShadow 04:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Grade School" comment says a hell of a lot to me. Parrot of Doom 09:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we all forget Chillum and move on. If he returns, I hope he will have learnt that sanctimonious self-righteous hectoring and lecturing is not the way to treat people. I also hope that those who think like him will now stop and realise that such attitudes are unwelcome here, we are intelligent adults and can all handle some criticism especially that dished out in the heat of the moment. I am begining to think that before being able to edit wikipedia editors should be made to drive a car on the streets of Rome for a day, in this way they would quickly learn to differentiate between abuse and incivility and grow a thicker skin. In other words, learn to shrug their shoulders and get on with the important things in life.  Giano  13:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, great, I'm in like flint! Does driving a car in Rome, Milan, et al in addition to Buenos Aires and Caracas make me an automatic arb? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never driven in Rome,but I have driven in Paris. Does that count? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Only to those who like Paris. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Stars Are Blind wasn't too bad, but the rest... Meh! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Paris is great, and I like being able to practise my fractured French on a population who will not be shy about telling you when you've got it wrong. I meant Paris, France though, not Paris, Texas, which I'm sure would scare the shit out of me like the rest of small town America. Did you know that the land of the free has the world's highest percentage of its population in jail? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Over the last couple of days a few editors have compared me to you Giano, perhaps sometimes thinking that was an insult. For myself, I consider it to be a great compliment. You and I appear to be treading the same path in our different ways, but you are way ahead of me. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in that comparison. It was intended as a compliment. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I am just a better driver than you Malleus.  Giano  14:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't saying so much Giano, but I have survived driving through the centre of Tunis though. The standard tour rep joke is "many people ask if there's a driving test in Tunisia, and if there is, does anyone have to take it before getting a licence?" --Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a trip to Italy, MF; the driving experience will be helpful in your Wiki travails. Take Giano's word to heart :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been to Italy a few times, but only to ski. I have fond memories of a drunken evening in Tonale, involving plastic bin bags and a race down the piste on our backsides onto the (thankfully quiet) road below. Good times. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think that may have been our first ever ski trip thinking back, and it showed the difference between the Italian and French attitude. Our Italian instructor was more concerned with showing off and getting back to the bar asap, whereas most of the French instructors we've had concentrated on abusing their pupils. On one course a lovely German lady was given the nickname "Mrs Fall Over" for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As a student, I was a ski-instructor for a very brief and unsuccessful period, perhaps it was me? At that age, I had a scooter in Rome - one learns to drive with one hand on the thigh of the girl on the back (for safety reasons) and the other hand gesticulating obscenely to other motorists. It's a beautiful, happy, sunny country and people take insults in their stride with a shrug. I do seriously think it is mostly Americans who take things so personally and literally. Life is too short to worry about such things.  Giano  15:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. (I've had a couple of Lambrettas myself, so I know what you mean about safety.) The problem is the Americans, or at least the ones who live in the back of beyond. Drive round any big city and you'll see people shouting, hooting their horns at each other, using their hands and fingers in sometimes quite inventive ways ... c'est la vie. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think Chillum need to get a scooter and roar off into the sunset with a girl on the back see the world for a year ot two.  Giano  16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Giano, I live in Sicily. Go try calling someone a cornuto in Palermo, or worse, Catania and see how it's taken in stride.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That why you only swear when the scooter is in gear.  Giano  16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Sicily italian? I though it was Mafia. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss a good scoop? I didn't know Chillum was cornuto-- I resemble that remark. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled as to why anyone would think being compared to a rather delicious ice cream was an insult. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just the one...? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not the same as a spumoni Malleus! What does Jeanne Boleyn know that we do not? Perhaps that's why Chillum is always so cross.  Giano  16:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Giano, can you please take Malleus under the custody of your protective wings? I am very worried about any man who confuses cornuto with ice cream :) Let's deal with the Education of Malleus, please :) And, please, just why would someone named Jeanne know that Chillum is cornuto unless she ... ummmm ... was there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My grandmother and all the other old ladies in Palermo view American ladies with deep suspicion - all that make-up and big white teeth, very predatory, now she is being whisked off by Chillum on a scooter around the Quattro Canti, it can only end in tears.  Giano  16:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I know lots of Venezuelans who succumb to the same Hollywood characterization of American women as your grandmother. I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Does cornuto have anything to do with shirt lifting? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not usually, no!  Giano  16:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Americans couldn't fit on scooters Parrot of Doom 16:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! --Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to the shop and get the film. It is hysterically funny, tragic, intelligent, and thought-provoking, all in one. Oh, and this happens. Parrot of Doom 17:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the funniest things I've seen for ages. Must get hold of that film. "You Yankee fucking cunt" is a bit incivil though isn't it? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You know you're just the rudest man. THE RUDEST MAN! Parrot of Doom 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'm really happy that y'all are having so much fun, those videos are blocked on the prudish side of the pond. At any rate, whatever they say about American women, I declare myself exempt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Search YT for "In Bruges fat americans" and "In Bruges vietnam" Parrot of Doom 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's something I always worry about if I find an empty seat next to me when boarding a flight in an out of the USA

My skinny white American derriere refuses to be insulted by uninformed Brits and Italians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you a slim and chic and most of your compatriots think you are Italian.  Giano  16:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

HA, we're even! I always worry about the empty seat next to me being filled by an Italian with presuppositions about American women ... I have sooooo much fun playing with them ... makes the flight go so much faster :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Was that you going into O' Hare from Fiumicino last Wednesay? We must do that gain.  Giano  17:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I always travel incognito, refuse to disclose my bio to every man in a bar who wants the lowdown; did we make the mile-high club? Better still, just why did you fly to Chicago from Fiumicino, bypassing JFK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's just say, I had "business" - Sicilian business!  Giano  17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's Italian for "no mile high club"; wasn't me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictures? Returning to the subject of scooters, one of my passions as an ex Mod, have you ever been to an Islamic country? Women have to sit on the back side-saddle, as to have anything but their husbands between their legs would be a sin. Astonishing the rubbish some people believe. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictures? I'll leave it to Moni to supply fodder for your imagination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's Sandy in the background while I was extolling the virtues of rum with...Karanacs. Mrs. Moni rides a scooter. Me and my sizable ass borne of generations of potato-eating Irish scullery maids ride on the back sometimes because it's fun. It's not as alarming here as say, the driving conditions in Madrid, which often made me sink into the back of the taxi and try to ignore what was going on outside. --Moni3 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Darn, forgot to mention I've driven in Madrid, too. Does that mean I'm the new Jimbo? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Giano, you know that Italian men prefer their women (both mstresses and wives) to be formose and in carne. Which was why the slim, chic Carla Bruni had to go to France to search for talent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonna, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but your caro bambino had business in the good ole US of A. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you explain the most beautiful woman on the planet then? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhh! mia nonna.  Giano  18:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Even the most beautiful woman on the planet cut her eyes at more buxom lasses, especially when such lasses had frequent wardrobe malfunctions. I love this image as it illustrates my above points about the way women disagree, or illustrates the fluidity of sexuality. I think it's a bit of both. Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the "For God Sakes, girl, with tits like that, can't you get a better designer?" look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think American Megan Fox would have given Ms Loren a run for her money had she been around in the 50s. Now that is beautiful! And Dita Von Teese isn't too bad either.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice our Giano is rather quiet.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect, Nonna, that he cares so much for you, and is terribly embarrassed tht you discovered him lusting after American women. By the way, Nonna: what nationality is Chillum? Maybe you can assuage some of Giano's guilt by confessing all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, that's on the surface, a scornful comment to get a better designer, but underneath it's ""My powers are useless against all that cleavage! Such soft bulbous so full...feeling odd...that tramp. I want her. I want to beat the shit out of her." It's all so very complex. Yet simple. --Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's the "could my designer make the same mistake, so I can keep up and quit wasting my cleavage" look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather be Anita Pallenberg than Sophia. The latter never got to screw Keith Richards.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You say that like screwing Keith Richards is A Good Thing. Nonna, you are a devil ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bedda, don't forget the canoli!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(wakes up, rubs eyes) wow, I'd never even noticed that scene is the wire as anything unusual when I watched it the first time round. Very funny :) ...and yes, the best TV series ever made Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the TV shows of middle England --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, which one is you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? Shovel doesn't sound much like a name? meanwhile in another part of the galaxy. which one is MF and which one is Ceoil? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil is the cute one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Giano, you know that Italian men prefer their women to be formose and in carne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to poste petit morte? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Ceoil, that looks more like Chillum. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one in bed saying "turn the fucking light off". By a strange coincidence one of my brothers had his stag weekend in Brussels, and we spent the Saturday in Bruges. Well, in a brewery in Bruges anyway. I believe there was a town nearby, but we never saw it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to do a little national promotion of the easy use of "fuck", best TV show in years did its take on the use of the word within a single scene. --Moni3 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now we know that the male vocabulary includes one other word "pow". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You missed a lot in Bruges, but Ghent is better. Boat jousting! Don't get wet.

Varlaam (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I always wanted to trump Moni. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What it needs is a proper system of censorship Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again MF. Thank you for your conciliatory remarks, and thank you for giving me your perspective on my comments and the effect they had on you. I would like to give you my perspective on a little of our mutual history.

On 5 March I amended the article to change the word witches to the word people. Thirty minutes later you reverted my edit. Your edit summary said Live with it. There are various ways you could have dealt with my edit, seeing it wasn’t your preference. It was clearly a good-faith edit so you could have reverted it and then visited my User Talk page and left a brief note of explanation. Alternatively, you could have visited the Talk page and added a brief note of explanation under the already-existing heading Lack of skepticism. Alternatively, seeing your choice of word had stood for several years you could have let my choice of word stand for a week or two, or at least a day or two. You did none of those things but that is not a crime. There was no obligation on you to do any of those things. You chose to make only one comment - the peremptory: Live with it.

I spent a couple of days occasionally thinking about the legitimacy of Wikipedia saying 500 witches had been executed. I was browsing the Talk page and I came upon the 3 September 2008 comment under the new heading Lack of skepticism. This comment exactly matched my own view. I was a little surprised to see that on that occasion (3 September 2008) the same Malleus Fatuorum had responded, again to pour cold water on the suggestion. MF’s response was They were convicted as witches, ergo they are witches. ("Hmmmm. Another peremptory response.")

So I had met Malleus Fatuorum on only two occasions, and on both occasions it had been to discourage any thought of change to use of the word witches. For that reason I was being entirely truthful when on 8 March I wrote I see no sign that Malleus Fatuorum shares the same interest as 161.28.92.58 in improving Wikipedia by a process of change.

I now see that my statement that I had seen no sign of an interest in a process of change rankled with you. Your response was truly remarkable. Many forms of behaviour that are regarded as uncivil on Wikipedia are to be found in your 8 March reply - an Ad hominem attack and scare tactics. And the following gem: If you want to try and change history then you may have come to the wrong shop, because I'll see your sad arse in a sling before I'll let you bastardise this article, or any other witch article, because of your revisionist view of history. (Threats like this are reported regularly at WP:WQA. The author is sometimes blocked from editing for a day or two.)

I see you are an extremely experienced editor with nearly 69,000 edits. I find it surprising that such an experienced editor would be so upset by my initial remarks as to be tempted into seriously uncivil behaviour of the kind that is in breach of WP:CIVIL. I expect that the more experience an editor obtains, the better that editor is able to deal with the rough and tumble of daily life on Wikipedia. We all see our work amended and deleted, and we see our views dismissed on Talk pages. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF show that we must look past these things, focus on content, encourage others, and at all times be civil.

I will promise not to be so quick to assume an editor is reluctant to participate in change if you will promise just one thing. Please promise that you won’t again attack an editor with a statement like If you want to try and change history then you may have come to the wrong shop, because I'll see your sad arse in a sling before I'll let you bastardise this article, or any other witch article, because of your revisionist view of history.

Happy editing! Dolphin51 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Political correctness rears its ugly head on Malleus' page, with a civility dessert. I'm sure you had the best of intentions though. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster, the real discussion between MF and Dolphin51 was resolved at 01:07, 9 March 2010. IMO your comment "Political correctness rears its ugly head on Malleus' page, with a civility dessert" looks unhelpful to MF, Dolphin51 or WP. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not given that Dolphin51 left the above message 2.5 hours later. Now may I suggest that patronising lectures are best left on campus with young and inexperienced students. In the real world, when used with fellow adults, they just end up pissing people off. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

All very interesting but "your choice of word" is itself a breach of your beloved WP:CIVIL, because "witch" is the word used by the sources, not Malleus. Parrot of Doom 09:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What is this current obsesion with "civility" all about? It's getting to the stage where it is impossible to actually write a page because one has to devote time to the naive edits of the civility police [5]. These dull beige people are continualy trumpeting and pedalling their limited views on policy pages. Perhaps, if they grew up somewhat and realsed that the world is not quite as depicted by Enid Blyton and never will be; the rest of us would be allowed to continue that which we do best. No one is advocating that anyone say "fuck off you daft C**t", but adults exchanging their views strongly and at tme profanely is not going to be changed by a group of Wikipedia administrators - they should get used to that idea and get over themselves.  Giano  09:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:GiacomoReturned and everyelse here, I dislike the "civility police" behaviour too. I suggest:

• The "civility police" behaviour feeds on easy meat - so starve it.
• It's fun disarming "civility police" behaviour (and mix its methods) - many opponents who rely on "civility police" behaviour are weak on other policies/guidelines and on evidence and reason.
• It's similar fun disarming other WP:Wikipedia is an MMORPG behaviours, for similar reasons.
• This is an encyclopedia, and content should be king. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can give you an absolutely copper-bottomed guarantee that if you or anyone else comes here with their imaginary versions of the truth and expects me to buy them, then they will be sadly disappointed.

First of all, the discussion before your contribution had ended on 4 September 2008, when I questioned what the IP who inittaied the conversation meant by the phrase "definitive witches", to which there was no reply. Eigthteen monthe later you come along and restart the discussion saying "I see no sign that Malleus Fatuorum shares the same interest as 161.28.92.58 in improving Wikipedia ...". If that's your idea of a civil way to open a discussion with another editor then you've got a lot of growing up to do. At no point in your initial posting did you make reference to the specific sentence to which you were apparently objecting.

Secondly, "I will promise not to be so quick to assume an editor is reluctant to participate in change if you will promise just one thing." Why is your good behaviour conditional on mine? This isn't a nursery school, despite the best efforts of far too many to run the place like one. Now, run along before I tell you what I really think in words of one syllable. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you all please cut this out and stop squabbling like toddlers arguing over who broke daddy's watch? (MF, that goes for you too.) Dolphin made what he thought was a valid comment. You made what you thought was a valid comment. There is a glaringly obvious and undoubtedly accurate compromise wording, which you've both now reached. Nothing either of you do should be conditional on anything the other does; hell, since you've come this far without ever interacting before, there's a very good chance neither of you will ever need to speak to each other again. Some fights are worth fighting, and some fights are totally pointless, and right now this looks to me like the Wikipedia equivalent of the War of Jenkins' Ear. – iridescent 15:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of the discussion, insofar as it has one at all, is summed up in the section title chosen by Dolphin. Too many wielders of the sword of civility are blind to their own incivility; this has nothing to do with the disputed word "witch" in one sentence, it's all about poking the bear. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a very interesting diff. And it's extremely interesting to note that Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · logs · block log) wasn't blocked for this personal attack, and indeed doesn't even seem to have received a warning. Hans Adler 06:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem surprised. but that kind of double standard has become the norm. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "No offence"? "Biggest jerk"? Amateur! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
2. "And who the hell is Fred the Oyster anyway." Ceoil sláinte 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
3. what does your family think you're up to out there? MastCell Talk 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Let's just say, I had "business" - Sicilian business! Giano 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Don't you have towels over there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
6. And accusing a new user of being a sockpuppet for voting in a Request for Comment is absolutely being paranoid. --QuattroBajeena (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
7. "Day late and a dollar short, eh Brad? Thank God I saved you!" --Moni3 (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Pep squad: Girls who weren't elected as cheerleaders but get to wear uniforms and cheer in the bleachers anyway. Generally take themselves and their role seriously but are egregiously teased by everyone else. At my school we called the pep squad the "whore corps". Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
9. This looks fun. Keeper | 76 02:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Actually Malleus it was all an evil plot to get you to disclose your sex life. Fainites barleyscribs 09:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
11. And I am not going to ask "what's a willy?" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
12. I notice our Giano is rather quiet.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
13. My skinny white American derriere refuses to be insulted by uninformed Brits and Italians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
14. That why you only swear when the scooter is in gear. Giano 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
15. We need an airlift here; and that offer of donuts is still valid, Malleus. HalfShadow 03:21, 9 March 2010
16. Regardless, good day. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
17. Some schools they are the Pom-pom squad, instead. And some lucky schools have all three! Cheerleaders, pom-poms, and pep squad. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
18. The "Grade School" comment says a hell of a lot to me. Parrot of Doom 09:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
19. Troll. Goodbye.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
20. Will you all please cut this out and stop squabbling like toddlers ... there's a very good chance neither of you will ever need to speak to each other again. – iridescent 15:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
21. Malleus, I'm afraid I'm going to have to block you for hosting this discussion. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

    Gawd, that was too easy! My job is done here :) She can't help it; she loves us so ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm getting worried. Is this a pre-block party? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This just makes the entire talk page seem as if it is going through pre-menstrual syndrome, like when the entire sorority's hormones sync at once and 3 days before the tampon-fest the house is filled with crying, bitchfights, boyfriend breakups, and some drunken making out. --Moni3 (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a boy though. I'm testosterone-fuelled 365 days days a year. Well, I used to be (a boy that is). :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying the whole page, especially when placed in a list like that, looks like collective PMS. I lost my huevas some years ago, so my references to PMS are working from memory. A house with two or more women going through PMS is an awesome force of nature. --Moni3 (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Vocab check: cojones, huevas and totona. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dammit! That was a typo. Jesus! (and I mean Hesoos). --Moni3 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey-sus. Do you think I can become a writer by cut-and-paste plagiarism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, but you can become a cut-and-paster. "Writer" implies writing. --Moni3 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know what you mean, but I'm only guessing what hueavas are – can you eat them? My barber (do you have barbers in the US, people who cut men's hair?) is living with his new family of three girls and their mother. So far he's been putting a brave face on it, but I detect signs of cracking. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever suits your palate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

These cannabilism articles need work. I've mentioned the Donner Party before, a fascinating story. People have their reasons for doing stuff. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd help get Donner Party to FA. Already have a couple of the books. Freaky stuff. --Moni3 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's have a go at it then. I'm not sure what I can get hold of, but I'll have a look over the next few days. Perhaps Parrot of Doom might help as well; he's great with whacky articles. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to work in a sandbox. Are you ok with that? Should I start one? --Moni3 (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Let's see what we can do. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's here. --Moni3 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

May I help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Suzanne Pleshette was way too hot for Bob Newhart. --Moni3 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about it :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is MF going to go chillum on me if I delete these non-funny posts from my Tuesday night party? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, hush. My brain just kicked in gear and my heart skipped a beat at the thought of writing the Donner Party article. I have to carpe the diem when it comes along. Rejoice that your fun here may have brought something very cool to fruition. --Moni3 (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Allrighty, then! Carpe the diem, but just don't farve it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I formally withdraw my comment. It sucks in comparison to the one about the Italians and Brits....--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think this page just became "The Lottery". You don't get to withdraw your comments, ever. Posting here is like entering a covenant. --Moni3 (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well in that case, I've been screwed 160 times over.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Better stay away from Giano and his nonna, then: they mean business! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

His grandmother? Look, I'm a quarter Italian myself. (My "Nona" is full Italian. Grew up in Rome during WWII and now hates Germans, Of whom I am a part of as well....)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you seem like a collection of people who may know about a story I heard regarding a village in Russia where all the women killed their husbands over a short period of time. Ring any (insane) bells? (Cold, PMS, drinking...you see why I ask.) Oberonfitch (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"And who the hell is Fred the Oyster anyway." Ceoil sláinte 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you vote for just one line out of context? That was priceless. Ceoil. (It's all intonation.) Oberonfitch (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't picked a favorite yet, but we'll see if I ever host a party again ... Malleus and Moni have gone off to ... <gasp> ... write an article. And they didn't even vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did have a favourite but it seems to have gone; Giano's comment about only swearing at other drivers when your scooter's in gear. Of those that are left I quite liked your "Don't you have towels over there?" It seemed a nicely nuanced insult on at least two planes. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs towels on her oil rig :) Or something. Heart. Sandy. G'night ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not playing this game, as my witty comments have not been chosen. In fact, I am shocked and horrified by the lengths of depravity to which this page has sunk. Every other word borders on an obscenity. I think none of you her have considered how rude and upsetting your comments could be to others. What would your parents say? It's not clever making wisecracks at others expense - Have you thought of poor Chillum? Has one of you not thought - what can I do to ease Chillum's pain? Do you even care? What about the others who patrol Wikipedia's pages sniffing for incivility, while you are just selfishly writing content, they wear their block button outs daily so that others can chat in a warm and convivial Sunday school environment. Yet, here you are mocking their efforts and life-time work. I hope you all feel truly ashamed of yourselves. And as for Tickle Cock Bridge (down below), what can one say - the page should be deleted and the bridge renamed. Malleus could be writing about the Princes and Princesses who inhabit computer games and nice things, but he chooses something like that - what sort of a person is he? I cannot remain here a moment longer with such rude people.  Giano  09:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Giano, lei devi cercare di essere calma! And beddu, please don't forget the canoli!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• And is anyone thinking of the children, for god's sake? MLauba (talk)

I am. ...and the fact that I shall always be grateful that I stopped at two. I'd always wanted two kids, until I'd had the first that is. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something when the IQ tests were being passed out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No offence but your just one of the biggest jerks that I've ever met here. You have some sort of agenda against several people here and for what reason... well I have no clue, but for you to insult me for no reason is well....lets put it like this, not the best idea.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense? What the hell? Put your brain in gear before your fingers move across the keyboard, Coldplay. You have absolutely no idea what you're getting into. --Moni3 (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks fun. Keeper | 76 02:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Run along and play elsewhere, Coldplay; you should know that if you attack me on MF's page, plenty of civility police are likely to block you, and few of us would cry over that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes but you can just insult me all day if you'd like and no one would ever dare to mess with you. Am I correct?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about tangling with SandyGeorgia. Your comments about the issues with Mattisse are astonishingly ignorant and show you to be thoughtless and impetuous. STOP and research before you go off and make judgments about the people who have very patiently waded through this crap factory for years. Do this, please. --Moni3 (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"No offence"? "Biggest jerk"? Amateur! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone ... the deteriorating situation with Mattisse over the past few weeks has brought a lot of stress upon everyone, and nerves have grown quite raw all around. Now that there's a good understanding of what has been going on, can I suggest that people do their best to turn the page, or if that's not likely, that those of you who are quarrelling try to avoid one another for a few days? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Day late and a dollar short, eh Brad? Thank God I saved you! --Moni3 (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Exploding brain ... that wasn't a good dessert to the main course from Keeper. Honestly, Moni, do you just sit around all day and come up with these things? "I busted a zit on my shoulder?" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think at least one editor in this party has fallen on his keys. Keeper | 76 05:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. It's just a picknick when it comes to avoiding what people post on WR and here. "Let's all just be friends". or "Let's all try to get over it?" How can that be possible. We've got (IMHO) idiots like SandyGeorgia and Fred who love to get a crack out of attacking people like me and then we have people that are screwed like me who are trying to get out of this mess. It's not as easy as you'd think. And yes I have read over EVERYTHING. And after haveing a few converstions with Mattisse herslf, I think that she only socks because she tries to escape people like SG and whatnot. So sue me, It's my opinon. Take it or leave.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling another editor an idiot is attacking. Are you getting a crack out of it? Keeper | 76 02:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this going to be like when Michael Myers dies and the last person to see him kill someone somehow morphs into a serial killer for the badly produced sequel? Can I expect you to shoot passive aggressive non-comments and vague accusations, neglecting to follow them up with any substance, well, four of you, in a slow but steady campaign of morale assassination? Because that would be aces. --Moni3 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And makeing a joke about my IQ is too. Is SG getting a crack out of that?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the petulance of youth; does it occur to you that I'm referring to my IQ, or would that require, ummmm ... thinking outside the box? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I love how you are viewed as such a siant SG. Bust a zit? One word to that is Troll. Goodbye.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it you didn't watch the YouTube video Moni3 supplied a link to then? You do go off half-cocked dontchya? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just have to say that I dealt with Mattisse a fraction of what SandyGeorgia did, and I have simply hated every minute of it. H A T E D it. I would really, really fucking like this to be over. So if you want to play tiddlywinks with Mattisse in email, do it, but for God's sake, put your brain in gear and realize that there are facets of this issue that cannot be explained by Mattisse, who has a tenuous hold on reality at best. So, please be decent. Assume some goddamn good faith of people who never commented on you or your motives before, and just let it die. In the name of all that is holy. Just let it die. --Moni3 (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to "let it die". Apparently I got reverted. I can try again but the same results will occur.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't respond. Go to your talk page and rejoice in whatever you do there. --Moni3 (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm afraid I'm going to have to block you for hosting this discussion. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, block him retroactively for calling me a "slag" (sure beats troll, idiot, jerk and moron :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was beginning to wonder when I'd get blocked for this. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OH so is this an invatation for me to cuss you out then? Surely you'd not care....--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, seriously. Enough. Let it die. Stop responding. --Moni3 (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Coldplay, didn't you say goodbye about three posts ago? Good-Bye Now !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a sad day when I have to be the bigger person when someone else who's probably several times older than me can get away with Wiki-murder. I'm done. I sure don;t expect things to get any better to why the hell try?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to try. --Moni3 (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling someone's taking exception to being told to go sit at the little table during the family meal? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Coldplay is down: repeat Coldplay is down. We need an airlift here; and that offer of donuts is still valid, Malleus. HalfShadow 03:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which table is Malleus at? Or he is outside smoking a cigarette, trying to figure out how to kick out his rude dinner guests? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't smoke, in fact I hate smoking. I'm in the garden shed with a nice bottle of single malt. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You have wifi in the garden shed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's radio, it's everywhere. About to come in from the shed and go to bed now though. Go lots to do tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

G'night Malleus; thanks the Mrs, too, for the lovely party. Me and myself thoroughly enjoyed it, and the food and drink was exquisite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for being gauche, but when you take your laptop out to the garden shed for the night along with a bottle of scotch, what does your family think you're up to out there? MastCell ^Talk 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness someone came along for some man-to-man talk! (I was afraid to ask that question.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Could be worse, it could be a roll of Andrex and a mucky book copy of the Sunday Sport. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try and put your minds at rest. I don't actually have a garden shed, I was employing poetic licence. Might be nice to have a garden shed though now I come to think of it ... --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

At the head of the table with a large Cuban I'd have thought... and don't think I was talking about the cigar! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working on that one. And I am not going to ask "what's a willy?" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I show you mine if you show me yours :P --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Lookie here ! The 7th was the day we all went to Italy on scooters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, especially given the page we're talking about, but doesn't that chart look like someone 'flipping the bird'? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless we give it another jolt, it will on the 13th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I say give it another jolt, we can pay deference to old Winston then. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Those stats are astonishing. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. What's happening on the 13th? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The 13th would have made it symmetrical, six days on either side. Guess we lost the bird! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've moved the DYK nom to the dedicated sub-page for 1 April DYK's. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Malleus you greedy sod, you've already likely got the TFA, now you get a DYK! Parrot of Doom 09:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling is as much yours as mine. Says something about the stuff we choose to write though ... --Malleus Fatuorum 11:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why does every day have to be the same here? Must say I'm more than a little suspicious of an editor who turns up at AfD on their 4th edit in the light of recent events. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I'd probably go easy what with him being a new user and all, but his edit history seems mainly concerned with bureaucracy, and not editing articles... Parrot of Doom 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • If that's not another Mattisse sock I'll eat my hat. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
      • What kind of hat? Parrot of Doom 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Actually, I haven't got a hat, I'd have to go and buy one. Maybe a nice John Steed bowler ... --Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Stop giving her attention; WR will get their fill of her soon enough, they can say things to her we couldn't, and maybe she'll go review books on Amazon. I've queried Risker as to whether we should just add to the SPI, or what ... if the SOP is going to be just to file the SPI, we should just start doing it, no fuss, no muss. She's doesn't warrant a second of anyone's time. Heck, she can't help it that she's obsessed with us, poor thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Instructions are at User talk:Laser brain/Sandbox#To file SPI. I pulled that from my memory, so the next time someone uses it, they may need to revise/check/update the steps I added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony's made a few comments Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas of Bayeux/archive1, and while there isn't much about the second I can do (the terminology is pretty much set) and the third is answered, can you look over the article with an eye to the first point? I've got a house guest until Friday afternoon, so my wiki time is somewhat limited. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll get there this evening. Got an urgent report to finish off first. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know all about "urgent" right now.. we're off again. Much appreciated! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You always seem to know things like this - do you (or anyone else who happens to be watching) want to take a stab at working out what this thing is? – iridescent 12:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They look like they could be the bases of water or gas towers. There was an airship base about 15 miles away until about 1920. I wonder if it could have anything to do with that? There are what look they might be similar concrete structures there.[6] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See, I knew you'd have an idea. I doubt anything airship related would be that near a rail line in steam days, but they could easily be the bottoms of grain elevators or storage tanks, with the "movable rails" steering a chute for loading boxcars on the rail line. – iridescent 13:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For lack of further evidence I'd say that the base of some kind of tower or storage tank is most likely. I had half an idea that they were using helium in at least some early airships, but on checking I see I was wrong; that didn't become available in the quantities needed until quite a bit later. The circles do appear to be very similar to those at the airship base though. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1938 OS map for Kingston upon Hull shows nothing but sidings. I'd suggest your next port of call is the library - they'll have detailed maps of the area. You should also search A2A for railway records, for instance I got this image from Greater Manchester County Records Office, and that was found via A2A. They certainly look like the base of something to me, there are similar structures in here, but I know for a fact that a sewage treatment works was there. You should also join a railway forum, anyone there familiar with railway infrastructure will tell you immediately if they're railway-related. Parrot of Doom 22:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi - in regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didsbury&diff=347814770&oldid=347814450 - you answered your own question in your edit summary

BA needs to be listed as it is an obviously notable company- it is the national airline of the UK, and its regional subsidiary has its head office there. If a company has its head office in a neighborhood of a larger city, that neighborhood article must mention the existence of the company offices. Also I do not know of any other major employers in Didsbury. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you never heard of Siemens? I don't know how many Siemens employs in its building, but Didsbury's working population is 7,400. Three hundred doesn't sound particularly major to me, but I've no objection to including a sentence on BA's regional headquarters. Would you not agree though that the paragraph on BA, which included information on a subsidiary now closed, gave undue weight to BA, a relatively small local employer? It was also almost exclusively sourced to BA itself, a primary source; we should be relying on secondary sources, not primary. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case the solution would be add the information about the Siemens workforce in Didsbury. The section about the Economy of Didsbury has the figure of jobs in Didsbury as 6,555 as of 2001; this may have increased to 7,400 at a later date. I'll see what I can find about the Siemens facility in Didsbury. I'll see if I can find secondary sources for the BA facility in Didsbury. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to stand in the way of your efforts to improve this article, with which I wish you luck, but you need to keep a balance. BA is way from being worth a whole paragraph in the Economy section. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The weight taken by three sentences (BA's down to three sentences, and is a part of a larger paragraph) decreases as more and more information about other things is added to the Economy section. I think that in this case adding more information about other matters will certainly balance the section. I found a lot of information about the business park that houses several companies in Didsbury, so hopefully by adding information the article will have a more comprehensive and balanced Economy section.WhisperToMe (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been having a read of the Didsbury article today (I kinda live there!) and it doesn't look too far off FA status. Do you think you'd have time to help me try and get it there over the next couple of weeks? I'd appreciate some help (well, coaching!) from someone who knows what they're doing! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's still a way off FA yet, but it's getting there. It pretty much stalled after its GA promotion, but I'd be happy to help you push it over the line at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great - I'm busy over the weekend with work, but I'll crack on with it on Monday. I'll have a scan of Manchester Uni library and see if there's any books that might be of use. All your help and advice would be much appreciated - I'd really like the opportunity to learn how to write an FA and Didsbury sounds like the ideal candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I help too? I'm a bit bored and I only have books on Yorkshire.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Many hands make light work; you've pretty much got the hang of GA now, time to mix it with the big boys at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's quite extraordinary how many administrators are blind to the hypocrisy of their own behaviour. [7] --Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why Beeblebrox is allowed to stay. Acts like an arse and doesn't seem to do much content work. Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never been to ANI before, except as the accused, but it seems to be a necessary step before taking things further if Beeblebrox doesn't get his arse into gear. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why he's here at all. It certainly isn't to work on articles. Parrot of Doom 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

'Cos no-one will talk to him at home? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that was harsh....even for you Fred.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Those brief descriptions make more sense to me—just as helpful and a lot easier to write. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this image would be the exception. I'd have no problem writing out the words for people who couldn't see them, though strangely when I added ALT for this, someone removed the name of the street. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that if the words were significant, which I don't think they are in this case, then they should be in the article. As I did for Marshall Stevens. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Malleus, got a question for you. An FAC I nominated was just opposed for this reason. As I said there, I'm not really sure what's wrong in regards to the conversions, seeing as you're English. Is Gene Nygaard referring just to the convert templates? ceranthor 02:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, the FA delegates aren't idiots. Just another expression of animosity towards me. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at an old version 19:32, 1 March 2010 and I saw no US- or UK-specific use - the article uses ...ize..., but that's recognised in UK. If the article no US- or UK-specific use before {{convert}} was used, then either "dialect" can be used, and then sets the "dialect" for future edits. OTOH if anyone finds clear evidence of US usage before {{convert}} was used, the {{convert}}s will have be changed to US spelling. --Philcha (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked the version immediately before I touched it. There is a {{convert}} template in the lead, and it doesn't use US English spelling. All I did was to add the missing conversions, using the same format as was already in the article. I absolutely would not have changed US spelling to international to suit my personal preferences, and I have never done so on any article. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I replied to your comment. No worries! ceranthor 21:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And it's fixed! ceranthor 22:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing working on a US article? Anything they can do, we already did better Parrot of Doom 20:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oooo, that looks very tempting. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I might have a go once I've got Canning and Blackbeard out of the way. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in the future you, Parrot of Doom, and I could work on something from List of earthquakes in the United Kingdom? I realize both of you are busy, but I think it could be an interesting experience. Feel free to decline. ceranthor 22:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Only if it involves murder, torture, rabbits, witches, superstition or filth. Parrot of Doom 22:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose earthquakes can be torturous... but I'm always willing to work on one of your guys' types of articles. Shoot me an email or something if you're interested. ceranthor 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an absolute cracker just above, but my next "weird" article involves tobacco and bottoms. Parrot of Doom 23:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually Manchester Earthquakes is on my list of things to do. Greater Manchester sits on top of four geologically active faults, and has a surprising number of quakes, most of which we don't notice, but I've several times in my stay here been alarmed by the house shaking during one of our minor earthquakes. Now, if we could only combine that with the Earth opening up to release the demons of Hell we'd be on to a winner. I've just got hold of a paper on the 1777 (? can't be bothered to check) earthquake, one of the best documented in the UK, which caused some alarm at the time. Your offer to help will be gratefully received Ceranthor, if I ever get off my arse and actually start writing the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I don't know what's up with Wehwalt's sudden defense of Mattisse and Heise, but please please do me a favor: you both submit FACs, and I don't want a tangle to spill over to FAC, so don't :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Who's Wehwalt? Just another out of control administrator who can't tell his arse from his elbow, not something wikipedia is exactly short of. I'm not sure I'll be submitting any more FACs until a few things are sorted out anyway, so don't worry about me causing trouble. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worried about you causing trouble;[8] when an attorney asks a question, he supposedly knows the answer, so for whatever reason Wehwalt has chosen to defend Mattisse and Heise, I don't think we want to go there. I'm ignoring the alt-text mess for now. And you will submit Donner Party, or I'll whack you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't, but Moni3 will. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, you wear your heart on your sleeve, and that's part of why people go after you (the other parts being that you don't suffer fools, and you speak the truth). Maybe if you stopped participating in WR, and just read it for jollies and occasional good info, you'd have more fun here? Are you going to edit war with me if I add your name when Donner is nommed? If so, I'll have all my backpocket admins block you :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help Moni with what I think is an important article, but I'm not bothered about all the BFAN stuff, never have been. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep your chin up. Hope this helps, User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Crazy stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Malleus. Remember where Ealdgyth suggested I bring this article to your attention, and you said that you believed it surpassed GA standards and that the reviewer's commentary was demonstrative of his individual needs rather than GA standards? No? Well, whatever, the article is at GAR now. I hope you can drop in! G.W. (Talk) 14:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Having only read the lead section, I can already see a glaring problem; at no point in the four-paragraph lead do you say who Philip the Arab was other than that he was an emperor, and skimming through the article I can't see it mentioned anywhere else. (I'm guessing Eastern Roman Empire from the mentions of Constantine and the fact that a lot of Latin-sounding names are mentioned.) – iridescent 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is designed as something of a subpage; hopefully most information on Philip would be found in the head article, Philip the Arab. I do have some details of his life throughout. The opening section gives his place of birth, the second section gives some details of his early career. The simple fact is that we know very very little about the guy. G.W. (Talk) 15:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think it still needs a mini-bio at the beginning to let readers know who he was. Remember, if this gets promoted many people (probably the majority of readers) will be coming to it via the lists at WP:GA or WP:FA, and won't have the faintest idea who he was or of any historical context. – iridescent 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Iridescent. I think the reader needs enough background to see everything in context. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

True enough. I'll see what I can work up. I am just concerned that our reviewers, who already call the article "unfocussed", will take offense at the addition of further background material... G.W. (Talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a separate issue I think. The article is just a bit too long though, and it does need chopping back a bit. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've written something up in userspace. Iridescent, Malleus, would this be satisfactory piece of background? Can you see anything missing or that needs modification? Thanks again for your input. G.W. (Talk) 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Malleus! Yo, Malleus! [whistles] Over here! (It's a peer review for this thing. I'd still like your comments on the draft Philip mini-bio I made above.) G.W. (Talk) 06:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a great lead to replace the (very) short one currently in Philip the Arab, but it's way more than I think is needed here. All I had in mind was a couple of sentences explaining that Philip was one of only three Easterners to become emperor before the separation of the Roman Empire into East and West in 395, and that he was proclaimed emperor in 244 after (perhaps) murdering Gordian III. It'll be interesting to see what Iridescent thinks. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with the longer version, personally. My concern was that once this is GA/FA, many if not most readers will be coming to it from category-lists rather than from the parent article, so it needs enough so someone reading the article with no prior knowledge can understand it; you have to assume that your reader's knowledge of Roman history will only extend to Gladiator and maybe the Bible. For a subject like this, I think the more information the better. – iridescent 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The article's already a bit on the long side, but I can see the logic in having a potted biography of Philip right at the start, before getting into the details of his Christianity. I just probably wouldn't do it that way myself. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary. I doubt even people with a strong education in the Classics and ancient history will have any idea who Philip was. I'll keep the potted biography for now. G.W. (Talk) 06:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Blimey. I think that's got to be about the longest GA review (in terms of both time and bytes written) that I've ever seen. When reviews get over a certain size they're almost inevitably going to fail I think; SandyG's mention something similar in the FAC context. I'm not sure if GAR or peer review would be the next best step though, I'll need to refresh my memory on the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I happened to notice some edits regarding the 'close paraphrasing' issue at User talk:Coldplay Expert. Since WP:BLANKING is permitted perhaps you might want to see the advice at Wikipedia:CCI#When should a CCI be started?, if the matter cannot be resolved at the user's talk page (if the problem is widespread). –xeno^talk 17:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that I was violating anything. I'll go and reword anything and everything that needs to be reworded. Sorry everyone.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why I raised the issue on the user's talk page, but my question kept being blanked. If you look, you'll see that I was not the first to raise this issue today; another editor raised similar concerns over another article. That has also been deleted from the user's talk page. I wanted to give Coldplay Expert the opportunity to come clean before doing anything else. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt - and that is to be commended - but if the user is blanking the section from their talk page then it should be taken up at other venues.

Coldplay, blanking these sections from your talk page is probably not the best way to approach the situation. Malleus may even be willing to lend a hand with ensuring these sources are used appropriately. –xeno^talk 18:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Most of my articles on U-boats are not copyvio's because Uboat.net only gives dates and info and I have to turn that into a "story" I'll have to reword these more than I normally do. Can any of you go over my DYK's and see if there is an issue and try to fix it with me?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And it would indeed have been taken up "at other venues", and may yet be; as you see, I have not insisted on those sections being restored, although I firmly believe that they ought to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the two articles that came up today, how many other articles are potentially involved would you say? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, not that many. I would take another look over German U-boat bases in Norway and any other articles that have a Uboat.net article on them that actually describes an attack oin them. Probably 3-4 problematic articles to fix up.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just about to head out on some errands. I won't pretend to be some huge article writer or anything, but I think that copy/pasting a block of text and simply trying to change the words around is a recipe for disaster. I remember reading some advice somewhere that it's best to read the material thoroughly, go away for a cup of tea or something, and come back and try to write the prose from scratch. YMMV... –xeno^talk 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm so screwed. Can you all help me reword them?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you make a list of which ones you think might be affected, apart from U-117? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll get back to you once I look over them.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok they are German U-boat bases in occupied Norway, a few words need to be fixed on German submarine U-241 (1943), and German submarine U-1065 German submarine U-804 may need a bit of work as well. I think that's all of them. Like I said, it's only for ones that have an attack on them.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Coldplay Expert/German U-boat bases in occupied France needs work as well.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A random check of German submarine U-162 (1941) a dyk today shows almost word for word paraphrase in the section about the captain's captivity. Might want to change that asap. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not write that at ALL. That was written by someone else. Not me.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

See here. That was User:Benea, not me.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps as a penance you ought to fix that one up as well, no matter who wrote it. ;-) Which articles are you working on now? German U-boat bases in occupied Norway? I could start taking a look at some of the U-boat articles with attack sections fairly soon if you like. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go and fix that up now ;) And yes, if you can fix up the Norway and U-804 right now that would be great because they are going up for a DYK. I need this behind me ASAP so I can get back to writing. Thanks Malleus.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed up U-162.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that and try and get to U-804 probably later this evening, and we'll get to the others in due course. It'll be a bit of light relief from some rather harrowing reading I'm doing for another article. Think of this episode as a learning experience, not a ticking off. The only people who don't make mistakes are the people who don't try to do anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK then. I'll make sure that my next DYK will only use Uboat.net as a source, not a copy and paste site. And ChrisO did a lot of copy-editing to the Norwegian article. Perhaps just a bit more rewording would do the trick.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence and kind assistance to Coldplay Expert here, Malleus. –xeno^talk

Sshhh! Let's keep this between ourselves Xeno, eh? I've got a reputation to maintain.--Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself lucky then, I was about to give you a barnstar (until I remembered your stance on such things =) –xeno^talk 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My view on barnstars changed (for the worse) when one editor took his back after I upset him. So my view now is that I don't accept anything (including trinkets like rollbacker) that can be arbitrarily taken away on the whim of a single editor having a bad hair day. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What was that supposed to mean? You've got a reputation to maintain? So does that mean that you can't deal with kids? I don't really care to be honest, just wondering...--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem overly sensitive CE, what if it did? In fact though, I was making a little joke against myself, nothing to do with you or with kids in general. Surely you must have noticed the circling admin corps just biding their time for some reason to have me banned, as I'm just a troll, as User:Beeblebrox delighted in telling me only the other day. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah. I'm not overly sensitive. And yes I know that there is a conspiracy to kill, overthrow to block/ban you as a troll. I thought about joining it a while back but thought that we would get a negative reaction from it. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be careful, Coldplay, throwing around the "conspiracy" word. You "know" this for a fact do you? I promise you the all-so-super-sekrit-admin-cabal mailing list does not, in fact exist. Half the admins on WP hate the other half. Read in to that what you will. Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You actually took me seriously? No, I meant that there were several people that want him gone.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, CPE, I do take you seriously - if you were not serious why would you write the comments that you wrote? And yes, there are indeed several people that want Malleus gone. Indeed there are very many that would like me gone as well. But a conspiracy? I think not.Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Tisk tisk Pedro. You should have know that me and Malleus always joke around. I was half-heartedly saying what I said. I know that there's no conspiracy. This is not a July 20 plot. There are no Stauffenberg here.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. CPE - you really are a little wet behind the ears young man, and I mean that with no disrespect and with honest intention. I'm trying to be nice, informative yet gently jovial here, and you've kind of missed the whole point. The earnestness of youth I suspect! Anyway, no need to take up more of Malleus' talk page with this as it is irrelevant to him. Feel free to pop over and chat on mine if you wish. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And a couple of other things - please don't "tisk tisk" - I tell my kids off for making that noise - and it's "Malleus and I" .... Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's called disgraphia, and I don't care. Sorry for not using proper English, Pedro. As an American, I can get away with it though...--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coldplay, this is not meant to be bitchy but I really would advise against making that claim; short of plastering your userpage with Stormfront logos, I can't think of anything that will lose you sympathy faster than lying about a disability. Dysgraphia would have no impact on the ability to edit Wikipedia; it's a syndrome whose sufferers lose the ability to write by hand and has no relationship at all to typing. (Dysgraphics-from-birth generally make great typists, in fact, because they learn typing from early childhood.) – iridescent 22:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps I should have worded it to say "disability to type but I can still read and write by hand". Sorry about that, and no, that was not "bitchy" at all.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have several disabilities as well, primary amongst them contempt for those I consider to be idiots and a deep distrust of authority – surprisingly often that seems to encompass the same people. Still, enough of me. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in becoming more involved in copyediting on Wikipedia, and would be interested in learning from you. Could you point me to any before/after diffs of articles you've improved so I can see how you go about it? I'm interested in all aspects of copyediting but since I specifically want to improve the List of bow tie wearers as a first project I sure wouldn't mind if you have any list-oriented advice!--~TPW 16:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Lists are no different to any other article so far as copyediting is concerned. I don't have any particular way of going about it; I just read through the article and change the bits I don't like. A fairly recent example is here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to say well done! Another great GA. You do thrive on grief don't you? --J3Mrs (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't help myself. It's good practice for my upcoming eternity in Hell though. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought about the information that the IP added... I think it may be worth including in the article somehow (sourced of course) as seems to appear to be a good example of how services integrate with the culture in our country (if that is the right way to phrase it). Given the recent mass AfD in which editors seemed to brand UK services as insignificant, its one small step to proving to the contrary! When you look at it at a deeper level, its interesting that in his show, Rhod didn't feel the need to qualify exactly where the services were, it was just presumed that people knew them and what they are. If he would have had his moment at the BP service station just off the A491 near Bromsgrove it wouldn't have had the same effect! Obviously, its well known that I'm terrible with English, do you have any ideas how that could be incorporated into the article in a reasonable way? If you think I'm completely wrong and it has no place, no worries, I'm thinking aloud more than anything and may be thinking about it too much! Jeni ^(talk) 23:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Without a source or context, I had no idea what this mince pie stuff was all about, and I still don't. Can you enlighten me? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See [9] – iridescent 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that (never heard of him). This, for me, is a classic example of linking in the wrong direction. Rhod Gilbert's article should link to Knutsford Services if the mince pie episode is discussed in it, but not vice versa. It tells me nothing about Knutsford Services. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Having had the displeasure of eating at Knutsford Services several times I can say that I'm in total agreement with Rhod... though I think his name spelling is a tad pretentious. Oh, and Costa Coffee at Sandbach Services sucks too (though the Stafford Costa mocha is sublime). Just thought you may like to know that for future reference! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Of the two, I think Knutsford has the edge over Sandbach, but I'm struggling to think of any motorway services I'd recommend, they're all way too expensive, but that's largely down to the government's stealth taxes as usual. I remember about ten years ago having to go down south on business for a week, and to my horror the only rooms available because of some damn silly horse race or other were in a motel at one of the services on the M4. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember with great fondness Julie's Pantry on Corley Services in the 80s. Absolutely gorgeous burgers. Ah those were the days, traipsing up and down the M6 all week. I'm all nostalgic now. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bloody Hell, I'd forgotten about Julie's Pantry, brings back memories. My regular trip was London–Manchester, so I used to stop off at Hilton Park for a burger and chips – which I recall as being at best rather ordinary, small, and over-priced. But after having spent three hours getting out of fucking London on a Friday evening it somehow didn't seem so bad in context. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Toddington Services on the M1 north just outside the M25 is a godsend. How many times I've finished work and stopped in Burger King on the way home... Parrot of Doom 09:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience Tebay services is lovely; they keep themselves chain-free, and the atmosphere is more like a farm-shop that happens to be next to the M6, than of a typical service station. I'd go as far as to say that if you're in Penrith they're actually worth a special trip, as probably the best place to eat in the area. – iridescent 09:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Malleus, I completely forgot I posted this! So much other shit going on around here! I see Iridescent beat me to it to fill you in a bit more. Do you think its worth a comment or not? Perhaps in an "In popular culture" section, though I'm not sure on WP polices in regards to those sections! Jeni ^(talk) 10:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll just say that I loathe and detest those trivia magnets known as In popular culture and leave it at that. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with that then :) I'm not fussed, more thinking out loud! Have a good day! Jeni ^(talk) 14:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, Portishead, Somerset is currently at GAN & I've dealt with most of the issues raised, however the reviewers latest comments include "Now that I've looked more carefully, the article was in serious need of copyediting. I've done most parts, but not sure whether there might be more." Would you have any time to give it a quick scan for me?— Rod ^talk 09:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Excuse me porter, but how do I get to Portishead?"- "You need to go to the WC and P madam." Ning-ning (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks about OK for GAN to me now. Just two things:

• I can't make sense of this capitalisation: "... Two 1800 Litre Water Tenders". Is there a vehicle called a Two 1800 Litre Water Tender?

• There are 2 water tenders each holding 1800 litres stationed there.— Rod ^talk 15:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• All of the article except the Geography section presents imperial units with metric conversions, but Geography does it the other way round. Really ought to be consistent throughout the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks - I'll look at the units in geog.— Rod ^talk 15:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your unfailing diligence and generosity in responding to requests such as Rod's here. "Git one up ya'" (ie. be exhorted to have an ale). Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rod writes very informative articles, although perhaps sometimes a little unpolished, and his enthusiasm for the west country is infectious. I'm happy to help him and other good editors with a little polishing whenever I can. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I just noticed that Portishead has been promoted to GA. I can be so slow sometimes. Well done Rod. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again. I'll accept the unpolished tag - perhaps you need a polishers Barnstar - is there one?— Rod ^talk 08:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what kills me about Wikipedia, and about me. I can't stand writing alt text. I feel myself literally in fight or flight every time I'm faced with it, because it raises all kinds of unpleasant questions about being addicted, not enjoying myself, not being paid, why am I doing this, and so on. Home truths. So what do I do? I spend hours two days in a row writing about alt text, and maybe even fixing the page so that it gets to keep its guideline status, which I don't want it to have. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes no more sense to me than it does to you SV. Me, I'd have gone tooth and nail to have it stripped of its guideline status and the requirement for alt text removed from the FA criteria, but your way appears to be proving more fruitful, at least for the moment. I don't really have much of a problem with the short alt texts that everyone but wikipedia seems to recommend; it's not such a chore to write "alt=Winding mountain path", for instance, but I was looking again at some of the suggestions, one you were involved with I think, King's College Chapel: "Chapel in late Gothic style with a large window between two spires about eight stories tall, behind water and a green. Four people are punting on the water; the punter stands at the back of the boat and holds a long pole. On either side of the chapel are relatively nondescript three-story buildings." I just look at that and think wtf was whoever wrote that high on? Must have been some powerful shit. "Nondescript buildings"? Punter with a long pole? How unusual. "Behind water and a green". A green what? Beggars belief really. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I do still want to see it removed from the FA criteria, even more so now that I'm reading about it. It's not easy to write good alt text, and bad alt text apparently clutters up the screen readers, so it's not clear we're adding anything of value. And yes, that King's example still confuses me. I don't see why we have to say "water" and not "the River Cam," because even people who've never heard of the River Cam will know that it's water if they know what a river is. So you're adding a bit of info without confusing anyone. I suppose the argument is that it's OR because all we can see is water. But we're allowed to say "Gothic," which a lot of people won't understand. Even "chapel" is a bit OR-ish, if river is. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "chapel" certainly doesn't conjure up in my mind anything so grand as King's College Chapel. The more you think about the alt text guidelines the more ridiculous and contrary they appear to be. How do we know which direction that punt's travelling, for instance, to be able to say so confidently that the punter is standing at the back of the punt? Maybe he's just facing backwards. The whole thing ought to have been strangled at birth. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In the first version I had of that alt text, I wrote that he was punting from the back because that's the style at Cambridge, but I was told I couldn't say that, so yes, it was left unexplained. The more I read about this the more I realize there's no governing principle, and this is why I feel it needs to be removed from FAC; people are being pressured into adding text that differs wildly in the way it's written because none of us know what to advise. And that's worse than useless because long rambling alt text must be horrible to listen to. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where were the discussion that led to that example being changed? Was it on Talk:FAC? Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That's while I analysed both sources and the examples in the guideline. In the same discussion I suggested that fixing WP:ALT may take time, and that the priority should be to remove from FAC any requirement to provide alt text. --Philcha (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. WP:ALT needs serious work, and in the meantime it ought not to be a guideline and should be removed from the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I did my little bit and withdrew because the total lack of commonsense on that page was winding me up, and I'm not here for arguments. I'd far prefer to mess with the images instead of describing them. I really don't see the point in long-winded descriptions that would be better off within the prose. "Bloke on a river" seems to work for the above example. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The lack of common sense on show has frustrated even me, and everyone knows that my patience is legendary. Muzzy thinking, obfuscation, ignorance ... all wrapped up into one pointless discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• If any of you have bugzilla accounts, you could vote for bugzilla:19906 which should hopefully ease the burden of providing alt text and might make it easier to strip the requirement for alt text from the FAC. –xeno^talk 22:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say how opposed I am to that Bugzilla proposal (to add alt-text at commons rather than on each page). Images are context-sensitive; a photo of a choir standing outside a church used to illustrate Gothic architecture needs a totally different description than when used to illustrate Steeple, then when used to illustrate Sandstone, then when used to illustrate Religious music... – iridescent 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And in these cases, you would override them locally. I think we had this argument before - no point going over it again =) –xeno^talk 23:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't see you've included an override option; that would work as long as it's easy to override the default. I still think you're headed for a nightmare when it comes to different-language pages accessing the same image, though. – iridescent 23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite. It would be a default. Can't see any problem with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Override would just be done by providing it the way we do now. Regarding other languages - hadn't thought of that, to be honest. I guess I wasn't looking out my own backyard (thinking about only images hosted here). Would need some kind of a {{DEFAULTALT:en:blah}} if it was done at commons. –xeno^talk 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent has an irritating habit of spotting flaws, but yeah, easily solved with a language tag. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

thankyou Tom B (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malleus; I believe Awickert has responded to your comments. Thanks! ceranthor 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this to do with the volcano? I've objected to so much alt text recently I'm losing track. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies for not specifying that. Just for your information, the lead image (of the summit) appears to be non-free or a derivative of a non-free image. I'm searching for a public domain image: do you think this is permitted? ceranthor 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm no copyright expert, but I'd be inclined to believe that the copyright on that picture belongs to Oscar González-Ferrán of the University of Chile. He may have given the Smithsonian permission to use it on their web site, but I think he'd have to give separate permission for wikipedia to use it under the CC-BY-SA licence that applies here. Probably best to ask someone who knows what they're talking about though. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your comments; I hope you know they are greatly appreciated. Awickert found a new lead image. As for the alt text, could you possibly give me some more critique for it at the FAC or here? If you need to oppose, feel free. ceranthor 00:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, I am running to help with backlogs. Pedro asked me if I was interested a while ago. I used to think helping as an admin would be my primary focus, however, I realize I'll still be writing most of the time. So, in response to your question, helping with backlogs when I'm needed. I also used to be an SPI trainee clerk, though I've been short on time lately. Do not worry, I will not become involved in the politics of this project or even RfA. ceranthor 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the alt text debacle is best left for now, until the "guideline" is either fixed or dumped. It's my understanding though that administrators have access to something called a block button, which basically means they can shut up anyone they don't like, accusing those who object to their vindictiveness of "wheel warring". So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't support your promotion to the ranks of the corrupt. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, though it's not a promotion if its the ranks of the corrupt. Not that I necessarily agree - lol. ceranthor 19:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ave, Malleus Fatuorum. You might find this offer useful: some of the sources aren't normally found on UK library subscriptions. - Pointillist (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a great offer, thanks for letting me know. I'm sure those accounts will be snapped up pdq. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad I watch your page! Now if only someone can do the same for Jstor... Parrot of Doom 22:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If only! --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! --Philcha (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Parrot of Doom! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, just in time too! Parrot of Doom 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what happens once there's a heads-up on the Most Watched Talk Page on Wikipedia. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that make me a Viral marketing consultant? That'll be £120 an hour, thanks.... Pointillist (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What's that you said?. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

SG's showing off. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

/me is #345 :P --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

<many foul words redacted>. This is where I am in dire danger of being blocked by the civility police. My various subscriptions to online journals are all scheduled to expire soon; I greatly fear that my value as a Wikipedian (such as it is!) will be tremendously reduced. I hope to God every single one those 100 folks actually uses their account, and uses it extensively. • Ling.Nut 04:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously Ling, ping me in a couple of months. If i find i'm not using it regularly, you can have mine (assuming there will be a way to transfer within the 100 cap :-)) hamiltonstone (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of UK libraries already offer this online to all members (and if yours doesn't, as long as you're a permanent UK resident you can sign up to one that does); if you live in the UK I suggest withdrawing from the offer and allowing the Poor Benighted Colonials to have first bite at the apple. – iridescent 23:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent, is there a quick way to check which UK libararies provide this, and, how they provide it. I'm a member of the Rochdale library service (i.e. access to material in libraries in the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale www.rochdale.gov.uk - forgive me if you're a UK editor and know the arrangements), but I don't know what I'd be checking for, if I get access to this at home etc etc. I suspect that if I was to contact the library by phone they would be clueless too.... --Jza84 |  Talk  23:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a list here, but it doesn't seem to be complete. You're looking on your library's website for something similar to this; Rochdale's doesn't include Credo but gives lots of other stuff.

On a skim through the assorted GM councils, it looks like Manchester, Salford, Rochdale etc don't provide Credo access—however, your country-cousins at Wigan do provide it. As long as you can prove residence in the UK you can join any library, not just your local one, so I'd advise a quick jaunt down there to sign up; you only need to attend in person once, to pick up your library card, and after that can access it online. – iridescent 09:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what the Wikipedia naming convention is for churches? I can't find any guideline on it in any of the usual places. The church in question is St Mary's, Chesham; common Wikipedia practice would seem to show St. Mary's Church, Chesham as the standard usage, which is also what the church themselves uses, but the CofE (who ought to know) use Chesham St. Mary's, Chesham as the name, and it's listed on the Listed Buildings Register as Church of St Mary, Chesham Archived 2011-06-06 at the Wayback Machine. (This one should hopefully be more interesting than it looks.) – iridescent 09:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest "Church of....", as e.g. Holy Trinity's Church just sound daft.Ning-ning (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Butting in here (as a talk page watcher). If you look at the common Wikipedia practice example you gave & look at UK -> Somerset, you will see all the one's I started follow "Church of St Mary, Place" this is because my primary source is Images of England & I'm writing about buildings rather than congregations. Others which were started by different editors use different formats & I am aware of (but can't find) debate about the use of the full stop in St. for Saint & about the apostrophe in Mary's. Those at WP:HSITES might have one view while others at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism might have a different one. If you are trying to get a guideline I would suggest posting a message on both of those wikiprojects.— Rod ^talk 12:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Screw WP guidelines. If the church has an official name used by the church itself, then that's the one I feel should be used. Whatever is written on the board outside the church is the way to go. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Fred. • Ling.Nut 13:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's an official guideline, but the usual practice would be to call it St Mary's Church, Chesham. The guidelines on whether it should be "St." or "St" are here, but I favour "St". --Malleus Fatuorum 13:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there isn't - Category:Church buildings by country shows a rich variety of title forms. Some longer dedications in particular, and also Italian etc churches, have just "dedication, place". As Ling Nut says, some don't take a possessive well. The Church of Scotland mostly seems to use "Place Parish Church" - no Popish saints. Perhaps there is some High/Low distinction lurking in the different Anglican formulae? It's probably best to stick with the board outside in most cases. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malleus, could you check the prose of some of these FARs that seem to be possibly heading for a keep? Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Biman Bangladesh Airlines/archive1
2. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Killer whale/archive1
3. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sydney Newman/archive1
4. Wikipedia:Featured article review/€2 commemorative coins/archive1

Are you suggesting that you think there may be problems with these articles? I'm embarrassed that I've so far given Moni3 almost no help at all with the Donner Party. So much to do, so little time. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

get off yer purple bike ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever pleases you, Malleus, you do it. If it's reviewing, review. If it's adding to the Donner article, tell these dorks to go away and piss off. But you know I have the articles if you're under water. I can do them if you need me to. --Moni3 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to help you get the story of the Donner Party out there. FAR can wait. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Mal. I'm getting jumpy to copy the article over into the mainspace. I often do this right as/before it's ready. If you would like to work in a sandbox, I'll wait. I don't mind waiting if someone else is working with me and expresses an interest in tweaking some more in a sandbox. When I'm by myself I just get itchy. There are considerably more problems working in mainspace, as I'm sure you know. Let me know what you'd rather do. --Moni3 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm far happier working in mainspace than in a sandbox, but perhaps that's just the show off side of my nature. The world needs to see this Moni, get it into mainspace. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a good chance you'll object to something, generally speaking and generally all stringent folks only go to FAC YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there another magazine that would be suitable? Pepso2 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no ferret magazines. The last one, Ferrets, stopped publishing about two years ago, and is now only available as a web site. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And Rabbit Magazine closed and is now just a pull-out supplement in Fur & Feather. Yet, Rat & Mouse magazine still goes strong. A symptom of our broken society, I say. – iridescent 20:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Printing costs keep going up and up, but the circulation for single species magazines doesn't. There's only so much you can say about ferrets in a magazine, for instance, without repeating yourself every couple of years or so and starting over. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rats, and I suspect mice, are a different kind of pet from ferrets, in that fancy breeding and showing predominate. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess the main driver is that a lot of kids raise rats & mice (cue flashback to my cage of rats as a teenager), and buy the magazines for basic advice. I'm surprised none of the field sport magazines produce a ferret supplement, though (maybe they do, for all I know); there's an obvious crossover. (Magazines are dying, anyway; the only ones that will still be standing in 10 years are the glossy ones people leave lying around as a status symbol, and pure froth for people to read on trains. I doubt there will be any specialist magazines left in ten years' time.) – iridescent 21:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, not traditional paper magazines anyway, and probably in a lot less than 10 years. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And thus, the historical and educational value of displaying an image showing how ferrets were treated in magazines. Pepso2 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There's already an article on Ferrets Magazine, although not a very good one, admittedly. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Even by bad article standards, that's a bad article. (I have just discovered that Commons has Category:Nude women with telephones. Who says we can't beat Britannica?) – iridescent 18:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will say that horse mags in the US are going strong, both the breed related ones and the general purpose ones. Of course, the breed ones get most of their revenue from stallion and breeding farm ads. When you're spending $3K on a stud fee, you want at least an advertising campaign behind the stud to push sales of the resulting foals! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So basically, you're a horse pimp? – iridescent 18:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I think I'm a horse madam. Or something like that. I don't own stallions, just mares, so I'm hunting for "boys" for my girls, I guess. But instead of getting paid, I pay (through the nose, sometimes!) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've got a question. How far off is German submarine U-505 from a GA? I know that I'll need to add in a bit more sources but anything else that I'm missing?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question right off the bat. Has any of it been copy and pasted from uboat.net? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I've learned my lesson :)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

CE, whole chunks of it are cut-and-pasted verbatim from the US navy website. In some places (the paragraph beginning "The jammed rudder caused...", for instance) not a single word has been changed. – iridescent 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That was not me. . . I swear. I was mislead to believe that it was in the PD.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It can't just be copied over even if it is in the public domain, that's plagiarism. It needs to be in your words, not someone else's. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see it's not you - this is the article immediately prior to your first edit, and the offending material is all there already - but it doesn't change the fact that pretty much everything from here down is a verbatim cut-and-paste which needs to be removed. (Technically, as a work of the US government, it is in the public domain, so providing it's credited it wouldn't actually be illegal for us to be hosting it, but I'd nonetheless strongly advise rewording it per Malleus.) – iridescent 23:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is in the PD then can't we use it word for word? I've cited it? You have to admin, I'm not the best at rewording copy-vios.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not without putting it between quotation marks. This observation will no doubt make me even more unpopular than I already am in certain circles, but I have the distinct impression the highly regarded MilHist project needs to get its arse in gear to monitor these naval articles. Far too many, it seems to me, are copy and paste jobs from pd sources, almost always without proper attribution. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Very simple. Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. If you add Public Domain entries without identifying them as such you are in effect removing them from PD and making them CC-BY-SA. That's a contradiction - public domain "stuff" cannot be pulled back to a more restrictive licence (which CC-BY-SA, GNU et.al are). If it's PD it's quoted/intact or re-written / modified. Pedro :  Chat  23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I agree. Please forgive my poking my nose in, but Malleus and Pedro are absolutely right IMHO. I was tempted to put a copy-vio template above the section(s) in question. Full attribution, even to PD sources (if this indeed is), must be given. I don't think a citation is enough. Graham Colm (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nice concise summary Pedro. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can do it with graphics and a two hour powerpoint presentation if you prefer sir. :) Pedro :  Chat  23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll pass on that that if you don't mind. Sounds almost as tedious as having to listen to a five-page alt text every time you open a page. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

CE, may I suggest that the easiest way to reword such things is simply to read them, and rewrite them from memory. It works for me. That and regular googling of "*insert word* synonym" :) Parrot of Doom 23:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I tend to do as well, then go back and check if I've remembered correctly. I also like to have a rough structure for the article in my mind, and tell the story in a way that makes sense to me, not necessarily in the same way as any of the sources tell it, so stuff naturally gets moved around and changed to fit anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of my university days, pre-PowerPoint and handouts. We turned up to lectures with some paper and a pen. As the lecturer was speaking we jotted down a few key words or points. When the lecture was over we retired to our dens, or in my case the student union bar, to expand our notes into a summary of what we'd learned from the lecture, before it all went cold. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) Noting in passing that article's creation in 2002 and this navy webpage dated 2005 are copies of each other. I'm a bit skeptical that the Navy would be the copy of Wikipedia, I rather believe that the article was started based on a military source (hence PD) that was put up on the navy's website in 2005. If this were correct, this would make the article a plagiarism since it's creation, not just from right before CPE's first edit. Probably hard to verify, though. I'd suggest considering adding {{USNAVY}} to the article.MLauba (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh...what am I to do? I cannot rewrite things like this. I've tried before and It failed. CAn I just add the template?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It's not a bad idea to learn how to paraphrase. You have a lot of people looking over your shoulder who will help. Paraphrasing is a skill that takes a bit of practice, and you'd need to go slowly, but in the long run it's what you need to be able to work on these article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess. I which that MILHIS took Naval articles more seriously. No one seems to care about German U-boats. I wish Bellhalla were here....--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Naval articles do to be a strange blindspot for the MilHist project. German U-boats are obviously a rich seam to be mined though whether the project helps or not, if you can get it right. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If only they had a U-boat task force. Or better yet, a submarine task force....--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By its nature Wikipedia is always going to attract more army than navy types; a key part of every soldier's job is "summarising information neutrally and quickly", which meshes far more neatly with Wikipedia's mentality than navy jobs, most of which are technical specialists of some sort or another who never have any personal dealings with intelligence or logistics.

In the case of this particular article, given that the ship is now in a museum in Chicago it falls into the remit of possibly the most active WikiProject of all, who could probably be pestered into cleaning it up. Although be aware that if you end up in an argument with User:TonyTheTiger, you'll find yourself pining for Malleus's soft and gentle nature. – iridescent 00:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the people at CHICAGO would not really care about U-505. And WP:SHIPS is fairly dormant and the people at HILHIS tend to ignore it. I wish that there were moer people that liked U-boats and would help me out....--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't underestimate the help you might get from the Chicago project; as Iridescent says, they're almost feverishly active, and very productive. Worth a try. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So what? Should I just go over there and ask for help with U-505 and makeing it a GA-class article?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. If you don't want to bother the entire project you could ask TonyTheTiger if he can recommend someone who might be interested—but I never heard of any project being offended by someone turning up asking for help, provided it's a reasonable request. – iridescent 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well ok then. I'll see if TTT is active and if not, I'll take it to the people at CHICAGO.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also (I'm assuming you're not from Illinois CE), those editors from Chicago may be able to add some important local info. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not from Illinois. Hopefully Tony will help me out.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Invited to chip in here; I'm on limited time, but there's a little bit I've been able to find out. Prior to its placement on Wikipedia or the military website, some of this content was evidently published in The Rand McNally almanac of adventure: a panorama of danger and daring by Richard Whittingham, 1982. See [10] and [11]. (It doesn't seem to have been copied from the cited source.) If we could get more insight into that source, we could figure out if they are quoting a military document. Clearly it isn't the sole source, as much of that content doesn't hit. Must run! Good luck! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to note that I've asked for help identifying the original source at the military history project and am e-mailing the contributor who first placed it here to see if he remembers its origin. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to fix the copyright issues; however, someone claiming to be acting at your (CE's) request is now going through the article top-to-bottom screwing it up (breaking dash formatting, changing "as of 2010" to "as of now" etc). I don't mind helping you out, as I do believe that after a rocky start you're on the right track. However, I certainly do not care about this article enough to edit-war with one of your myspace buddies trying to rack up MMORPG points over it; you're on your own from now on. – iridescent 20:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why you claim that I am one of Coldplay Expert's "myspace buddies". I resent such a label. How was I "breaking dash formatting"? Again, I ask, "Why did you revert my edits?" He clearly allowed me to fix his mistakes, hence "I'll be looking forward to seeing your edits to my new articles". The revisions I made that you reverted were restored by GB fan. His revisions were exactly the same as what I did. Could you please explain for once how what I did was wrong? Thanks, LordPiratez (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake; you were actually breaking non-breaking space formatting, not dash formatting. You were also adding an overlink to Bay of Biscay which had already been linked earlier in the section, and replacing the (correct) "as of 2010" with the (incorrect) "as of now". Regarding "off of the" v "off the", both are correct but I won't argue with that as it's purely a matter of preference. I'll give you the commas-in-dates, which I think looks terrible but I'll concede is correct American-English (as well as what the MOS says).

Regardless, I'm washing my hands of this one; you and Coldplay can fix it yourselves from here on. I would strongly suggest to him that allowing anyone – let alone a week-old account that's already racked up a history of disruption and who may well be a perfectly good-faith editor but edits in a rather similar way to a Wiki brah sock – to follow him around rewriting his posts is a really bad idea. – iridescent 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why "breaking non-breaking space formatting" is unhelpful on Wikipedia? Why not just put a space there? I understand the overlink (that was just a oversight). However, I changed "As of 2010 U-505 is a museum ship" to "As of now U-505 is a museum ship". You have to agree that having a present tense verb ("is") makes the sentence sound awkward. Changing it to past tense also is unworkable, so I changed it to "now". Perhaps it could be changed to "this year" to specify more clearly. Furthermore, a comma is needed after "2010". As for the "off of the", this and this states that that's incorrect. Doubling prepositions in some cases is incorrect.
In response to your subsequent comments, I don't see how the article needs fixing. Also, I cannot perceive how you can say I have "racked up a history of disruption". Though, I am not rewriting his posts. I did not rewrite any of it — I merely "[f]ixed egregious grammar and spelling errors on behalf of user's request," as I have been saying for quite some time. LordPiratez (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Very wise I think Iridescent, let them have at it; there's more to LordPiratez than meets the eye. Anyone who can see nothing wrong with a sentence like this one; "Three of which were American, two British, and one Norwegian, Dutch, and Colombian each" (from the History prior to capture section), or would post this sort of crass and patronising rubbish to another editor can safely be ignored IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, am I missing something here? What is going on?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something.
Regarding Malleus Fatuorum's recent message, I would like to say "hi" first. I have been editing your talk page since yesterday and have not introduced myself. The quote you provided above is grammatically correct. I will reproduce that entire paragraph for easy reference:

U-505 conducted twelve patrols during her career, sinking eight ships for a total of 44,962 tons. Three of which were American, two British, and one Norwegian, Dutch, and Colombian each.

"Which" modifies "ships" in the previous sentence. This sentence directly means "Three of the 'eight ships' U-505 sunk were American; two were British (the "were" is implied); and three others were, respectively, Norwegian, Dutch, and Colombian." I cannot find the words to explain the last part, but that is how I read it. It makes perfect sense — 2 + 3 + 3 = 8 (the total number of ships sunk). LordPiratez (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume that English is not your first language in that case, as you are about as wrong as wrong as wrong can be. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It always warms the cockles of my heart when a Yank lectures a Brit on the English language. The country which habitually loses vowels and can't tell the difference between the road and the pavement, or immediately, and unilaterally, deciding to re-spell any word that may confuse Billy-Bob, e.g. meter, liter, tire, color... ad nauseum. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you stop attacking me, Malleus and Fred? Your personal attacks, harassment, incivility, and assault should stop. LordPiratez (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, it "warms the cockles of my heart" when an ignorant Brit naïvely accuses one of being a "Yank". LordPiratez (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Patronising and hypocritical, yet they never see when they're doing it themselves. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be frank here – I am not a Yank, nor am I a Brit. By the way, your personal attacks warrant review by an administrator. LordPiratez (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So go find one then. When you do, please explain to him or her how calling someone ignorant isn't actually uncivil. Meanwhile I'll carry on wondering whose sockpuppet you are. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, guess who...--Whité Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Boy, this is a busy page. :) Thank you for rewriting it, Iridescent. I'm almost sure it's PD, but I can't prove it. The good folk at the WikiProject did not find a match (though, Coldplay Expert, there are some additional sources you might want to use mentioned at that discussion). The original contributor writes me back, and though he assures me it would have been PD, he doesn't know either. Can't say I blame him; 2002 is a long time gone. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go and take a look now.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you've changed! :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean that you used to look like Coldplay Expért and now you look like White Shadows. Quite a radical change, actually. I didn't know you were contemplating one. If it's mentioned in this thread, I overlooked it; I tend to focus on the issue at hand. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I was, but the discussion is on my TP. CE seemed too childish to me so I went with the next best thing...a song. At least people can AGF about my actions now.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ed) Hi all. Please see this discussion on the MILHIST Coordinators talkpage, where I have raised the issue of copyright/plagarism concerns for naval and specially U-Boat articles. Input would be more than welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Eric Corbett/Archives/2010. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LordPiratez (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but as per usual I'm not interested. BTW. if you want to make a convincing case, instead of what looks like a rant, then you need to supply diffs to allow others to judge the merit of your position. Some of course won't need proof, and will be happy to condemn on your say-so, but still. Enjoy your WQA. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This has to be a sock. A virgin user does not have a history like this. This one must have a really expensive thesaurus though. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, and that's why (s)he's so upset with me, because I pointed that out. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We actually prefer evidence at WQA. Is it possible you're confusing WQA with ANI? Gerardw (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking me then you're wasting your time, as I despise both. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that "wikiquette" is a made up word based on a subjective opinion I think it's rather a waste of time, at least for those of a non-politically correct persuasion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought that WQA is for kids and ANI is for the emotionally insecure. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You could be right considering there's a larger percentage of admins there than normal editors. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with LordPiratez; it's just a throw-away account operated to give certain administrators an excuse to block me, you, and Iridescent. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I'm bored and I can't be bothered sitting through a film :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

One wonders how people of old dealt with such things. Or perhaps not. Parrot of Doom 23:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks like one of those "personal attacks" to me, although one I have some sympathy with. At least you know where you are with a bullet. I have a vague recollection from an episode of Hornblower though that military officers weren't allowed to duel? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gotta lurve the quaint English of another American gentleman. PoD, I'll just bet you'd mentally logged that image in your travels and just needed an excuse to brandish it. Absolutely perfectly done sir :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I have a special button for when I see things like that :) Parrot of Doom 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting sign there... I am familiar with most of the old stylistic conventions represented therein (such as the mixed capitalisation and the use of full-stops for non-sentences), but this is the first time I have seen such use of commas for a parenthetical statement. Would anyone happen to know about the geographical and chronological limits of this practice? Waltham, The Duke of 06:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I can get back to the Donner Party, who last time I checked were starving to death. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I admire your spunk young man, having to 'talk' in American English for such long periods of time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember that this was 1846, when there were hardly any Americans really. Many if not most of the emigrants had come from Europe, or their parents had. It's an important story, one I've been hoping to see expanded for some time. Moni3 and Karanacs have done a great job with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I read the first line and it immediately grated on me with the "was" vs "were" grammar. I think there should be a barnstar for proper English speakers managing to deal with the travesty that is US-English. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Party" is singular, but whatever. I'm about as pleased to help the Donner Party to FA as I was to help the Peterloo Massacre. Some things are just about people, not where they happen to live, speak, or spell. You might be more interested in my next project though, Wythenshawe. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to the article's English variant, not the Donner's/ye olde weste inhabitant's dialect. And I'll think you'll find that in US English a group is singular, but in UK-English a group is plural. The music articles can attest to that little difference. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I often have a similar discussion with articles on football clubs, and I always win. Manchester United, for instance, would usually be called "they", but "the club", or "the team" is self-evidently singular. "The club are ..." is a barbarism. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just stopping by uninvited to express my strongest, spittle-emitting agreement with the above. Steve Smith (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but then "club" isn't a group, it's an entity in its own right, whereas the "Donner party" is a group and in proper English should be a "they" or a "were" etc. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm here, a very minor nitpick about "Truckee Lake in the Sierra Nevada mountains near the Californian border"; prior to the reorganization following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, CA also encompassed present-day NV, AZ, NM & UT so the border was much further west. Ultra-nitpicky, I know. – iridescent 00:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think "California border" instead of "Californian border" would also be more customary in that usage. (And California only encompassed parts of Arizona and New Mexico, given that the Gadsden Purchase hadn't been made yet.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a PR open for this article, folks. Have at it. --Moni3 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ow, that's way beyond my knowledge to sort out. Thank God Moni3 and Karanacs are Americans. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about your comments, Malleus. Down here in California not everything is stucco and smog: there still are large patches of open wilderness. One particular incident I've always retold by saying "He had gotten lost." The unfortunate gentleman in the Mojave Desert was down to his last two gallons of gasoline before he managed to find a paved road by using the Big Dipper to locate the North Star and navigate. If that entire anecdote seems like bad English to you, chuckle and remember that I have trouble imagining any use of "bloody" that isn't polite or any use of "twat" that is polite. A couple of centuries ago you Brits turned all your lawyers into barristers and solicitors. Over here we still have lawyers, and (Newyorkbrad excepted) that must be the source of the trouble. Best wishes and good night. Durova⁴¹² 06:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

diff Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a British Isles Terminology task force. What a strange thing to get excited about. Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Silly me, I was taught in geography classes here in the states that ... the British Isles were Britain and Ireland as well as the various "little ones". I've inserted the exact quotation, because quite honestly, it's not worth the bother, but (except in the British Isles, apparantly) the two main islands of Britain and Ireland are .. the British Isles. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You've mentioned that word again; whenever Ireland pops up there's always trouble. You just try inserting the word "mainland" into any UK geography article. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mal. Do you fancy something boring for a change? I'm thinking of working Norton Priory, now a GA, towards FAC. Would you be interested in taking a look at it? Is it worthy of FAC soon? If not, please advise how it should be improved. If it is, please give advice, and copyedit if you have the time (and interest). It's for the Cheshire WikiProject!! Cheers, Peter. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I usually avoid the big subjects like the plague, so almost everything I do here is boring Peter; that's probably why I get into so much bother, it relieves the tedium ;-) I remember Norton Priory from its GA days, and it was pretty nice then, so of course I'll take a look. Especially as it's for the Cheshire project. BTW, have you noticed that Ddstretch has been an occasional lurker recently? From China, according to the user box on his page. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Faeriesoph, (a specialist in the subject), has made some comments on my talk page, but as I have a busy/exciting weekend approaching, I do not intend to do anything (useful) now until next week. But thought you might like to have a peep at what she has to say.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain anything that Faeriesoph has to say on Norton Priory will be well worth serious consideration. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donner party, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Civility police barnstar.svg

		The Civility Barnstar
		In recognition of your work towards increasing the understanding of what true civility actually is, I hereby award you, Malleus Fatuorum, the very first recipient, The Civility Barnstar. For meritorious conduct in the field of Wikipedia civility. Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Much deserved, MF! If course "the understanding of what true civility actually is" implies its opposite, false civility as in MF's phrase "civility police". It might be fun to create a "civility police" barnstar, but we'd need to think about:

• The emblem. A cop's badge is too obvious, and also to culture-dependent. How about a dagger in the back?
• When and who would award one, as the recipient would be an admin with an POV except than his/her once. Perhaps the best use for the "civility police" barnstar may be as fixed text in the Civility barnstar, e.g. "the opposition of ..." --Philcha (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I definitely have too much time on my hands, but how about this for starters? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The sheriff's badge isn't rusty enough... Parrot of Doom 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the bulb under the lamp was something else. --Philcha (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Cheeky bugger! --Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The three "other fingers" need to be extended to different heights. In particular, the fact that the index finger is the same as the others is a glaring error. • Ling.Nut 08:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Errr, if one wants photorealism one could always use a camera. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

File:SonOfCivilityBarnstar.png

(undent) Once again, your logic is lapidary.• Ling.Nut 12:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

But no longer vector. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a software pkg that can vectorize imgs. • Ling.Nut 16:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Inkscape is free, horrible to use, but free ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look at it tomorrow... Cheers! • Ling.Nut 18:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

For the Civil Police Barnstar I fancy a baton whacking a Content Creativity Barnstar. --Philcha (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have significantly reduced the verbose alt text on the manga cover if you care to take a look.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 321 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping for money though. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm knackered then, I was hoping for something in kind. Hmmph. You get a thanks, I got a "cheeky bugger" :P --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. Sorry, I was sick this weekend and thought it best not to edit too much with a head full of cotton. I didn't check my watchlist or talk page from Friday afternoon (US time) to just now. I see that Moni has taken a wikibreak and hope that I didn't drive her into that. Thank you very much for taking the lead in addressing most of the concerns. I'm about to go read through the FAC page and the article talk page to see what you've left for me to do. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. You'll see that the article is now down to less than 10,000 words thanks to some serious pruning by Yomangan. Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would take an uninvolved editor to get it any further - how nice that one volunteered :) Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've only condensed it a little without bashing the prose up too much (and I have even expanded it in few places where it wasn't clear to me what was going on). I have left some queries in HTML comments in the text in places where I'm reluctant to cut for fear of making it too clinical or where it doesn't seem to make sense in the wider context, so if the aim is to make it shorter you can probably get the count down further by addressing those (or, more cynically, by just deleting them). I've also asked the map maker if they will add the Sublette-Greenwood Cutoff to the map to indicate that Ft. Bridger was a detour and perhaps give some context for Jim Bridger's overselling the Hasting Cutoff. Yomangani^talk 16:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hastings biographical information in "Legacy" seems a little out of place, it would go better in "Survivors" if the title of that section was changed to something that encompassed him too ("Aftermath" is a bit wimpy though and I can't think of anything else).Yomangani^talk 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so I've moved it to the Response section, where it seems to me to fit better. Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. I know what you mean by being between a rock and a hard place. As I'm not going to "vote" support or oppose on the FAC, you can feel free to ignore my advice all together to get it to pass. To me, it comes down to a choice between having the best article possible or having the FA star on it. Again, I'm no FA guru and all my comments were only given because I saw things that were made worse with the cutting, not better. In my opinion. Feel free to tell me to go to hell. Tex (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It was always going to be difficult. I did think the language was a little over emotional in places, and sometimes the amount of detail broke the flow of the narrative, like the roast dog anecdote, so by and large I'm quite happy with the cuts. It's such a well-known story in the US that there are bound to be conflicting views on how the story should be handled, a bit like trying to write a decent article on Robin Hood perhaps. It will never be "the best article possible", FA star or not, but it can at least be a decently written and accurate account, which is all I hope for it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I liked your edits, it was very nice (silently) working with you. :) ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's a very nice article, and could even do well at GAN if you felt you might be able to shepherd it through – I'm far from being a literary type, especially where poetry's concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tan | 39 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's something I never thought I'd see... –xeno^talk 18:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh? WTF is that about? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to assume that Tan had an unfortunate twinkling accident. Either that, or he's taking the mick - you calling oyster a 'cheeky bugger'. –xeno^talk 18:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

But I am a cheeky bugger! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was funny; MF is well aware I share his views on civility police. I was riffing off the thread above this. However, it seems to have been lost on everyone... oh well... Tan | 39 18:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak. Cheeky bugger is a term of endearment, I don't think it's ever construed as a personal attack... Don't be noobish. (← now there's a personal attack! ;) –xeno^talk 18:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I could have blocked him for a week. Would that have been more humorous? Tan | 39 18:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's atrange how different our (US/British) use of language is. Things that wouldn't turn a hair elsewhere in the English-speaking world are considered rude and and incivil in the States. As Xeno says, "cheeky bugger" is almost always used affectionately, at least in England. And Fred is a cheeky bugger anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. If you ever blocked me for "incivility" I'd be the first in line demanding that you were desysoped, because your account had obviously been compromised. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted that "warning" due to the entire above thread, not the "cheeky bugger" line. I was going for some sort of nonchalant irony, or a furtive nod in a dark room that we're on the same page about the entire civility issue. This entire endeavor whistled overhead, had everyone dashing for cover, and then went "thud" as it failed to detonate. I'll try to be more in-your-face with my humor from now on, like throwing in a few "fuck"s or making unveiled references to other idiot administrators. Tan | 39 19:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I'm not very good with "subtle", and as SandyG has repeatedly pointed out, my sense of humour sometimes goes AWOL. Looking on the bright side though, I have the attention span of a goldfish for stuff like this ... err, what were we talking about? Nobody died, nobody's been upset, no problem. Fred is a cheeky bugger though. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I missed this party! Well, at least someone else got to ask "What's a cheeky bugger"! (Stop picking on California!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a "cheeky bugger" anyway. Or a bloody wanker? You Brits sure have a strange grasp on the language you invented. Tex (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's our language, so we can use it any damn way we like. I'm particularly impressed with the way that Australians use language that would probably have a Floridian arrested and sent to one of those jails so many Americans now live in. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious that you choose Floridians out of 50 states that have quirky natives. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Had I thought about it, I'd probably have chosen one of those appalling Bible-belt states like Alabama, or the ever-so-boring California, but I didn't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Moni3, I'm detecting some hostility, and I can only assume that's in some way related to the Donner Party FAC. I'm quite happy to walk away from that and leave it to you and Karanacs if that's what you'd like. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, hostility would be telling you to go fuck yourself. I'm not angry or hostile at all. I suppose I have the unfortunate modus operandi of only working on what moves me, which inevitably connects me to the subject matter, makes me write about it emotionally. I don't know if this makes what I write better or not. I've encountered those who tend to think distance is more prudent. Perhaps that is the case. It's not the way I want to write, however, and I have to adjust to the conflict between becoming a part of the article and removing myself when it's time to take criticism. I don't do that well sometimes. I may never. Any problems I have are mine, though. --Moni3 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that. I choose distance, you choose passion; neither of is right and neither of us is wrong. Takes all sorts to make a world. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You choose distance, MF!!! --Philcha (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(gets popcorn) – iridescent 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(looks for cliff to jump off) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I'll pass. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Now do you see why I was so eager to delve into the depths of human suffering? Your edits to Donner so far look great! Karanacs (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a lapsed Catholic (still got my rosary), so I'm not entirely objective about the CC article, but I do welcome the chopping that's been done to it, as I do the chopping that's been done to the Donner article. I never imagined it would be so tough to get that through FAC! Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're on alien turf with that one. Its obviously racism! ;) Parrot of Doom 22:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)