User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2010/April

Good Article review mentoring

I appreciate your suggestion for walking me through the process a couple times. I went in and reviewed the article for Johannes S. Andersen since it was one of the older ones and placed what I saw on the articles talk page. I am sure I missed some things but I don't necessarily know if everything I suggested is necessary for GA. Please let me know what you think and I will go and start the official review of the article. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good, thorough review. You've caught the two things that bother me most about this article, Ref #1 (what the Hell is it?) and the prose quality (lots of short, choppy sentences that often don't seem to fit together very well, and in places quite unidiomatic). the article relies on ref #1 so heavily that it's a particular worry. Some of the things you've mentioned, like using the {{Persondata}} template obviously aren't related to the good article criteria, but no harm in suggesting them nevertheless. It's obviously down to the nominator whether or not they agree, so probably best to make it clear it's a just a suggestion, and that whether or not it's done won't affect the outcome of the review.

Also, some of the things you (quite rightly) mention I'd be inclined to just fix without comment, like the dashes. It only takes a second to run a script through the article, which I've done. As a reviewer you can just make the straightforward changes yourself, and it's often easier to do that. With the prose as it stands at the moment, I'd be inclined to say this articl is at best marginal in meeting criterion 1a, and probably falls a little way short of it. My approach to basically sound articles like this one, obviously written by a non-native English speaker, is to roll up my sleeves and copyedit it myself, but it's obviously your choice. You could simply suggest that the prose needs some improvement and recommend that the nominator finds a copyeditor if you prefer. As the article stands right now, it should obviously be put on hold, but if the prose and ref #1 issues aren't sorted out I'd say it's looking unlikely that it would be listed as a GA.

If that's your first GA review I'm seriously impressed! Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the assistance and yes that was my first review although I have quick failed a couple GA's in the past that clearly didn't meet the criteria (both completely lacked inline citations). I will go and initiate the official review shortly and I have no problem doing some of the cpyediting but I will let the initiator have first crack at it. I will also incorporate some of you comments above into the ones I have already posted. Thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I posted the review on that article and to the users talk page. I also found out that the user apparently went on a wikibreak till july but in the spirit of bettering the article I put it on hold. If he doesn't fix it in the seven days Ill fail it. Ill pick out another one later and work it as well. --Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, that's a shame. Perhaps another editor will step in, but, as you say, it's not going to get listed in its present form. Forget the backlog and pick something that interests you next. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good day to you good Sir..err.. at least I think your a Sir, anyway if you don't mind could you stop by the article talk page. It looks like they have addressed most of my comments, although in some cases the information just isn't available. Im sorta on the fence with this one. On one hand if thats all the info then the articles as "good" as it can get. But from the other side of the coin, that doesn't make it a "good" quality artcle. Since the article isn't "bad" other than some short sentences which can be fairly easily fixed what is your advice on how I should address it. My inclination is to fail it based on the missing info but I'm not 100% sure that info is needed for it to be GA. Thanks in advance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly male, but I baulk at being called Sir, bit like Fred Trueman. I'll look over the article again later this evening and let you know what I think here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I appreciate tha help and I saw you left a comment on the article talk page. Thanks again. I am going to pick out another one to review (maybe even 2) this weekend. --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is just about there now. I still don't understand what's going on with ref #1, and I'd say the lead should be expanded a bit to better summarise the article, but that's about it IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though the issues we identified have been fixed on this article and I was going to pass it tomorrow. Do you have any objections? --Kumioko (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

None at all. I think your excellent review and copyediting has had the desired result, a worthy GA. Malleus Fatuorum 04:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR

Hi MF. Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Biman Bangladesh Airlines/archive1 please? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow probably. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Very nice job on Buttock Mail. Greetings from Alabama, that appalling Bible-Belt state. Dr Aaij (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to take the credit for that, but I didn't really do much to it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard

Would you please review the hook of your nomination? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with either of the alternative suggestions. Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Main page

Wife selling worked out really well actually for April Fool's. It looks good! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that even now some think it's an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Parrot of Doom and I, but I swear it's all true. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons it's so perfect for today. Reading the main page blurb, you honestly can't tell. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to compliment you on the wife-selling article; very well researched, very well written, a pleasure to read. Thank you. Billare (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but I can't take all the credit. It was a joint venture betweeen Parrot of Doom and me. He specialises in the whacky, whereas I'm just a diletante. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Malleus! I very much enjoyed reading the article (and the talk page comments). :) Theleftorium 12:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tickle Cock Bridge

On April 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tickle Cock Bridge, 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.

Royalbroil 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay, the main page is mine! Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a question but how many times have you gotten a DYK on the main page Malleus. If "the main page is yours" then the main page has been mine 10 times over!--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 18:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, yes. Come back when you not only have TFA and DYK simultaneously, but one of your articles is the subject of news stories worldwide, and you can say something like that without looking arrogant. – iridescent 18:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Many congratulations! I'd never have thought you could have done so much with it. It amused me anyway.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done Malleus! Yes, the main page is yours today - what a coup! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh put a sock in it Iridescent. I did not know that TFA was a work of Malleus.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 18:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a collaboration between Parrot of Doom and me, not my work alone, but to answer your question I think eight now. Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats too to PoD! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. thats odd. I thought that you'd have way more than only 8 DYK's.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at my editing history you'll see that I create relatively few new articles, so not that surprising really. I didn't create today's TFA, for instance; it had been around for a long time, but in a pretty poor shape. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well I try to create new ones. (My eventual goal is to Make an article on every WWII German U-boat, though this may take years) Or at least expand old ones.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly fertile soil, and I wish you luck with it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks. Oh and what does fertile soil mean?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It means the soil is good for planting DYKs –xeno^talk 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. I guess that If I created the reminder of the missing U-boat articles, I could get over 500 DYK. I doubt that that will actually happen. Hopefully someone esle would make at least a few of these before me.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April fools

Thought you might find this interested since your were one of the developers of the Wife selling article for April 1. The |pentagon is moving. --Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Dlohcierekim 23:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised they didn't use the fact that military spending has effectively decreased so therefore they are going to have to downsize the Pentagon to a square. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the main page pick; looks like you had some particularly persistent vandals though. It's amazing that people didn't figure out it was all true :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling

hi, Malleus. I can't find the porn your friend was talking about. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither could I. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

the entire article is history and English porn!--Parrot of Doom 06:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Read some of these and laugh. Raul654 (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article is causing quite a stir. Many still believe that the article is a joke, however... —Aaroncrick (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Including, incredibly: The Guardian Parrot of Doom 11:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary. I can't believe that so many people think it's a hoax. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's only The Telegraph, after all how many people read that these days ;) I do like today's Google's April Fool gag though :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd heard it all. Thankfully someone with more sense took action. Parrot of Doom 15:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done Tan39. I'm sure he'll get some flak for it, but I'm equally sure he won't give a shit. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Swing and a miss :) Raul654 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

At least whoever wrote that has (hopefully) learned something today. What staggers me is that so many have approached this topic with blinkers. The article clearly says that the woman had to agree to the sale, and we were at pains to stress that. The "sale" was usually little more than a public dissolution of a failed – and unregistered – marriage. The transaction had to be public, otherwise the man would remain responsible for his wife's debts. In any event, I've certainly learned something today, which is that the world is no less full of ignorant peasants than it was back in the 18th century. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazing that none of these people are checking the history of the article or any of the sourcing. Tan | 39 17:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it sad when people can't open their minds, and just spout their prejudices without, as you say, checking their facts. I thought there might be some reaction to this article, but I never imagined it would be like this. Raul654 is either a genius or an idiot. Thanks for semi-protecting the article; I've been out and about for much of the day, but it was clearly wearing me old mate PoD down. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Raul was just pointing out that blog, and is not the actual shopkeep of that moronic blather. Amusing enough, it appears they pulled it down. Tan | 39 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, probably wasn't clear. I meant that Raul was very brave in choosing wife selling for today's main page. I never thought for a minute that he'd written that garbage. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. In other news, CNN is reporting it as an April Fools joke (see bottom) Tan | 39 18:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's 6 billion people in the world Malleus, and roughly half of them are less intelligent than the average person. (I know, bad averages etc) Parrot of Doom 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, psychology is one of my specialist subjects. IQ scores are adjusted so that 100 is always the median score. It's a bit like Gordon Brown's definition of poverty – anyone who earns less than me. Malleus Fatuorum

Anyway, now that most of the bollocks has finished, I think we'll find that Wife selling has been a pretty damn good choice for TFA. Not as good as Cock Lane ghost, but you can't win them all ;) Parrot of Doom 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have voted for Mary Toft. Her story is just way beyond bizarre, but she'd had her main page day. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tobacco Smoke Enema next for me. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to all involved with this (and the DYK below). I agree with Malleus above that Raul made a brave choice (and that's why I wanted to make sure he was aware of easier options - it was not intended as lobbying). My impression is that, although it hasn't been plane sailing (it never is), his choice has been vindicated.

Those readers with enough clue to realise that the article is not a hoax also have (in general) sufficient clue to spot that it is based on considerable research and treats the subject with encyclopedic seriousness. It is amazing that even though every April 1 main page in recent history has been based only on verifiable material and true stories, so many media outlets report it as a hoax. It is a great tradition, which exposes that those who comment on the unreliability of Wikipedia are even more unreliable themselves. :) Geometry guy 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have to point this out. L. M. F. A. O. Parrot of Doom 10:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

  ..and yet if you Google the IP address of this obvious disciple of Gandhi, you'll find he loves to hang out here. Should we be seeing this as a warning? • Ling.Nut 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• 307.6k views. Not too shabby :) Parrot of Doom 11:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

She's baaaaack Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

One more review for Michael Bourtzes

I went and did another GA review for Michael Bourtzes and left the comments at Talk:Michael Bourtzes/GA1. I also notified the user. Would you mind double checking to see if I missed anything and then I think I should be able to strike out on my own. Thanks again for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning (at least its morning where I am anyway). I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at this one too. I posted this at the same time as the other so I thought you might have missed it. Thanks--Kumioko (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I had missed that, yes. I'll take a look later today. Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I know your about to go to bed but I was wondering if you had a chance to take a look at this one yet? --Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look, another very competent review. The major problem with the article, as you pointed out, is that it deals only with Bourtzes' military career. I think as well though, some of the writing needs attention. Just from the lead, "Bourtzes re-appears in a prominent position in the as well as his role in the overthrow of Emperor and in the civil war ...", doesn't make sense. Also, you can't "fall into disgrace by". There are similar problems throughout the article, such as "Bourtzes threw in his lot with a number of other prominent generals who were discontent at Nikephoros". The prose really does need to be tidied up. Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I appreciate the help. If you don't mind could I ask your opinion on another unrelated article? I reviewed Biuro Szyfrów and there seems to be a number of problems with this article (I will probably fail it) but I wanted to ask before I failed it. Aside from the article needing a lot of work (Much of which was also mentioned in a previous review) it was submitted by am IP, with no talk page info and it doesn't appear they were an editor. I would assume that this would be grounds for a failure in itself. Would I be correct in that assessment? --Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who nominates an article, so the fact it's an IP isn't of itself grounds for failure. I'll go take a quick look and be right back. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Biuro Szyfrów doesn't look too bad to me, so I'd definitely keep it on hold and wait to see if your concerns are addressed. The major issue with the first GAN was a lack of citations, which seems to have been fixed. I'm not particularly happy with all those short paragraphs in the Polish-Soviet War section, and I'm unconvinced by some of the image licences, File:Płachta Zygalskiego - decrypting Enigma.jpg for instance. Overall though I'm not seeing much that's seriously wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if it was an issue with the nominator not being a major editor. I will leave a note on the nominators talk page as well as the top 3 major editors to see if they can fix the issues. I appeciate the assistance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Donner (2)

I'm getting worried that Ms. Johnson's changes are going to bring the article right out of FAC status - she's introduced primary sources, in some cases the prose is now very weak (in others her changes are good). Some of the text, which I think was sourced to people other than her, she is changing to fit her interpretation of the facts, and I worry that it means the article will soon reflect only her viewpoint. I'm not sure what to do - her input is certainly valuable, but at the same time she doesn't understand WP rules. Karanacs (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Watching, worried, and tomorrow is Saturday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we can do. Maybe we just have to accept that this is heading towards being archived and take what we can from the experience. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep chipping away ... Johnson is knowledgeable, but you may just have to clean up behind her primary sourced edits. The FAC is not near archiving, but her edits have to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen that Karanacs hasn't given up on it yet, so neither will I. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have company today and will be gone all day tomorrow, so I don't have a lot of editing time. I made a first pass through by looking at the diff of what's changed from the end of the day on the 31st through when I posted today. Overall it wasn't as bad as I thought - there was really only one section that had changed drastically. This is the first time I've had an expert in the topic be very involved - it's a fine line to walk! Karanacs (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed. I've chipped away at a few things, and I'm really hoping that not much more gets added to the article so we can finish tidying up what's there. I'm going to be away for most of tomorrow as well, so I guess we'll just have to cross our fingers and hope for the best. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#WP:TFASTATS

Thought you might be interested in this, since we seem to be specialists in garnering page views for controversial and bizarre TFAs :) Parrot of Doom 19:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hi Malleus, hope all is well. I'm just stopping by to let you know that I'll soon be pinging you for help with David A. Johnston, hoping that I'll be able to expand the article to a full amount and get the prose to at least a decent standard. I'm planning to get it to FA by May 18, so this will be a very difficult task to attain! Not surprisingly, I see that Wife selling did very well yesterday, congratulations to you and Parrot of Doom! I thought about you two on the plane ride home, when I saw a fortress purported to have belonged to Blackbeard. ceranthor 23:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Malleus. I can't remember what time zone you are in, but if you are going to be around for a bit longer, could I ask you a quick question? Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of bed, but I'll probably be around for another half hour or so. Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Would you be able to check your e-mail? Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not until tomorrow I'm afraid. Are you sacking me? Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow would be good. Glad to see your sense of humour is still intact. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. I can see you've got a lot going on article-wise, and I've got plenty to do this weekend as well. If you do have time to have a very quick look and you don't have time to take a longer look, could you suggest someone else I could ask about this? Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming "this" is that "this" and not some other "this", hmwith or Moni would probably be pretty good choices (although Moni will be as tied up as Malleus at present). – iridescent 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just found the forwarded email you were talking about Carcharoth, and I've replied. Iridescent, sadly Moni3 has withdrawn from the fray, hopefully only temporarily. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tickle Cock Bridge

Hi Malleus Fatuorum, I was happy to review it, but I must admit I did not recognise it from the photographs. It was only when I checked the citations, that I recognised it from the TV pictures. I'm not being too precise when I talk about "roof". From memory, from the TV programme, it was an underpass through a railway embankment with narrow approaches having high side walls on either side of the railway land. My so called "roof" was probably the roof of the underpass. Network rail, Railtrack (who ever) seem to have have take away the old structure, built some load-bearing side walls further appart than on old structure and laid a concrete slab or beams across. It also looks like the the side walls have gone. The picture in ref 1 looks like a right muggers paradise. I've not been there myself, perhaps I've just been fooled by the "angle" of the TV production. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

!

Bots never lie. – iridescent 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blimey! How the Hell does that happen? I only started the page as a bit of a laugh. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(10w+2p+l), where w=number of watchers, p=pageviews and l=incoming links. Unsurprisingly, you're well ahead of WP:Ethics; more surprisingly, you're on a par with the much-misused WP:DTTR. – iridescent 17:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this page while browsing around the Wiki, and couldn't help but point out this. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 05:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Two things

1, Well done!!! What a weekend for you:-) and congratulations to your fellow editors on Donner Party too. 2, MF, you are by no means a woman hater, too many people on here with other agendas, rise above it, you usually do with great style. Wife selling is an excellent piece of social comment on the past and deserves an airing. Well that's what I think.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll admit to a little feeling of childish pleasure in getting an FA and a GA through on the same day. I think I'll be looking for something a little less exciting than the Donner Party or wife selling for my next project though. Maybe 19th-century Manchester and Salford horse-drawn omnibus routes. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey you, Make this a third thing, I wasn't going to do any more on Manchester United as I keep getting "Cleaned up". I forgot to say, is it ok?? --J3Mrs (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I like your edits. The article's written too much like a sports page at present, and needs a clinical eye to the prose. Frankly, without a lot of help quickly, I think this is going to get a hammering at FAC. I'm not even sure I'd have passed it at GAN before all the peacockery was removed. It's good that you're a girl as well, you'll give it that feminine touch. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Look mate, having just been "cleaned up" again I'm off to bed. I spent my teens on the terraces, a long time ago and know quite a lot about football. I think I saw all these players. Agree totally about the prose, it's awful. Rewrite the first sentence (the Trafford borough-ugh!)and the one about Cantona (an absolute cracker) because it'll be cleaned up if I do it:-( --J3Mrs (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this; who's "cleaning up" your edits? The Cantona bit is pure tabloid. Without a lot of editors helping quickly, including you, this is going to be an embarrassment at FAC. I wasn't lucky enough to see any of the great United players like Best and Charlton play at old Trafford. The team was pretty crap by the time I started supporting, but I do remember the old Stretford End: no cover, no seats, crammed together with people pissing on the back of your legs, and being pressed against the anti-crush bars struggling to breathe every time there was a United attack. I'd have to say I really don't miss it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the edit summaries. I've edited the Ground section twice. God I feel old! I loved the all standing areas, all we could afford. I got hit on the head with an old penny when I was ten at Old Trafford :-( Put me off 'em for life. --J3Mrs (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to put a stop to this – not you being hit on the head with pennies of course, I don't have a time machine. This article has been crap for far too long, and FAC is a serious business. It needs as much help as it can get, and it needs your help. BTW, I much preferred watching Crewe Alex play at Gresty Road. Might get a crowd of 1,000 on a good day, and I have a vague memory as a young kid of seeing the Alex draw with Spurs in an FA Cup tie, only to get thrashed 9–0 (IIRC) at White Hart Lane. The draw was great though ... or was it a dream? Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried, but I think I'm failing. Real life calls. I remember Crewe Alexandra beating Bolton in an FA Cup match, or did I make that up? --J3Mrs (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Crewe drew 2-2 with Spurs, but then lost 13-2 in the replay! [1] B.hotep (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC).

Really stupid question…

…but with your witchery experience I assume you know; are heretics "burnt at the stake" or "burned at the stake"? Both look wrong to me. – iridescent 20:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
PS. You really don't want to touch anything to do with buses right now, unless you have a blinding urge to be sucked into this trainwreck. – iridescent 20:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I always saw the latter in my textbooks, but I speak the corrupted version of this language, so what would I know? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll give 19th-century Manchester and Salford horse-drawn omnibus routes a miss then. Is there nowhere safe? Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Burnt is past tense whereas burned can be present or past tense. Either can be correct dependant on the context it's being used in. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"in 1532 Lollard radical Thomas Harding was burnt/burned at the stake in the town for heresy". – iridescent 20:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Being a Brit I'd tend to use "burnt", but I suppose it's the equivalent of our "lit" vs "lighted". I think it's one of those choices where either can be correct. So toss a coin :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

On a sidenote, if I've stalked this page correctly over the last couple of months, I don't think it fair to call Malleus someone with "witchery experience". I would say it's more "people-who-have-been-accused-of-committing-witchery experience". Heh. Toss pot.  :-) Keeper | 76 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...but

I wanted to thank you for encouraging User:JohnsoKr to create an account and edit the Donner party article - it is wonderful to have an expert helping us out. On the other hand, I was a little dismayed that I was the only person who left a personal welcome message on her user talk page and volunteered to help her learn the ropes here at Wikipedia. Please don't forget that learning our ways can be confusing and time-consuming. We need to welcome outsiders into our strange village. Awadewit (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't encourage her to create an account, I encouraged her to edit the article. I have also tried to explain wikipedia's ways wrt verifiability vs truth vs original research at the appropriate place, the relevant article's talk page, so I am unconcerned with your "dismay". In general I do not respond well to prissy and sanctimonious messages like yours. What do you want, a fucking medal? Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And we wonder why people don't want to edit. I'm mystified. Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not all you are Awadewit, as I tried to explain to you above. Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to chip in, but: Awadewit, do you think replying to a "prissy" message with an openly sarcastic one is maybe not the best way to deal with things, when you've just lectured somebody on being all lovely and hippy to users? Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the talkpage of the IP she was using before she created the User:JohnsoKr account, which has not one but two detailed welcome messages. What's the point of explaining something to someone a second time when one knows for certain that they've already received an identical message? – iridescent 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Awadewit is on a feminist crusade, and one that I have no sympathy with. I'd bet the mortgage that she wouldn't be even half so bothered if Kristin was a bloke. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that bet - I'll admit my bias, but it has nothing to do with women in this case. It has everything to do with experts - I think we should actively recruit experts. If Kristin had been a male expert on the Donner party, I would have done the same thing. Awadewit (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The same thing being accusing others of not welcoming this "new" editor, who had already been welcomed twice already? Give me a break! Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I've ever discriminated between those editors I believe to to be male and those I believe to be female, but if Awadewit thinks that I have, and can provide some evidence to support her belief, then obviously I'll have to eat humble pie. I discriminate only between those with a functioning brain between their ears and others, regardless of gender. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of that, but I do find it interesting that you continuously use language that demeans feminism, such as "feminist crusade". Even if you don't mean such language to be derogatory, that is the effect of your posts. Awadewit (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

One day, when you can see more clearly, it may not be necessary for me to tell you what I find interesting about your crusade. In the meantime, piss off. Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to go for a fucking medal, but I'm afraid my testosterone levels are too low and my back is too creaky. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You should talk to Mastcell .. he's got some get-rich-quick scheme that involves prescriptions for what ails you :) Hey, Malleus, are you breaking promises already? You owe me ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have massive respect for those women who campaigned for universal suffrage, some of whom even died for it. What I have no time for is aggressive feminism. Believe it or not I have many friends, both male and female, and I'd be mortified of any one of them accused me of being a mysoginist. In real life, there's nothing I would say to a male that I wouldn't also say to a female, but there are some things that I'd offer to do for a female that I wouldn't offer to do for a male. Like carry a heavy box for instance. Does that make me a woman hater? Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Seneca Falls Convention/GA1

Hey. Just poking you to make sure you didn't forget about this. Doesn't look like he fixed your concerns though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just thinking of reminding the nominator about this. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's it! Thank you for you patience and your sharp-pencil eye for editing. Your recommendations for the article made it much better. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your nominations are pretty easy to review. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard

On 5 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Airlines

Hi Malleus,

NielsenGW has completed his pass through the article. Could you please finish what you were doing (and undo any changes needed to bring the prose upto FA standards) please.

Many thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 07:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A step backwards?

I realise it's difficult to explain your objections to an edit in your edit summary, so what exactly was your problem with my last change? – PeeJay 15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the lead is the only chance you get to make a first impression, and the phrase "... Old Trafford, in Trafford, Greater Manchester" is ungainly and strange. Would you say that Bolton F.C. played in the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton, for instance? Old Trafford is a place in its own right, as well as being the name of the stadium. A few other points:

• It's unnecessary to link pound sterling.

• Easter eggs like "controlling interest" are to be avoided.

• "In July 2006, the club announced a refinancing package totalling £660 million, on which interest payments will be £62 million a year." Will be when?

• "This result of this new financing plan will be a 30% reduction of annual payments." Will be when?

• You removed "match-going" from "A protest was organised by supporters groups, encouraging [match-going] fans to wear green and gold". Are fans encouraged to wear green and gold at all times?

Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

hmm...

What do you think about this article from a new editor? It reads more like original research than an encyclopaedic article to me, but I wanted another opinion as the editor is new. Parrot of Doom 20:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to believe that the material came from the two books given in the References section; certainly Darnton is mentioned several times in the text anyway. The problem is a lack of inline citations, so it's difficult to tell. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok think I'll leave it. Meanwhile if you're running short of exciting, even brilliant prose, have a look here for inspiration :D Parrot of Doom 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of those are quite brilliant. I particularly liked "Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph." That's really making a point. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"She walked into my office like a centipede with 98 missing legs" is worthy of Douglas Adams.... it reminds me of.. "they hung in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't" from HHGTTG. PoD - that's a great find. Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Superb. My fave "The politician was gone but unnoticed, like the period after the Dr. on a Dr Pepper can." --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it ?

Is it "demoted back" or "demoted"? I've changed it so many times I don't know! --J3Mrs (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Demoted back" sounds a bit strange to me. I'd probably say "demoted to". Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure its like "reverted". Cheers --J3Mrs (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think you're right. I'm also inclined to think that "demotion" is maybe not the right word here. I'll need to take a look at that whole sentence ... Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and Goodnight, MUFC is very wearing, I feel as if I have played a full match and extra time against Norman Hunter or Tommy Smith. --J3Mrs (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bog turtle

Hello Mr. Malleus, it's been a while. We are still pushing forth with the bog turtle article as the current school year draws to a close. On the verge of submitting for FAC, I would like to have the article copy-edited by professional eyes one last time as per User:Sasata's wishes. In short, I was hoping you would still be interested in helping some humble high school students!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No need for the formalities, you can call me Malleus; it's not my real name, after all. :-) When are you hoping to take this to FAC? I'm sure I'll be able to look it over in the next couple of days or so. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to put it to the critics fairly soon, however, we're having some intense discussion on the talk page...Any time in the next couple of days (i.e. spring break for me) will be just fine (p.s. the only reason for the "Mr." is because I am myself just a minor -_-). Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Must be tough with the coal dust getting everywhere.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Minor" is a homonym of "miner", just a silly joke. Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha(I guess...)!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway

Thanks for keeping an eye on him! I hadn't noticed, but the protection must have expired. Am running out, and can't ask for a new protection for a few hours but if it's very bad it will need protection again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Malleus, check your emails if you haven't today. – iridescent 23:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this about what I think it's likely to be about? I'll go check my emails shortly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it wasn't about what I thought it would be about. Message received and understood. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award Malleus the original Barnstar for helping a few humble high school students achieve GA (and beyond) on the Bog turtle article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Peace offering

I'm sorry if I offended you, it was my desire for a good line coming in ahead of my common sense. I have nothing against you and hope we don't have to be at daggers drawn.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to remind me. What are you talking about? Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you keep saying I ought to be dysysoped, yet I rarely use the tools.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave it there shall we? Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine. I hope we can agree to differ on that point and work together to build an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope so too. Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alkmonton

Do you (or any of your talkpage watchers) have any thoughts as to what to do with this? Normally, my reaction would be "wipe it out and start again", but it seems a real shame to wipe out a work of almost Lordship Lane levels of misguided effort; it doesn't seem to be a cut-and-paste, meaning someone put hours of work into it. (I can't even think of an easy way to source-and-rewrite it; I know nothing about the place and doubt publications on it are available anywhere other than the local historical museum.) – iridescent 23:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Totally not appropriate for wikipedia. No clue how to fix it... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's obviously been copied from somewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily; it could be an email from a local historian that's been dumped verbatim into Wikipedia. I can't find it in any of the usual places, and the writing doesn't exactly meet publication standards. – iridescent 00:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell! Lordship Lane should be up for some kind of award :) Richerman (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Only if Earl Shilton is too. Nev1 (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuked it from orbit. It's still in the history if anyone needs anything of it. You folks are far to kind and caring for this game :p --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least the Earl Shilton article looks half-way interesting to someone who knows the place. And it's got something about witchcraft :) Lordship Lane appears to have been written by someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder. Richerman (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I can just envision the article's OCD editor walking down Lordship Lane, ringing each and every doorbell and asking for information. Surely most of that article should be nuked for lack of notability, listcruft and no referencing? I'd start having a stab at it, but I think I'm far too old and will end up leaving the work for my grandkids after I shuffle off my mortal coil (cue the Norwegian Blue jokes)--Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Come on Fred, we know you just can't bring youself to do it - you're all heart after all! Richerman (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

First shot across their bows. Let's see what happens. I reckon the tags will be deleted with a huff and a puff in the edit summary. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just when I was beginning to think you were getting warm and cuddly in your dotage. Richerman (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The really ironic things here are (a) in case the photos don't make it obvious, Lordship Lane is one of the most nondescript streets on the planet (oh, it probably scrapes through WP:N by virtue of its age, but there's really nothing to say about it); and (b) there are only two landmarks on Lordship Lane, both of which are already at FA status in their own right, and nobody could possibly care about the rest of it. ("Unnamed Parade: Numbers 734 to 748. Includes Barclays Bank, Ladbrokes, News Agents (burnt out late summer 2007 and reopened 2008 as a SPAR), Fryer's Delight Traditional Fish & Chips Takeaway, Winston's His & Hers Hair International, Dry Clean Wash & Go.")

And the frightening thing is that there used to be another article that was even more obsessive. I have a vision of a demented postie jotting the description of every house he delivers to. – iridescent 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the first run-through done to get the really bad stuff gone. I'm sure there's a helluva lot more that can go. Someone else want a go as an easy breather after the hard work of copy-editing more serious articles? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Arb who added all that in the first place is still about; might be worth seeing how venomous the response you get is before you do any more. – iridescent 18:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I had to laugh at some of the stuff as I was going through. I could just imagine them on the top deck of an open double-decker with a microphone monotonously reciting it all to bored stiff Japanese and American tourists :) There was quite a bit of editorialising going on within all that text. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me you didn't remove the bit about the used car showroom "whose hut resembles the pavilion of a cricket pitch, now replaced by Ladbrokes and a police office (not open to the public)"? – iridescent 18:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes. I did leave the bit about the public toilets being a possible listed building though!--Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think whoever added that got confused by an Images of England search on "Lordship Lane"; it brings up this, which is indeed listed but is on a different Lordship Lane. – iridescent 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wheee!

Elizabeth Canning now promoted. I think that's one of the least painful promotions an article I've nominated has ever had! Parrot of Doom 17:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. You're obviously getting the hang of it now. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick question - "Mary Squires owned a cat. It was Mary Squires's cat." Ok, that's simple enough, but what about her family, the collective Squires? Is is the Squires', the Squireses? One of the editors on the FAC has raised this but I think he's coming from a US perspective. Parrot of Doom 17:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Squires's. One syllable names keep the 's suffix; St. James's Palace is the most obvious example. – iridescent 17:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But we're talking about 3 or 4 people named Squires. If I used s's, wouldn't that beg the question, "the Squires's what?" Parrot of Doom 17:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Squireses, in that case. – iridescent 17:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But its a plural noun. Parrot of Doom 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, scratch that. Apparently our guideline is:

• My sister's friend's investments (the investments belonging to a friend of my sister)
• My sister's friends' investments (the investments belonging to several friends of my sister)
• My sisters' friend's investments (the investments belonging to a friend of several of my sisters)
• My sisters' friends' investments (the investments belonging to several friends of several of my sisters)

Which would make it "The Squires' cat". I think the collective of Squires would be Squireses in that case; see here. If you can make sense of it. – iridescent 17:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I hate the English language. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"The cat which was owned by the Squires family" and "Mary Squires and other members of her family". – iridescent 18:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's cheating. Parrot of Doom 18:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is reliable, it's "The Squireses' cat". – iridescent 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(adding) which makes sense; ignore the family-name aspect, and think of how the language treats business/businesses/businesses'. – iridescent 18:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

'Tis indeed the Squires' cat, unless they nicked it off someone else in which case it would be someone else's cat. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(Since the conversation is here) Congratulations, Parrot, on the successful FAC. Your hard work paid off. The article looks great. :) I adjusted four words where it was clear that plural, not possessive, was meant (the Squires family didn't possess anything in these sentences, negating the need for apostrophes). While I opted for "the Squireses", "the Squires family" might work even better. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go for just plain "Squires" which is how I'd pronounce it in my head. Squireses just sounds awkward. Parrot of Doom 09:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to replace current alt-text guidance

I would very much appreciate your comments on the proposal here. Regards, Colin°^Talk 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fallen at the first fence, I'm afraid. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That was the only fence I kept from the original :-(. Removed as suggested. I'd appreciate if you continue -- the rest is radically different to what was before. Colin°^Talk 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've worked on the draft some more since you last looked, and have gone ahead with installing it. I wonder if you would consider applying your copyediting talents to it. And your critical eye. Regards, Colin°^Talk 21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, be happy to. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a major improvement Colin, and I'm full of admiration for the way you've stuck with this issue. I'd even be supporting this version back as as an FA requirement, and that's saying a lot, as I was very much against the previous one. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits last night, and your support. I guess it is in "beta" just now. I need to experiment on some of "my" articles to see how it works. Perhaps you could have a go with articles you've worked on. I wanted to wait a day before emailing any expert, just in case someone reverted the whole edit, but it is crucial we get expert approval this time before imposing any guidelines. If the guidance appears to be helpful, we could ask the FAC crowd to voluntarily beta-test it before then seeking to have it reinstated as a WP guideline. I'd appreciate if you could stick around the talk page to help address any queries and review changes. Such a big edit is bound to attract further edits and comments. Regards, Colin°^Talk 08:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I will, although it sadly appears that trying to get anything done here now inevitably results in acrimonious debates (usually) about very little of real substance. Malleus Fatuorum 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My self-imposed one-revert restriction prevents me restoring the nutshell again. You'd think it contained profanity the way it simply had to be deleted twice. I'm quite sure there are alternative nutshells that could work, and some that would be better. The old nutshell made you think "well how do I achieve this". The suggested one gives the illusion you don't have to think at all: just stick "photo" in. The biggest problem sometimes is when few editors are watching or participate, and it just becomes a spat between two people who don't understand each other. Colin°^Talk 16:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're right, which I always laugh when I see the "community consensus" mantra being trotted out. Too often that just means the three or four who bothered to turn up, or perhaps more usually the one who shouted loudest and drove the others away. Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well we currently have no nutshell and an editor who has finally realised that what he really wanted to write was a Help page rather than a Guideline. And who perhaps is starting to realise alt-text is a wee bit more complex than it first appears. I don't know if you feel up to restoring the nutshell or coming up with your own suggestion... I don't know where Slp1 and SV have got to; I did write them a message. I'm off to write some alt text. Colin°^Talk 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The bad karma on wikipedia is starting to get even to me, someone who doesn't believe in bollocks like karma. I'm not certain there's any point in doing any more ... let it all turn to grey goo. At least grey goo is civil, or at least it isn't uncivil, which is all that really matters here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FARs (2x)

I see that all of the above is probably lessening your enthusiasm in Wikipedia, but there are a few articles that could use your opinion if you're interested:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canada/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moon/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1

Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it has lessened my enthusiasm to zero. It's impossible to do anything worthwhile here without making enemies. I'm not afraid of making enemies, but what's the payback for me? Just more pratts who think they're being hard by threatening to block me. I really doubt whether wikipedia is big enough for me; probably it could work in smalltown USA though. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Smalltown USA thinks Wikipedia is a liberal plot. And it is big enough for you, but maybe not for others. I'm fighting my own grammar problems today, which doesn't make me a happy camper either. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My patience is about worn out. Let the ignorant, stupid, and vandals have at it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible new tool to Create Military biographical articles

Good day to you. I hope all is well well where you are and thanks again for the lesson in reviewing articles for GA. I am working on making a little tool to hopefully make it easier for inexperienced editors to create biographical articles. Right now I am concentrating on military people because that is what I am most familiar with but if it works out I will expand it. I was wondering if you had any comments or suggestions about this. I understand of course that this is not a perfect solution and not without its own problems but I am trying to make it as easy as possible (given the sytem limitations in place and my own limited knowledge of wikicode). Here is a link to what I have made so far Military biography creator. I am trying to figure out a way to allow the user to input data in the front end before the article is created. For example this first screen would essentially ask for the name of the article then the next would ask a series of questions like When were they born, where where they born, etc so that when they get to the article it will have some basic info already. Again, please let me know what you think. --Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FARs

Hi Malleus! If you have the interest, there are a couple of FARs that could use your attention:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Israel/archive1 - The nominator concerns seem to have been mostly addressed here. However, so few reviewers want to get involved in any Israel/Palestine articles that the FARC is having trouble getting interest (I'm assuming that's a major reason, at least). It could use a good eye on the prose.
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manila Light Rail Transit System/archive1 - This has been hanging around for ages. The nominator seems willing to work with reviewers, but getting people to stick around and make a definitely keep/delist declaration has been a major problem. The process seems to be approaching an end point, however, and the prose could use a look-through.
• And, a quick question. Does your delist vote on the Biman Bangladesh Airlines article mean that you have made up your mind and will not be working further on the article? Just checking to make sure - I don't want to make a final decision on the review and then find a nasty note from you tomorrow because you were halfway through a final copyedit :)

Thanks you for your work at FAR, and thanks in advance for any comments on the first two above. Dana boomer (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There will be no nasty note from me. I felt that Biman Bangladesh Airlines could just about make it with some work, but I'm afraid I lost patience after the efforts of the GOCE, so I'll not be looking at it again. My view of copyediting seems to be radically different from the "let's fix the obvious grammatical and spelling mistakes, job done" crew; I also want the article to be well organised, consistent, and intelligible. Perhaps I ask for too much. I'll try and look and the other two you mention tomorrow. FAR seems to have even more problems with reviewers than FAC does, which is a shame. Malleus Fatuorum

OK, I've looked at them both now. Just between you and me Dana, I think that Israel article is a disgrace, and I wouldn't even have passed it at GAN, never mind FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work, Malleus. You are correct that FAR has even more problems attracting good reviewers than FAC - it is something I'm trying to fix, although with little luck so far. Lack of reviewers is a constant across WP, though, so I'm not exactly surprised... If you see the response to your comments on the Israel article, you'll also see why the review is having such a hard time attracting independent reviewers of any caliber. If you know of any other hard-headed editors willing to jump into the fray, please feel free to drop them a note...although I would put money on it that most of them already watch your talk page! Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No real surprise in the response to my comments. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." For me, the article is a marginal GA, nowhere close to FA, but as you suggest, sensible non-partisan editors won't touch topics like Israel/Palestine/Ireland even with a very long barge pole, because everyone knows it'll just end up in bickering and squabbling. Not me though, I've already delisted the Israeli West Bank barrier; the message has to get home that crap just won't be tolerated. In general I'd have to say that in my limited experience FAR seems far more tolerant of poor quality than FAC, and that can't be right. Surely the same standards ought to be applied at both? Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. I took a quick look at a few other reviews that caught my eye, but they all seemed to have plenty of input already. If there's ever something that seems to be stalled though, please feel free to ping me and I'll happily offer an opinion on it, without fear or favour. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In a perfect world, the same standards would apply at FAR as at FAC. However, in reality, we have fewer high quality reviewers and fewer reviewers overall, which means that quality tends to go down, even when the reviews are up for multiple months. Also, the default at FAR is keep, while the default at FAC is to archive, which definitely makes sense on one side (maintain the status quo unless there is a proven reason to change), but it also makes it so that if main editors stall and argue for long enough, they generally get to keep the article as they like it. I'm sure you already know most of this, though... As for the Israel article specifically (and please don't take this as me being critical of your review, because it is spot-on), it must be considered that the last time this article was reviewed was late 2007, which means it has had over two years to accumulate cruft, not to mention the standards of both GA and FA were lower then. I just wish the main editors would see this as an opportunity to polish an already relatively good, although maybe not Good, article, rather than seeing it as their work being attacked. Well, that's my rant for now! Thanks again for your comments, and I will keep you in mind when other FARs become stuck... Dana boomer (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that obstruction should not be rewarded. Look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chennai/archive1. I switched to keep simply to stop arguing when Marskell said he wanted to keep the article because some work had been done, effectively a sympathy keep on his part, and it was pretty obvious the draggers had won the day. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. The standards at FAC and GAN have risen considerably over the last couple of years. GA bit the bullet, with its sweeps project, which is thank God finally over now. I never took the view though with the 300 odd articles I reviewed that the default was the status quo. For me, the default was if this article doesn't meet the GA criteria then I will delist it. Here's what I think is wrong with it; your choice. For me, FAR should be the same. Bugger the status quo, does this article meet the FA criteria? Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, completely. But when you don't have any editors willing to take a stand that the article doesn't meet FA criteria then sub-standard articles can more easily slip through. Or editors who don't look at all of the criteria and vote keep because the article looks good on the surface. Dana boomer (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, that's why I let FAR run long to wait for the non-fan-club reviews to get in. If people just close immediately as soon as a couple of fanclub keeps come in, then you get results like Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ahmedabad/archive1. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Buried somewhere (I really can't be fagged to go look) I'm sure Raul said somewhere that when deciding whether to delist at FAR, he considers whether it meets the GA criteria as opposed to the FA criteria, given the constant escalation in standards. If you're planning to do FAR's "to the letter of the law" it would probably be worth getting agreement from Raul, Sandy and Karanacs as to exactly what standard they expect the articles to be judged against. – iridescent 23:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's the consensus view then I guess I've been doing FAR reviews wrong. Mea culpa. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No you're not. And GA can be variable because of the sample of reviewers being only 1. As for sweeps, in 2007 and early there were often 60 FAs a month. In many FAs/GAs, people do the bare minimum to pass and then stop work until they get forced to FAR. New FARs wouldn't even be 15 per month, so unless 75% of FAs are by editors who will work unless forced and don't cut corners if they can, or WikiProjects are being proactive, which they aren't, not to mention retirement, then the FA quality gap will widen. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We're obviously singing from the same hymn sheet, but could you even begin to imagine an article getting through FAC today with six citations to Britannica and three to Encarta? Ealdgyth would likely be thrown into a swoon (or am I thinking of that Sandy from Georgia?). Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see a whole different problem at FAR; a lack of motivation for people to work there at all, because it's not being actively managed as Marskell did, and FARs are simply dragging on too long and never going anywhere. Marskell managed each FAR quite actively, stated what he was waiting for on his decisions, pinged editors in for feedback, and dug in himself whenever necessary-- there was a real camaraderie in working there. That's why I recommend closing them as a default keep when they've been up for insane amounts of time like four months-- they're just bogging down the page, close 'em, they'll be back in three months. Marskell saw it as a place to improve and restore articles as much as possible, with the idea that even if stars couldn't be saved, articles would at least be improved while there. Now it's become more of an automatic delist place. Something has to happen to make FAR the fun place to work it used to be, where there was great pride taken in restoring articles and saving the star. Otherwise, there's no motivation for anyone to go deal with the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

GAR has much the same conflict. Is it a garage where poorly articles get fixed up, or is it an assessment programme? If it's both, how are the conflicts between the two supposed to be resolved? Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't accept your point about FAR being an "automatic delist place", and in fact I've done quite a bit of work on several articles currently at FAR in the hope that they won't be delisted. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're engaging! It's neither a garage where poorly articles get fixed up, or an assessment programme-- it's turned into a garage with no diagnostic tools, and I suggest restoring some motivation to work there is more important now than whether any individual article is defeatured or not-- arguing for four months is not helping anything, those things need to be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It would never fly, but how about time-limited FAs? That is, abolish FAR altogether, but once an article's featured it only stays featured for (say) two years, and after than has to be renominated. That incentivizes article maintenance even after the hoop's been jumped through, and does away with some of the more problamatic elements of FAR; by taking away the tension of "I don't think your pride-and-joy deserves to be an FA", and all the potential backbiting that comes from that, it might calm down the bear-pit atmosphere. – iridescent 00:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Too much process, unfairly penalizes FAs that are rigorously maintained by their nominators, like ... ummmm ... my one and only :) Would increase backlog ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's rigorously maintained, there's nothing to fear… You know as well as I that there are articles by certain people which will never go to FAR, no matter how far they slip behind current standards, because nobody wants the hassle of the inevitable backlash. – iridescent 00:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Well, I've been attempting to bring more people in to FAR and end up with more articles being kept. I'm not really sure of any other way to do this other than nagging content experts and other reviewers to work on the article, asking for updates from editors working on the article and just generally making a nuisance of myself :) If anyone has suggestions on how to better bring more contributors to the FAR process, please, please let me know!! (Either here, my talk page, or through e-mail.) Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

With the few I've looked at, it seems that there's an inbuilt bias to keep, and so reviews are held open for far too long. My inbuilt bias is to give a reasonable amount of time to address the serious issues, but if they're not addressed PDQ then to delist. To be honest, I doubt that very many of the articles kept at FAR would survive at FAC. I think that FAR has got to be tougher. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We need you and the other FAC prose hardcores there :) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad language - 5 pillars etc...

Not sure what your argument with user:PeeJay2K3 is but nobody wants to see the language you used in the comments of the edit at Manchester United F.C.. Try reading Wikipedia:Civility before your next edit. Have a nice day. Bjmullan (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just checked out your talk page Nev1 and I see that you have a issue with Civility as well. Being nice costs nothing. Try it sometime. I hope you also have a nice day. Bjmullan (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Save your preaching for someone who gives a shit. Nev1 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's you put in your place then Nev1. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you mum is really proud of you. Bjmullan (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

She is actually. Do you know who your father is? Was he ever married to your Mum? Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So nobody wants to see accurate and to the point edit summaries? No wonder the project is in decline. BTW Bjmullan, what rank do you hold in the civility police? Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's become my policy to walk away from articles where another significant contributor chooses to be deliberately insulting, as PeeJay2k3 did, so there's no need to worry about the wiki imploding. I won't be making any further contributions to Manchester United F.C., other than perhaps opposing its promotion at FAC if its present problems aren't sorted out before then. So there's no reason why PeeJay and I should ever have to interact again. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about what's happening to this article, I was just looking in after a weekend away. Truth is I can't really say I'm surprised as I spent most of last week biting my tongue. --J3Mrs (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've given up on it. Can't even get the basic grammar right without World War III erupting. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame you at all, there are more interesting things to do.:-) While I was away I took a library book and discovered that 8 pages have been very carefully removed, and an illustration cut out of the middle of a page. I hope they don't blame me :-( --J3Mrs (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In my experience they won't give a shit. If you tell them it's been done they'll just say "thanks" and throw the book away. The cost of chasing up the possible vandaliser is too prohibitive from their PoV. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame user:PeeJay2K3 for your own comments beginning with, "Please stop taking the piss Peejay;". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please try to rearrange these letters into well-known phrase or saying: "cufk fof". Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I can feel a Civility Barnstar coming on. Anyway, PJ can't be blamed for wanting to sound like a yokel ("ooh aar, the club were a good 'un in the day it were". After all he is Welsh, and a non-Manchunian MUFC supporter. What can one expect? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• The OP might wish to watch this for a rough guide to UK views on swearing. Parrot of Doom 22:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ooh, that was good. Nice moment from Janel Moloney. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• This daft "civility" nonsense will be the death of wikipedia, I'm quite convinced, and its effects are already apparent in the decreasing number of contributors. One day all that will be left is the civility police, guarding their increasingly dusty "treasure". Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have already said it costs nothing...Bjmullan (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And silence is golden. I'd happily pay for some if the alternative is being told which words I can't use. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

People have the right not to be sworn at or insulted, regardless of their conduct. If you disagree with someone, tell them why; don't just shout at them and then complain that they won't do what you tell them. – PeeJay 22:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts. You've been behaving like a Grade-A arsehole for some time now; pointing that out to you in language you may perhaps understand is surely a kindness. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If you would care to explain your viewpoint, that would be appreciated. After all, I don't see how I can defend myself if you won't specify your objections to my conduct. Come to think of it, I don't understand why you're even acting in this way. You are obviously an intelligent and experienced Wikipedian, so why do you feel the need to resort to incivility? – PeeJay 23:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has an innate right not to be sworn at, and if you feel insulted well there are ways to redress that, and they don't involve moaning about it. Parrot of Doom 23:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we please just drop this "incivility" crap? J3Mrs has already explained to you what the problem is, but you refuse to listen. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The further this conversation goes, the more I wonder if you even understand what "civility" means. Nevertheless, I found J3Mrs's explanation of the problem to be quite wanting. You can express dissatisfaction with another person's conduct, but if that person believes that their conduct was appropriate, they may not understand your objection and will need it explaining to them. I believe that is the situation here. My contributions have been an endeavour to find a suitable compromise to what I believed to be excessive "pruning". I recognise that I should have been more eloquent with my objections, but it's never too late to start discussions. – PeeJay 23:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me be frank. My opinion of you was never high, but now it's at rock bottom. I have no further interest in this discussion, or in the article that precipitated it, so I suggest you go bother someone else now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a shame. I pity your lack of perspicacity in this matter. Your contributions were wanted and well-received, but they were not perfect, hence my own edits. It's just a shame that you are unable to recognise that I always had the article's best interests at heart. – PeeJay 23:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

PeeJay, I am familiar with your work, and I think that Malleus realizes you were trying to help the article. Your work is in fact very respectable, in my opinion, and should not go ignored. However, I think that you should not comment any more on Malleus' talk page, as he asked you to leave. Best, ceranthor 23:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ceranthor is suggesting that PeeJay should not comment any more on Malleus’s Talk page because Malleus has asked him to leave. If I’m not mistaken, Ceranthor is basing his suggestion on some sort of notion that one User should respect a request made by another User, at least where the other User’s Talk page is concerned. Respect for a request made by another User sounds like something out of a code of conduct. I doubt Malleus has an expectation that any of us should be observing a code of conduct. Dolphin (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that you have any idea what a sanctimonious pratt you've just made yourself appear to be. Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody has an innate right not to be sworn at"

Of course not. However this is a narrow self-selected community based around a project. To further the goals of that project, the community has agreed that we won't swear at each other. Along with a whole pile of other civility stuff, there are things that we have all agreed (by joining the project) to abide by, to do, and to avoid doing. We WP:AGF the most obvious trolling until all chance is exhausted, and we don't WP:NPA each other. Some of this is silly (in narrow isolation), but the overall effect is to provide a more conducive working environment for the good of the project.

Every wiki editor has the right to be an arsehole, but not the right to act like one towards other editors. One renounces this right by joining in and agreeing to be bound by community, consensus, and the current social contract expressed in WP:CIVILITY. If you don't like it as it stands, then work to get it changed. Having experienced both Usenet and Wikipedia, personally I'd keep it how it is.

I don't personally care whether Malleus swears at me (and that goes back a while) because I have a thick skin (and to be honest, I normally swear far more than he does, just not here). However I don't think he should, or at other editors, because I don't know how thick their skins are and I don't wish to potentially lose good editors for the whim of a gobby Manc. Nor do I like his attitude that he gets to pick and choose amongst which policies apply to him (that's what arguing about Climate change is seemingly for). If you edit here at all, you agree to stick with the lot - that's how it works. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"If you edit here at all, you agree to stick with the lot - that's how it works." - except judging by the amount of posturing that goes on—including your own grand little essay—it clearly doesn't work. Parrot of Doom 16:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bothered what Andy Dingley or any other Welshman thinks of me; it couldn't possibly be worse than what I think of them. What is interesting about this little spat though, is that none of these civility warriors bothered to find out what they were talking about before getting out their lances to have another tilt at me. A cursory examination of yesterday's events would show even the dimmest of them that in fact it was Peejay who started with the swearing,[2] yet not a single one of them seems to have admonished him for his rude and intransigent attitude that has already driven away two good editors from the article he obviously feels is his alone. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that "bloody" was a swear word, or at least not in the same league as the language you used! – PeeJay 20:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There appear to many things you aren't aware of, not least of which, and most relevant, is how to write a decent article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there are a great many things I am not aware of, but there are also a great many things I am aware of. And if you truly believe that writing a professional standard article is beyond my capability, I take it you haven't read Old Trafford. You need to get over yourself and realise that you are not as wonderful as you think you are. – PeeJay 21:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather unimpressive article that I wouldn't be at all surprised to see at FAR one day soon. Now piss off. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Do another comment like this and you'll be looking at a block without further warning. Up to you of course. Only reason I didn't block now is that too much time has passed. Take care, and let me know if I can help you in any way, or if you don't understand why you can't talk like that here. --John (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you try it and see what happens John. Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Let me know the next time you have insulted someone in that way again and I will come immediately and block you for, let's say 1 week? Thanks for being so cooperative, --John (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall I also let you know when someone insults me, so that you can block them as well? No? I thought not. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you still not aware that the edicts of the Civility Police don't apply to their own ranks, only to people in disagreement with one of their members? – iridescent 19:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of it, how could I not be, but I refuse to kow-tow to them. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All of this because of a question about singular/plural? Of course club is singular. Players are plural. End of story. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the WikiWonderland though, where telling someone who's being an ignorant arse that they're being an ignorant arse ist verbotten. Haven't we been here before? Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88, where are you from? Discretionary plural clearly indicates that, in British English, "a number of words like army, company, crowd, fleet, government, majority, mess, number, pack, and party may refer either to a single entity or the members of the set that compose it". "Club" clearly falls into this category as well, and that - whether one chooses to accept it or not - is the bottom line. – PeeJay 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I know the difference. I'm an American who's lived in Didsbury. The article is much better using the singular. Not all Man U fans are Mancunian, so the clearer the language the better. (In other words write for the whole world, because it's that important of an article!) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that not all Manchester United fans are Mancunian, Northern or even English (it has been noted several times on this page - usually in a pejorative sense - that I, myself, am Welsh), but according to WP:ENGVAR, shouldn't we stick with the English variation that has the strongest national ties to the topic (i.e. British English)? – PeeJay 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, use WP:ENGVAR but that's a pretty obscure rule that isn't always followed and it's really jarring for those not familiar with it. My advice is to use singular for club. Because if you use plural, someone else will come along and change it at some point. Or better still, take it to the talk page and decide there. I'm willing to guess Malleus is frustrated because his edits were to readability, which ultimately is the point of writing an encyclopedia. Keep the audience in mind, and don't have a situation where the reader has to stop and figure out why the grammar seems wonky. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a simple concept. "Club" isn't, and never has been, a discretionary plural, in any variation of English. "Team" is though, perhaps you are getting confused? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

How did you come to that conclusion? Is a club not made up of members, who - as a group - may be referred to as "the club"? – PeeJay 22:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A lifetime of correct, and oft-times pedantic, English usage. Now, you see, "members" is also a discretionary plural, yet "club" still remains a 'compulsory singular' whether you like it or not. But then again, if it was, I'm sure an intelligent person such as yourself would have come up with a pointer to a dictionary definition or somesuch demonstrating this to be the case. As you haven't... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is quite contrary to the evidence I have already supplied. "Members" is quite clearly a "compulsory plural"; no one would say "the members is...", would they? "The membership is...", perhaps, but not "the members is...". Club, however, is obviously a collective noun and therefore uses the discretionary plural. – PeeJay 23:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't supplied ANY evidence. You have referred to the Wikipedia stance on discretionary plurals which doesn't actually give "club" as an example. If it is as you say, though I've never, ever before now heard anyone use "club" in your preferred way, then I'm sure the OED or the Cambridge or any other British English dictionary could back up your erroneous assertion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Try using the plural on a Golf Club. Or a Conservative Club. Fred is correct PeeJay, it simply doesn't work. Parrot of Doom 23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the stick used to play the game, a golf club is not the same as a football club and therefore doesn't apply here. Anyway, here is an example of a club being referred to as a plural entity; the title of the article says "Peter Ridsdale paints over cracks with claim that Cardiff are overdraft free". And here is another instance: "Weymouth Football Club are giving you the fans the chance to design a new away kit for the 2010/11 season." There are several instances on this page. Is that enough? – PeeJay 23:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, you've already demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about, so why persist in this illusion? You are wrong. Live with it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The evidence I produced just above proves otherwise. – PeeJay 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. As in a lot of things in the English language context makes a difference. the tow articles you quoted are using discretionary plurals in an entirely different way than you did. For starters the first article didn't use the word "club" at all. It used Cardiff as the plural. The second article qualified its use of "club" by prefacing it with the team's name therefore it was the team that was being referred to not the club. "Club" was just used as part of the title rather than as a noun in its own right. BTW still waiting on the dictionary definition --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever attend one of those institutions that used to be called schools PeeJay? If you did, I think you may well be entitled to make a compensation claim against the LEA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, your incessant insults are becoming tiresome. If you refuse to accept academic opinion regarding collective nouns and discretionary plurals, that is your prerogative, but don't drag us down with you just because of your intransigence. – PeeJay 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me tell you frankly what I think ... no best not; you've got the backing of the civility police, so whatever you say must be true. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to be consistent. [3] [4] [5]. The lead clearly states that: "Manchester United Football Club is an English professional football club". For the sake of consistency and common use, 'club' is singular. —Dark 00:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Exchequer of Pleas

Thanks for the copyedit here, matey! Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a great article. In your position I'd have been tempted to take it straight to FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. By-the-by, it's always great fun working with you, and I've got some free time coming up after May. If you see any articles you want to work on in an area I might be able to help with, don't hesitate to give me a poke. Ironholds (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you ask, workhouse is one I'm presently struggling with; I'm finding it difficult to properly align the legal context with the social reality, so any suggestions you have would be very welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Any individual issues where they conflict, or is it just fitting both together? Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just fitting both together. Most of the workhouse literature focuses on what happened after the 1834 legislation, which seems to have been a watershed. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmn. Personally, I'd structure the articles differently; if you're going to include a section on poor law, merge it with some form of history of work houses. I'd suggest doing the same with the political and social attitude. Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The structure is all wrong, I completely agree. It's always difficult though, picking up an article that's been written by other editors, who will very likely become incensed when their handiwork is unpicked. I feel more and more that wikipedia is in its death throes, and that we're wasting our time here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pepper v Hart highlights the problem exactly. I'd suggest starting the article from scratch as a draft, perhaps in userspace, and then copying it over per WP:BRD. If anyone can honestly stand up after the rewrite and say "no, this well-referenced article with historical and legal perspective is far inferior to the barely-referenced, error-prone article we had before" I'll probably start to agree with you about the death throes. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, it's got to be rewritten. I don't think I have the motivation to do what's needed though, so I'll probably leave it. Thanks for your very good advice. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• No problem; if you change your mind, give me a poke, and I'll see what legal bits and bobs I can contribute to any draft. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• If I may offer some advice? Often when I've started with a messy article, and wondered how to proceed, I've looked to see how print authors structure things. If I were you Malleus (I haven't had chance to visit the library yet) I'd forget the legal bollocks, and start by tidying up the workhouse itself - the type of work, the building, the people who lived there, etc. Get that done, and then worry about the boring legal stuffs. Parrot of Doom 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to be blocked again shortly, so ... will you please take over the GA review of Ironhold's article? Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't mind doing that but for every admin that blocks you there's another admin with a brain that unblocks you :) I just tend to attract the idiots, whereas you attract the idiots with powers! Parrot of Doom 22:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I just don't want the article's promotion to be held up because I'm on an enforced one week vacation. I'd be grateful if you'd take over the review; my time here is clearly limited. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oky doky Parrot of Doom 07:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I see that Fred's just been blocked for 24 hours on some trumped-up charge. Watch your back PoD. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• All done. Invoice is in the post. In truth I only picked at a few bits of fluff on a jumper of excellence. Parrot of Doom 22:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks very much PoD, but if you want paying you're going to have to rely on that Writ of Quominus. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Watch it, or I'll have you in Star Chamber Parrot of Doom 22:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• It seems Fred has now been blocked indefinitely as a supposed sockpuppet Richerman (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I saw that earlier, but what can you do? There's been no evidence presented, at least none that I'm able to see, so I guess we're just expected to trust what we're told. Once you make the wrong enemies here your time is limited anyway. Looking on the bright side though, if it's true, then Fred will no doubt soon be back under a different username, so nothing lost really. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

You have been making a great number of useful contributions in article and featured article space of late. In the last 24 hrs you also have taken to launching disruptive personal attacks against virtually everyone you are dealing with, however.

If you want to take a vacation from Wikipedia, you can merely stop yourself from editing. You are explicitly commenting that you expect someone to give you an enforced vacation for a week or so; forcing someone to do so just so you can go on break seems somewhat sociopathic.

Would a topic ban on your editing user talk pages help move you towards editing only in topic areas which you are already handling constructively? I would rather give you a structure you can work productively within rather than see you leave entirely.

If you really don't agree in any way with the civility policy and have no intention of acting in compliance with it, I would like to request that you find another project to amuse yourself.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't your comments here a bit late? Maybe Malleus would have come back with a different outlook (and almost certainly ready for work again) – all you have done here is fan the flames – again! How many people does it actually take to come here and tell Malleus "the error of his ways". How many more sanctimonious messages must he endure before people realise that, left to his own devices, he is trying to get on with it. As far as I see, he never goes looking for trouble, it always seems to arrive here on his doorstep. – B.hotep •talk• 08:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

GWH I would suggest that Malleus's contributions to this project easily outweigh anything volunteered by those people who busy themselves with lecturing to others what they think they should and should not be saying. Presumably you have also had words with John, who only a few lines above threatened a punitive week-long block for language that only the most conservative-of-thought would consider rude? Or what about PeeJay, who seems to be immune from pontification? Why is it that whenever I see an admin post here with threats and warnings, I hardly ever see the same threats or warnings issued on the talk pages of the others involved? Parrot of Doom 08:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. GWH, Chief Superintendent of the Civility Police once again attempting to ignore the difference between punitive and preventative. I wish I had the same level of piousness. I'm convinced that it's yet another case of the 'Chillum Factor", ie there's stuff going on therefore GWH wants to be in the action and where there is none is prepared to create the wikidrama himself. I'm starting to think he's the Paris Hilton of the Civility Police. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Or Jordan/Katie Price in the UK sector. I firmly believe that some people post here to wind up the talk page stalkers as much as MF himself. – B.hotep •talk• 11:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

i guess you mean well GWH, but it ought to be very plain even to you by now that I have no interest in your opinions on anything, so please try to keep them to yourself in future. I really wish that you would find another project to satisfy your lust for power. Have you ever thought of becoming a prison warder? Just down your street I'd have thought. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't be fucked to read this mess, but I thought I'd drop some *hugs* --MZMcBride (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I really do hope you're a girl MZMcBride, because being hugged by a bloke just freaks me out. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Freedom!

Re Moni's talk, see this. Cheers! Awickert (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

... and there was me thinking I was unique. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I look over balconies and cliffs and wonder what the best strategy would be to survive the fall. Yes, including during conversations. :-) And this same sense of "hmm, I wonder..." makes off-road driving and jaunting around in dangerous parts of the desert so much fun! Awickert (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking about familiar themes, there's a lot of personality traits that I found rang a bell while transcribing the DNB entry for judge Anderson, and not those at the end of the article (I was also amused imagining how long an article written in that tone would survive here). That being said, this looks like a fascinating character, and our corresponding article doesn't really do him justice. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Classic edit summary

Well, even I'm managing to upset people now - how's this for a classic edit summary? And what was these wonderful references that were added? Well, er... this??? Obviously the editor was telling the truth - he/she doesn't have time to find good cites :) Richerman (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This place is descending into chaos, presided over by the criminally insane. I take some comfort in that though, as it hastens the day of wikipedia's rationally run replacement. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My Talk

I hope that if I do pass, I will be a good admin, too. ;) As for the questions, I've started on them, but I want to wait for NuclearWarfare to write his nomination before I accept - and answer. Best, ceranthor 23:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are wise beyond your years butterfly. Take whatever encouragement you can from the fact that I won't be opposing this time. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. ceranthor 00:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Email needing looked at

Hi, you were suggested as a Wikipedian to get to look at something.

I've emailed it to the account associated with your username, and I see a few nicknames I recognise on your talk that I know, it's just that I'm predominantly on Wikinews, have a handful of FAs there, and wouldn't know how to make what I've laid out in the email happen. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no power or authority to make anything happen here. If I did, then 90% of the present admins would be kicked out on their ears. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Help

Hi, Malleus Fatuorum. I'm a new user here, and I hope that you would be able to teach me how to expand stubs, as I saw your article about wife selling on the Main Page on April Fools. Could you show me how to copyedit Laroi and find references for it to expand it so it is no longer a stub? Thanks in advance for your help. Codedon (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have been in about as many conflicts as I have over the past few days, why do you think that is? Anyway, to answer your question with a question, do you live in India? If you don't, you may find reliable sources on Laroi hard to find, but they're what you need to take it beyond a stub. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in India; however, my ethnic roots lie in India. I think I've "been in about as many conflicts as [you] have over the past few days" because the customer service here is not as developed as I expected. I'm quite disappointed with editors with the likes of Mono and especially the belligerent Svick. My supposed customer service agent Mono continues to ignore me, and his deputy customer service agent Svick continues to belligerently attack me. How do these incompetent people get hired? Answer that for me. Codedon (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My grandparents lived in a village near Laroi. Codedon (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a volunteer effort Codedon, there's no "customer service", and nobody gets paid. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I did not realize that. Nevertheless, those people should not be attacking me. Is that what one should do to a newcomer?
I'm glad you are not belligerently pouncing on me. Thank you. Codedon (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not going to be able to expand Laroi, could you recommend to me a stub that I could try expanding? Codedon (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are loads of stubs; I'd guess that the majority of wikipedia article are stubs or just a little bit more. What topics are you interested in? Do you have access to a library? Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I respond, I'd just like to reiterate how grateful I am that you are so much nicer than the other people here.
I'm interested in Indian topics, since of course it's my past and I'd wish to learn about it. And, yes, I am situated near a library. Thanks for your help, Codedon (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of good people here. Unfortunately there are lots of shits as well. Anyway, if you're in the UK, what about working up one of the Indian history stubs? There should be plenty of sources available for the period of the Raj. The Anglo-Mysore Wars could do with some work, for instance, particularly the First War. Is that the kind of thing you might be interested in? When picking topics to work on, I tend to be guided by what sources I can get access to, particularly books and articles. Why not take a look through your library's online catalogue to see what they have available on India? It might give you some more ideas for a suitable topic. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of the good people, save for you. I'll try working on the Anglo-Mysore Wars. Again, thank you so much.
By the way, would you mind if I changed the adoption template on my userpage from "Mono" as the adopter (which sucks) to "Malleus Fatuorum" (which sounds very grand)? Codedon (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm always happy to help, but I don't really do adoption, and I've got no idea what it entails. I'll be here to help with whichever article you choose, but you should be aware that I can be very critical ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. After all I've endured from Mono and Svick, I can't see how much more acrimonious you can be than those two hooligans. Codedon (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's best not to dwell on things. I've got absolutely no doubt that Mono and Svick aren't "hooligans", and are in any event just volunteers like you and I. Let me know when you start work on whichever article you choose and I'll keep an eye on it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've decided I don't want to work on the Anglo-Mysore Wars. Wars don't really interest me. I want to work on Kaithal honour killing case. Its name attracts me. Codedon (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It certainly needs an awful lot of work. Do you have any ideas for how you're going to approach improving this article? Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to do an overall read through, and fix anything I see on the first pass. Also, I guess I need to take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources before I make references. Thanks for your support. Codedon (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reworked the intro of the article and added the proper tags to the references. I did not read the entire article looking for errors, but I fixed the ones I caught as I corrected the references. I've decided that I'm going to work section by section. Can you critique my work so far? Codedon (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So far, so good. The article's very poorly written though, and needs tidying up throughout. For instance: "Since the judgment was the first of the kind by an a court involving khap panchayats ...". There just shouldn't be obvious stuff like that. It's certainly a bizarre story. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was a scary ordeal . . . Anyway, what do you think of my changes so far? Codedon (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's coming along slowly, but there's a lot more to be done yet. For instance, this attempt on the world record for the longest sentence needs to be addressed: "On her part, Chandrapati, who was widowed 18 years ago and now continues to live in the same village which had ostracized her, under police protection, with her two daughters, and a remaining son, decided to continue till the Supreme Court to get death sentence for Ganga Raj, the influential khap head who ordered the killings and the police officers who abandoned the young couple after Kaithal." Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot to be done; I haven't finished going through the entire thing. I really love your sense of humour. Codedon (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I realise "On her part, Chandrapati, ... the young couple after Kaithal" is from a news report, but the novels of Angela Thirkell have longer sentences. --Philcha (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Suprising

I'm a little bemused you created a throaway for this. Not a lot more I can say other than I'm bloody sorry to see you play the "fuck it" card on WP. Bugger it. Pedro :  Chat  19:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not why I created it, I just didn't want to be tempted to use it again, so I outed it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

okay, so I see. Even so [6] :) Bugger it mate, I'm pissed off the bastards finalkly got to you. Pedro :  Chat  19:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that real life treats you well, Malleus. While I am sad to see you go, it is your decision. I hope you are aware of the admiration I have for you and your skill in writing. You have my regards. ceranthor 19:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish you well in your RfA Ceranthor, but I'm sure you'll understand that I have nothing but contempt for wikipedia's administrators. I won't be posting anything else here, so talk amongst yourselves. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Cummon Malleus, ignore the administrators (well the silly ones anyway), skip the excitement, and stay around to do the boring stuff, like helping me and other ignorant editors to make parts of Wikipedia better; at least this bit's worthwhile, isn't it? And I'm not the only one who needs your advice and wisdom.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, looks like your poxy team needs you. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

MUFC!!!! No way!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Bah. There's loads more rude articles to work on, Malleus. :( Parrot of Doom 21:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Malleus - it's a wind up. Ignore it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I often don't agree with you and the way you do things, but you make Wikipedia a livelier place and I would be sorry to see you leave. Plus you are a really good writer and the project has too few.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OKC Bombing Reward

		The Original Barnstar
		For bringing the minefield of OKC Bombing up to FA status Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your copyediting efforts, I'm grateful this article reached FA and is now the main page. I now look forward to fixing the excessive vandalism for today, but hopefully a few more people watchlist it today as I head to work tomorrow. Anyway, I again appreciate your efforts, and hopefully can use your excellent copyediting skills in the near future with some other possible candidates. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi Malleus, I have not reinserted the text in the Donner Party article, but I happened to read your edit summary here [7]. Please don't call my edits "nonsense", it's sort of rude and I am here to improve the encyclopedia as you are. Thank you and hope you have a nice day or evening, wherever you are. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not interested I'm afraid. You have your opinion and I have mine. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. Does it make you feel powerful to be a pompous jerk? I'm sorry you're such an unhappy person. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it make you happy to be a complete arse? Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you've been studying your Cicero, or perhaps Demosthenes. People like you are the reason Wikipedia is losing editors faster than gaining them. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, hold on; if the diff above is the only one in question and there's no underlying issue, that may be incorrect but it's clearly a good faith attempt to improve the article. Direct the fire where it's needed. – iridescent 02:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the article history. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but bear this in mind. If it's getting this much coverage on this side of the pond, I imagine it's front-page news in California and Nevada; you can't assume people are acting maliciously when they assume that if it's one of the lead stories in the paper, it's important enough to mention. – iridescent 02:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, what does the article history have to do with your personal attacks? I inserted some text yesterday, someone reverted me today with a rationale I disagreed with, I reverted again and then stopped after that. And as I said above, I am not reinserting it as I have no desire to edit war. I do not see how anything I did was an "issue". Are we not here to write articles or otherwise improve existing ones? Are we not encouraged to be bold? SandyGeorgia very politely explained on the article talk page why my edits were not acceptable and I agree with her. All you've done is mock me and call my edits "nonsense". And when I VERY politely tried to talk about it with you, you exhibited a dismissive attitude. Again, this is why editors leave Wikipedia. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I couldn't a monkey's arse. What has become quite clear to me over the last week or so is that the contributions of those who have no idea what they're talking about, but are new editors, or administrators, are in some way favoured over those who have at least half an idea what they're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I care to contribute to this sick project any more; in fact I'm quite sure that I don't. You won't be seeing me here again. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope- you do not have permission to bail! Karanacs is traveling, Moni is gone, and you gonna leave me all alone on Donner? no, No, NO; I was supposed to be the proud Godmother of that venture! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Just where are we meant to go for a brilliance infusion if you retire? Anthony (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A storm over the user of the word "nonsense". :( YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Au revoir

I hope to see you around again. You're an asset to this place, and I enjoy your comments, your style, and most of all your articles. I don't really have any useful advice, but I will just say that it is possible to enjoy one's work here while at the same time holding a low opinion of some of the editors. If you ever end up in that place, and feel yourself able to write here again as a result, we'll be glad of it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Who cares?

It's not like you're missed or anything. Anthony (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Like Moni3, I'm no longer certain of my place here, what I want to do here, or whether it's worthwhile doing anything at all here. I have such a contempt for the sanctimonious hypocrisy and dishonesty displayed by almost all the administrators and their hangers-on here that it's inevitable I'll be banned sooner or later, because I really don't have the slightest interest in any of their vitriolic slime. But I don't want to abandon these high school students to their fate at FAC. So, when that's done, I'll decide who decides when I leave Wikipedia. Me or the slimeballs. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're gonna go down, take a few of them with you. Tan | 39 19:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

B*gger the admins; what about the editors?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've lost my way here. I despise the dishonest way the place is run, but I support the principle of free information, freely available to everyone. I find myself incapable though, of sitting on my hands while I see administrators abusing their positions of authority, time and time again, pontificating on their illusions of "civility". I think Tan may be on the right lines; when I go down, a few of them ought to be coming with me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a fallacy of the excluded middle at work there. Have a look at the current list of active admins; I'll wager you've never heard of 95% of them. That's because they keep their heads down and don't act like assholes. Somey's "a single turd in the beer renders the whole keg undrinkable" analogy sounds impressive, but he's wrong; if there's a piece of mold on the sandwich, it's perfectly possible to cut the moldy part off and eat the rest. Only you can decide whether you'd rather eat what's left of the existing sandwich or get a fresh one somewhere else. But if you want a fresh one somewhere else, there aren't many sandwich shops open; Larry's sandwiches are stale and curly, and Greg's are just like here but with a bitter aftertaste. One day someone will come up with a better way of making sandwiches, but it hasn't happened yet. – iridescent 20:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I expect you're right. In truth I rarely have any idea whether another editor is an administrator or not, and care even less often than that. The only ones I recognise are the bad apples that keep turning up on my doorstep. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Did someone call? I thought with all the fish and sandwich references maybe a bowl of petunias might be needed? No.? Okay then. Stick around if you can MF. Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just noting for further reference that baiting, goading or grave dancing are harassment and will be dealt with according to policy. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Who's "baiting, goading or grave dancing"? – iridescent 20:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not you obviously. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So who then? Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here? When I saw Anthony start a new section called "who cares", I was surprised, but from his previous post on this page and the link he posted, I think he was saying that people still need Malleus around (ie: the view count didn't drop to zero). Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully that's the explanation. Like you, I thought that Anthony was trying to be supportive, not "grave dancing" or the like. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering the amount of baiting you have been subjected to over the past two weeks and that I cannot see anywhere the two of you intersected but twice on your talk page, I read it differently. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might now lift the block you placed... –xeno^talk 20:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the post was meant to show that the page has as many views now as it did post April Fool's when, for obvious reasons, the views spiked up. People are still looking, because well, Malleus is missed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Combined with this previous edit, I'm not convinced that has been in good sport. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

They're both tongue-in-cheek supportive statements. I've unblocked. –xeno^talk 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Will someone undo that damn block or do I need to get myself resysopped and do it myself? Even if you put the worst possible reading on Anthony, do you really think Malleus of all people wants someone civility-blocked on his behalf? – iridescent 20:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It was not a civility block, thanks all the same. As I said, I'm not convinced it was in good sport. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, his first post, referred to all the lurkers who watch this page, get fun out of it, and maybe a little admiration too, for a man who is willing to come back to help students write about turtles, which should be the point of this place! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

MLauba, I'm sure you meant well but every single person here, including the subject of the "attack", is telling you this is a godawful block. Will you please revert yourself? – iridescent 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Unblocked by Xeno [8] thank God. What a clueless, piss porr effort Mlauba. Pedro :  Chat  20:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed...best not to fire from the hip... –xeno^talk 20:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I wouldn't go that far, I think it's possible to see how it could be read as MLauba took it, but it is unfortunate it resulted what is probably friendly fire. Nev1 (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes best to throw out a challenge-response to prevent blue-on-blue. –xeno^talk 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh my god. That block was classic on like four different levels. Tan | 39 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry but considering the context, extreme subtlety tends to get lost on people who are thick like a brick when they're not dense like concrete, which tends to be my normal state of being. And that also applies (most probably) to what I assume to be a FPS reference but might be something different altogether. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel sorry for Anthony. Now he's had his first block, the second will come along so much easier, as per the "look at his block log" afficionados. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There must be someone with oversight powers among your 200+ watchers (Cas, I'm looking at you); this may be a candidate for log-wiping to prevent precisely that. – iridescent 21:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I think you'd have to give an extra big smile to get this oversighted, as the block summary was not really an issue (other than being wrong of course) Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If it weren't bound to compound the problem (and against the policy to use the block log for annotations), I'd reblock for one second with a block notice making clear the previous one was my screw-up. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The unblock summary should be enough. –xeno^talk 21:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't. People just look at the length of the block log, not its details. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I just brought up MF's block history for fun, and almost indeffed him out of reflex. Tan | 39 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's an argument against a 1 second annote by MLauba. For my part, I try to look at the block log and figure out how many actual incidents there were, what they were for, and how many were eventually nullified. I know that for some folks they might have 6 or 7 entries related to one incident! –xeno^talk 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested an oversight, and suggested that if the exception was granted, the oversighter block me in turn, so that Anthony is not impacted but my screw-up gets not brushed under the rug. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's too much. Iridescent has repeatedly said that I'm against civility blocks, but in truth I'm against almost all blocks. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point, and again, brushing aside my errors under the guise of restoring Anthony's standing is not proper either. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to fall on your sword; everyone makes mistakes and this one was quickly fixed. The important thing is that I doubt this will happen again. If the log isn't oversighted, I'd recommend saying to Anthony that if anyone ever tries to use his block log against him, he can link to this conversation. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oversight declined, and pointed out that an oversighted block log might give a worse impression (correct block but inappropriate block reason), and suggested in fact the 1 second entry with apology. Since my judgement is particularly poor tonight, I'll sleep over it, propose it to Anthony, and see who suggests what tomorrow. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your judgement wasn't so poor that it prevented you from apologising. I wouldn't worry about it, you've more than redeemed yourself. Parrot of Doom 22:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

MLauba was just trying to be supportive. We all love you Malleus. Don't go. Anthony (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly care. If you decide to leave, we'll be losing one of the most intelligent, wise, and humorous editors we've ever had, and that would be a shame. I hope you decide to stay and just generally avoid your enemies in general. Don't let them push you to retirement. If they get to you, then they are just getting what they want. I can only repeat what everyone else has said, a good deal of people respect you and hope you stay. Best, ceranthor 02:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ceran! Stick it out, 'cause I'm sure you're in the right. The more level-headed, devoted contributors we have the better. It scares me to think how many admins either act irresponsibly due to immaturity (regardless of age) or—in other cases—do so for political, commercial, or religious reasons. Wiki is a powerful tool, and power attracts the people who are most likely to abuse it. Please stay. Even if you lay low for a while, I'm sure there are many places on Wiki for you to work quietly and improve the overall quality of this beautifully free source of information. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't get around much here, but I've bumped into Malleus a few times behind articles, and I've watched this page for a few months. Malleus has always been intelligent, blunt and appropriate. He occasionally (rarely) misreads situations and is very watchful for that possibility, and quick to apologise and make amends when it occurs. I don't think he needs to lay low. Not from what I've seen. Anthony (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I care too. Should Malleus leave, Wikipedia would be poorer for it. Of the dozens of requests for help he's had, how many has he declined? Malleus' insightful contributions have significantly improved hundreds of articles. Can his detractors say the same? It is fair to say he doesn't suffer fools gladly. So what? Why shouldn't he call a spade a spade? And, by the way, any editor too sensitive to cope with this talk page should stop reading it. Malleus, you must stay. This project is worthwhile and is greatly enhanced by your continued participation. Sadly, the same cannot be said of all its contributors. Daicaregos (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

are you leaving?

Well, that is entirely up to you, and if the place frustrates you, then who can blame you. I would have welcomed your contributions to the War of the Bavarian Succession FAC (and still do--it's still open), but understand your nervousness about administrators looking for an excuse to block you. I agree we have to pick our battles. You may not like how I construct bibliography and footnote sections, and I may be irked by some of your habits, but if we cannot accept different styles and well-meant critiques, then what kind of community of intellectuals is this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have opposed over your choice of bibliography/footnotes style no matter how much I disliked it, and I've just struck the comment I made that may have persuaded you otherwise, to make that clear. Looks like the job's a good 'un now though, with five supports, so well done. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent you an e-mail. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see

... you editing again. I'm also amused that I actually know of your newest project. ceranthor 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's actually quite a famous hoax, because Arthur Conan Doyle got involved in it. It's interesting as well, because one of the girls who took the photographs claimed 'til her dying day that the last picture was genuine. Anyway, looks like your RfA is going spectacularly well, so this time tomorrow you'll have joined the ranks of the untouchables. Or should that be unspeakables? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got Blackbeard out of the way now, so the desk is clear (apart from a little tidying of Tobacco smoke enema. I'm keen to get my teeth into something similarly offensive or unbelievable, and if I can insert a few long s's in there, all the better. Parrot of Doom 22:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

George Psalmanazar might be just down your street PoD. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That one was already on my watchlist, but I'm not sure there's that much that's been written about the case. Parrot of Doom 07:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a bit I think, in fact a whole book, Michael Kevak's The Pretended Asian: George Palmanazar's Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax, published in 2004. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks for that, you've just cost me more money at Amazon :( Parrot of Doom 17:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sod that, too expensive on Amazon. I'll get it ordered at the library instead. Parrot of Doom 17:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, £26 second-hand. Have you had luck in the past asking the library to find books for you? Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the library got the Barlow book on Dick Turpin, and the Moore book on Elizabeth Canning, both quite rare books I believe, and expensive to buy. Cost about £2.50 each time but well worth it. I'll search t'internet first though to see if that book is in any libraries. Parrot of Doom 17:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I came across Psalmanazar via Magnus Magnusson's Fakers, Forgers & Phoneys, which I got from Manchester Libraries. There's quite a big section on him in that book. Malleus Fatuorum 04:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Malleus, but if I pass, I will resign if need be. I'd like to say I could use my judgment to determine if I was wrong, but I will definitely accept input from others (if I pass). Also, as I said, I won't be using the tools an incredible amount. ceranthor 23:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll do fine, just be careful with that block button; it causes no end of problems around here.Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your assets are needed yet again

Hi. I was wondering, can you find anything on the SMS Viribus Unitis? I'm trying to expand it for something (A Ga or a DYK) but There is not that much info about it. It was built in the early 1900's and rotted away at Pola for 4 years until 1918 when she was sunk by a mine. that is litteraly the whole story.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that's all there is to say then. Have to say though that I'm a bit suspicious about the third paragraph in the Sinking section: "Paolucci then quickaly placed the other can of explosives and placed it in the water around the battleship. Rossetti then flooded the the second caniser which held the explosives sitting in the water, letting it sink to the bottom of the harbor. Following the attack, the two men were told that that the can of explosives with had sunk to the harbor flooe exploded next to the Austrian freighter Wien, causeing her to sink as well." What language is that written in? Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Teen. do you want to reword it?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm "away with the fairies" for the forseeable future. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. She'll be waiting for you. Thanks anyway :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(od) Is the casemate armour on this ship really 0.7 inches thick? Ning-ning (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misread it. Maybe millimetres is not the unit to use! Ning-ning (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on your work

I just wanted to say congratulations on all of the work that you are doing on the Cottingley Fairies article. I appreciate seeing it moved along from where it was. About a decade ago I saw a little item on "The History Channel" stating that Mel Gibson had bought the cameras and/or the negative plates used in this incident. It did not state whether his interest in this came before or after the Fairy Tale: A True Story film. So I was interested to see the items turn up on the "Antiques Roadshow" without any mention of Gibson. A search on the net turned up this [9]. Obviously THC mention was incomplete if not in error. I don't know if any of this is notable enough to add to the article but I thought that I would pass this on to you a) in case you weren't aware of it and b) so you can decide if it should go in. Thanks again for all of your work and continued happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a useful find. It's certainly worth adding that the photographs and cameras used are now on display at the National Museum of Film, Photography and Television in Bradford. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I am glad that it was of some use but I hope that I did not lead you astray. The article is from 1998 and I was afraid that maybe they were no longer at the Bradford Museum. A lot can happen in twelve years. I went to their site and spent about 15 minutes navigating through it. I found several mentions of the items in the teaching section but I could not find anything about whether they were part of a permanent exhibition. Unfortunately, I have to go offline now so I wanted to let you know what I had and had not found. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The same thought occurred to me, so I checked the museum's collection. The photographs and cameras are on display in the museum's Kodak gallery, and seem to be quite a popular exhibit. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. I'd be very interested in your opinion on the article now. This is what it looked like when I came across it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't offer enough praise for the work that you have done. You took what was a bit of a mish mash and turned it into a readable and informative article. I would like to make a couple of suggestions. First let me say that I saw that you did not like the pop culture section. I am in between on them. I have found some interesting things in them over the years that have added to my enjoyment of learning about a variety of subjects. It is also interesting to see what people put in them. On the other hand I understand that there aren't encyclopedic. In fact I wish that we could have a separate wiki where we could just list away on these things. Back to the matter at hand - do you see any way that we could include info about the Froud and Jones "Pressed Fairy Book? If you have never seen it it is a well thought out and hilarious satire of Victoriana (well maybe Edwardiana considering when the real events took place). I will understand if you don't feel that it should be in the article. My other question is do you have any ideas how we could make a better distinction of the two films? FT:ATS deals with all of the principle characters involved and, though fictionalized, I feel (POV I know and I full well understand that you may not like the film as much as I do - or at all come to that) that it deals with a host of ideas raised by the real life events that are worth exploring. On the other hand PF only mentions the photos at the beginning of the film and then goes off to tell its own story. Let me know what you think - once again - thanks for all of your work. MarnetteD | Talk 02:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As you say, I'm very much against the In popular culture trivia magnets, for all the obvious reasons. I've never seen either of the films, so I simply tried to justify (with a citation) why they might be worth a mention. So far as the Lady Cottington books are concerned, I struggled with that. There's no doubt in my mind that the Pressed Fairies book was indeed inspired by the Cottingley Fairies, but which reliable source says so? And what do the books tell us about the Cottingley Fairies or their legacy anyway? The release of the films on the 80th anniversary of the first photographs seems potentially noteworthy, and perhaps the Froud and Jones books indicate a continuing interest in the story, but again, who says so? The problem is that we're writing an encyclopedia article, so what we know (or believe) to be true doesn't matter; all that matters is what reliable secondary sources have said. It's also a very short step to "the Cottingley Fairies were mentioned in episode 73 of Family Guy" kind of rubbish. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoowee you are up late - or is it early now your time - I have been mulling it over and we could probably remove PF. It has less to say about the Cottingley Fairies then the Pressed Fairies book. In fact the Torchwood episode that was in the Pop section had more to say about them then that film does. I think that FT:ATS is worth a look if you can track it down. Even if you don't like the storyline you will see some excellent performances. Peter O'Toole, Paul McGann, Bill Nighy and Phoebe Nicholls are all in fine form and Harvey Keitel is so good as Harry Houdini that I wish that he had made a film about all of his life. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 03:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Late. Andy Klein says in his review that the Cottingley Fairies are the basis of both films, so I think we have to stick with that. I've never seen either of them anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 11:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

GA help

A brand new editor, passing ill-prepared articles: User talk:Geometry guy#Darn it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Guido

Time to put this article out of its misery I think. I'll return to the sources I used on Gunpowder plot and make something of it. Do you still have your sources? Parrot of Doom 19:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I took everything I had back to the library, but it was really more about the plot than Fawkes anyway. I can see nothing but a battle over this article; this V for Vendetta rubbish has already got me warned by an all-powerful administrator for trolling, disruption, tendentious editing, and God knows what else besides, so I think I'll leave it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Its the usual mire of rubbish sources right now but tomorrow I'll sit down my my Fraser book and see if I can tidy it up. Parrot of Doom 20:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Again

Hi Malleus, I was working on the oodles of taxonomic concerns on the review page and I came up with some new information. I have been working here and I was wondering if you could quickly go through some of the wording before I throw it in the article (don't mind the big red letters concerning the ref tags, I am beyond caring about that kind of thing). This would be massively helpful to our efforts. Thanks so much.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been a bit of a marathon for you and your fellow students; I'm full of admiration for your perseverance. I've had a bit of a hack at your text, but if I've wrecked the meaning of what you were trying to say then just revert it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and copy-edits! It has taken a while, but with editor like you, it's been a piece of cake <{: -).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cottingley Fairies

Hi Malleus Fatuorum, I started reviewing Scheme (programming language) but it is destroying brain cells faster than I can replace them, so I'm doing your Cottingley Fairies first. You are knowledgeable in these matters, does Scheme (programming language) have any merit? Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pyrotec. Fairies are much better for your mental well-being than computer programming languages. Of course I'll be happy to take a look at Scheme and let you know what I think. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Now a GA. Interestingly I've seen those photos before. I went to a series of lectures on Psychical research at Paisley in the late 1980s (or possibly 1990) given by Prof. Archie Roy. Unfortunately, its not mentioned in his 1990 book: A sense of Something Strange. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen many say that the fairies are the most famous photographic hoax of the 20th century, so I thought they deserved at least a half-decent article. Thanks very much for your review. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Scheme is indeed something to degrade the brain cells, but perhaps worthy of a good article in the end. I just dropped by here to say I'm glad to see MF editing again also, but I was a fond Scheme hacker many years ago... –SJ+ 22:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested

Bank Hall. Currently at GAN, and will probably be quick-failed as it stands due to glaring problems—which would be a shame, as behind the uncited statements and header-for-every-section there's actually a very good article. I've never heard of the place so can't do much, but you (and/or the other Mancs watching this page*) might be able to do something for it. – iridescent 22:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
*Yes, I know Chorley isn't technically in Manchester, but it's near enough.

• Someone's obviously put a lot of time and effort into that, but it's equally obviously not going to get through GAN. I've never heard of Bank Hall either, but hopefully someone will be able to help. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi Malleus, I hope you don't mind this request but, if you have the time, would you mind looking over and copyediting No Line on the Horizon? I'm looking to nominate it soon at FAC, but it's failed twice before. You provided such fantastic feedback on "City of Blinding Lights" when it was at FAC, and your assistance really made the biggest difference in the article's promotion. I just honestly can't see anything that could be improved since I've looked over, read, and edited it so many times before, and my eyes are very stale when it comes to the article. If you have time, could you help me out with a copyedit before I try a third nomination? Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm struggling to find the motivation to do anything on wikipedia, much less copyediting. I'd pretty much decided to jack it in, and when the bog turtle gets through its FAC, hopefully soon, I may still do that. Who knows. All I know is that my enthusiasm for this place is running on empty. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries; I hope that your motivation and enthusiasm returns soon (you are one of the premier editors on here, and the most refreshingly honest one that I have ever encountered), and I suppose that the article will still be there should that be the case. I hope your FAC goes through well. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)