User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2010/November

Mail

Ck mail. Important. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Message received and understood. Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, the TFA has to go-- blatant copyvio. Are you around? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, get over yourself. The choice is "close copying" or "failure to accurately reflect the sources". Neither is good. Both are the fault of FAC. Risker (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm around now Sandy. I think there's some judicious rewording/restructuring needed pronto, so if nobody else has yet addressed it I'll see what I can do. Malleus Fatuorum 12:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the tag says I can't edit it. Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Raul is around (see ANI), so I'm signing off. My understanding from MRG is that there's a "process" involved, because the text that was lifted has to be removed from the article history too (I've never dealt with this). If you're on it, you might ping Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) for help with process. Rlevse had a dispute over his "jaw flapping" comment at ANI today and put up a retired sign after the issue was brought up at ANI and I asked him to fix this *immediately*, so you may have no help. I was hoping it was a quick fix, until I saw three or four sentences almost verbatim. Risker doesn't seem very happy today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Sandy, you've created and nurtured the culture where this is not only acceptable, it is encouraged. Now you're going around trashing the people who wrote things the way that you've trained them to write. You're now reaping what you sow. This is what happens when religious adherence to the source material is overwhelmingly more important than a good read. The fact that not a single FAC regular thought there was any problem here - and I think we both know they read the sources - should tell you that the problem is not stemming from the average editor, it's what it takes to get the "reward" of an FAC. Risker (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My you are unhappy today! I read Rlevse's articles for years before I was FAC delegate, so I have a different view of cause and effect in this case. I had no awareness that I was so powerful that I could train all these excellent writers to write; I do know I constantly begged and reminded reviewers to check sources, since that was what I did when I reviewed. Perhaps you have the effect backwards; you supported, did you spotcheck sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is the way that editors are acculturated there, sorry to say, and it has been for a long time. It's one of the reasons I stopped working on FAC. The last article I shepherded through there was failing until I rewrote it to closely follow the text of the sources. Once that happened, it passed with flying colours. It was a worse article afterward, but I had been brought in to copy edit the thing, so I did. I saw it repeatedly with other FACs I copy edited - where the primary objection was failure to close copy (more pleasantly described as "doesn't follow the text of the source" or similar). It's too bad that you are not accepting that you're complicit in the support and development of these practices, but unsurprising. Risker (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, well this is interesting. Unsurprising? I don't understand how you review, but I know I spot checked sources, and sensed that when I stopped reviewing, that stopped happening. I know my greatest frustration was lengthy prose reviews then supports from prose reviewers I know didn't check sources. And considering I read FACs all day, I'm surprised I can't recall a lot of reviewers wanting close copying-- the problem I see over and over is that people focus on prose to the extent of making FAC look like peer review, but then persuading them to check sources is difficult. I absolutely believe that Malleus only polished prose, and don't know why you say or think otherwise. Perhaps you can think of some sample FACs showing where sourcing was preferred over prose, and explain why you think I had anything to do with that trend? By the way, why do you seem so angry about this, Risker? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling it like I see it, Sandy. I'm not particularly angry about this, just pretty disappointed that you've failed to recognize that the area in which you have spent most of your Wikipedia career is one of the primary sources of the very practice you're denouncing. Risker (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What is "my" standard according to you and where is the evidence (I mean, please show me a FAC where what you say has occurred)? I'm curious. I also don't understand your approach to aricles. Reviewers (should) check that text is verified to RS and not plagiarized, and that prose flows. Again, you seem pretty angry; we've found one case from one writer who always had a hard time with prose and sourcing, and he became very frustrated about images as his TFA date was approaching because he had difficulty with the copyright issues, so this whole thing was frustrating for him (he usually wrote about Scouting) and I'm not terribly surprised that it may have done him in. There's just not a need to check anything at DYK, and he was happier working there apparently, and upset about what happened. I'm just not following the finger pointing here, but I feel like Geogre is back, opposing citations, and I strangely suspect Wiki can't undo Siegenthaler. If I'm not following your recommended approach to article review and writing, I can't help fix it or help see that others fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There has to be an element of trust in every collaborative venture. Nobody has the time or inclination to check every source in every article for possible copyright violations or plagiarism, spot checks are all that can reasonably be expected. Speaking only for myself, I normally only check where something smells a bit fishy, either the facts, the introduction of a subtley different writing style, or the inclusion of some tangentially related detail that doesn't seem obviously relevant to the main story. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised at your (Risker's) approach to copyediting as well. As must be obvious from this mess I hardly ever look at the sources when I'm asked to copyedit anything, I just look at the article as written and work from that. It seems to me that your approach is, to say the very least, a bit dodgey. Malleus Fatuorum 13:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? I am actually quite surprised to hear that, Malleus. One of the reasons I stopped copy editing for FAC was because the way to get an article passed was indeed to closely follow the sources to the point that I was genuinely uncomfortable in putting my name to those articles. I'd lay odds that probably half of the FACs passed in the past two years wouldn't pass Sandy's newly held standard. Risker (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really, as it seems obvious to me that if you haven't read the sources there's no way on God's Earth that you could have violated copyright or plagiarised. I'm just not seeing this problem that you claim SandyG has introduced in the past two years, and I've certainly never encountered it personally. The copyeditor's job is to make the article a good read while retaining the sense of what the main author(s) have written, while still allowing their style to shine through. At least that's my view anyway. If the words they've written do not accurately reflect the sources then that's their problem, not the copyeditor's. Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Malleus. It is the responsibility of the writer to bring an article to FA compliant with all policies; it is not the responsibility of one who limits his or her role to copyediting, images, or MOS, to check sources, unless that volunteer takes on those tasks. And Risker, articles have been and are quickly failed at FAC because of copyright and plagiarism concerns; the problem is that not enough reviewers work in those areas. As for adherence to sources: If a writer cannot accurately use sources without parroting them, perhaps that person does not have the talent to be a writer (and that is not a measure of that person's worth as a human being).

It seems that whirl is king today, and wikipedians are lashing out indiscriminately at others for problems which originate with and are the responsibility of the writers. Non-adherence to copyright and plagiarism standards is not excused by a flawed understanding of policy. Kablammo (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've always read over what sources I could when doing a major copy edit to prevent a change in meaning when smoothing out prose, and to catch misinterpretations of the sources. (Indeed, when I used to copy edit regularly, I turned down a fair number where there was a significant divergence between the article and the reference.) And the problem being discussed here is that the articles are too accurately reflecting the sources, not that they are failing to reflect the sources. The problem has been going on for a lot longer than two years; it's been longer than that since my last FAC copy edit. Your copy edits are good, Malleus; this isn't about your work. Kablammo, I know some have been failed for this in the past; and I quite agree that not everyone has it in them to be a great writer. There is pretty wide divergence in the interpretation of the applicable policies as well: I've seen it go both ways, with some complaining that a sentence is simply a rearrangement of the words from the source, and others complaining that synonyms are used or anything more than minor variation from the "parroting" is being untrue to the same source. Risker (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the delegates do a good job on not being bound by opposes they feel are not "actionable", and experienced FA writers know they do not have to accede to every demand of reviewers. Newcomers may not. To be frank, not everyone should review (and if "reward" incentives are offered for reviews in the future, we are likely to see some more poor reviews). Kablammo (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've not infrequently copyedited articles whose subject matter I have absolutely no knowledge of and about the same amount of interest in; Japanese Manga series spring to mind. I've done it as a favour, and as I said above, if the material is inaccurate or has been copied from somewhere is not something that I would ever be concerned about as a copyeditor. There's also the matter of trust I mentioned earlier. There are a number of editors I could name for whom I not infrequently look over articles for any prose issues. I just don't feel that I have any need to check what my interpretation of the source is; if I'm in any doubt about a change I think might improve the prose then I'll just ask them if they think my rephrasing would be acceptable based on their understanding of what the sources say. In Ealdgyth's case with her medieval bishops series I very likely wouldn't have access to any of her sources in any case, or probably be able to read them even if I did. Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I distinguish between copyediting (which attempts to preserve existing style, as per Malleus) and a rewrite, which goes beyond that. Perhaps reviewers should state what criteria they are checking, and make it clear that they have not fact-checked. Kablammo (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to get back to what I was saying above, Malleus - I think I've found the right spot on the thread - you might want to think again about not looking at sources, at least those that are easily available at the end of a link. Many journalists write with fine word selection and concision, and the result of trying not to closely copy can often be an awkward sentence; I've seen several cases where the copy edit unintentionally returned the work to a closer copy of the reference than the editor may have intended. If the copy edit is being done by an experienced editor with a well-established reputation (yes, like you), then the take-home message will be that the close copying is preferred to awkward writing. Only a very confident editor is likely to challenge a copy edit by someone with extensive experience. I need to note that I don't think your copy-edit has anything to do with what is happening right now. The version of the article you copy-edited (and I first read) is many edits after the point that is being debated as the copyvio now. I can't help wondering if that level of scrutiny would result in removal of about 80% of the articles throughout the project. Risker (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll probably have to agree to differ about the role of copyeditors, as I don't see it as any part of their role to do anything other than to look at the text. More generally, as I recently said elsewhere, I seem to remember having seen it said somewhere that on a strictly legal interpretaion it's very likely that the majority of wikipedia's articles are in in breach of copyright, because they have in the past contained copyrighted material that's still available in the article history. Therefore the problem with an article like Grace Sherwood isn't just what to do about the version that was on the main page – a problem that could be easily fixed in my opinion – but what to do about the history. I don't pretend to have any answers. So far as Grace is concerned, my conscience is entirely clear precisely because I almost never check the sources for an article I've been asked to copyedit, and I certainly didn't add any of the disputed material. Despite that I do feel a little tinge of guilt though, as I was one of those who encouraged Rlevse to take the article to FAC, and to include some kind of cultural background section, the one where most of the problems seem to be localised. Maybe I pushed too hard. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. I do take your point about the possibility that a copyeditor may unwittingly reword a sentence in pretty much the same way as the source had it, after the wikipedia article's author has gone to some pains to avoid that same wording, but sometimes there's only one good way to express a simple and concise idea, and we shouldn't feel that we have to avoid the best phrasing just because we didn't think of it first, so long as we reached it independently. I seem to recall that Parrot of Doom told me that I'd done that with one of his own articles not too long ago. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We only report facts not the exact phrase another author has used. However, FAC is far from perfect, and its reviewers are overworked. Furthermore, Rlevse is a veteran editor with multiple FAs under his belt, so perhaps the reviewers were a bit more lenient. I do agree though that FAC is part of the "reward culture", much like Did You Know and the Wikicup. Aiken (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My preference would have been just to rewrite the paragraph containing the couple of sentences that I found after the IP brought up the plagiarism issue on Rlevse's talk page, but it's not my article and Rlevse didn't seem concerned, so I didn't push it. I feel a little embarrassed that because I copyedited the article quite extensively my name will inevitably be attached to this problem as well, but there's nothing I can do about that, or about the article now until the admins have sorted out the article history I suppose. What a mess! Malleus Fatuorum 12:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is it beyond the realms of possibility to create a bot that scans sources and links within the article for such similarities? Parrot of Doom 13:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect it is possible - Coren has a bot that picks up new pages I believe, which I'm sure could be fixed to look at existing articles. Aiken (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's possible, it should be part of the toolbox at FAC, and should be run as often as some of the other bots trawling around here. Parrot of Doom 13:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure it's quite so easy. If I'm suspicious about some phrasing or other I'll often type it into wikipedia to see what comes up. One common problem though is that because wikipedia is itself so widely copied it's sometimes difficult to sort who's copied what from where; it might well be that the supposed source has copied its text from wikipedia, so it's maybe not always so straightforward to decide who copied what and when. Corenbot just flags up articles as needing to be checked, it can't do the checking itself. Malleus Fatuorum 13:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No bot could take the place of a human. As you say, it flags articles needing attention, but I'm sure it could be changed to look through existing pages on request. There are plagiarism checking applications (used by universities and other educational institutions) out there, but they are always only a guide. Plagiarism isn't just verbatim copying, and would always need human checking. Aiken (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that something could be added to the FAC toolbox along the lines of Corenbot, and in the light of recent events might not be a bad idea. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It would also be useful for the GAN and DYK processes as well. Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it as a replacement, but as a simple tool. A script would certainly be capable of flagging the most obvious violations.

As for the discussion above about "FAC reviewers requiring articles to closely match their sources", I don't agree. I've purposely increased the literary bent of articles I've submitted to FAC of late, with little comment. I don't see any problem with swilling some facts around in a weak colloquial broth sometimes, in my opinion it makes it a more entertaining read. Parrot of Doom 13:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Many sources, especially older ones, are written in rather a stilted style in any case. Some of the ship articles I've seen spring to mind, where old PD text has been lifted and looks rather archaic to a modern eye. Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. "Brilliant writing" should be vivid; we should not simply aggregate facts. For example, and despite what some NPOV enforcers believe, we can actually call a tragedy by that term, if that is what it is. There is room for both common sense and flair in writing. Kablammo (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm always late to the party, and in this case I think I'm ok that I missed most of it. After reading the above conversation and various other talk pages, I'm rather confused here, yet respect the editors involved enough not to ignore it and enjoy something else. So I have some questions. How can Sandy single-handedly encourage or foster a system (FAC) that fosters a reward culture that also encourages plagiarism? If you (Risker, I guess) are saying that an FA is a reward, then yes, I agree somewhat, and there are editors who rack up FACs with cookie-cutter articles--the Sherwood article being replaced by a hurricane article rather illustrates this nicely--but I'm missing something here, or perhaps Risker is upset. I'm not saying that to diminish your point, Risker, but I don't understand the connections you've made. Doesn't Wikipedia itself encourage close adherence to sources? Why is this Sandy's particular fault? I'm not necessarily defending Sandy, mainly because close adherence to sources is one of my mantras (not the wording, but the point of the sources), and one I developed apart from Sandy, actually from watching the slacktivism crisis-response and abuse of talk page consensus about what goes in articles that I witnessed when I was active in WP:LGBT. It's not endemic to WP:LGBT or its detractors. It's a culture rampant at Wikipedia: take whatever action that avoids anyone having to read source material to solve problems, instead making most of the editors participating in the discussion as not unhappy as possible.

Anyway, fuck, I don't know if I'm going to make anything worse by posting this. Emotions seem to be rather high and I hope we can recognize our conflicts and our own faults like adults and improve ourselves as we work to improve the encyclopedia. So I'm hoping to have a dialogue and honest to God I'm just trying to understand what is being said here, if there is honest substance behind it or more force of shock, and work to move to the next level of resolving the problems du jour. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• If you want productive things to do to help resolve the situation, I can give you plenty of those. ☺ First of all, someone needs to go through Charles Fitzroy Doll and ensure that it no longer copies, nor constitutes a derived work of, the article from the OUP book. Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

While I have no doubt that the article you linked too needs attention, as do all the FACs and GANs need reviewers, and the uncited BLPs need to be rewritten before they are completely blanked, I have to admit my own faults in saying that I can only work in short concentrated bursts and then I can't. I'm already behind in a GA review and a couple of copy edits I've promised. The reason for my posting was to ascertain if a conflict of values is at play here and to understand the nature of it. Will it lead to different policy or Wikipedia shedding some editors--more than what has already departed? I am earnestly trying to understand Risker's argument. --Moni3 (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Risker's argument, in so far as I understand it, is that the relative emphasis placed on verifiability (i.e., reflecting the source material) as opposed to plagiarism (i.e., copying the source material) has contributed to the problems we are seeing here. Many editors have limited experience or training outside of Wikipedia in using source material. Because of this relative emphasis, editors have tended to closely paraphrase sources rather than assimilate source material and present an independent and encyclopedic treatment.

However, such an emphasis does not only exist at FAC, it pervades the encyclopedia. The words below the edit box talk about copyright, but it is the verifiability policy which is bolded, and we don't have a clear policy on plagiarism. Many editors do not distinguish easily between original research and original presentation, especially where synthesis is discouraged by policy.

The bottom line is that writing encyclopedic content is hard! It involves paraphrasing source material, but without paraphrasing any one source too closely. It also involves presenting the collective view of the sources without presenting an original view. No wonder the process can be stressful! Geometry guy 20:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

To reply further to Risker's argument: The emphasis on verifiability, in the form of required references, enables us to detect copyright violations and plagiarism much more easily than where those in-line citations do not exist. Kablammo (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Two brief points

Two brief points:

• Coren really should have a bottled answer for this. CorenSearchBot won't do what you need. Its design is pretty much predicated on the fact that it only roves over new articles, that haven't been found (by the Yahoo! spider) yet.
• Copyediting can change meaning. This changed the meaning — of a current DYK nomination, no less! — of some content because it changed a defining to a non-defining relative clause. What with scanning old revisions of featured articles and other things, I haven't had the time to go back and fix it. I still have 13 tabs open with WWW sources for that article. I haven't even had a chance to put the name of the teenager in yet.

  Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  • A regularly run bot isn't what's needed anyway I don't think, more something like the dead link checker. Sure, copyediting can change meaning, as evidenced by the discussion here. I wouldn't have made the change that you've highlighted though without checking with the author, as it doesn't just change the style or form of words, it expands on what was said, which is beyond the scope of mere copyediting IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Lovin' the idea of something like dead link checker. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Think about it though—I don't see how it could possibly be feasible. There are literally hundreds of sites that quite legitimately copy Wikipedia; that's what one's signing up to when you click the "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" box with every single edit you make. There's no way a bot could distinguish between a Wikipedia article copied from a book or website, and a book or website copied from a Wikipedia article. – iridescent 17:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        • It could if the more obvious instances of such sites were filtered, or perhaps such a bot could work mostly from a user-generated list of the more obvious sources (news sites, google books, etc). Parrot of Doom 17:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        • That's exactly why I said that a regularly run bot isn't what's needed, and that all a tool like that could do would be to flag up articles or sections of text that may need to be looked at. There is an official(?) list of wikipedia mirror sites though that could be used to set up a database that the tool could use so as not to include them in its results. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • User:CorenSearchBot/manual exists, but there are caveats, in part relating to the fact that there can never be an "official" list of mirrors, only a list of the ones that people have discovered and bothered to write down. Anyone is free to set up a mirror, anywhere, as long as they abide by the copyright licences. Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to stick this here at the bottom and then go away and be miserable for a while because my doggie died, but I think this is important. If you want productive things to do to help resolve the situation, I can give you plenty of those. ☺ First of all, someone needs to go through Charles Fitzroy Doll and ensure that it no longer copies, nor constitutes a derived work of, the article from the OUP book. Uncle G. Actually, what FAC and FA regulars need to be doing right now (maybe that's me, but I can't get on this right now) is checking every TFA a few days before it goes on the main page to make sure we don't have a repeat debacle. I think we have more of an obligation to FAs and the mainpage than we do to help with the many copyvio or plagiarized DYKs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to hear about your dog SandyG. I've never been a dog person myself, always preferred cats, but I know how hard it is to lose an animal friend, and I know that it never gets easier. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll echo that, I've lost two cats in the last 5 years or so. Losing a loved pet can be incredibly painful. Parrot of Doom 00:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sandy, I'm really sorry to hear about your dog, and you have my genuine, heartfelt sympathies. Dogs are friends in fair weather and foul, and I know he was near to your heart. Risker (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Risker, so much. I will someday tell you the whole disgusting story, and how not only sad, but mad I am. It's a hard one. But I must sleep now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn. After beating myself up for several hours, I just looked. Not that it matters, because delegates promote based on consensus (we're not reviewers), but no, I did not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You often tell me off for wearing my heart on my sleeve SandyG, but you do as well. During my life so far I've learned that life isn't fair, but I've also learned that the very idea of being fair is an alien concept to a great many people. Some years ago in the Netherlands I struggled to explain the British idea of "fair" to a bunch of students. Eventually they said that there was no equivalent word in their language, but that may have been because I explained the concept badly. We Brits did lots that was wrong during our period of Empire, but at least we gave the world the idea of being fair. Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's been too long since anyone called me "honey". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You see, that's the difference. Anyone I don't know calls me "honey" I think what the fuck are you looking for, a trip to casualty to fix your broken nose? Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading what I just wrote again it seem a little harsh and unsympathetic, but I was just making fun. We all need someone to care about us, even me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, Turkey Test. Everyone with a brain and heart cares about you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's something you should remember about yourself as well ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Welcome to the club" :) Y'all may remember the Great Halloween Debacle, but I'll remember something else about this incident. And it's stinky-poo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Show me someone with more than a few thousand edits to article space without a single talk page discussion and I'll show you an admin wannabee. The problem here is status, and what the kiddies think they need to do to get NYB's seal of approval on maturity. Yes, I do single him out, because I think that by supporting the idea of child administrators he has largely created the mess that we now find ourselves in. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, while a lot of children are doing a lot of harm to Wiki, and causing us endless work, some of them are valued, and you have to admit that 1) this particular debacle was not a child, in fact, was an arb; and 2) most of the admins who so regularly abuse aren't children either. Not to say that children on wikipedia aren't an enormous problem, but so are wanker adults. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course the most recent embarrassment wasn't down to a child admin, and I agree with you that the worst of the abusive admins aren't children either ... thinking about about it, maybe we we need more pre-school admins. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we need the arbs to pay attention :) Because of the seriousness of everything we're now dealing with, the admin who got to abuse me will probably get away with it, because why should I bother with it now ? Well, I've finally caught up with my watchlist, and get to go cry over my pooch now and get some sleep. Be well, MF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We both know that nothing will change as a result of yesterday's TFA embarrassment. Your dog is far more important. I may have said this elsewhere, but a few a years ago my beloved black cat had to go for that final trip and I was sobbing all the way. I was in such a state that I couldn't even be with her when she had that final injection, something I'm not proud of, although thankfully my wife is made of stronger stuff than I am. Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Steel Magnolias and all that. I haven't gotten another cat since mine died almost a year ago. I had to put her down. I have to go do something now. I got something in my eye... --Moni3 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, the Dutch for "fair" would be rechtvaardig, I think, though it doesn't seem quite the same. Then again, you can't translate gezelligheid into English; perhaps that's why it's such a mess here. Ucucha 14:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought the heart of Dutch culture was those chocolate sprinkles they seem to put on everything that goes in their mouths? Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought the heart of Dutch culture was our stubborness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You might be right. We had some Dutch friends staying with us a few years ago. One of them told us a story about his grandmother, who'd had her bike taken by a German soldier during the Second World War. When he told her that he was going on a trip to Germany she told him to ask them if she could have her bike back. Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right...

I'm just not the sort of person who gives up, I suppose. Oh well. I'd been meaning to hit your tpage actually.. if you're not swamped, would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian heraldry/archive1? Some of my prose is a bit on the clunky side and could use some tweaking. I particularly tend to get tangled up in subordinate clauses. If you don't have time, no worries. Cheers, &thanks for the input at GWH's page. → ROUX ₪ 23:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the sort of person who gives up either, which is perhaps why we sometimes have our little ding-dongs. There are times though when discretion is the better part of valour.

Given recent events I was tempted to make a joke about asking you give me a signed affadavit stating that there were no copyright violations in that article, but I decided that would be in poor taste ... hang on ... I just said it anyway. Oh well. I'll try and get to it tomorrow, but if I don't show please feel free to remind me, I do sometimes forget. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. I feel that I ought to make it very clear that I was in no way accusing Roux of ever having violated any copyrights. I was referring to a general discussion that's taken place all over wikipedia over the last few days. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Funny you should say... check the history of User:CorenSearchBot/manual. I was getting paranoid. This is also a useful tool for finding copyvio/plagiarism, though it doesn't have CSB's exclusions, so you end up having to wade through mirrors. (See what I mean about subordinate clauses? I'm having flashbacks to high school and English teachers saying "I think you've gone way over your allotment of commas and semicolons here. You have heard of periods, yes?") (And I certainly didn't take what you said as an accusation of copyvio) → ROUX ₪ 00:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As it happens I did recently look at Corenbot's history a little while ago, but only because I'd added a manual search of my own. I think that all of us might be a little nervous that we may have written a sentence that looks rather similar to the one found in an authorative source saying, for instance, that "Henry V died in 1422". I mean, how many different ways can you write that? Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"On the tenth anniversary of 1412, the heir to Henry IV snuffed it." For me, there are only so many ways to write "so and so was granted a coat of arms on such and such a date." Someone--you?--commented recently that sources probably nicked their words from elsewhere anyway, so it's all a mess. → ROUX ₪ 00:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That was me, yes. When you're asked to put a dozen or so words together to make a sentence there are are very few different ways of doing it, and perhaps only one good way. I think it's a bit like the debate over copyrighting gene sequences, which is crime against nature and humanity. Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Once it goes beyond an odd sentence here and there and into a sequence of such "coincidences" though, that's where the problems start. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What's that quote? "Once is coincidence, twice is a pattern, three times is enemy action"? Something like that, anyway. Also, ping, and you may be interested in a toolbox I threw together; instructions on how to use it at the bottom of this section. → ROUX ₪ 23:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Roux, but I'm afraid that I'll have to pass on looking at your heraldry article as it seems from the ongoing discussion at WT:FAC that my approach to copyediting is inadequate, and I really don't have the time or motivation to check through every one of your citations looking for potential copyvios/plagiarism, as I am apparently required to do.

"I greatly respect Malleus's work, and hope he will not take my comments the wrong way, but we need to be self-critical in how we do things. I [quoting me] rarely check sources in reviewing, clearly that has been a mistake."

I clearly have made a mistake in trying to help others to write better prose, but that's not a mistake I'll be making again. Good luck with your article anyway; perhaps Wehwalt might be willing to help with the copyediting. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I am understandably disappointed. Would it help to know that I've run the article through CorenSearchBot, Earwig's tool, and The Plagiarism Checker? No issues found. → ROUX ₪ 00:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have too many enemies here, as do you. I don't have even the slightest suspicion that you've copied something, but maybe someone else did in the dim and distant past, and it's still in the article history, which would almost certainly be laid at my door for not checking. I don't need the hassle. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. → ROUX ₪ 00:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Silly to suggest that copyeditors should be patrolling for copyright violations. I take an article as I find it, I rarely check its sources. I tend to presume that if an editor has a few hundred edits to an article, they must know what they're on about. Parrot of Doom 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's even worse than that. Seems like the first thing we're expected to do now before touching any article is to look through its entire history looking for copyright violations. The world has gone mad. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:PARAPHRASE is a reasonably sensible essay. For instance factual assertions cannot usually be paraphrased. Geometry guy 00:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Some good advice there. If I notice a strong disjunction in writing style then I will often try out a few selected phrases in Google, but I very much resist the idea that one of the jobs of a copyeditor is to routinely check articles for copyright violations. In fact that's one of the few areas of the project where I routinely AGF; I trust that the authors putting their names behind the article have written it themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Citing a book query

Malleus,

Thank you for the bits of tidy up you do to the articles I've recently put through DYK, Elizabeth Finn Care and The Bridge in Curve. In the second one you turned a cite book "|pages =" to "|page =", and having looked at Template:Cite book I can now see why. However, I had filled in the on-screen wizard with the total number of pages, which I now see is incorrect and I need to go back and correct it, but does that mean that the total number of pages is not relevant for a book citation?

Sorry to interrupt you in the middle of all this exciting copyvio stuff... Bigger digger (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Multiple pages should use "|pages =" while a singular page would use "|page =". For example: "|pages = 2–3" but "|page = 2". ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 15:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I got that from reading the template doc, but does this mean the total number of pages is not necessary for the full & correct citation of a book source? Bigger digger (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes; the "page(s)" parameter refers to the page in the book being cited, not the total number of pages in the book (which is irrelevant as far as we're concerned). – iridescent 15:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks all! Bigger digger (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me for completely whiffing that answer; I completely misread the question. My apologies. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 17:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't want to say... But you are of course forgiven ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Blame?

Malleus, was this directed at my commentary further up in the section? You know my prose stinks and sometimes lacks clarity; I hope it doesn't read as if I'm blaming you, because that is absolutely not the case. When I read a flowing Rlevse article that you had copyedited, I noticed that it wasn't typical of "his" prose, but I assumed you got the credit. I don't think it's your job to check his sources at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you've increased my respect for you with that statement. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

apprently in an ec you lost part of my message, but I don't have time to repair, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what happened, why it's here, but not on page, but anyway, I've got a lot going on and my not be expressing myself clearly, or reading things clearly, but I hope you're not stirring the pot, W. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it was the saintly Wehwalt's observation that I was an inadequate copyeditor because I rarely check citations, as I said in my reply to Roux above. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, well we're all sensitive now ... my point is that Tony1's style was what worked for me, and different copyeditors have different ways of working ... I personally preferred a different approach for my own work. Point is, I know how you work, and *I* should have checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I read the full version of what you wrote and I am sincere. Malleus, if you insist on taking "I don't blame you" to mean "I blame you", it is on your head, not mine. I am not saintly. My faults are known to the world.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am well aware of your faults Wehwalt, and I can also read what you very clearly wrote. Now fuck off, there's a good chap. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Guys please don't do this to each other now ... just walk away, both of you .. i've other biger IRL things to worry about than you two right now. Be kind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in the least mad at Malleus and hope he will accept my unconditional apology for any unintended slight in how I phrased things.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I misread your comment, I thought you said "Malleus", not "_{she who may not be named}". Obviously I don't feel that way about the comment you actually made, but I won't comment as you redacted it. Never mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My favorite calming song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSs7oJYuG2c

Hey, it's November. Just in time for Thanksgiving. Turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce shaped like a can, and barely masked aggression emitted in angry drunken commentary about past events that no one can do anything about. I feel festive. Thank God 20 million Indians died so we could have this moment. --Moni3 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Wintour

I'm about a third the way through this (much of it was copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica), but I'm thinking that Robert Wintour, about whom little is said, should be merged into this in just the same way as with the Wright brothers. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 16:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Actually I got that wrong (too many things open at once). The article was turned into a massive ripoff of this page by this editor, just before I got to it. Therefore a decent chunk of it is another glorious copyvio. Parrot of Doom 16:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a much more widespread problem than I'd imagined. That isn't by any stretch of the imagination a piece of innocent plagiarism, no matter how much AGF masgic pixie dust you sprinkle on it, it's a blatant copy-and-paste of clearly copyrighted material. On the Wintours, yes, I think merging them as you did with the Wright brothers seems like a good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. To be on safe ground, you really do have to start afresh from the content before the edits submitted by 81.110.220.68. And yes, this is a widespread problem. You don't see a lot of this because it's caught by New Pages Patrol, but people thinking that they can just paste someone else's work, copied from a WWW page, into Wikipedia are not in short supply. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Don't worry. What I've written is utterly different in style and construction to what the IP added. Parrot of Doom 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm unclear about what should be done with the article history though. Do the versions since 81.110.220.68's addition until PoD's rewrite need to be removed? Malleus Fatuorum
      • Would that Parrot of Doom had zapped the copyright violation immediately! Then it would be as easy as I or another administrator deleting them. Unfortunately, xe didn't zap the remaining content until comparatively far along. This is why we always encourage rewrites to be done cleanly, starting from nothing — none of the violating text retained. It's why the {{copyvio}} template points to a separate page, where a new edit history is started from scratch. Done this way, things are messy and troublesome. Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The problem, as I'm sure you're very well aware, is that editors like PoD (and myself) who come along to improve an article usually don't immediately recognise that there's a potential copyright problem until they're some way into working on the article, when to lose everything, even though it no longe contains any copyrighted material, is a bit of a blow. Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
          • No, mate. The problem is people like whoever 81.110.220.68 was. Would that we had a mechanism for reporting such things to ISPs. What xe has done is against xyr ISP's terms of service. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        • You're presuming that I actually used some of the offending content. I haven't. Parrot of Doom 19:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
          • You're presuming that that's the problem. ☺ The problem is that the content's still there across all of these revisions. So a lot of your edits have to go, too. It's more complex yet in cases such as this where deleting the intervening revisions loses author attribution; because that's what the (single) diff in the edit history would end up looking like — just the author of the final edit with everyone else's contributions attributed to xem. Luckily, Fram's edit isn't a content edit. But if it were, there would have been a bigger problem. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Well just delete them, then. So long as the present revision is left alone, I'm not at all bothered. As things stand that entire article is written by me, and me alone (the lead and infobox excepted). The lead will be completely rewritten just as soon as I've got to the end of the story (tomorrow), and the infobox will be deleted. Parrot of Doom 20:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
              • I have the impression that what Uncle G is saying is that the whole thing needs to be deleted and a fresh start made, because the article history contains copyright violations and to remove them might also also remove the attributions required by wikipedia's licensing provisions, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. It wouldn't be the first time. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
                • That's about right. Basically, along with the deletion tool comes the responsibility not to mess up editors' attributions; and that's important to think about in copyright cases. Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
              • I'm trying to understand this aspect myself, so this elaboration is largely for my own benefit, to see if I've got it right.
                • User A adds some copyrighted material
                • User B then adds some more material, but the resulting artickle still contains User A's copyright violation
                • User C (that's you that is) comes along and while adding further material notices the copyright violation and recasts the material.
                • To clean up the article history would require that the previous two versions were deleted, but that would mean that User B lost the attribution for his additions, contrary to the wikipedia licensing provisions.
              • If I've got that right this is a nightmare just waiting to happen. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
                • I've got it all saved as a text file just in case someone decides to get trigger-happy. Its silly really. As things stand, the only copyright violation exists in the article's history. Just delete those revisions and all is well. If one looks at the history, one can see that since the IP added the offending material, only one user other than me has made any changes - and all that user did was this. Hardly something to worry about. Absolutely nothing whatsoever remains in any shape or form of the offending material. I never used it, I just replaced it with what I wrote as I went through the sources I have. Parrot of Doom 21:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • I just revision-deleted the text of the copyright-violating revisions, which should be enough.
                  • Malleus: We can delete only the text of the revision while keeping the author (as I did to Wintour), so that it is still possible to see the author of the revision, just not what exactly he changed; I believe that is sufficient attribution. Ucucha 21:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
                    • Revision-deletion is just admin mumbo-jumbo to me I'm afraid, but is it entirely satisfactory to credit someone who has only contributed copyrighted material that was later deleted or rewritten as one of the contributors to an article? I;m guessing though that it;'s the best we can do, short of separating attribution from article history, which seems like the obvious option to me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
                      • Everything I've written is still there so I'm happy. On an even happier note, I noticed I've just exceeded 60% of user edits to article space, which I've been trying to beat for ages. Add to that the nearly 12% of user space edits (sandbox) I have, and 72% article work isn't bad. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
                        • Excluding the sandbox stuff (I only tend to use sandboxes when I'm testing templates) your profile of article edits looks rather similar to mine, so you must be doing something wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
                      • (ec) Sorry for that; the interface enables admins to (separately) hide the text of an edit, the edit summary, and the username of the user who made the edit. See File:RevDelete_Special-RevisionDelete_(narrow).png for an example (although that is the interface oversighters see, not lowly admins; admins can't suppress things from other admins). I only suppressed the revision text and left the edit summaries and usernames.
                      • It would be possible to also suppress the username of the copyright-violating editor (in this case, the IP), but I'd prefer not to do that, since it's better only to suppress content that is actually illegal or grossly offensive. Ucucha 21:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
                        • And it's a lot easier than the old way of doing it, when we didn't have revision deletion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So … are you going to tackle Robert Wintour as well? I notice that it gets touched every November.

Bah! I also notice that our favourite editor without an account of the moment, 81.110.220.68 (talk · contribs), has has "contributed" to it. I'll scrub that now, before you have a chance to get started. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Parrot of Doom is a man on a mission, to get a decent article on each of the plotters. So far as Robert Wintour ios concerned though I think it's likely that he'll be merged with his brother Thomas. Does that change anything? Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I doubt it as I'll write Robert into Thomas's article from afresh. Nowt will get copied over.

    The question is, once I've got all 13 (well, 11 articles soon) to GA/FA, do I start on Garnet, Tesimond, Littleton, et al? Or do I do something else? I'm getting bloody sick of finding different ways to write things. Parrot of Doom 23:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    • Well you could always tackle Badge Court (a.k.a. Batchcott and Batchcoat), home of Helen Wintour, Robert's daughter, the disposition of whose clothes, the Wintour Vestments, are recorded in the history books. ☺ I suggest as a sub-topic of Elmbridge, Worcestershire, an article that is in need of some joy. I might let Senra (talk · contribs) know about that, in fact. It has a church apparently … Uncle G (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Another thing I just noticed, is that the anon IP so beloved here has contributed to quite a few of the plotters' articles. As with T.Wintour, I didn't just try and cite whatever already existed - I completely re-wrote every single article from scratch, replacing the old content as I went. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Just zap them wholesale right at the start, if you find any more copyright violations. Uncle G (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is a pretty demoralising problem. I do sometimes add citations to what already exists, out of respect for the original author, but I'd never do that if I saw that the texts were too similar, and neither would you. Instead I'd just rewrite it and then add a citation. What's become apparent today though is that that's not enough, as the copyright problem is still in the article history. To be honest I'm not sure where that leaves any of us who want to improve wikipedia's articles; all I know is that it leaves me puzzled. Is the only safe thing to do to completely rewrite every article from scratch, or to do an exhaustive search on every edit before touching it? Either option sounds like the end of wikipedia as we know it to me.

• I'm also left wondering how serious this problem really is "in the real world". Is it really likely, for instance, that USA Today would launch a copyright claim against wikipedia because nine sentences of a now "deleted" version of the article were copied from one of their own articles? Even if they won, what would they win? Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem in the real world, Malleus. It's only a problem in the minds of some Wikipedians. The solution is actually quite simple: a notice on the talk page of the article saying "versions x to y contained material directly derived from <source>. This material is now properly attributed as of <date>." But the copyright paranoics don't get that really all that is needed is proper attribution. And Uncle G is incorrect; while many copyvios are caught at New Page Patrol, a lot of them are added well after the fact, then maybe fully or partially removed at some point. Almost any article with more than 100 edits will have at least some plagiarism, copyright violation, or close paraphrasing - and deciding which way someone will define an edit is a mug's game. People need to realise that, seriously, about 80% of the articles in this project have had at least one copyvio edit in them at some point, and just find a way to attribute it and remove it from the current version if it is still present, then just move on. Risker (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've been waiting for someone to mention attribution. Once a piece of text is properly attributed, paraphrasing and direct quotations are quite acceptable. The attribution is the key, though.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with your view on article history Risker; the alternative seems completely unworkable to me. The real problem isn't copyvios in article history, which to be honest nobody, even the copyright holder cares about, it's copyright violations on the current version of the article. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• My goodness this is bad advice that Risker — no less! — is handing out on several talk pages. This nonsense that attribution magically waves a wand that means that anyone can keep using someone else's non-free-content work without permission is just that: nonsense. I recommend that people read Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to start with, and then read what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say next. Re-using someone else's copyrighted non-free-content work without permission, and (worse) relicensing it as free content isn't fair use, isn't allowed, and isn't what we're here for. It's a no-no. Plain and simple.

  What happens in the real world, by the way, is that USA Today spots the problem (from The Signpost if nowhere else), sends a takedown notice to the designated agent, and the Foundation assigns someone to simply remove the entire article, possibly with a strongly worded reminder to the volunteers involved of the Foundation's mission statement and bylaws. Or, alternatively, USA Today contacts an OTRS volunteer, and the same result eventually ensues but via different channels. Uncle G (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Has that ever happened? It seems like ridiculous legal posturing to have to recreate an article just so as to lose a copyright violation in its history that is no longer in the current version. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, we do get takedown requests on OTRS. One of the wider I remember was a request to remove text copied from a manual over mental diseases that spanned a good 40ish articles. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • But was that material in the current version of the article or in its history? Have there ever been cases where a copyright holder has complained about an article's history? Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It is evident that we all have and need our tinfoil hats, but perhaps we should also prepare fallout shelters. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 15:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh. Slow brain time for me. A take-down notice specifically tailored at old history entries I wouldn't know about. I'd say this would in most cases be quite unlikely, but I believe it could happen if a content owner was made aware of infringement through one of our mirrors holding an old copy, or someone getting one of those compilations from Books LLC. The real issues are two-fold: mirrors getting full dumps of our database (in that sense the notion of "current revision" holds no water as the infringing text is provided by us), and unwanted reversion of the copyvio. Deleting the revision text containing copyvio prevents both. Also note that this is something we propose to do on a best effort basis. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Almost done now. Just a few bits to add about Robert, and a tidyup of Robert Keyes, and that's all 13 plotters sorted out. Parrot of Doom 22:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You've done well with that. I'm very impressed, and I'm not easily impressed. All in time for Bonfire Night as well. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. This one is quite rough around the edges, there are a few bits missing but I'm too tired to bother tonight. I've decided I'm not going to bother with the semi-plotters or Jesuits, at least not for a while. I've just taken delivery of a new Eagle book, so I'll be going back to that I think. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I've been thinking about comics as well, especially my childhood favourite, The Wizard. I've also been thinking about some of the BBC's Watch with Mother stuff, which I was an avid viewer of, but I have no aspirations to FA for any of it, or anything else for that matter. My input into FAC from now on, if any, will simply be along the lines of "this article's prose is crap, and here are a few examples", but that's just the way the die have fallen, no hard feelings. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This really is the final fucking straw

Let the inmates have their asylum all to themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh relax, Malleus. I realise you're probably feeling a bit prickly right now, but you've seen these waves before, and you know full well that this will settle down. Every editor on the entire project copy edits to some extent—heck, even what the RC patrollers do counts as copy editing—so the idea that copy editors will be held personally responsible for verifying every source will last about 30 seconds. Well, given the current mood, maybe a little longer. But it's dead in the water. Risker (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Risker. My reading of the whole thing re your CE was that you'd done such a good job no-one realised there might be an issue, and I think almost no-one is meaning anything else than that. How the hell anyone could translate that into you somehow having any responsibility whatsoever for any plagiarism or copyvio is bemusing to me. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

SV is stating quite categorically that if I'd done a proper thorough job I'd have spotted the copyright violation, ergo it's my fault. No more. Stuff that for a game of soldiers. Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if I'd done an absolutely thorough job the article would never have been promoted, because I would have caught the violtation. Stuff that, care to join me for a brew of your choice? We'll drink our sorrows away. Karanacs (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You buying? I'll get the second round. Make mine a Magner's, please. → ROUX ₪ 03:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone's just sore over a certain article. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 03:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that now, I'd forgotten about it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I don't think you are at fault, and I don't see how anyone in their right mind person could believe so. Ego te absolvo. So please relax, and avoid saying anything that will increase the drama levels. Raul654 (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't start this, but I was absolutely convinced as soon as this blew up that the buzzards would come circling, and sure enough they did. Anyway, I've said about all that can be said, and if SV and her chums can manage to keep me out of their fanciful delusions in the future I'll have no reason to say anything else. Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Per Raul, but with beer. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, you're all doing it again. I did not say Malleus's copy editing was at fault. I said that his aggression around FACs means that articles he gets involved in are not being checked properly by other reviewers because of his constant personal attacks, and he's being enabled by a small group of editors who ought to know better, the delegates in particular. What has happened here is that Rlevse is being asked to shoulder the blame for something the whole FAC process is actually responsible for, and it's very unfair to him. Had that been a normal article, one that none of the FA regulars had shown an interest in, the review process is likely to have been much more thorough, and the issues would have been dealt with quietly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting at all about Malleus and your interactions with him, I absolutely disagree that FAC as a whole is responsible for the plagiarism in Grace Sherwood. You are not responsible for it, and neither am I, Karanacs, Sandy, Malleus, or anyone else. Rlevse is responsible for it. It was in this approach that I attempted yesterday to make editors realize we are not in basic agreement. Before any progress may be made in improving FAC surely we must agree that there is a problem with the system. I have not been convinced of it by this incident. All I recognize is there is a problem with Grace Sherwood and Rlevse's understanding of what Wikipedia's finest work should be. --Moni3 (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I find that an interesting theory. From my routine observations at FAC, though, I note that actually if none of the "FAC regulars" have any interest in an article, it tends to languish without reviews or the level of reviewing that others go through, and these articles often fail. Some topic areas attract a different group of "FAC regulars". And realistically, since this particular article is being treated as though all edits subsequent to the copyvio are fruit of a poisoned tree, your theory that it could have been "dealt with quietly" simply doesn't work. I completely disagree with that particular treatment of copyvios, but that is the one that is currently being promoted. Indeed, what I would say is that the problem here is an unrealistic standard relating to improperly attributed edits, which goes against our fair use policy. We don't, incidentally, automatically delete non-free use images automatically; we give sufficient time to attribute them and ensure that the appropriate information is included. Back on topic, I'm wondering why anyone is still editing that article, which has now become so contaminated (based on the fruit of a poisoned tree principle) that it is irretrievable. It should be deleted and, if someone is interested, rewritten. Moni3, I do think there are problems with the system, but one of the major ones is that FAC overreacts when a problem is found in a FAC and creates nearly unattainable rules that then trickle down in a perverted form throughout the rest of the project. Risker (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Risker, you'd have to explain that in more detail for me to understand what you're referring to. I'm not going to say it's not true, just that I don't know specifically what your complaints are. FAC isn't a perfect system and I don't think anyone thinks it is. But for this particular incident, it seems many editors are embarrassed that plagiarism got through in an article and seem to be nearly panicking to prevent it from happening again. While the sentiment is on its face noble, I think its misplaced and it will lead to such impracticalities that it will make FAC more combative and individual editors less accountable. Frankly, I'm not that embarrassed. Rlevse plagiarized and he should have fixed it. It's not my fault he plagiarized and anyone who thinks it is my fault--or anyone else's fault at FAC--is a fool. If we set up rules so that we collectively shoulder the blame the next time it happens--and it will--there will be no community and the buck will be endlessly passed. We don't even agree on what we're defining as plagiarism here. We have no common language or definition and yet we are desperately trying to proceed with how to add extra steps to avoid our misplaced embarrassment in the future. The conversation at FAC is convoluted. I understand none of it and the more it continues the less of it I want. --Moni3 (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This, with cream on top. I don't understand why people are trying to move the blame elsewhere. In my world, its the person that does the thing that is responsible for the thing. Parrot of Doom 08:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Moni, I remember an article of yours was promoted to FAC with very little input, so little that you complained about it yourself. What if there had been a problem with that article that you just hadn't noticed? It's important to assume some good faith here. Rlevse didn't do this on purpose. He just didn't notice how closely he had stuck to the source.

As I see it, the act of bringing an article to FAC means no single person is responsible for it, because when you approach FAC you're asking the community to check it, and you're relying on that process to some extent. I'm not saying that means the nominee has no responsibility. I am saying that I see a problem with certain articles not being checked as thoroughly as others. We've all seen this. There's a pattern, and anyone who points to that pattern gets attacked, so it continues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, there are no doubt issues in the articles I wrote where 20 people commented in the FAC. But it's not they who have to fix it when it's brought to the attention of the talk page. I do my best to write originally. I am responsible for my own work. When I miss something or get something wrong, I fix it. If I leave off a source I go get it. When I neglect a specific opinion on something, I have to run it down and add it. Not the editors who copy-edited it before FAC or those who supported the article. For sure when some doofus decides to cause a big stink claiming I've written a horrible article filled with NPOV, virtually every time I'll be arguing with him by my lonesome self. I don't think you're wrong when you say that the nominator's name has some influence in how many comments, supports, or opposes an article gets. We're only human and we do dumb things like oppose an article because that guy pissed in our corn flakes six months ago. Or we support because we feel sorry for someone or some other reason that has nothing to do with the content of the article. These are valid issues. I don't think they are necessarily related to this Grace Sherwood plagiarism issue. One editor added copyrighted material. If he didn't understand what he was doing then shouldn't we be trying to figure out how an arbitrator could have such a divergent definition of plagiarism than the rest of us? Are there only two understandings of what plagiarism is? I attempted yesterday to forestall the rush to put emergency measures in place because we do not share a fundamental understanding of the basic issues in this problem. And really, I don't see a system-wide problem as the reason this copyvio got through. Again, we have no common language or understanding that there is a problem to be fixed yet we're rushing to put something into action. I think it unwise in the extreme. --Moni3 (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I forget which article it was, Moni, but it got very little feedback, yet it was promoted; I remember it because you questioned the promotion yourself on the FAC talk page.

With the Sherwood article, what I'm seeing is the bulk of the text added by Rlevse on September 6 in one edit. [1] Five days later on September 11 it was at FAC, which should have been a red flag. And if you look at Rleve's introductory remarks there, he said he was hesitant. It was pushed to FAC largely because he was encouraged by Malleus; see the discussion here. Malleus writes: "You wouldn't be alone at FAC, I'd be watching your back," and Rlevse writes: "I've long felt I'm good at research and gathering the raw info, but suck at good copyediting." I've seen Malleus several times strongly encourage people to bring articles to FAC that aren't anywhere near ready, and the worry is that "watching your back" means making sure others are discouraged from reviewing too carefully. There are lots of other problems with this article apart from the copyvio, not least of which is that the source of much of the detail (via the Associated Press in two of the newspaper articles that are cited for key points) is some local woman who's trying to raise money.

If we don't learn from this, it's going to keep on happening; not necessarily copyvios, but other issues with FACs being promoted that just aren't ready. So let's have a discussion on the FAC talk page about how to prevent that in future. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That is an absurd reading of that situation. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Skinny87 (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The article passed with two supports was Amazing Grace. If you think that one editor, Malleus, designed Rlevse's downfall in some way, SlimVirgin, this is a graver matter than FAC. It should be brought up in a Wikipedia-wide forum where you will be able to explain specifically how it occurred. For the crux of the matter here, however, it still means to me that the FAC system is not responsible for the plagiarism that got through. No amount of steps we add to the nomination or reviewing process would be able to ferret out inappropriate material if editors are colluding to pass it through for their own dishonorable reasons, while still being able to process the volume of article work it currently does. --Moni3 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This gets worse by the hour. So now I'm being accused of colluding to pass Grace Sherwood through for dishonorable reasons? Including deliberately plotting Rlevse's downfall? Unbelievable. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not by any substantial numbers of editors Malleus. By the way, when are you going to show us Obama's real birth certificate? Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I never imagined in my wildest dreams that I'd be railroaded out of wikipedia in this way. Who'd have thought it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

By one editor? Do us a favour guv. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

By one mouthy and obsessional editor on a mission and her pack of hounds. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just chuck them a packet of Winalot biscuits or something. Dogs are stupid animals. Parrot of Doom 22:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

@SV, regarding the post immediately above (and I have not yet read this entire page); you are correct in some things, incorrect in others. It is important that we have a frank discussion about problems at FAC with an aim to improving, but considering the brouhaha throughout Wiki and the level of tension, we also need to be accurate and kind to each other. When I was a reviewer, I used to spotcheck sources, and since I've become delegate, I've been troubled that few reviewers do, and have repeatedly put out requests for them to at least spotcheck. But it's impractical to assume that individual editors can be responsible for an entire article's history (reference some of Risker's statements); you are correct that Sherwood presents a history that should have raised red flags of the type I usually watch for, I knew that, and I entirely assume the responsibility for not paying closer attention there, as I've already stated several times.

On the FAC of Moni's that I promoted on two supports, your summary is basically correct but misses critical facts (I don't recall which article it was, either). It is entirely incorrect to say that some editors' FACs are promoted with less scrutiny based on that incident, and singling out Moni. What happened in that case, in fact, is that many FACs were getting no scrutiny, the FAC page was stalled, reviews were dragging on for a month with litle feedback, many FACs had neither consensus to promote nor archive, and I chose one FAC from an experienced writer to promote on two supports rather than three to gauge community reaction to that and to try to get the page moving again, after I had made many requests over a long period of time for more reviews. So, while the gist of your commentary is correct in that Moni's article was promoted on two supports, the idea that her FACs were getting less scrutiny is incorrect: all FACs were getting little scrutiny then. If there are problems in that article, *I* assume responsibility; no need to blame reviewers or allege cabalism at FAC.

On the Ezra Pound issue, I suspect you've failed to understand why your approach to TK and that FAC was criticized by many (not just Malleus). You have been on the receiving end of compassion when real life events have impacted you on Wiki; TK had mentioned numerous times that she was having serious health issues. The criticism was the lack of compassion you showed, and the aggressive approach you took, at a time when TK was acknowledging problems with health. If we could all be a little kinder here, we might better find a solution to problems, past and present. We're all volunteers. By all means, have a frank and vigorous discussion of problems at FAC, but recognize that we're all volunteers, trying to do our best, and be kind to others when real life issues impact Wiki editing.

In summary, before calling Malleus "aggressive" at FAC, please clean your own house. We have a problem, let's have a frank discussion, but let's be sure we're doing it in a way that will encourage solutions and doesn't malign other editors. I assume responsibility for Rlevse's debacle and Moni's article promoted on two supports; perhaps if you assume responsibility for your aggressive approach to TK when she was having health issues, we can all move forward with more kindness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the Ezra Pound FAC on the basis of very little information. I bent over backwards to be decent to TK about it. We were in email contact, and I asked for her permission before I started trying to fix it. But it's an important example of what happens at FAC. The article was nowhere near ready (second sentence of the lead was a copyright violation, where we explain why Pound mattered; sources were made to say the opposite of what they said—and I don't see how that's connected to health problems, Sandy—and there were significant omissions). TK knew it wasn't ready, and was almost goaded into nominating it in the same way Rlevse was; you can see her repeatedly saying before the nom on various talk pages that she wasn't keen. Almost as soon as the nom was up she tried to withdraw it and was persuaded otherwise. Hopefully that's enough said on that point. Let's allow people to nominate when they're ready; no more persuasion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Generalized question: Why the focus on blaming? Why must someone be at fault? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 05:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is blaming Malleus. Malleus is not to blame. I am uncertain how we discuss this matter and how to avoid a repetition, since we are inhibited from mentioning the history of the Grace Sherwood article, for obvious reasons.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

@Nocturne, largely I think because people are finding it difficult to explain why such an experienced editor made such a mistake. The answer is not to blame - it was an error, yes, and a worrying one, but without malice. Similarly, the layer of inspection that is FAC might perhaps have picked it up, but as it happened it didn't. We are all volunteers, and this was not an incident in which there was the slightest risk of anyone dying. A look at processes is helpful, but a sense of proportion is always useful.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I slightly disagree there, Elen. *I* knew of problems in Rlevse's articles, *I* knew unprepared articles were being pushed through DYK, and *I* should have checked more closely. That is why I accept responsibility for this particular case; on the other hand, I can't be the "Mother of the whole process", which is why a vigorous discussion of problems at FAC is welcome. It's not up to delegates or the director to catch everything at FAC; our job is to gauge consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand you would feel that way because you are the person that you are, and you take responsibilities seriously. At the same time, this isn't little-Johnny-playing-with-matches, where his mum should have been watching out for him. Yes, if one spots it, one will point it out, but the onus is on the person adding the content to make sure it complies with the rules.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And I saw there were problems with that article at FAC, but I decided not to review it because of who was involved (not Rlevse). So that's the responsibility I share for this, because I would have opposed it even without the copyright issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be coy, you mean me. Realise though that I feel just the same about you, and I go to great lengths to stay away from anything you're involved in as you drive me absolutely nuts with your batty ideas and refusal to listen to common sense. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, can I just interject here to ask (as someone late to this party and unable to follow quite what is going on) Who wrote and inserted the copyvio and therefore claimed it as their own? Nothing else matters, copy editors are not policing the project. If the culprit was an newbie we give him a gentle, but firm slap on the wrist and if an experienced editor we kick his/her arse to Kingdom Come. I don't see what all this talk of blame is about, there can only be one person to blame - the editor who inserrted it.  Giacomo  14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're just asking a rhetorical question but the editor was User:Rlevse. Parrot of Doom 14:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, it was not rhetorical, I thought it was him, but was not 100% sure I had the right end of the stick. Well seeing then, as he has quite rightly fallen on his sword, what is there left to discuss?  Giacomo  14:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The basics are covered (not entirely well, but closely enough) at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-01/Arbitration report; the best summary I've seen of the situation is here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to the section heading: Would somebody order more straws? GoodDay (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened?

May I ask a question? Malleus, can you tell me in a nutshell what happened? It's like you know what has hit the fan here. Rlevse left, DYK is like Berlin after the war and the signpost has this big story about copyright concerns. It's like the whole superstructure of this place is falling apart.....all in one day?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr: There's plagiarism everywhere, the mainpage has been hit, and it's all Malleus's fault. Sound the alarms! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 03:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it all started here. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped an explanation on his talk page. Raul654 (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually in this case it was my fault. The copyvio was added here in March 2009, I discovered it when I started working on the article here in June and removed, but inadvertently left in a sentence. Between March 2009 and June 2010 many people worked on the article and no one noticed. I shall now go fall on my sword. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the article should be rev deled back to March 2009. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Man...that pre-dates me joining....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 03:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that I'm starting to get the blame for that one as well. Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take the blame. If I have to be blocked or banned, so be it. Not your fault. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Loads more fun to blame Malleus though. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 03:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't really see it as your fault for this. I mean, you were asked to copy-edit the article, not conduct a FAC-like review of it. Therefore, you likely did not go over every solitary citation and look up it's respective relation of the citation's wording to the sentences that it cited. You were given a task and you did it. Simple as that. I remember asking you to copy-edit a U-boat article of mine once, but you never claimed or asked to claim GA credit for it? So why should you get blamed? Of course this is all coming from a kid who likely has no clue what they are talking about....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 03:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This absolutely is only my fault, for not noticing I'd missed a sentence. I'm deeply embarrassed and if I need to be blocked will accept that. If I need to be banned, I'll be sad, but will accept. I made a mistake. No one else should be responsible for my mistakes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You're taking this too much to heart. Nobody's going to get blocked or banned over this; I'll just have to try and bite my tongue until it all blows over, as it inevitably will. Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are wise beyond your years grasshopper. This is just an excuse to give me the good kicking that some admins think I deserve, nothing more nothing less. Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop being sad Truth ;) What's done is done. "One must never be focused on what was, or what happened, but what is."--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 04:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks White Shadows, but honestly I passed the state of being sad into something worse some weeks ago. Good people are being targeted and my name was on the nom, so it's my responsibility. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand. If you feel so bad, why not go over to one of the many threads about this on this site and state what you said here?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 04:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have my own question: why do people waste time blocking editors for the use of edit summaries like "rm pov crap" when we have much bigge issues here, like main page copyvio/plagairism? Access Denied – talk to me 04:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a funny system of double standards here. People get their priorities mixed up very often. It happens to all of us.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 04:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, even though I disagree with malleus's opinions on admin abuse, I must say that people are mixed up on the order things need to get done. I also hare malleus views on the civility policy, though less extreme. I don't think civility is that big of a problem

Unless it's things like "you're an obese faggot who rapes women and eats then for dinner" if course, that's more a NPA vio than a CIV vio. (sorry for typos I'm typing fast to avoid edit conflicts) Access Denied – talk to me 04:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not reading this section; those colorful sigs give me a headache. When those sigs appear at FAC, I'm obliged to read them and give the same weight to commentary from all editors; when they appear elsewhere, I'm within my right to not have to get a headache. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That was not really necessary now was it? You have a "colorful sig" as well Sandy.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 19:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Old English Template

While learning about templates - I found this one: {{subst:welcomeen-en|ang}} which you might find humorous. Note that the template inserts the name of the user page that it is put on - I am not making a poke at your English skills. The Old English Wikipedia is much more impressive to look at than the New English Wikipedia.

Uncle uncle uncle 17:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The charge against me appears to be that by copyediting I am colluding in the hiding of potential copyright violations or plagiarism, but there's a very simple solution to that problem; no more copyediting. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find a template for that. But how about this one? {{notaforum}}

• OK, that made me laugh out loud :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Hi MF. Pity about Ling.Nut. There were moments I though he might just make the last few supports he needed. Just goes to prove what I've said so often (more mildly) that the whole process is rotten to the core. There are children who pass through sheer numbers of their fan club of comic readers, cartoon watchers, and video gamers, and there are mature editors like Ling who get led like lambs to the slaughter for being learned and mature, but just different and gnomish.--Kudpung (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC) DYK: Where I live, the word ling means monkey, hmm... --Kudpung (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

He was never going to make it; been around for too long, made too many enemies. This is just about the most vindictive forum imaginable. Malleus Fatuorum 06:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Too bad that all the "CIVILITY WARRIORS" opposed. Access Denied – talk to me 14:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where else to ask this. I looked around but there doesn't seem to be a "vandalism on its way" page.

And I'm loathe to clutter your talk page, but already the silly vandalism has started on pages related to the Gunpowder Plot. This will only get worse on 5 November, but while I think a lot of people will be monitoring the article on that day (its the TFA), not so many will be watching the individual plotter articles. In fact nearly all the plotter articles (excepting perhaps Guy Fawkes) are quite lonely, with only a few decent editors keeping an eye on them.

Can I therefore ask any watching people, particularly vandalism fighters, to add the 11 individual plotter articles to their watchlist on the 5th? And, for that matter, anything else that might draw significant traffic?

Sorry Malleus. Couldn't find anywhere else to ask this, and yours is one of the most watched talk pages here :) Parrot of Doom 20:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember, remember, the 5th of November! (adding everything to my watchlist). → ROUX ₪ 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added all of them to my watchlist. Good luck on the 5th. Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday that V for Vendetta had been sneaked back into Guy Fawkes – gone now of course. The firework parties have started here as well. :-( Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. Keeping an eye on the TFA is bad enough, looking after an additional 11 articles is even worse... Parrot of Doom 21:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical question: How do you find out who is watching a page? --ClemRutter (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-Technical answer - I don't believe you can :) Special:UnwatchedPages is admin only for counter vandalism reasons so I would imagine if you could see who is watching a page and the answer was "no-one" it would sort of defeat the purpose. Pedro :  Chat  22:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd have to be a developer, or otherwise have direct access to the database. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes night will be an obvious one to watch as well. Richerman (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems that Simon is already having some fun with that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There you are - I've got crystal balls so I can see what's coming. Richerman (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen a doctor about those crystal balls? Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and he was very jealous. Richerman (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the opening section of that article, I might do a bit more today, but to be honest I'm a little bit fed up of the whole thing now. I need to take a few steps back and think about something else. Parrot of Doom 10:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're not boycotting FAC copyediting...

Pretty please with sugar on top could you look at Robert Burnell? (makes bambi eyes). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. I've considered the charge that fixing up prose without checking the sources is a crime against humanity and nature and I've firmly rejected it. Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to review more often rather than do source reviews in the current climate. I'm also trying to do more GANs, which quite honestly are less stressful. Oh, and write more! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a sensible choice in the present climate. Seems like there's a lot more blame being apportioned than there ever was thanks. I've been spending more time at GAN as well, and I've got a couple I've been meaning to take there for ages but just haven't got around to, this one prominent among them. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder plot - well done!

I see that you were a significant contributor to the article Gunpowder Plot, and just wanted to commend you on a well-written article - truly one of the best I've seen. Good work! Sincerely, Ruby2010 (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A question

"exercised his authority in a manner which gave some cause for complaint, not least an officer he replaced" - is this grammatically correct? Parrot of Doom 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In a word, no. The last part of the sentence "not least an officer he replaced" appears to be disconnected from the first part. Is there perhaps a word missing there, "from an officer he replaced"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I view "an officer he replaced" the same as "Joe Bloggs, who...", in which case I don't think a 'from' is necessary...is it? Ideally I'd like details of the complaint, but IIRC I don't have them. Parrot of Doom 23:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the complete sentence might make sense, but certainly the fragment you quoted doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's in Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot), the GA reviewer mentioned it but I thought it was ok. I can't even remember now if complaint is a synonym for "pissed off about it". Parrot of Doom 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm with the reviewer, it needs that "from" to make sense. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you plagiarise that argument? ;) I changed it, I'll go with the majority view. Parrot of Doom 01:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I never read what anyone else has written, I'm just a comma shuffler. I think you made the right choice, and in years to come when you've got that English Lit degree you'll look back on this discussion and slap your forehead. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

With the reviewer as well. Without a qualifier, it's not clear if the complaint is from an officer he replaced, or regarding an officer he replaced. – iridescent 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

John Robert Radclive

Would you be interested in expanding John Robert Radclive, Canada's first hangman?(You may find some links at resource exchange helpful.)Smallman12q (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! I didn't notice until just now that the article's still in your user space. Hope you don't mind me having messed around with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine...I'm keeping it there until I get the stomach to write about the rest of his hangings=P.Smallman12q (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dongan Charter GA

Just wanted to let you know I'm taking point on the issues in Talk:Dongan Charter/GA1.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's good. I thought it might have been abandoned, as the nominator appears to be no longer active. Let me know when you're done. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, though I've got a question I'll bring up on the GAN.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tramp

One of the essays in the book I looked at today for GF Night was about Tramps. I think this is an excellent subject, nobody calls tramps tramps anymore, they're "homeless people". Call me un-PC, but I think that Tramp needs to be taken back. I might investigate further. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That article certainly needs some work, in common with 3,126,798 of wikipedia's other articles. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Change the subject line: I thought I was being summonsed in edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There used to be a perfume in this country called Tramp. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't do perfume-- too busy with hair, fingernails, toenails, shoes and makeup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This post is useless without pictures. Parrot of Doom 21:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, busy drinking my Ensure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

They remind me of tins of Carnation Milk. Parrot of Doom 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a slow and torturous death, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember how often PoD an I have been through this same nonsense before, so it can die a death as soon as it likes. We won't be adding the details of a second-rate film to the article and will resist the efforts of anyone else to add them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we just stop having every person with a peeve of the day wanting to change instructions at FAR? The FAs will still be there in a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it, seems to be the way things work here. If an FA doesn't mention the only thing I think I know about a subject then it clearly fails the comprehensive criterion. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

174,000

I like to think that at least a few of those now understand that it wasn't just "some bloke who wanted to blow up parliament, innit". Parrot of Doom 12:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully a few of them learned something about punctuation as well (yes, I'm thinking about "James's"). Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to the two of you; obviously the best team of editors on WP (if viewing figures are anything to go by)! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Some even rediscovered the etymology of part of their username. Geometry guy 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Blimey. Think I proposed the wrong article. Parrot of Doom 23:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. 'Ya missed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, you can propose that one for 5 November next year :) Richerman (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Script error?

[2] (already fixed, reporting FYI). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

While I find it amusing in a weird ironic sort of way...

Can we (being a generalized we that includes everyone here) stop playing at blame games (i.e. witchhunts, thus the irony about it taking place at Malleus' page) and try to NOT include personalization. This ain't a battlefield and we may or may not have a problem, but it's not helping to dredge up incidents from the past and/or bring up specific articles/people/etc.

What I see is:

1. We had an issue with one article, perhaps more, that was TFA.
2. Some folks think that copyediting should be as it is in the real world, where the publishers copyeditor is responsible for fact checking as well as prose
3. Some folks don't think that's possible because of the fact that copyeditors on wikipedia can't access all the sources that an editor uses.
4. Some people are using this perceived crisis to bring up other favored causes/hobbyhorses/etc in order to try and push them through also.
5. From all of the above, everyone is playing battleground games and getting entirely too personal (on ALL sides) about things.

Step back. Be responsible for your own behavior and stop personalizing things and taking things personal. It's not a "oh, my god, we've got to fix this now" thing and we'd probably be better off going and getting some idea of the scope of the problem before we get this heated and agitated. Let's agree on terms of reference, on what the problem IS, the scope of said problem, and then discuss how to fix the problem, if such is needed, WITHOUT taking potshots at each other.

What a HELL of a way to come back to wikipedia after my wedding. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to copyedit this, but then realised that you haven't provided a citation for your marriage. I therefore move that your post be scratched from the record, and your account suspended while an investigation takes place.

As this is on Malleus's talk page, some of the blame therefore lies with him, and he should be banned immediately. Parrot of Doom 12:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that suggested elsewhere, did you copy that ban proposal and then add a couple of your own words? Nev1 (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm finding quite enlightening is the number of different ways that I'm to blame for this debacle, at least according to SV that is:

• I don't check sources, therefore my copyediting is crap and actually has the effect of disguising copyvios/plagiarism
• I encourage other editors to take articles that are plainly not ready to FAC
• I browbeat any opposition during the review
• I am one of a secret group whose articles receive less scrutiny than those of other editors

I'll be very interested to see what else comes up during the course of the day. Perhaps I'm actually SandyG's sockpuppet? Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot: killed Jimmy Hoffa, did 9/11, kept Steve Guttenberg in movies, and belong to the Pentavret. → ROUX ₪ 13:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is he responsible for Jar-Jar and the rumored seventh Star Wars movie? If so, blame may not be enough... (But we really DO need to be serious here, folks.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm deadly serious; I had absolutely no doubt that this would somehow be laid at my door when it all blew up on Saturday evening, I just hadn't realised how inventive some folks would be. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't really that inventive, nearly everyone can see right through it. You're not required to check sources, its his opinion that articles aren't ready (and his opinion is one of only 6 billion), browbeating is not equal to saying "no I think its fine, I won't change it", and the secret group...? Well I tell you what, lets see SlimVirgin put his money where his mouth is, and tell us who's in it. I've already asked him. Parrot of Doom 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Parrot, you're saying we should be copy editing and reviewing FACs, without looking at the sources the article is based on? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're explicitly reviewing whether the sources support what the article says and/or whether there is plagiarism, then by all means look at the sources. However, if all someone is doing is fixing or reviewing prose, then you can't expect that person to be willing or able to look at sources. Really, when you're copyediting something that you're not an expert on, being expected to authoritatively check sources is unreasonable. That's why copy-editors should work in collaboration with source/subject experts. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And you're right when we're dealing with academic issues, or sources that are hard to find. But this was an Associated Press article, cited 29 times. It was a short article. Anyone reading it would have seen (a) that it was not a good source because it was relying on a local woman who was trying to raise money, not an expert; and (b) that it had been plagiarized.

If we're reviewing articles without reading even a short newspaper article to get our bearings about the topic, then what is the review based on? When we say "this is FA quality," what is meant? I'm not only talking about this article now, or about these reviewers, because I've done the same thing myself. We all need to ask ourselves what we mean when we support something. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating the roles of reviewing and copy editing. Copy editing is the process of improving the prose to make the article read better. This can be done independently of the sources; indeed if your primary concern is to improve the prose then looking at the sources is generally superfluous. If you don't understand what's being said and want to rephrase something to make it clearer, then it might be worth consulting the references to shed some light on the matter, but often it makes more sense to consult the author of the article as they should know what they were trying to convey and will probably be more widely read on the subject than you. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is where I'm disagreeing. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be creative works. They are derivative; they are meant to be based entirely on reliable sources, but not so closely that they're copyright violations. How can an article be copy-edited in any meaningful way without at least glancing through the sources it's based on? A copy editor is supposed to spot red flags, awkward turns of phrase, check with the writer about what was meant, and before you tell me that's not so, it is so in every area of publishing outside Wikipedia, and there's no point in us deploying a special definition of common terms. Good copy editing is difficult. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In an ideal world, a copy editor would review the sources, but until Wikipedia starts paying its editors comparing it with real world publishers just doesn't work. For starters there's the issue of the availability of sources, although you already know that. It is possible to recast a sentence or a paragraph without having to consult the source. It's quite a jump from the usual "can you check my article to see if the prose stinks or not" which is usually considered copy editing on Wikipedia to "can you check the article too see if the prose stinks, the sources are fairly represented, and that there's no plagiarism". Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider saying no when people ask us only to work on prose, because it truly can have the effect of masking problems. Or at the very least we should make clear on the FAC page, if we do copy edit something that ends up at FAC, that we haven't looked at any of the sources, and can't vouch for the content at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I've already considered the fact that getting an article to featured status is more trouble than it's worth. Anyone is welcome at any time to check prose and sources. I welcome constructive commentary, but asking for an article to be deconstructed when it does not need to be, for its quality to be diminished in the name of an overly sensitive FAC process, and nominating an article when no improvement could come from it just isn't fun times when I volunteer my time and effort. I've learned that the path of least reasonable resistance is writing an article with FA criteria in mind and keeping it at B class or lower. The same amount of people read it every day and I catch far less crazyass shit. --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles are not meant to be creative works" - in other words, Wikipedia articles should be boring. Thanks, but no thanks. Parrot of Doom 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth: Firstly and most importantly: Congratulations, and I hope you have continued happiness.

On the Wikipeida compared to the real world: There are a number of ways publishers vet articles, including fact checking by persons specifically assigned to that task, copyeditors, and a final polish of prose. Such processes vary, but often are linear and somewhat hierarchical processes. Wikipedia is neither. Prose edits can come at any stage; a prose editor often does not have the advantage of having the facts already checked against sources (which should catch plagiarism). Those who would impose a particular publisher's model on Wikipedia are likely to be disappointed. And those who want to assign "blame" for this or any other incident are in the wrong place here. Kablammo (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be quite impossible for wikipedia copyeditors to check sources on the articles they are asked to copy edit and I don't beleive anybody has ever thought they did. Just look at the variety of articles Malleus has been asked to copyedit over the last few months on his talkpage. It is the responsibility of the authors not to plagiarise or violate copyright and to watch what the copyeditor does to ensure no accidental plagiarism creeps in by changing the wording. If you want somebody to either fact-check your work or check for plagiarism and copy-vios then you need to find an editor qualified to do that which would be somebody with access to the sources and the relevent knowledge base. I am not convinced by the "copy-editing disguises the writing and so masks plagiarism" argument either. On wikipedia different styles are more likely to result from a multiplicity of editors. I think FAC reviewers ought to at least spot check sources for accuracy, plagiarism and copy-vio where they can and say if they have or have not done so. If this became routine, rather like image checks, then it would be a lot less tempting for editors to deliberately plagiarise and might also make people be a little more careful about accidental plagiarism. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A case in point - if I asked Malleus to copy edit my post above I would expect him to correct the spelling of "believe" but not to ascertain whether or not this really was fainites opinion. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"And those who want to assign 'blame' for this or any other incident are in the wrong place here." On the contrary, they think they can smell blood. Well perhaps they can, but perhaps it isn't my blood. I still haven't got over being accused earlier today of deliberately enginering this situation so as to get rid of Relvse. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has accused you of that, as you well know. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Accused him directly. A lot of insunutation and capitalising is flowing around, from a few predictable sources. I think thats what he means, as you well know. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What I well know is that you are lying. Just take a look a little higher up this page. Also, take a look at Rlevse's nomination of Grace Sherwood, where he says quite clearly that many editors had encouraged him to take it to FAC. I'd really like to know why you're trying to pin the blame for this whole fiasco on me ... well actually I know already, so don't trouble yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) Article on obscure French town copied wholesale from website in 2007. Same article tagged by me as copyvio in 2008, and this pointed out to the French culture group. Various minor edits carried out by other editors after the tagging, but the majority of the plagiarism left untouched. Article blanked as a copyvio yesterday, two years later, when a bot reports the similarities. Ning-ning (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So all that remains to be done is to invent some reason as to why that's my fault. Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's easy. You speak a bit of French. Must be you. Oh, and BTW, tell us who you got to shoot Kennedy already. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You had Nigel killed‽ Ning-ning (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How much of this actually was there?

HISTORY OF WAT PASANTIDHAMMA 109.155.102.127 (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been a great deal more of it than has so far been admitted. I've found interesting to see the desperate efforts of fellow administrators and even arbitrators to sweep this issue under the carpet by pretending that it was just a one-off few sentences inadvertently copied into one TFA. Anyone who seriously tries to question that party line is accused either of "grave dancing" or "disruption", possibly both. The dishonesty on display is rank. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rehashing old topics

• Neener, neener! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The Wrangler? Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't have a Wrangler, although I do like them, I have a Grand Cherokee. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It's a JEEP ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Actually, to be truthful, the Cherokee is really my wife's car, although I use it more than she does. This is my car. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
            • What is that thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
              • It's a Jaguar XJ-S, if I'm not mistaken. I bought my own piece of British metal recently. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                • I'm coming to visit you, not Malleus! I never got to buy my own cars-- new ones kept showing up regularly in my garage, like it or not-- but when I do get to choose one, it may be a VW Jetta diesel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • Well I haven't managed a wheelie yet... might be a good time to try, hehe. The Jetta diesel is one of the best cars out there! --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • Well, I'm not entirely stupid, 'ya know, even if I have been driving cars I didn't get to choose :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                • It is, yes. Nice bike. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Challenge to you...

Find me an interesting DYK hook in Pancartes. I'm failing miserably. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Did you know …that historian Marjorie Chibnall states that the medieval historian Orderic Vitalis used now lost pancartes of various Norman monastic houses as sources for Orderic's historical writings?" Sometimes, making it so cryptic and arcane that people click through to find out what the hell you're talking about is the only thing that works. Or you could just go with "…Pancartes were medieval historical documents, drawn up by a monastery, that recorded a sequence of gifts to the monastery". (Of course, there's always the "maybe there's nothing here that's actually of interest to the non-specialist, so putting it on the main page isn't necessary" route…) – iridescent 16:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the idea of a DYK on this article, but figured if someone (i.e. talk-page stalkers) found something interesting... it might be worth it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You can try finding one on Norwich Market if you fancy DYK-hunting. I thought with all those mass-executions, dick fools, whifflers and girls of sixteen with no bones they'd be jumping off the page, but it's surprisingly barren ground. – iridescent 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Did you know …that twice in the 16th century, persons convicted of sedition had their ears nailed to the pillory in Norwich Market for a period of time, and when their pillory time was over, their ears were cut off? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you know …that historian David Bates strictly defines a pancarte as being a charter which contains more than one other charter's piece of folded paper? Ning-ning (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Iridescent: "Did you know …that in medieval times, gifts to a monastery were recorded on pancartes?" Geometry guy 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That works; it makes it cryptic enough that people click through from the "well, what the hell is a pancarte?" factor. – iridescent 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I quite like that one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed the suggestion of "Pancakes" and hope the hook is good enough to take forward:good luck! Geometry guy 00:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny timing

Sources and info for that book have been removed. There weren't essential anyway and can be readded providing the page numbers are given at a later date. Surely this is GA quality now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's my feeling as well, as I've just said in my closing speech at the review. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was concerned it was going to fail on account of that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I like to think that I'm not always the unreasonable sob I'm painted to be on here. :-) Even FAC doesn't demand perfection, and the sources were named and could be checked by anyone interested enough to do so, plus it wasn't really very important stuff anyway. The article improved a lot during the review. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of you doing a GA nomination?

Pit-yacker has been working hard on London Road Fire Station, Manchester and put it up for GAN 12 days ago but there have been no takers yet. Would you have time to have a look at it? Richerman (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. Twelve days isn't very long to have to wait at GAN these days though sadly. There seem to be fewer and fewer editors willing to do reviews, which is understandable I suppose, as it's a largely thankless task that takes time away from what it is that presumably brought you to this project in the first place, writing about something that interests you. Anyway, on a very quick first look through it looks good, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are a shining star! You have my thanks at least. Richerman (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've finished the review now, not too much to deal with hopefully. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to look at Cheddar Cheese?

It is a very popular article, but I am sure that the history is wrong. That is to say that the cheese was originaly made in Cheddar. I think you might be able to fix it!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you fix it? Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre story

As you have an interest in bizarre stories, would you mind looking over Datalink Computer Services incident?Smallman12q (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't look like my kind of thing at all, sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That is probably the craziest scam I've ever heard of. 0.0 --Twilight Helryx 00:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought the story was a scam when I first read it 0.o.Smallman12q (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Decisions, decisions...

Alexander of Lincoln or Walter de Coutances? And .... how close are you to the actual location of Liudhard medalet? I didn't get to Liverpool while I was there, and I don't THINK it's close to Manchester, but I could be wrong (since both places are only notable in history well past the period I usually study, I never have got a good feel for where all those Industrial Revolution cities were located...) I think the hunk of gold is the next "weirdness" that I wanna work up. (I'm not feeling very manuscriptish right this moment) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm about 40 miles and half a world away from Liverpool. Any city that renames its airport after John Lennon is a place to be avoided. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I recommend what used to be called an "Atlas" but is now known as Google Maps. It is amazing: you can scroll away from the North American continent without even leaving home, and so discover a whole new world of Geography, with far-out place names and everything! There is even a magnifying glass to view the smaller countries. Ace! The kids will love it! ;) Geometry guy 00:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth did the Grand Tour this summer, but the span of her historical interest doesn't extend to the Industrial Revolution, so no reason for her to have visited the mecca that is Manchester, or the scally paradise that is Liverpool. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How sad she missed out on Birmingham (I presume). There are some very fine inner city ring roads in the West Midlands ;) Geometry guy 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I once wanted to know how far it was from Manchester to Liverpool, so I googled it and ended up on somewhere like answers.com where there is a vote on which is the best answer. The one that came out top was " not fucking far enough!" Richerman (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I know that Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all over in the western/northwestern part of England, but beyond that, I'm unclear. I also discovered something while I was in England - that the English think going 200 miles is "a LONG trip" whereas this yank thinks nothing of it. We routinely do 400 round trip to the inlaws in one day along with a long visit, so what I'd consider close by the map probably isn't considered close by an Englishperson. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Did 200 mile "trip" yesterday- 5 hours (last ten miles took 1 hour), 30 GBP of petrol, so 400 mile round trip with long visit would take all bloomin' day, cost 60 GBP, involve 3 minor accidents, 2 road rage incidents and 1.5 visits to a motorway service station toilet. Ning-ning (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's your roundabouts. They are evil. We routinely average 65 miles per hour here in the states. No roundabouts! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone's going to mention Swindon now… and Hemel Hempstead's shortlived bidirectional roundabout. Ning-ning (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The one in Hemel, at any rate, is decidedly still there. We even have an article on it. – iridescent 19:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't resist. You folks will love my neck of the wild west. Where I live, the 75 mph speed limit is really just good advice for those suckers who don't have a radar detector. Anything under 85 is a wrist slap if the cops are bored enough to pull you over. Nonetheless, the locals have become inordinately fond of tiny roundabouts at uncontrolled intersections of paved rural roads as a "traffic calming" measure. The only problem is that they are too narrow to navigate through with a cattle truck, so most have wheel marks over the curbs. Plus no one wanted to install a water line, but they still put in non-desert landscaping, so now we have roundabouts with three dead trees in the center. This one is a classic in-town variety: http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/index.aspx?nid=587 Note the people to get the sense of (inadequate) scale. Oh wait, they call it "Context sensitive design." Where I live, they are doing these in the country. Anyway, have fun furthering the conversation... Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So that's where stimulus money went? Towards building roundabouts 0.o.Smallman12q (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Ealdgyth says that he's glad we didn't run across that roundabout while we were in England. His exact words were "EEEWWW!". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Try him on this. – iridescent 23:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, someone wanna look over and smooth over Leges Henrici Primi enough for GA? I'm about ready to chuck it out the window as I really dislike manuscript studies... that long list of manuscripts defeats me every time... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Again me

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 27, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 27, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

100px|The Manchester Mark 1

The Manchester Mark 1 was one of the earliest stored-program computers, developed at the Victoria University of Manchester from the Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Work began in August 1948, and the first version was operational by April 1949; a program written to search for Mersenne primes ran error-free for nine hours on the night of 16/17 June 1949. The machine's successful operation was widely reported in the British press, which used the phrase "electronic brain" in describing it to their readers. The Mark 1 was initially developed to provide a computing resource within the university, to allow researchers to gain experience in the practical use of computers, but it very quickly also became a prototype on which the design of Ferranti's commercial version could be based. Development ceased at the end of 1949, and the machine was scrapped towards the end of 1950, replaced in February 1951 by a Ferranti Mark 1, the world's first commercially available general-purpose computer. The computer is especially historically significant because of its pioneering inclusion of index registers, an innovation which made it easier for a program to read sequentially through an array of words in memory. Many of the ideas behind its design were incorporated in subsequent commercial products such as the IBM 701 and 702. The chief designers, Frederic C. Williams and Tom Kilburn, concluded from their experiences with the Mark 1 that computers would be used more in scientific roles than in pure mathematics. (more...)

:) Parrot of Doom 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have to give up writing FAs, too stressful. I didn't create this article, it's been around almost as long as wikipedia, so heaven knows what horrors may lurk in its history. It's changed quite a bit since that first version though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually even older than that—that one goes right back to Before The Dawn Of Time. (The 2001 database dump is always strangely fascinating; the page view statistics in particular.) – iridescent 11:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rivington

Thank for reviewing. I will attempt to address the points but it might take a couple of days as I have a temperature, 'flu I think, and an intermittent broadband connection and we've had two short power cuts today.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no rush, take your time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do now but I'll be glad to get this one finished. Thank you for your help so far. Even the broadband works today!--J3Mrs (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's all done now, so I'm going to list it as a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again thank you, done without cake!--J3Mrs (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we'd best get it done quickly, in case you felt the need to rush out and buy cake. Now you can relax with a nice glass of wine. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Vicks vapour rub would have been more appropriate I think, just made do with cocoa.:(--J3Mrs (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Haflingers

Hi Malleus,

Sorry about the edit conflicts, we were tweaking the intro at the same time. Hope my stuff will dovetail OK with your stuff. I'll get out of the way now and leave you to the rest of your work. Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice, but you carry on; I'm done for the evening. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg

Malleus, I would like to ask you to do me a big favor. Could you please take some time to read Skanderbeg? It is a long article, so please take your time. I plan in bringing it to GA in a couple of months and in FA in 2011. Gaius Claudius Nero is the main author of the article, but I'm getting involved recently too. There are still some references to be fixed there, and it's a complex article, so it may take a while to get it to GA.

For now I would just like that you get involved with your thoughts with the paragraphs management: currently we have the wars, which occur almost throughout his 25 years (1443-1468) as the head of the confederacy of the League of Lezhe, and then the foreign relations, which of course go throughout those 25 years. I personally tend to merge the diplomacy paragraphs (relations with Venice, Naples, and Pope) into the main body of the article, and thus to give a clear chronology of his life, so that the article becomes more readable. I would gently ask you to tell me if you would see that article better flowing with a clear set chronology, or with those paragraphs separate as they are now. It would be awesome if you could also get involved in the discussion for that matter.

Thank you in advance, and please understand that I come to you as I see you the best wikipedian in writing with perfect elegance. --Sulmuesi (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You make me blush, I just do what I can. I remember the good work you did with Vangjel Meksi, and certainly Albanian topics aren't yet very well covered. I had a quick look at Skanderbeg and as you say it's a big article, so it'll take me some time to read through it and absorb it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've offered my opinion on the article's structure, which I think pretty much corresponds with yours. The article's full of good stuff, but the pieces haven't been put together right, or even at all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

…and there's more pieces arriving in the post every day, from Serbia, Macedonia and all points Balkan. Latest consignment is an image of the seal of Skanderbeg with an image caption larger than the article, most of it in Greek, and Hitler. Ning-ning (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that trying to tell any story about the Balkans is an enterprise fraught with problems. Malleus Fatuorum 11:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 18, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 18, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dick Turpin (bap. 1705 – 1739) was an English highwayman whose exploits were romanticised following his execution in York for horse theft. Turpin may have followed his father's profession as a butcher early in life, but by the early 1730s he had joined a gang of deer thieves, and later became a poacher, burglar, horse thief, and murderer. He is best known for his fictional 200-mile (320 km) overnight ride from London to York on his steed Black Bess, a story that was made famous by the Victorian novelist William Harrison Ainsworth almost 100 years after Turpin's death. Turpin's involvement in the crime for which he is most closely associated—highway robbery—followed the arrest of the other members of his gang in 1735. He then disappeared from public view towards the end of that year, only to resurface in 1737 with two new accomplices. Later that year he moved to Yorkshire and assumed the alias of John Palmer. While he was staying at an inn local magistrates became suspicious of "Palmer", and made enquiries as to how he funded his lifestyle. Suspected of being a horse thief, "Palmer" was imprisoned in York Castle, to be tried at the next assizes. Turpin's true identity was revealed by a letter he wrote to his brother-in-law from his prison cell, which fell into the hands of the authorities. On 22 March 1739 Turpin was found guilty on two charges of horse theft and sentenced to death; he was executed on 7 April 1739. Turpin became the subject of legend after his execution, romanticised as dashing and heroic in English ballads popular theatre, film and television. (more...)

Someone called Dick on the main page. What could possibly go wrong? – iridescent 12:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And what's even worse, someone that every schoolkid thinks they know something about. Poor Pod, Raul must have it in for him this month. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 12:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just get Bishzilla to EAT all the vandals? Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Show me an editor who doesn't think that writing an FA gives you experience of vandal fighting and I'll show you an editor who's never had one on the main page. Malleus Fatuorum 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

At least we can protect the real magnets now without getting summarily overturned due to the suicide pact. I get that feeling this one might end up with a couple protection log entries on the 18th. Courcelles 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I noted on 5 November that Gunpowder Plot wasn't really touched until the yanks woke up. Says a lot, does that. Parrot of Doom 12:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was the English, unemployed, sleeping late, and stoned. I got one too, Saint-Gaudens double eagle, November 11. Well, it does mention WWI, if that is any consolation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I think on the unemployed scale the colonial traitors win. And its the First World War, not WWI! Parrot of Doom 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice you are not defending the stone crack ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt we have as many crackheads as the US, although the Scots and Welsh might dispute that... Parrot of Doom 15:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Having just returned from California, you are probably right.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You all had better watch John Lennon starting now before the real fun of December 8th-- betcha we ain't seen nothin' yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be watchlisting it that day.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be watchlisted by many now ... lots of folks gearing up for that anniversary, we need to avoid article deterioration beginning now. I'll add a note at FAC as soon as I get time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Already edit warring over there-- any admins on board who can make a call as to when semi-pro is needed? I don't know policy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's going to be a battlefield; I never really cared for Lennon's pretentious rubbish, so I'm staying away. Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

All I need to know about him is that he screwed around on his wives, so although I am watchlisting for generalities, I'm fersure not paying attention to details and don't know much about him or give a crap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I escaped, although since I just had one Sunday, I guess I've already done my penance. Must say, horses on the main page are easier than bishops... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, religious folk tend to emulate the rear half of the equine.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Seven instances of 'Turpin' in that box up there. Where does one go to fix such things? Parrot of Doom 21:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here – iridescent 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. While you're here, any clues on where to find reliable information on Bonfire Night food? Buggered if I can find anything, but I've always associated Bonfire Night with treacle toffee and that must have come from somewhere. Parrot of Doom 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Google Is Your Friend. – iridescent 21:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It won't let me read it, not even through a proxy. Stupid sexy Google! Parrot of Doom 21:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just dump "Bonfire toffee" into GBooks. Or, indeed, fish out the ridiculous number of books in the bibliography of Bonfire toffee. (And find out where "in the North, darker sweets are preferred" came from. I have a vision of Londoners eating Milky Bars, Brummies eating Caramacs, Mancs eating Galaxy Bars and the Scots gnawing away on Black Jacks.) – iridescent 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In York, they fancy Yorkie bars. Of course.--22:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No luck searching for toffee, or celebrations in commonwealth nations. There isn't a great deal written about such things, the three decent sources I have on Gunpowder Treason Day don't really mention them much. I guess what's sauce for the goose... Parrot of Doom 21:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You've already done more than enough to halt the rot with that article. It's always easier to defend something that's in good shape than it is a crock like it was before. There's a software development principle called refactoring which I think is analagous, although you wouldn't know it from reading that article. Why is it that almost all of the computing articles are crap? Even this one, on a technology fundamental to the way that wikipedia works. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that almost all of the computing articles are crap? - I'd like to know the answer to this too. Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got half a mind to do something about that, once I get beyond valve computers. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Malleus Fatuorum, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You stupid bot. Malleus Fatuorum 05:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the Manchester Mark 1, why is the file called Manchester Mark2? – iridescent 10:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea, I didn't upload it. It's definitely the Mark I though.[3] There never was a Manchester Mark 2 so far as I'm aware. Malleus Fatuorum 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bot, it was most kind of you to also visit my house after an arb put a non-free image on my talk page. Keep up the good work; nice seeing your around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I always thought DASHBot was a Miss. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A favor?

Would you mind checking over Haflinger (horse) for me, if you fancy another dip back into the horse world? It's the next one I want to take to FAC, and I would love you have your copyediting skills applied before then. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Malleus! Are you still working, or was my prose actually not that bad this time? (Usually you fill up a whole page on the edit history!) Dana boomer (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've only just started Dana. ;-) I'll try and get back to it later. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm finished now. FAC (like GAN) depends on who turns up, but I wouldn't be opposing on the basis of your prose. One thing though, this looks a bit ugly: "The others are either gelded or sold to other countries. Other countries base their registration ...". Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I've tweaked that sentence a bit, so we'll see how it goes. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Barnstar
		For your wonderful contributions in the Featured Article realm. You are not only a prolific writer of FAs, you also copyedit other editors' efforts, review at FAC and clean up at FAR. Keep up the good work. Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I can never remember if you accept barnstars or not. If so, then enjoy; if not, feel free to toss - I promise my feelings won't be hurt! Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for the thought Dana, but my eyes were opened to barnstars when one (now) administrator took his back after I upset him. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

London Road Fire Station, Manchester

Hi! just a message to say thank you for the time and effort you took to review the London Road Fire Station article and to help get it into shape for GA Pit-yacker (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. You had some pretty strong editors helping out, so I knew it would turn out OK. I saw that Richerman said I wouldn't give you an easy ride, but I hope you like the end result. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want anyone to get the idea that because you're a member of the GM wikiproject you'd be any less critical of that article than others you've done. I also said you were very helpful - you proved me right on both counts :) Richerman (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably likely to be more critical of a GM article, to avoid any hint of collusion. Plus I may even know a little about the subject, which makes a refreshing change. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I think my advice to you at ANI bears emphasising: "You should not make unevidenced accusations of bad faith. It is not a laughing matter: if you have something serious to discuss, then let's do so, with evidence. If you just have suspicions, kindly keep them to yourself (and avoid the Boy Crying Wolf effect). And if you're just pissing about at ANI for no good reason, please stop it." Unspecified and unevidenced accusations achieve nothing except making you look bad, and making it less likely people will take you seriously when you have something substantial. (You already know, of course, that it's unhelpful and somewhat disruptive, even if people have the good sense to merely ignore such remarks.) Rd232 ^talk 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your opinion, which once again demonstrates that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In what way? Rodhullandemu 03:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In every way. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, what are you doing here, other than continuing to poke at Malleus? Rd232 has http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/WikEd_align_down.pngno history with Malleus, and if he wants to make a comment, at least he's not here to poke. You've been warned many times to cease your baiting and poking at MF; now heed the warning, or plenty of people will be happy to start on RFC on your conduct. Malleus, I suggest that people are finally heeding the message, and you could advance "the cause" against admin abuse and double standards by letting others take the lead for a while. Heed the message: there is a way to deal with admin abuse, and it seems to be working in the "other" case. I don't think some of Rod's diffs would hold up very well at RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I am not here to provoke conflict; that is not what collegiate editing is about. If, as you suggest, that Malleus takes your second point that patience is wearing thin, fine. But I want to see a commitment to that. In the absence of, RFC must follow, for which ever editor is considered by the cummunity to be out of line. Rodhullandemu 03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this response is constructive because ...? (hint: we are not all on the same peak of adequacy as you, so some education to lesser mortals might be regarded as educational, as opposed to patronising) I detect you're on thin ice, given the responses you've already received, and perhaps the time has come when you should no longer be complacent of relying on your fan club here. Make no mistake, Malleus, wasps are not welcome at this picnic unless they subscribe to Wikipedia values, with chapter and verse, and continued abuse of other editors, bald or otherwise, will not be tolerated. I know I've previously blocked you incorrectly, but your next block is entirely up to you and your behaviour as regards this community. Bottom line is that neither you nor I should receive special treatment for any reason whatsoever. Nobody's fireproof here; but patience can be exhausted, and it is my considered opinion that general patience of you is running out. Rodhullandemu 03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep posting, keep adding evidence of how you are unable to disengage from Malleus, and continue to poke at him. You exhaust patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You do at least make me laugh Rod, so it's not all bad, and at least you've now grudgingly admitted that your block was bad. I only wish that I could return the complement, and block you incorrectly as well. Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment (not complement); it's appreciated. But on balance, I find it had to believe that you are here to build an encyclopedia when you spend so much other time "kicking against the pricks" here. If there's one human attribute I despise it's arrogance, and particularly intellectual arrogance. It utterly disgusts me. @SandyGeorgia: Why not let Malleus fight his own fights? If you've other issues, you know where to take them. Rodhullandemu 04:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think now would be a good time for everyone to stop talking...--Twilight Helryx 04:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

How could any rational person not see Rod's comments as a personal attack? Simply compare what he's done today with what I've done, and then decide who's here to build an encyclopedia and who isn't. Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rod, you've been asked to stop. Saying to Malleus that you "find it had to believe that you are here to build an encyclopedia" stretches all credibility about your reasons for being on his page, considering the amount of encyclopedia he has built. If you continue poking here, expect to see an RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rod's an administrator, so he's allowed to get away with shit like this. Or at least he thinks he is, but not any more sunshine. Malleus Fatuorum 04:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear, Malleus. Rod has lodged a blatant attack and cast aspersions upon you on your talk page, and most likely, in spite of the number of talk page watchers you have, he will not be held accountable. Everyone knows that: the arbs have made it clear repeatedly that RFC/U is the means for addressing admin misconduct. Rd232 came here in good faith, with no bones to pick, so don't shoot the messenger. You probably know that Rd and I have had some rather large differences over content in the past, but he is approachable, reasonable, and you can talk to him (you didn't). Rod, then, came here to stir the pot. Don't judge all admins by the yardstick set by abusive admins; I've never seen Rd232 abuse the tools or make personal attacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

{ec}} I know as well as you do that Rod will once again skip free by claiming some stress caused by noisy neighbours or his imminent demise. Just goes to show how corrupt the admin corps has become, in that they tolerate that kind of nonsense. Malleus Fatuorum 05:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the solution here is to just let this whole thing go. We're not getting anywhere with this.--Twilight Helryx 05:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Easy for you to say. You're not the accused. Malleus Fatuorum 05:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Bollocks apart, if you think you are completely beyond criticism, please start the request for comment. Otherwise, please shut up. Rodhullandemu 05:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A word to the wise Rod, which sadly doesn't seem to include you. Back off. Malleus Fatuorum 05:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Standby. I lost all my work because my computer was unplugged without me knowing it and my battery died. I should have it reconstructed shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Came out better the second time: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if a statement intended as an entirely generic suggestion of how to deal with problems came off as an intervention in a specific dispute [that is, taking sides] - and in doing so helped escalate it. In terms of that specific dispute (which I only know a little of), it seems to be heading towards RFCU, though we'll see what happens with the current ANI thread. In terms of your response "you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about" - well I guess that relates to the specific dispute, but it illustrates my general point: if I don't know what you're talking about, it's because either there is no onwiki explanation with appropriate evidence, or nobody's pointed me to it. Dispute resolution is unfortunately hard work but if you can't work things out one-to-one (a helping of letting bygones be bygones can sometimes be rather good), then that's what's needed. Rd232 ^talk 09:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it curious that you're now even trying to blame me for your own ignorance. Malleus Fatuorum 13:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I really wasn't, and wrote the comment carefully to make it clear I wasn't (note in particular the word "nobody"). A lot happened today though (I missed it all, being out), so never mind. The bottom line is, you need to explain and justify concerns to have a realistic expectation of action being taken; vague accusations are not helpful. This doesn't need to involve repetition - if people ask, you can point them to prior explanation where that exists (if they don't find it or have others point it out). Rd232 ^talk 00:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything, but perhaps what you need to do is to wake up and smell the coffee. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, coffee...:) Rephrasing: "one needs to explain and justify concerns to have a realistic expectation of action being taken; vague accusations are not helpful." Rd232 ^talk 19:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm smelling the coffee, and the roses. Two threads closed in less than 24 hours each in two days at ANI with admins held accountable! Come on, MF, that's progress, and you get lots of credit. So does Rd232. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, would you be able to locate-- or tell me where to look for-- those diffs where Rod talked about how much time he spent on Wiki and how it was affecting him? This is an editor in trouble, based on Alison's post and his post, and it's clear that ANI isn't equipped to deal with this, particularly with the lack of respect shown at that circus by people like Baseball Bugs. This needs to go to the arbs, they are accustomed to situations like this, it looks like serious burnout, an RFC/U is not the right thing to do to an editor evidencing these kinds of problems; can you find those diffs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Are this, this, this, this, this, this, this or this what you're looking for? – iridescent 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, saved me a job. Despite our very evident differences I'm rather concerned about Rod – the person I mean, not the administrator, but I'm also amazed at how the concerns about his increasingly erratic behaviour are being handled, or rather ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Iri. Malleus, I agree-- the ANI circus now is troubling me more than the original events. Have people no compassion? I'm not sure how to escalate this to the arbs without generating another circus. They really should have a separate sub-committee for handling situations like this, expeditiously, without all the gore. Iri, I don't know if bringing those diffs forward at ANI would really be helpful at this point. Not sure what to do next-- maybe watch and wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what can be done next. With my cynical head on I might suggest that Rod is telling whatever stories he thinks might get him out of the shit, but I sense there's more to it than that, and someone needs to step in and do something. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Alison is no dummy (d'oh), so since she is aware, I hope the remainder of this will be dealt with away from the peanut gallery. I think there's nothing left to do; what I thought was a compromised account turns out not to be so, and I'm hoping he won't be poking you any more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me whether he does or not. I've had a Damascus moment. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least it's apparent that an editor attempting DR to deal with admin issues will be called "petty" and "silly", which at least underscores the problem. What happens to the "little guys" who don't have the <whatever I have> in the community to stand up to this? Oh, right, I know-- I was there in 2007 :) More than once, in fact, with a former arb (I was recalling that case just now, and thinking how fast she'd be blasted in today's current BLP environment if she endorsed what she endorsed against me in 2006). If I start to recall all of the instances of injustice here, I begin to wonder why I give so much. And while the muse doesn't return, it's hard to get motivated to read FAC. Admin abuse affects us all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that Uncle G ought to spend some considering his position, because it really does encapsulate the rotteness at the heart of this project. "Admin abuse" is constrained to mean misuse of admin tools, not abuse from an admin; George Orwell would be proud. For myself, I'd hoped to get this packed up and ready to go at GAN, but like yours, my muse has temporarily gone awol. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I put Uncle in that category of people who just haven't yet had it happen to them :) And we hope it never will, even though that means they'll never get it, and call those who do "silly". The problem is, these governance issues completely sap any motivation to continue working here. But we already know that from Moni's absence, and too many others to count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And folks wonder why I run from RfA... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Without going into detail, I learned very early as an editor here what administrators are capable of. It's one reason I try to keep quiet, not make friends, do my work, and then get out of here. As it happens, I have made a few friends, and haven't been that quiet recently; but I was put very firmly in place when I had about 500 or so edits. As my first experience with an admin, it wasn't very pleasant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that very many of us have had similarly bad experiences with wikipedia's elite early in our editing histories; I know that I did. It's amazing that we're still here really. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I don't :) But droves of people don't get it. Read Jimbo's talk some time-- we're a "small but vocal minority" :) @TK: yep, Wiki is a battleground, because of an absence of governance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

They do, and there's clearly no will to address the fundamental problem with wilkipedia's administrators, which is that they're elected for life and are to all intents and purposes unaccountable. In fact even dying doesn't result in desysopping, on the basis I suppose that it would be disrespectful to remove the utility belt from someone just because they're dead. It's a strange world here. I was sorry to see that Moni has decided to throw in the towel, but it's an opportunity to tell an old joke. A guy in a bar hears one woman call another a lesbian. He turns to his friend and asks "What's a lesbian?" His friend tells him that's it's a someone who likes women. "Well, then I guess I'm a lesbian too" he replies. Boom boom. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's structurally very hard to get any significant change implemented. If you put a lot of work in you may eventually succeed, but it'll probably take a lot longer than you'd think. One example is the Article Wizard - this took about 2 years from gestation to completing its implementation. And that doesn't really challenge anyone's power, does it? This sort of structural inertia is why I created Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), to at least try and have a space where ideas don't get shot down so quickly. Bottom line, the difficulty of changing the governance is not unique - though it's clearly a special case of being even harder. The only solution is to keep trying to come up with new ideas. PS The problem is not so much being given the tools indefinitely; the processes for removal of tools where that's clearly warranted are not so bad. The difficulty is in handling low and mid-level problems, and a certain tendency from people who've heard Wolf cried too many times to dismiss any problems short of "desysop now" seriousness as either bellyaching from troublemakers or just minor stuff of the "everyone makes mistakes" variety. More organised, constructive feedback might help, eg having a mandatory Admin review every year. Rd232 ^talk 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, I worked in state government for about 8 years total out of a 15 or 16 year period. Sad to say, wiki actually isn't all that different... sigh. Looked back at my edit count; the most edits in a month were done the last month I worked for the state and the first month after. Wiki was actually LESS dysfunctional than state government...and that was even including a time when my evil twin tried pulling an ANI on me. We are the world! That IS a scary thought, though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 01:46, November 14, 2010

The obvious and very simple solution is staring you in the face, but you and many others refuse to see it: term limits for administrators, perhaps two years. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

Nothing personal, but you have to change consensus. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Rod, you have been asked to stay off Malleus's talkpage. There is no reason for you to join this conversation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that if I'd done what Rod just did I would by now be blocked. He needs to get his act together nevertheless, and stop obsessing about me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you very possibly would have been. I don't think he took Rob's note seriously. I hope he does mine, because I really don't want to have to block him, but I will if he comes back here, because I think the consequences if I don't might be worse. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Rod is out of control, and he needs to be helped to understand that. I never want to see anyone blocked, but in this case I fear for the man's sanity. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's torn it [5].Yes, I do believe his behaviour, what he has said about his circumstances, and even the wierd spelling errors, are indicative of a problem in real life. I hope he takes a break and feels better, but I am afraid that I have seen people in a 'xyz.com is the only thing I live for' phase before, and it has never gone particularly well Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ignoring unhelpful interruption from Rod) Term limits are probably a bad idea for Wikipedia, with reasons for and against discussed at great length not so long ago in several RFCs (links not to hand; were you involved there? I don't recall). Compulsory admin review, as an alternative, would achieve something in itself; but if it worked well enough, it could evolve into something quite effective. For instance the expectation might develop that serious issues identified at admin review would lead either to a voluntary RFA, or to a community request to Arbcom to impose on the basis of the review. But a straight re-run of RFA (i.e. voting), at fixed intervals, regardless of activity? No. And even regardless of whether it's a good idea, it's not likely to happen, so something useful which might be a sort of stepping stone is rather more worth pursuing. What do you think? Rd232 ^talk 02:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Other wikipedias do use terms without apparently major issues, regarding their admins like local government elected officials it seems to me. the thing with Wikipedia was that the admins started out as sysops (have the tools so you can delete articles) and are crawling towards a role as something else, having got to about the middle ages and baronial fiefs in some cases. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

All Wikipedias are different. It's not impossible it could work on en.wp, but it's a dramatic change and it could cause all sorts of problems. Hence my suggestion for an intermediate position which could then potentially evolve towards that. Does that make sense? Rd232 ^talk 02:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What do I think? Here's what I think. Wikipedia is ossifying, and nobody can do anything about it, or change anything that matters. We can't even agree on the basics, that admin shouldn't be for life. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well to address your point head on: adminship is indefinite (not "for life") because in theory everyone could be an admin, if the community agreed to trust them with the tools. Sysop bits are not limited resources; it's solely whether the community trusts the user. There are mechanisms for withdrawing the bit on the basis of losing the trust of the community; but it's philosophically muddy to demand term limits. What is needed really is processes for evaluating the trust that the community as a whole places in a user. A "term limits" approach insists that evaluation takes place through voting, which for various reasons is not a good idea here - it should be through discussion. Rd232 ^talk 02:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We will clearly have to agree to disagree. It seems very plain to me that RfA is a vote, even a popularity contest, so to baulk at the idea of a re-election after two years seems inconsistent to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

RFA shouldn't be as close to a vote as it is. And whilst it's bad for RFA to be a vote, it would be rather worse to have a popularity contest routinely later on. If voting was compulsory and you had a proper electorate (no sock puppets...), it might work. Absent that, it's too likely that those with unjustified grudges for admins acting as they should have done will cause the re-election to fail, because they'll be far more motivated than anyone else. It might even encourage banned users to sock really quietly in order to be able to WP:GAME the re-election RFA of admins that dealt with them. Besides which, the mere fact that it's a vote will raise the drama level infinitely; it will mean every single issue of the last two years that's brought up being discussed to death, rather than people being able to say "well that's your opinion, you haven't persuaded anyone and it's not a vote...". I have thought about this, and it's why I suggested the Admin Review approach, which achieves a lot of the same goals. Rd232 ^talk 11:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with term limits is that people who really wanted the bit would spend the latter part of their two years with their eye on the upcoming vote. Admins, even good ones, make enemies. I would favour a sort of Court of Appeal system. It would have to be set up so it didn't become just another ANI. The idea would be to review tool use and admin behaviour where there were serious concerns about abuse or "conduct unbecoming". Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's rather naive. RfA candidates already keep their heads down before their hazing, and the "try again in three months" mantra encourages thst dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, picture this ... a grudge-bearing admin is approaching the end of his/her "term", knows s/he won't pass RFA again: what more would they like to do than go out by blocking MF or SG? Won't work !!!! Look at the unprofessional sneering and lobbing of grenades by an arb whose term is expiring! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't care what the over/under is on a block of you or Malleus, I'm betting the under. Nothing stops any admin from doing that right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing stops any admin from doing anything right now, so what's new? Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Rodhullandemu has returned after his "retirement", which avoided any sanctions against him. On a scale of 1 to 10 how honest would you consider that to be Wehwalt? Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start an RfC against him, if you are aggrieved.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aggrieved, I'm just pointing out the facts, inconvenient though they may be for some. Admins "retiring" to avoid sanctions is a very common tactic. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe Wehwalt is aggrieved-- what happened to the humor ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You got off to a good start with the "I think", healthy practice that. Pity about the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

When term limits for admins are introduced in the hopefully not too distant future I very much look forwards to seeing your reconfirmation crash and burn. No hard feelings of course. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

None taken. I know you'd do as much for any of my colleagues.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you're developing a new artform! Now I've got to go whack some trolls, vandals, socks, plagiarists, and POV-pushers; carry on with your humorous attacks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But I hoped to study from the masters!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't even know who the masters are. You're a classic example of a poking administrator, doing all you you can to provoke others into a blockable offence. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, Malleus, when was the last time I blocked an autoconfirmed users (in other words, exclude the now and then vandal)?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you're not paying attention Wehwalt. What usually happens is that one of the admins' friends actually applies the hammer. If you have only come here in an attempt to provoke me, which seems likely, then I would ask that you try and find another editor to annoy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you guys still at it? There's work to be done at FAC-- Wehwalt, are you the mentor or the mentee? You seem to be picking up some disruptive habits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to stir the pot, Sandy, no one has posted here in 45 minutes. I'm busy with other stuff, having respected Malleus's request to disengage, and Malleus no doubt sleeps the sleep of the ... the sleep of the ... well, he's probably asleep, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't check the timestamps-- been quite busy myself. Maybe I should start reviewing articles again ... in the meantime, it would be really nice if you'd stop attacking people. It's becoming tiresome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I've said it before and I'll tell you again: Saying things don't make them so. You haven't been scarfing on Prop 19 leftovers, by any chance?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I so do not want to have to take time to deal with your squabbling; have you reviewed any FACs lately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed one a couple of weeks ago. But as a gesture of good faith and peace, I'll see if I can find one. It won't be until tomorrow, I am about to join Malleus.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Find your own coffin Wehwalt, mine isn't big enough for both of us. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, if we can get Wehwalt to stop picking up the habits of his favorite mentee, we might get FAC back on track. Wehwalt, you run lots of articles through FAC-- each FA takes about twelve reviewers' time, and Malleus pitches in everywhere. I think you're behind on the "giving back" score. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine what you are talking about there, Sandy, Mattisse is an excellent reviewer and I would be proud to pick up her habits in that department. And it is unfortunate to hear a FAC delegate refer to the hard and expert work I do with articles no one cared about as "running ... articles through FAC".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, Wehwalt, you've been reading my prose long enough to know my writing and how to read it; that one won't work. Now take a day off and go pick on someone your own size (125 here). Or go review some FACs. Or even better, break out your shiny tool kit, read the manual, and see if you can DUCK Susanne2009NYC, so I don't have to do yet another thing tonight. You do have some experience with sockmasters, don't you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, your approach to asking a favor is something that would stop diplomats dead in their tracks. I'm going to bed. Don't worry, Malleus, I'll dig my own grave.:)--Wehwalt (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You are simply trying to provoke either SandyG or me into comitting a blockable offence. Shameful really. Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I already knocked down that straw man once, Malleus.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, Malleus-- Wehwalt can't provoke me into anything, and he knows it. He's already tried it, dozens of times and places (mentor or mentee?). Wehwalt, I thought you were going to sleep? Tomorrow's a new day; try to be nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sandy, I know, you addressed that comment by email with me during my arb run. I thought that ended it. Obviously, I was mistaken. I suppose it could be worse, you could be reading my amazon.com reviews under my real name and bringing it up on the wiki, not that that would happen, huh?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you telling us you have a COI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Biff!, pow!, bang!, zock!

Looks like you will be able to start work on this very shortly. Look forward to seeing what you do with it. it's a good story, I hope to be be near Hanslope some time before Christmas and get a photo of the gravestone. Regards.  Giacomo  09:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Who knows, perhaps Cirt will decide to fix it, instead of continually whining because nobody else has. Or in this case that they tried to, when he wanted the article to be delisted in any event. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let it be delisted, it will have a far more peaceful life.  Giacomo  15:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I plan to; I've got no intention of touching it while it's at FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology: Your input requested

Greetings, MF-- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input ‘’’not in support of either view,’’’ but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My experience tells me that when a page is locked because of edit warring that's a good sign to skedaddle. FWIW the view of the linguists is pretty my own as well. The term "folklore etymology" doesn't really make much sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hadji Ali

Quite some time ago I asked you to copyedit an article and you did a great job. I was wondering if you might take a look at the above article. I may be fooling myself, having only posted it two days ago (with a lot of work done offline before that) but I'm thinking it's near ready for FAC, though I am waiting on one crucial source from WP:RX. If you can't (or won't), I'll understand.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That's nicely quirky. I'll try and take a look at it over the next few days. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I enjoy strange little articles on quirky subjects. I got an added benefit in that it's obvious some of the people who watch this page saw my post above and stopped by the article. It's already better.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, buy one, get one free. If you're brave enough to post on this page then you deserve it. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why is other referencing necessary when a link is provided to another page on Wikipedia?

Because wikipedia is not a reliable source. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo

Hallo Malleus, I just wanted to say keep up the excellent work you do on what are, quite frankly, the most interesting and fascinating articles on Wikipedia. I always enjoy reading the end result of your efforts; keep it up! Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Even I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but thanks anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Witches..

A google scholar looksee turned up : this and [6] which I'll try to secure this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

They look great, thanks. Malleus Fatuorum

Well that assumes I can get them.. they aren't showing up at U of I in a way I feel that I'm sure of getting them... (in other words, the catalogue entries for them are borked somehow and I can't guarantee access). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't break sweat trying to find them Ealdgyth (I've forgotten the correct way to describe a southern lady's perspiration). Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's "glisten" or "glow" but I'm not a lady. I sweat when it's warm enough and I'm out with the horses... trust me. I also learned to cuss from all the cowboys... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

For the true Southern Belle, I think another term is "having vapors", though that also implicates a certain degree of hyperventilation and hysteria, none of which I would EVER associate with Ealdgyth! LOL! And why IS it that associating with the fellows with pointy boots and hats does so very much to enhance one's vocabulary? I mean, I must have been in first grade before I discovered (the hard way, via teachers) that "goddamn" was not the proper qualifying adjective with which to precede all references to recalcitrant animals, ill-placed inanimate objects, white-collar professional city-dwellers, and most of the neighbors! Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Belle Vue

Hi, you seem very protective of the edits made to the Belle Vue article regarding the Granada Bowl's building current use as a bingo club having reverted several people's attempts to introduce this as an interesting fact. Its going to be very difficult to deliver a "reliable" source for this fact - and perhaps the most reliable source would be a google street view map of the building. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=L3C&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=m18%207ba&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl. If you go onto street view above the "A" marker on the link above you will be able to see that the bingo club is on the map on the location of where the Great Lake (or whatever it was called) was located. Not sure if we could use that as a clear and reliable source since it implies verification rather than clearly states it, but I'll put it in the article as the reference for the snooker hall is far more tenuous but has been allowed to stay in. Seedybob2 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm protective of every wikipedia article, not just this one, but you surely cannot seriously believe that a comment on a forum counts as a reliable source? Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No fair play on that one I suppose, but you can't always rely on book sources such as "Cronin, Jill; Rhodes, Frank (1999), Belle Vue, Tempus, ISBN 0-7524-1571-9" which I doubt many have read to verify but has been accepted as a source for the snooker hall which is in the bingo hall's car park according to the map. Do you accept the Google Map as a ref then? Seedybob2 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I took the trouble to read the book by Cronin and Rhodes, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to how a Google Map link that shows me nothing at all can be considered a reliable source. Parrot of Doom 01:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite. In a word Seedybob2 no, it isn't OK. Not even if you claim to be the Almighty God. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the unconstructive comment MF. If I'm wrong fine. If you could have helped with some guidance that would have been better. I would appreciate if you could remove the above comment as it was a bit unnecessary - I've removed my own "claim to be god". Wikipedia has lost an editor today if that's the contempt fellow editors communicate. Seedybob2 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to help you, as have others, but you seem determined to ignore the advice that you've been offered. If that's your attitude then wikipedia has lost nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It might help if you'd explained why Google streetview isn't a reliable source. Nev1 (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I'm tired and I'm fed up. Why don't you explain? Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Etiquette#How_to_avoid_abuse_of_talk_pages

Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They are a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they are for forging agreements that are best for the articles to which they are attached. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think that your way is better.

I did see your point of view even I was being very protective of my edit, but you've not been very courteous in this discussion which is a shame. Overall you seem to have a good reputation on wiki, but I remain offended by the tone of your responses. I'm sorry you feel that wikipedia has lost nothing today. I wish you luck with your editing in future. Seedybob2 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take whatever grievance it is that you believe you have elsewhere, preferably to the article's talk page. If you believe that I've not been sufficiently "courteous" then you have the option to make a formal complaint here. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit of explanation instead of offhand comments about "a Google Map link that shows me nothing" (that's not what Seedybob was talking about, he gave instructions to get from there to the relevant bit of streetview) would have been helpful and the edit summaries in the article aren't explanations. That throws up a stone wall to less experienced editors, and to then have their efforts thrown back in their face when they clearly don't understand what they've done wrong isn't what we should be doing. This isn't worth losing an editor over.

What Google streetview provides is a snapshot of a point in time. Historians use visual sources all the time but I think as far as Wikipedia is concerned there are problems of synthesis and perhaps original research. Possible issues related to this might be provenance, for example when was the picture taken and how does it fit with the chronology, and are we certain that's the correct building. It's safe to assume it's a recent photo because of when Google streetview was set up and because they took their own photos; as for whether it's the correct building you just have to check against a map. But this probably constitutes synthesis. Is that more or less it or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely? Nev1 (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. I don't doubt that what Seedybob2 says about the development of the car park is true, but he's been told by several editors, not just by me, that he has to provide evidence from reliable sources to back up his claims. He has consistently failed to do that, and has consistently failed to understand what "reliable sources" means. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that what Speedybob2 said is true, but where was it explained why Google streetview wasn't a reliable source? Those multiple editors are you and PoD, and frankly PoD's comment didn't add any weight in this instance as it was about Google maps rather than streetview and still didn't explain why it wasn't reliable. If you don't know why what you're doing is incorrect, it's difficult to fix. I can see where he was coming from. In the real world a visual source can be as reliable as a text sometimes and until I sat down and thought about it, it hadn't occurred to me that it might be a breach of WP:SYNTH. Perhaps I'm just tired though. Nev1 (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You might like to consider taking a look through the article history, not just relying on what you see here. Perhaps we're both tired. I know I am. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I did, and "Undid revision 397378609 by Seedybob2 (talk) that can in no way be considered to be a reliable source" and "Undid revision 397407203 by Seedybob2 (talk) yhe map proves nothing" do little to explain why Google streetview is not reliable. There's also no explanation on the article's talk page or Seedybob's. Am I still missing where this was all explained? Nev1 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to say it nicely, but now I'll say it bluntly. If you want to educate new editors who are making unsourced additions to FAs then please feel free to do so. My concern is to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

When I clicked the link all I saw was a map, not streetview. I was just asking the question, I'm sorry if it appeared abrasive, that wasn't my intent. Parrot of Doom 09:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with MF, only last week I removed an unsourced entry on the same thing and in the edit summary should have used the word reliable. Whilst helping get this article to FA I was told sources I suggested weren't good enough but I didn't demand an explanation. Is it feasible that the editor who added the info could have asked first on the talk page? I know I wouldn't jump into a FA and expect to be taken seriously with those references.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I've read the removed comment. [7] You really shouldn't do that on someone else's talk page Seedy Bob. The book doesn't mention the bingo hall he manages and so its reliability is called into question. Well that's books for you, you just can't get them to say just what you want.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a book for you ...

Mirrors of Mortality: Studies in the social history of death ed. Joachim Whaley 1981. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be just up my street. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• This article might be interesting ... will pick it up this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That's interesting on two counts: first that it was a duchess accused and secondly that it happened in 1441, given that the first Act to make witchcraft a felony wasn't passed until more than 100 years later. Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• And this one just sounds like something right up your and PoD's alley... wow, *I* hadn't heard that one before. Also picking up. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Bentworth

Thanks for reviewing Bentworth. I had a long look at the review you had given and studied it. I have fixed all the prose you have suggested, and I will continue to work on the lead, Geography section and the Notable People section. Once I have done all the things the GAN Review mentioned, can I ask that would there be anything else at all that might need addressing for building it to GA Status? Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that if you fix up the prose and add the missing sections I mentioned it would stand a reasonable chance at GAN next time. Good luck! Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Flying Duckworth

Did you have any look getting those books for this? Parrot of Doom 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, still waiting. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame. I'm still waiting for a good source to tidy up Hanged, drawn and quartered. Annoying, it may never arrive. I still have Straw Bear (man dressed like a bear covered in straw) on my mind. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got enough sources now to finish this off, which has been on my to-do list for far too long. We're planning to move next year though, so my wife is constantly on my back to repair things, help with the redecorating, get the MGB back on the road, tidy up the garden, clear out the cellars, repaint the outside of the house .... :-( Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Only Robert Keyes left to tidy up, and then I think I'll nominate my first Featured Topic. If anyone starts whinging that there aren't any priests in it, I'll murder them to death. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

With my Psychic Powers hat on, if there is an objection it will be that Monteagle ought to be included. (I disagree, but I can see the case for it.) – iridescent 13:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see just as much of a case for including Father Gerard, but not really much of a case for either. Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Query

Would you consider a run for arbcom? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Malleus Fatuorum 12:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Go on, do it. For the lols. Parrot of Doom 16:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was "lolz", but that might just be the American spelling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've offered to help out with the chores a couple of times already, most recently here. To be honest I didn't find the experiences to be particularly amusing ones, so I'm afraid that wikipedia will have to do without my assistance. Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Edmond Malone in Johnson and Boswell bios?

Hi Malleus,

Sorry to ping you directly about this (I know you're probably as busy as Sandy, whom I've also bugged with this, is), but if you could possibly take a quick peek at my query here I'd much appreciate it. Oh, and please don't feel obliged to do any actual research on this; you're just a likely victim by sheer edit-count on Samuel Johnson and I'm hoping to get a rough idea from what you can recall off the top of your head (unless you happen to have the relevant books' index immediately to hand to check without too much effort). Thanks, --Xover (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So far as I recall, pretty much all of the sourcing on that article came from Ottava Rima, an editor who was subsequently banned, so I'm afraid that I can't help. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about as I feared. Anyways, thanks for taking the time to respond. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This weeks poser...

Council of Austerfield. Anything DYK worthy in that? One thing I like about DYK is that it gets other folks looking at my newly started articles, so that they catch my grammar-spelling-context-prose flow mistakes, so if possible, it's nice to get something to DYK. I *think* this one can go GA, but won't make FA, that's for sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OO! Anglo Saxons! I would think it was generally interesting that here was a meeting of most of the bigwigs of the Anglo Saxon church, to de-bishop (or keep de-bishoped) a troublesome bishop, but how you'd turn that into a DYK hook....that 1300 years ago, the Anglo Saxon church in England met at Austerfield to dethrone the Bishop of York.....

"Did you know… that when Aldfrith and Berhtwald met at the Council of Austerfield they spent the entire time bashing the bishop?" – iridescent 17:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a little attempt at a copyedit, I don't think I changed the meaning. I'll leave it to the expert now.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pour toi

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		The number of GAs you've written and reviewed, this has been a long time coming. My thanks for your endlessly useful work. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review second opinion...

Codex Cyprius... can you look it over? I'm still not very happy with the idea of passing it, but the nominator's done a reasonable amount to get it up closer to snuff. The nomination waited over two months before anyone looked at it, so Im hesitant to just fail it, but I'm pretty sure the nominator is not a native English speaker... argh! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that a few times myself, but I wasn't sure about it either. I'll try and get there later tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I just remembered about this and took a look. There's no way this can be listed as a GA, not least because the prose still needs an awful lot of work even to make sense. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Your talk page has over 2 million views, more than any other I could find. Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Can't believe Sandy and Slimmy aren't higher. Malleus is quite a way down the most watched pages list. – iridescent 10:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I looked at those lists. There's quite a bit of weirdness there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the top entries (such as Little Barrier Island or Richard Evans (British author)), have a look at their move logs for an explanation. It's quite weird what moving pages can do (and hence why it's probably one of the most disruptive things a non-admin can do, technically). AD 16:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy has about 1.79 million, Slim didn't come up on the particular data-slice I was looking at. Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Skanderbeg

Skanderbeg is still far from being perfect because of its complexity, but I think I am getting it closer to GA. Still missing some references here and there, but I just wrote the lede and merged the paragraphs of his diplomatic efforts. Can you give it a very short look and tell me in general what pops up to you that you don't like? I want to bring it to GA in December. Thank you for your time, it is precious to have you around. --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

From a quick look through you've done wonders with the organisation of this article. I'll try and find the time to look through more closely over the next day or so, but my first impression is that it's looking good. Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's encouraging. --Sulmuesi (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Ousting" had been taken from the British Encyclopedia, version 1913, whose references I took out as tertiary sources. Reworded. --Sulmuesi (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's almost 100 years old now. Useage changes, even if it was correct then, which I doubt. BTW. I'd dump the gallery if I were you. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rmd sculptures. --Sulmuesi (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

He signed himself Dominus Albaniae, meaning Lord of Albania, but since that's nowhere in the article for now, I agree that it's out of the lede. --Sulmuesi (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Actually entered note for that --Sulmuesi (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just unskilled labour around here Sulmuesi, I just move commas around, so please feel free to fix whatever I make a mess of. Malleus Fatuorum 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, your concern is very valid, and I had no backup for that until you claimed it, and thanks for pointing it out. --Sulmuesi (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A reminder to the civility warriors

The encyclopedia ain't written yet, and it may never be if you don't wither and die. Clubiona rosserae appears to be a red link. [8] Malleus Fatuorum 04:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

All yours

[9].  Giacomo  15:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Added to my list of things to do, but I'm finding it very hard to settle to writing anything here recently. Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say that; I feel the same way, stare at a page for ages and write not one word must be something in the air.  Giacomo  16:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not much choice this week...

Walter de Coutances, who got to "gift" the land for Château Gaillard for King Dickie Boy or Alexander of Lincoln, the cousin/brother of our good friend Nigel. Burnell's passed, and I don't have anything quirky in the queue, I'm sorry to say. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not much to choose between them really ... which one do you fancy? Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

toss a coin (grins). I'm plugging away at Cragh as we speak, trying to link in some stuff... required me to start a whole new article... blech! And we really should have articles on those rebellions, but I can't find them.. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the link to William de Briouze that you added. I'm going to look around to see if wikipedia has anything on measuring to a saint, 'cos that's going to need an explanation in Cragh's article. I also need to add a bit about Cantilupe's successor as bishop of Hereford, Richard Swinfield (there's another one for you), as he was the one who petitioned the pope for Cantilupe's canonisation. Beyond that I think it'll be about done once the lead is expanded a bit. It's taken forever! Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Ye of little faith... Richard Swinefield - spelling in the middle ages is a bitch. He's already a GA too! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have more faith, you're right. Well, William the Scabby is up at GAN now, so we'll see what happens. I think it's a nice little article, but then I would. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter. Just ran across an article that MIGHT be needed on Alexander (probably not, and even if so it'd only be a small bit, but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter it is then. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

How's he looking to you? Better ask before the ANI mentioned below bites you (not sure how that could happen, but it's been a pretty wild week!) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter looks good, go for it. Re the ANI, Wikipedia is a constant source of wonder to me, full of surprises. I'm just curious to know how the usual culprits will turn the incident on me, and demand that I'm blocked indefinitely. Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility police may interest you

An attempt by the civility police to obfuscate their shady activities and stifle documentation of their character. 184.168.193.22 (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really much of a surprise. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So cold a response, Malleus? Such a fine piece of work with five whole sentences in one whole paragraph in the whole essay, but no embellishment or defence from yourself? No illustrations, admittedly. But its authorship by an editor who was recently blocked for so-called "witty" captions about the Holocaust, accompanying illustrations of the slaughter of Jews, to go alongside a Wikipedia policy essay, might attract some curious glances at least. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

... and your point is? Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

... made. Although the "suspected proxy" status of the IP used to post the above on your talk page, adds a further element of ridicule to the existing stupidity. Hope you're well! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still none the wiser. Are you accusing me of something? Malleus Fatuorum 04:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, let me check. No, actually I'm not. We seem to have missed each other. Completely. Goodnight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet another feeble attempt by the Civility Police to hide their acts of foolishness Access Denied 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A mention of you at ANI

Just a note that I mentioned you at ANI here [10] in a notice about the IP address that posted on your talk page above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm only surprised that I've not been blocked already for something or other. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The night is young. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

thx

... for your kind words on my talk page. Tony (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss Moppet

After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet#Post-FAC cleanup review comments on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think that you and TK have done an outstanding job. Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

1777 Manchester earthquake

I do remember you mentioning this as a future project at one point. Are you still considering it? ceranthor 03:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in a desultory sort of way. Why do you ask? Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Came across a report of it the other day. Reminded me of you. Hope everything's well. ceranthor 19:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I'm just spinning my wheels here, waiting for something better than wikipedia to come along. A project where what you say and do is more important than how you say and do it, run by the properly accountable. A project without the policemen like Georgewilliamherbert in other words. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Workhouse

Regarding this edit, it appears there is a reliable source. I didn't rv and apply this ref as I'm not sure from the limited view how much of the edit is covered, but it seems bone fide. RashersTierney (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That ref is claiming something quite different from what the article was claiming. The ref says that Southwell was a model for the 1834 Poor Law Act, not that it was a model for all subsequent (or indeed any) workhouses. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you think. Thought I'd run it past you. RashersTierney (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The workhouse of 1824 is the Thurgarton Hundred Incorporation Workhouse designed by Rev JT Becher and an architect, not the earlier or later Southwell workhouses. Becher was one of the proponents of the deterrent system, but (according to Southwell The Town and Its People volume 2) was only indirectly influential in the 1834 Poor Law Act; certainly the book makes no mention of any link between the Thurgarton Workhouse and the Act. Southwell was also the location for a bizarre event involving the Speaking Clock. Ning-ning (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

More and more interesting. Thanks for comprehensive reply. RashersTierney (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: GA review of George Murray (Royal Navy officer)

Go right ahead; it's best that the updated DNB is used in this case. I should get to any other issues today or tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look

Hi Malleus, i thought you might like to take a look at this, it's the forbidding portal to the Arbs private wiki. Get beyond its gate and it wall take you into a world of secret files on editors, mail and all manner of other goodies (you click on utilities and then categories for the best bits). Supposedly, we are assured, strictly and purely for Arbs which I have no objection to. Yet and here's something very funny, lots of other people can get in too, many old, retired Arbs still have free access. Now isn't that funny? I notified an Arb yesterday, so I expect its tightend up by now. Funny thing security isn't it.  Giacomo  09:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My access to that stopped when I resigned. Yes it is an arbwiki. Retired arbs don't have access to it (unless something's changed...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I am able to confirm that your access was rescinded when you resigned. Flo had the door slammed in her face too (it's done by changing your account name and not telling you the new one) However, that is far from the case with some other more "illustrious" Arbs. It seems the honour is accorded to some and not others. This is not what we have been led to beleive and seems very odd. I'm sure there's a perfectly logical explantion that I'm overlooking.  Giacomo  13:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't log in to that, how come you could Giano? Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to be able to log into it and neither can I.  Giacomo  14:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you checked out the names I mailed you, already one or two of then have changed their account bames, so that we can't tell if they are in or out. Fortunately I kept the logs from last night when I checked, so there can be no denying the accounts gave been altered within the last few hours.  Giacomo  14:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I haven't checked my email today, will do later. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Retired arbs did certainly have access to quite a lot of stuff, on the grounds of 'in case a past case..etc etc'. A series of kerfuffles gradually reduced what they were supposed to be able to see - I'll believe the imposition has been patchy by those who see Wikipedia as a sort of Gentleman's/Working Men's Club, where past committee members still have privileges unless there's an absolute scandal. Those whose model is more similar to a law enforcement agency (no badge, no jacket) - or indeed any agency dealing with privileged information, will obviously see this differently.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We have been repeatedly assured that no former Arb has been able to sign into that Wiki for at least two years, on resignation their account names are changed (they are not told the new name) to prevent them signing in. Howver, certain arbs have been against policy quietly allowed to remain. That seems to have been sorted today, since I reported the matter to an Arb last night. The problem is now, can we trust them, have the holders of the acconts changed today really not been told the changed name - who knows?  Giacomo  16:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that one should never attribute to malice what can just as easily be explained by incompetence. Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Re. Giacomo: thing is, even if an account name is changed, there is still a way of logging in and being able to view content depending on the user's own settings. Per WP:BEANS I'll not say anything in public, but I've tested it myself on my own wikis. AD 17:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right and. Here, the former Arbs are supposed to be knowing not the new names of ther old accounts. Malleus may well be right with his assumption of incompetence However, knowing who the arbs who somehow retained access, I find it hard to beleive that the doors have been closed to them. I'm sure the Arbcom will make an annoncement shortly, if only to thank me for bringing this security oversight to their attention.  Giacomo  18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

While you're here Giano I have a question for you. Even if you came top in the election, do you really believe that Jimbo Wales, who has the final say of course, would really allow you to be one of the new arbitrators given his past comments? BTW, I cast my votes earlier, so whatever the final result I can guarantee that it won't be a duck for you. Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh that's so good to know, it had crossed my mind. I don't know, one lives in hope of a better world - one has to. I always say I am realist, but I do live in hope of being an idealist. At the moment, as I have proved today, we don't really have a clue who decides Arbcom matters, who's in there or not looking at the files and mails. One thing I do know for sure, if I'm elected (and it's a big if), I will at least be the only Arb making his own mind up without influences from long dead Arbs.  Giacomo  19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me as a rather darker side to the admin for life philosophy, darker in the sense that it has been done in secret, whether deliberately or not. I don't have much faith in the integrity of wikipedia's governance, but this does seem to be potentially plumbing new depths. I think that your stand against these dark places where decisions are arrived at in secret is admirable. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Why change userid? That's not effective. Somebody on the inside could potentially look at the logs and leak the userid. Accounts should be disabled when not in use. Why isn't there an Ombudsman to watch ArbCom, to make sure they do what they say they are going to do? Checks and balances. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There are an awful lot of why's and somebody has some explaining to do. Having this debate here is not really fair on Malleus, I have started a more official thread here [11].  Giacomo  20:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Hey Malleus. Could you please look at this User:Guerillero/Bent edge and tell me if it ever has a shot at a DYK. If this request annoys you feel free to delete this message. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 17:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit too short for DYK, needs to be at least 1,500 characters of readable prose. I make it only 1,426. Presumably "drug fulled punk shows" should really be "drug-fuelled punk shows"? Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I'll get working on that. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Rossen

Malleus, I know Robert Rossen is a bit of an info dump at present, but I think I know to organise that. What deters me from going for GA is the very scanty info about Rossen's first marriage - I don't know his first wife's name nor when they divorced. I even emailed Rossen's alma mater, New York University, but that trail petered out. Would the scantiness of the info about Rossen's first marriage disqualify the article from becoming a GA? --Philcha (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. There are quite a few biographies of rather private people where such information just isn't available. Malleus Fatuorum 14:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus! --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Learning from your edits

in Amanar,

1. I stared and stared at the diffs for the two punctuation edits (first and third overall), but couldn't tell what the change was. (Educate me?)

2. Also, the middle edit of the dashes, what was the change and what should I watch out for? Also, I actually just cut and pasted the title from the document itself, so just want to watch out for and edit for grammar, that changes the title (not saying you did that!)

3. I need to learn how to post diffs, will go research that.  :)

4. I r newbie.  :)

TCO (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not always easy to see what's been changed from the diff, I agree, but if you look at [12], at the last line, which says "Gymnastics Code of Points 2009-2012, page 163</ref>", you'll see that you had a fullstop at the end of the sentence and then another one after the inline citation. I removed the one after the citation.

So far as the dash is concerned, I used a script that changes hyphens (which is what it was, not a dash) into MoS-compliant ndashes. Again, visually there isn't a great deal of difference; "–" as opposed to "-". Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, man!  :) TCO (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

facepalm

Am I being ignorant here, or just plain arrogant, or just honest? I have a 17th-century writer suggesting that the old shape of a mince pie was designed to resemble Jesus's crib. I have another, later writer, suggesting that the earlier writer was wrong, and that the pie's shape wasn't really anything special. Then I have an anon IP who adds "[or creche]" to the older quote. I remove that, because I believe that creche isn't the same thing as crib (the original quote uses "cratch"), and then find myself in an edit war with another editor who seems not to like anything I've done to the article (see the talk page).

I'm not asking for people to weigh in over there but I find myself in disbelief that editing something as innocuous as an article about mince pie can result in such nonsense. Parrot of Doom 21:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely you've been here long enough to know that nothing is too small to fight over, the smaller the better in fact for many of the warriors. BTW, I was just thinking earlier that this was the quietest TFA day ever, no vandalism at all, until I noticed that I'd somehow managed to take it off my watchlist. There's a moral to that story. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to hunt down mince pie facts until I'm as sick of mince as I am gunpowder. Something looks very odd about that Mk1 history, today. Parrot of Doom 23:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A potential FA for mince pies? Food and drink are under-represented at FAC, and over the last 2 years the number of food and drink articles has gone down. Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually think its a weighty enough topic for an FA. It would be fun to get it through FAC for the 25th but unless I find some better sources, and quickly, that won't happen. Coincidentally, while I've been trawling the usual places for hints, I found a few interested medieval recipes that sound quite tasty. Chawetties sound awesome. Parrot of Doom 00:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that gap between 08:58 and 17:33? That does seem strange for a TFA, I agree. Perhaps it's just too boring for vandals to bother with? Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It got 20,000 views, which is pretty damn low. I think something else must have been happening today for the views to be so low. Parrot of Doom 00:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Minnie Pwerle yesterday only got about 25,000 views. It's a holiday weekend in the US, so the kids haven't been in school and the adults have been out doing their Christmas shopping. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare, rather unsurprisingly, is the least-viewed TFA since records started to be kept in 2007. – iridescent 00:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

PoD is right, something strange has happened today, and it's got bugger all to do with Thanksgiving. An anonymous IP posted on my talk page earlier today that the article was illustrated by an image of an uncircumcised penis, which it had been until it was removed. But I can find no record of that either in the history of my talk page or of the article itself. Such a big gap between edits on TFA day just isn't credible. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The image was there, but {{badimage}} prevented it from showing up. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Are these the relevant diffs [13] [14]? Nev1 (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

They are, I must have missed them. The anonymous IP didn't post on my talk page either, but on the MK I's talk page; obviously I'm becoming paranoid. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FA and GA participation (should I and how?)

Should I take an article through GA or FA (which) to get the learning? Should I do so before reviewing articles? Should I ever review GA or FA?

P.s. Should everything become an FA? A GA? I understand that FA is a higher level than GA, so should one aim for FA? Or is it overkill?

P.s.s. Sorry if the question is Groundhog Day, but you know how it is with new people coming onto a forum. Maybe point me to where it has all been hashed out?

TCO (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to hash out. It's entirely up to you whether or not you want to have an article reviewed at FA or GA. The simple answer is that no, not every article can become a GA or an FA, for a variety of reasons. If you want to get a feel for either review process than I'd suggest asking for opinions on whichever article you're thinking of at WP:PR. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As to reviewing, I think it's only common sense that anyone reviewing at GA or FA ought at least to have written one themselves, but that's just my own view, not "official" policy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I want to take something through GA, to get the experience. Is Amanar suitable or one of my other articles: creations or currently copyeding articles or useta copyedit articles

Ideally, I'd like to pick an article that is amenable/easy to convert to GA form. Not implying that any are near, now. But just don't want to pick one, where the subject will make it hard to get to the top of the hill. Can you tell me which article would be the easiest?

TCO (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't easy to get any article even to GA, never mind FA, so you have to pick something that you're really interested in. Looking at Amanar for instance, I don't think there's any way that could ever be a GA because of its "listiness". Why not consider developing that towards a featured topic? Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I won't try to take Amanar there. And I agree it is listy. Bunch of work though. How about the others? Shawn Johnson? Although it is kind of a vandalism magnet. That said, it's notable and would benefit the project to have a good page there. One of the books? Burn Rate or Stover at Yale? Lots of reviews available and they have minor notability (enough to be articles but not so much as to be contentious)? I want to take something to GA! Note, by "take to GA", I don't mean throw in the review hopper, right now. I mean edit it up to a GA.

P.s. The FT looks really hard! Like a mini-project worth of content, harding than an individual article.

TCO (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that Shawn Johnson is one of those pending changes thingys, so it's unlikely to be stable enough to get through any review process. Added to which it's riddled with {{citation needed}} tags. If I was going to pick one to work up to GA it would be Stover at Yale; that looks the most promising to me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Query

As you probably are aware, there is a RfC pending regarding YellowMonkey, with several serious allegations of admin abuse. As this seems to be right up your alley, I'm curious as to why you haven't favored us with your opinions yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't noticed it. I doubt that my input would make much difference in any case, it rarely does. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It is likely to close early next week, as sentiment is moving in the direction of an Arbcom case. Please feel free to comment at either stage.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Then that's no doubt what will happen, with or without my input. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Brief thanks

For your most helpful comments at the peer review of Henry Wood. If I can ever reciprocate at peer review, FAC etc, please do not hesitate to call on me. Tim riley (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)