User talk:Eric Corbett

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The community is invited to participate in a request for comment about my editing: WP:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh God! Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus and all you gone daddies & all you pretty mommas,

Don't get a swelled head, but that was my first and only announcement on another user's talk page. :)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to avoid these events, as they're really just an out of control vehicle for anyone you've ever upset to try and claim their pound of flesh; dishonest wouldn't even get close. I wish you luck. Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The latest addition is a discussion of the "insult"/"mocking" of miscapitalizing "DemiUrge". When did I get a choice between the blue pill and the red pill?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's only one purpose to RfC, and that's to humiliate you. Much like RfA really. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

RFarbcom is even worse though. The mind boggles at how much time and effort is spent on NYB's faux court martials.71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been impressed by the functioning of ArbCom and particularly by NYB, whether there or as a commentator. We have interacted only about twice. First, somebody named NYB made a calm comment about a DYK that did not threaten or insult anybody, which led to consensus immediately. Second, when I made an erroneous assumption, he alerted me discretely, implicitly inviting me to draw my own conclusion (and correct my erroneous statements). Recently, he seems to have run out of patience with KeepsCases; however, having avoided the apocalyptic language of the snake handlers, NYB is still a mensch in my book. Another ArbCom member is in free fall.Small text

It seems to me that RfC serves to discredit attackers more than victims, but I may be guilty of wishful thinking.

I has been helpful to learn more about pathogenic yeast the last week. We ignore them despite their being present all the time, because they have no effect. If our immune system drops, following cancer or HIV etc., then they cause opportunistic infections. With rare exceptions, when treated they go away. Nothing to get worried about.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh...

Malleus, do you have an opinion laying around? "I don't feel well"--is "well" an adjective or an adverb? and why? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a trick question? I'd say that "well" was a noun. How could you feel something that doesn't exist? Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sticking in my $0.02 worth: in the normal way that sentence is used, "well" is an adjective it's describing the state-of-being of the subject. If it were an adverb, you'd be saying you have a nerve disorder. LadyofShalott 03:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no trick question, MF--and surely you're joking with your noun (nouns are not gradable--"I don't feel very well"). Drmies (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Well" acts as an adjective in this context. An easy way to see it is to think of the opposite; it would be I feel bad, not I feel badly (the adverb version of bad). Language isn't always logical, but it does follow certain rules. --John (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel well, I feel welly, I'm a member of the green welly brigade. Ning-ning (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My dictionary claims that "well" can be either an adverb or a noun, not an adjective. In this context it's clearly an adverb. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LadyofShalott is quite right - maybe we should get Malleus a new dictionary for Christmas :)

"Well"¹ is a adverb, adjective or interjection. As an adverb, the primary meaning is "in a satisfactory way" (worked well), but variants include "with some talent or distinction" (played the piano well). As an adjective, the meanings include "in good health" and "in a satisfactory state" (all is well). As an interjection, well I never! There is also a noun "well"², but that's a hole different story :) Geometry guy 20:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wat? it's an adverb. Verb is feel. How do you (not) feel? Well. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As an adverb, it would mean "I don't feel in a satisfactory way", i.e., "there is something wrong with my sense of feeling", i.e., "I have a nerve disorder". As an adjective it means "I don't feel (I am in) in a satisfactory state", i.e., "I am unwell" (note that "unwell" is only an adjective, not an adverb). Geometry guy 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You might be surprised to discover just how much the The Oxford English Dictionary has to say about "well". In short, it can bloody well be anything it wants to be. Graham Colm (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The only question is, which word is "well" modifying, if any? My rather off-the-wall noun suggestion was that it's modifying none of them, but represents a state of well-being. But more conventionally, my contention is that it's modifying "feel", yours is that it's modifying "I". I blame Drmies for all this. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a tricky one, but it is modifying "I", not "feel", in the same way as it is an adjective in the noun phrase "a well person", meaning a person in good health. Geometry guy 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite. If it were an adjective then it would make sense to say simply "I well", leaving out the "feel" altogether. But it doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"I am well", to be precise, as a sentence should contain a verb. "I feel cleverly" has a completely different meaning to "I feel clever". Geometry guy 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as "I am sad" or "I am happy". Graham Colm (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"I well and about to go to the pub" contains a verb. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Lol! :-) Geometry guy 21:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a different definition of feel. --Moni3 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Only a variant. Of course "I have a nerve disorder" is a daft interpretation of "I feel well", so there is no real ambiguity, just as there would be absolutely no ambiguity in "I feel unwell", because "unwell" can only be an adjective. Geometry guy 21:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

For more fun, I was taught in the Deep South to say "I feel well" as opposed to the more colloquial expression "I feel good" (and real-- or reeyall good if you can say it with a twang). In New England, when I ask folks how they are, they answer "I am well" if they had a boarding school education. --Moni3 (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Or as (some of us) say over here as if they had a poker up their arse. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite. When I respond to them when they ask me the same, I just say "I'm all right." --Moni3 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel good too! Saintly (adjective!), even :) Geometry guy 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Well" is an adjective in this sentence - cf. "I'm feeling hot/cold/silly/contrite/sick/sleepy/tired/exhausted/etc." - obviously. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What's your definition of obvious? --Moni3 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Obvious" is an adjective meaning "easily seen or recognized or understood; palpable, indubitable" :) An adjective modifies a noun or similar. The definition may not feel obvious to you, but it is an obvious definition. Geometry guy 21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Would seem rather not obvious that such a simple question would spawn this confusing discussion. Just like FoxNews is both fair and balanced, because of course it is. The trend among communications is to call something a name and then force it to exhibit all characteristics completely opposite of its definition. --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There are some seriously unwell people at FoxNews. Here though, all's well than ends well. Geometry guy 21:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Added to which, "I am feeling ..." is not the same construction as "I feel ...". Obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

True, it is the present continuous tense rather than the present tense. The present tense would be "I feel hot/cold/silly/contrite/sick/sleepy/tired/exhausted/etc.". "I feel sleepy" means "I feel in a sleepy state". "I feel sleepily" means "I feel in a sleepy manner". Geometry guy 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to blame the imprecision of the English language for this discussion. There really ought to be a "wellly" word, for use in cases such as this, as in "I feel wellly" ... on the other hand, perhaps not. And I think the absence of such a word gives us a clue as to what's really going on here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

PS. I just know that some smart arse is going to come along and say something like "actually, Chaucer used the word 'wellly' in an early edition of his Canterbury Tales, as did Shakespeare in one of his sonnets, but the word seems to have fallen out of fashion in recent years". Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not me, as there is a simpler explanation. Namely, there is a synonym for one of the most common uses of "well" as an adjective: "healthy", and this does have an associated adverb "healthily". Yet we do not say "I feel healthily today", but "I feel healthy today".

What is really going on here is that "feel" is being used as a "linking" or "copular" verb, to connect the subject to a predicative adjective (adjective in the predicate). There are only a few verbs that can be used this way: the most familiar is "to be (is)", but there are several others, including "appear, become, feel, get, go, keep, grow, lie, look, prove, remain, resemble, run, seem, smell, sound, stay, taste, turn". For example: "the food smells delicious", The grammar may seem complicated, but it remains precise. Geometry guy 22:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This has been an interesting and illuminating discussion. I'm not certain that I'm yet any the wiser for it, but that just goes to show that I really ought to update my simple primary school ideas of grammar. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Although I like to think my grammar is fairly solid, I had an Oxford Dictionary to hand and checked my comments against it (and some online information for the more technical stuff).

I do, however, have an observation of my own, which may reassure those whose instinct about "feel well" was declared "wrong" by grammarians. Namely, you could imagine rewriting the grammar and linguistic books to say that copular/linking verbs turn adjectives into adverbs: "the food smells delicious" really means something like "the food has a delicious way of smelling" (so "delicious" modifies "smells" not "food"). Similarly "Geometry guy has a crazy way of being" (for "Geometry guy is crazy"), "the grammar has a complicated way of seeming, but a precise way of remaining". Whether such a view is more helpful than the conventional one, I'm not so sure! Geometry guy 23:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall a rather similar observation in Fowler about "due to " versus "owing to", but he came down on the other side. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Always worth remembering that English grammar (like Wikipedia policy) tends to be descriptive, not prescriptive. I say this as a keen grammar fan, but I particularly remember a primary teacher who tried to convince me that "It's me." was grammatically wrong, in favour of "It is I.", as an answer to the question: "Who's there?" Even at 10 I had a good nose for bullshit. Although I am as apt to make mistakes as the next man, you can take my answers on grammar as being pretty much ex cathedra as I have taught English grammar for a few years now. "Well" is definitely an adjective in the context of the original question, although in other contexts it can be an adverb or even a noun. --John (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was rather persuaded by Geometry guy's copular verb argument. Grammar is far more more complicated then we were taught in school; I hope that none of us have forgotten that colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, copula (linguistics) is a fascinating explanation for what we were talking about. --John (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd feel a bit happier (adjective, adverb or noun?) if that article looked a little less less like an uncited essay. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well indeed. In my limited experience a lot of these grammar articles look like this. --John (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A few searches on google books will reveal many grammar books and usage guides discussing linking verbs. Within linguistics, there are entire books on copulas, e.g., this one. Geometry guy 23:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

For purposes of Wikipedia, I know only two rules of grammar. First, does the MOS say what you should do? If not, second, does it sound right? Any miscalculations can be removed at peer review, hopefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yikes - you need to get out more :) Seriously, I hope Wikipedia is not this insular... Geometry guy 00:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In Wehwalt's defense, we use a language which does not have a central governing body and whose grammar is therefore best regarded as descriptive rather than prescriptive. So "does it sound right" is actually rather a good guide, 90% of the time. One main way that the principle breaks down is when it encounters different dialects in which different things "sound right" or "look right" to different people. I encounter this all the time. Most recently was someone who insisted that humourous was the UK English spelling of humorous (it isn't). I've already shared with you my distaste for the American love affair with the subjunctive mood. More recently was an FA candidate which was almost entirely written in the passive voice. I don't think that last is particularly a US thing; more that there are some editors and even writers who instinctively feel that The inhabitants were attacked by rebels. is automatically more encyclopedic than Rebels attacked the inhabitants. Obviously both are correct but I usually favor the second as it is shorter and punchier. This is a lot harder to explain though, as it is into stylistics rather than grammar or spelling, and so falls outside the scope of this conversation. --John (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I am an overeducated and overread American who was taught the rules of grammar properly in my younger days. (well, let's face it, young days) However, I do not remember the terminology. I do remember how to apply the rules, and can do so close enough for government (or Wikipedia) work. I err now and then and that is usually caught by someone or over. No one edits their own work perfectly. However, I work around that by spending a good amount of time re-reading my articles, even those which have been passed. You'd be amazed what howlers have gotten through FAC, which is a reflection on me more than FAC, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I learned about the predicate adjective in 8th grade in public (American definition) school. And the predicate nominative. Granted it was FF county. But still. My high school grammar book (Harbrace, a VERY standard text) explains this topic very clearly. Plus you can Google it. Plus the normal ganglion-smashing, red Merriam Webster Collegiate dictionary has this exact usage called out as an adjective. Wikianz have a really bad tendancy to expect the MOS to describe style and usage rather than looking at just books and stuff. I'm still surprised that Dr. Mies asked rather than just doing a net search and seeing what "grammar girl" said. Unless, he knw the answer and was just looking for backup.71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again Keeper. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I had to look that dude up. Seems like a normal person. Rare here.24.131.1.132 (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Concentrate on the issues. You will never win a dash-hyphen, Pal-Jew, or Brit-Mick struggle if you get distracted by the personalities.71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I never win those battles anyway, nor many others come to think of it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't win many other battles? Or no one wins those battles? Or...and? (Actually, I kind of think it is the sweetest when you are just being nice to some young content contributor. Even in a sort of gruff John Houseman in the Paper Chase like manner.  ;) 71.246.147.40 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I treat everyone just the same. The only time I care about their age is when they go to RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody wins and everybody loses when the normal rules of civilized conduct break down, here as in the real world. --John (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a fine sentiment, but the rules here are very far from normal. Here you can even be blocked for using words like "sycophantic". Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Abuses of power fall firmly within the zone we are talking about, in my opinion. I haven't seen a credible block threat against you for a while though, have I missed something? --John (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not much, except for two ANI reports and one 3RR in what, the last month? Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed the 3RR report, huh. I was glad to see the tactical Arb report archived with no action taken. Vexatious litigation is another article in need of some improvement. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” Hang in there. --John (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that Arb thingie, but it's purpose was clear enough. If I were so foolish as to make any edit to the 9/11 article that MONGO took exception to, which is pretty much edit that might just improve it, then I would be blocked now that I've been officially warned of the sanction. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am cautiously optimistic that MONGO's star may be on the wane. I think at this stage he is an embarrassment even to his traditional allies. I certainly wouldn't be scared of him; his cluefulness has declined to a very low level at this point. --John (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell. It's rather tiresome though having to deal with that kind of editor on an almost daily basis. Just look at the acrimony over MediaCityUK for instance. Every day there seems to be a new clot on the block. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I view this as a very hopeful move.--John (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse the intrusion of an outsider, but Pal-Jew is a false dichotomy. There's either Arab-Jew, or Pal-Israeli (or a wider ArabWorld-Israeli) dichotomy. As for the original subject, isn't "I don't feel well" just a shortcut to "I am having a feeling of not being well". Shouldn't that sentence be the one being analyzed. WillNess (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review

Malleus, could I prevail on you to do the GA review for my current candidate, Walking Liberty half dollar? It is the final entry (other than the overview article which I may not get to for a bit) in my series on the Great Recoinage of 1907–1921 and has at least one laugh out loud moment. You are free to make changes, I may modify for technical reasons but I won't throw anything at you. Many thanks, --Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to get to it over the weekend. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll buy you a beer once you use up all the free ones!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for a most thorough and competent review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have to say, that American Silver Eagle at the end really is quite beautiful. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it shows you what Weinman was trying to do in a way that the image of the circulation coin beautiful as it is just can't. This series has taught me quite a bit about art.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo DaVinci would dig up bodies from the graveyard and dissect them to learn how to draw

Or Michelangelo. Or one of those Yuropeens. No more time for sweet chitchat. I want to look at some GAs next. I'm going to segment this effing market. I'm going to cut it apart and see the different heads of the triceps.24.131.1.132 (talk)

I had the eff word in there. But the filter stopped me. Must be some arbs/admins moving in on me. Fookers. 24.131.1.132 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling

I am getting sick and tired of seeing these essays in my watchlist now. It's clear he's not going to get bored. I hate to say so but something might need to be done about it. Parrot of Doom 22:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See also "Digging around for extra coins in the sofa to pay for takeout pizza"? 24.131.1.132 (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's pissing me off as well. I made a suggestion at wife selling earlier this evening that he has pointedly ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

My mother told me to avoid discussing politics and religion (:-( ) in company and I think she would have cheerfully added feminists attempting to rewrite history to a skewed 21st century point of view.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My mother told me "life's too short to bugger about". I see you're in the wars again, with Elizabeth. Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Water off a duck's back.:-) She didn't take her own advice though, and I've never done as I was told.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to have babies with you

Thanks for that random FA tool. Was hoping someone would chip in with it. Could not find it listed anywhere. Actually still don't really "have it" since when I click on your link in talk I go right to a random FA, vice having a link to the tool. But still...thanks man. "He ain't heavy, he's my brotha". 24.131.1.132 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicks

I wouldn't go as far as the anon above, but thanks for the review and promotion. I'll throw it to FAC in the near future, interested to see how my first non-avian FA fares. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should do well if you integrate that "The town" section. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Hey Malleus, I hope you're well and that you enjoyed your weekend. One of the entries on WP:Requested moves is for Silver Jubilee Bridge to be renamed Runcorn Bridge--and I supposed that page (now a dab) should be renamed as a dab page. There is a bit of discussion on the talk page; please weigh in there if you have a moment and an opinion. This strikes me as one of those cases where local expertise as well as MOS expertise is appreciated. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey the Bastard

How's he looking? After this weekend, I should be back editing a bit more, hopefully... but I'm free enough to get him up at FAC if you think he looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he's good to go. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicks

Thanks for your support, I thought you might like to see my hat (ROFL) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Had a quick peek at your bastard, look forward to seeing it at FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Policy

Hi!

Having a deja vu experience all over again, I recognize that I have been transgressing Jante Law:

Jantelagen has ten rules:

1. Don't think you're anything special.
2. Don't think you're as good as us.
3. Don't think you're smarter than us.
4. Don't convince yourself that you're better than us.
5. Don't think you know more than us.
6. Don't think you are more important than us.
7. Don't think you are good at anything.
8. Don't laugh at us.
9. Don't think anyone cares about you.
10. Don't think you can teach us anything.

An eleventh rule is:

11. Don't think that there aren't a few things we know about you.

Those who transgress this unwritten 'law' are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against communal desire in the town to preserve harmony, social stability and uniformity.

Why not make Jante Law an official policy of Wikipedia?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Randy from Boise did not license that content.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To defy #9, I shall post that I fail #8 every damn day. --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Incentive, or something...

Look at Geoffrey then in 2007, before I started work on him, and compare that to now. And it's YOUR copyediting/prose tweaking that makes my research readable. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What an extraordinary transformation! I'll get on to those two clunky sentences when I've finished my tea; "Everything stops for tea" don't cha know. Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I gotta say, I did really like England for it's in hotel room teapots. And the general civilized approach to tea... us teadrinkers in the states are very much third-class citizens. If you don't want an "herbal" tea while dining out, you're in deep trouble. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't drink coffee and I take my own tea to the US. My Louisiana friend can now make a great cup of Yorkshire tea. I doubt if my coffee will come up to scatch when they visit next year. Tea is not good everywhere, especially with little cartons of UHT milk. I'm not sure Malleus is referring to a cuppa though, tea time in Greater Manchester involves eating.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yorkshire tea is my favourite as well. PoD and I disagree over things like lunchtime, teatime and so on. For me lunch is what you have at midday, teatime you have about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, perhaps with a light snack, to tide you over to dinner at about 8 in the evening. PoD on the other hand, uncouth fellow that he is, thinks that dinnertime is at lunchtime and that teatime is at dinnertime. Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously a southern softie masquerading as a northerner. People up here eat dinner and then tea, followed by pudding (not supper). And we drink pop, not Coke. BTW I haven't been around much for Workhouse I know, I'm just letting you fidget with it for a bit more before I look at it again. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've spent much of my life in the soft south, that's true. And until my wife and I moved up to Manchester in the '90s she'd never been further north than Birmingham. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Workhouse, I'm still struggling with the religious aspects that some seem so keen on and I completely fail to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh well I'll have to sit with PoD and the uncouth yobs :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

An issue with which you've been involved is under discussion at Talk:Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil#Italics. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there, but I'm afraid that my experiences with User:Lecen have led me to believe that he is impervious to all reason. Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for editing my article on the Quoll Our teacher consistently talks about what a great asset you are to the AP Biology project. Thanks!

Savetheoceans (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your teacher is very wise Grasshopper. ;-) I'm generally quite happy to shuffle commas around for anyone, so don't be afraid to call on me again if you feel you need help, particularly as you get closer to GA. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The content and the research will always be yours, not mine; my only role is to help you to write it better, mainly by example I hope. Your teacher is helping you with the science, and I'll help with the English. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Science/Outline

Dear Malleus, I'd appreciate your eyes on Talk:Science/Outline which is attempting to scope appropriate coverage of Science. As this is a mixture of summary, following high quality sources at the field review level (across 4+ fields), and meeting encyclopaedic needs; it would benefit from editor eyes who've previously conducted some study at this level even if they're not presently reading out of a hqrs at field review level. I'm having particular trouble with structuring the presentation of the day-to-day practice of science without it becoming a discipline soup. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I'm afraid I'm not optimistic that this recent push is going to lead to anything other than a horrible article. As I've said on the talk page, it seems to me that pretty much all science articles have the same fundamental problem: reliance on primary sources rather than reviews, and this one seems little different. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, I value your opinion. I will be trying to concentrate largely on the history subsection where I can gain access to, and comprehend, the field review literature—and so potentially ensure one section is less than sucky. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought of trying to tackle it bottom up, starting with something like Occam's razor, but that would take an eternity. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Golden Domes

Thanks for doing the GA review of Golden Domes and for the copy editing. I'll work through your list and ask for a peer review before relisting it. However I disagree with your final remark. While the article reports some remarkable claims, it does so using the neutral point of view. It does not, I believe, endorse any of them.   Will Beback  talk  03:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In many ways I think it's a nice article, and I enjoyed reading it, but I just don't think it's a neutral account of the Golden Domes. Of course I may well be wrong, so a peer review might be helpful. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Granted, in my effort to be neutral I may have made it too sympathetic. Adding more attribution and critical material might make it more balanced. Thanks again for your time and help.   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

[1] Why are you edit-warring to restore a relative link? And failing to provide an edit summary when doing so? It should be an absolute link. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Because you are completely mistaken. The link should be a relative link, as the article may be renamed. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Civility warning - watch your edit summaries. It is precisely because the article may be renamed that it must be an absolute link. You cannot trust that subpages will be renamed. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is of course impeccably flawed. An absolute link won't work if what should be done is done, i.e., the talk page and its subpages are moved with the article page. Anyway, don't you have anything better to do than come here bothering me about this kind of trivial nonsense? Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that for whatever reasons, subpages are often not moved, which causes relative links like /GA1 to become redlinks. If an absolute link is used, even If the subpage is moved, a redirect is left by default. It's true that someone could delete the redirect, but I don't recall ever seeing an absolute link redlink because of a move. I have seen plenty of /GAx redlinks following moves. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You do it your way and I'll do it my way. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We should both do what's best for maintenance. Are you going to revert any changes I make to talk pages of articles you have GA-reviewed? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That slum of an article was nominated for GA? Ning-ning (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For the fourth time, apparently without any notice having been taken of what the first three reviewers said. I notice you've been copyediting it a bit this evening though, so that's good. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I want to thank you for taking time to review The Time of Angels. Doctor Who is a British show after all, so I thought I might give you a virtual cup of tea. Glimmer721 talk 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a Doctor Who fan (and British) myself, and I well remember the episode. I think you've done a pretty decent job with it, just a few rough edges to knock off before GA. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm a new fan and thought the episode articles especially needed improvement. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm an old fan, right from the very first series with William Hartnell, perhaps the scariest Doctor of them all. If you've got any more episode articles in the pipeline don't be afraid to give me a call if you need a review. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments

Noting here what I said on that article talk page about your comments here, here, here, and here. The reason I'm coming here to raise it as well is that even if I and others are wrong about such things, it is important to be able to raise the possibility of such matters, and to engage in discussion, without making a personal issue of it. Otherwise people will just ignore the issues. I realise that you don't think my concerns were valid, but can I ask if you think you had valid concerns, how would you raise them? It is possible for people to disagree on such matters. There is a current example at WT:DYK right now - see here (please look at the actual substance of the arguments there, rather than making generalisations about DYK). The point there is not who is "right", but that it needs to be possible to discuss such matters by focusing on the actual concerns raised (as Ealdgyth did) without making personal comments (like you did). Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What I think it is, the ONDB author has built a story using lapidary and powerful language. It's difficult to know how far they've twisted whatever actuality is recoverable; secondly, like the old pork-pie muncher says, the language forms a pair of spectacles which we find difficult to remove. For example, the ONDB's "undignified fracas during vespers" is, in the article, a "dispute". What was it- a heated argument or a brandishing of the bollock daggers? How could anyone feasibly rewrite ONDB's description of such a scene to avoid plagiarism? "Whilst the priest was giving it large, several homeys had at it in a well messy scene, which did no credit to the cool of the occasion". Ning-ning (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What has happened to standard written English while Wehwalt slept?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are rather confused Carcharoth. Which is worse in your opinion, "You are a plagiarist" or "You are taking the piss" (which you were and still are)? I'm simply not interested in your wrong-headed playground notions of civility. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Spotted Eagle Ray

Thank you for your contributions on my spotted eagle ray article! Your help is appreciated! --Marissa927 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)