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.

I have a dream

Admittedly it's not much of a dream, more a bed of red-hot coals, but I'd like to reach 125,000 edits before I leave this place to the kiddies. I reckon it's looking like 50:50 right now. Would it be against some Wikipedia policy to set up a book on how likely I am to last that long? Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You have 121,152 edits as of 00:55:02.2421 on December 6, 2011, so you're about 96.9216% of the way there. HurricaneFan25 00:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that people will be wary of you (or some of your friends) colluding in a set up, as in making 124,990 edits then taking a dive (I'm assuming you're perfectly capable of getting yourself blocked in 9 edits or less). So you basically need an outside, independent, and trustworthy, uh promoter, to run this for you. Which I'd be very happy to do. For a small commission of course. Volunteer Marek  00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We can talk about how we split the money off-line, in our private IRC channel. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And BTW Marek, I could get myself blocked in at most two edits; there's no substitute for class. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can get themselves blocked with a single edit. The hard part is to make it look like you're NOT trying get yourself blocked - and that might take more than two as you feign a faux and feeble fight in phony faith to fend off the fiendish functionary fools. Volunteer Marek  01:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)#

Nice alliteration, 8/10. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had the idea on my mind for some time now of nominating Reculver for GA, any chance of you racking up some edits in reviewing it to that end? I'd be very grateful, as the article's been a bit of a pet project for me for personal reasons, and, frankly, if you're going to "leave this place to the kiddies" some time soon, I'd like to involve myself with you directly, through this, before you do, all crawling aside. I think you're right about the "kiddies", but the place will be missing something if you go. Cheers whether or no, and I'd happily bet you'll make it to 125,000 edits. Nortonius (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's in England, so of course I'm prepared to spend some of my remaining edits on helping you get it to GA. Just don't tell the Vital Articles Police. You ain't seen me, right? Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha thanks, that's great - Vital Articles Police? Malleus Who?! Never having bothered with a GAN before, shall I go ahead and set the ball rolling, or would you like to have a look first? In your own time obviously, I last did a proper edit to Reculver almost exactly a year ago! I just noticed that, as it happens, it was on the anniversary of John Lennon's death - maybe I was using it as distraction therapy, make of that what you will! And, there's a bit of inconsistency in the Notes and Refs, leftovers from a tentative experiment: I'm inclined not to adopt the relevant changes shown in this diff, but we can talk about that, see what you think? Cheers again. Nortonius (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Give me a day or two to look through it, and if I appear to have forgotten about it then don't be afraid to nudge me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I've got a couple of busy days ahead anyway, including a White Russian evening while watching The Big Lebowski with my son and a friend! Nortonius (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The references section does look a bit intimidating. For notes, I use {{#tag:ref|Noteworthy stuff here.<ref>Citation here</ref>|group="nb"}} - that, in combination with a separate references section, created with {{reflist|group="nb"}}, keeps things nice and tidy. For instance. Parrot of Doom 01:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does look intimidating, as a section - but the refs are self-contained, allow the reader to skip back and forth between them and the text, and... Well, thanks for the tip, but I can't yet get my head around the need for separate "Footnotes" and "Notes", I find the idea confusing - is that just me, or am I missing something? Feel free to educate me on the idea! Nortonius (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to use group=nb - you could use group=note, or group=more info, etc. It's just tidier (in my opinion). I'd never force that view on another though, as its just a preference. Parrot of Doom 02:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I can see that "group=more info" could work, and I appreciate that it's "just a preference", thanks - the format was first mooted for Reculver by Chzz, with whom I first collaborated years ago: he's been a real pal and all-round solid geezer, and IIRC he suggested that it might become expected of GAs, so I could see that there had to be something in it, but I just couldn't see what that something was, and let it slide at the time. Thing is, I learned my footnote-writing many moons ago, following the style of academic writing on early medieval English history, and the ability to expand on some details in footnotes is something that I found vital at the time - I suppose old habits die hard, but my tired old brain still can't see how offering two, parallel sets of notes tidies anything! That's an invitation to push me btw, if you can be arsed - no promises that it'll work, mind! Nortonius (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Listen to Parrot of Doom. He's one of the few here on Wikipedia who talks any sense. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm all ears, having started it! And, if I've learned anything from the nitwits one encounters on WP, it's to appreciate those who talk sense... Off to bed now, night all! Nortonius (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I prefer that layout mostly for aesthetic reasons, but I think it may be helpful to some readers to keep explanatory notes (NB, more info, etc) separate from citations. It has the benefit of keeping a little blue number for a citation, while also adding [nb] or [more info] to the prose for each explanatory note - that way, the reader knows that if he clicks that [nb], he may get the answer you thought he might like. But again, it's just a preference really. I've had arguments with some editors who think that it's "my way or the highway" so I'd never, ever, do anything other than suggest it. Parrot of Doom 11:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at Hanged, drawn and quartered (ugh!), and Chzz similarly pointed me to Marco Polo, and I think I'm getting it now - bear with me, my head's been this shape for a long time now! That is, I can see that one could feel a bit overwhelmed by some of the refs in Reculver, as there's so much in them. That's something that I'm used to and comfortable with, but I suppose the point is that it could be well outside many readers' comfort zones? So, I think I'm convinced. Which means that now, it's me that's intimidated - by the coding I'll have to learn, and the scale of the task! I think this is partly why I let it slide, when Chzz first suggested it. To be honest, I think I feel a little like MF these days - though I have put a lot of effort into some articles in the past, I've wanted to back away from the friction that often arises in WP; but sometimes I'll still get involved - popping up here asking for help with Reculver was spurred by an accidental urge to buff up Walkington Wold burials, which came over me only in the last couple of days - and so I'd like to use that to get obscure, remote, yet historically fascinating Reculver up to GA, in case I never feel the urge again.

In view of which, I think I'll tinker with the "tentative experiment" in the Reculver article in the next day or two, to straighten it out, and to explore what needs to be done. While I'm here, though, is there a citation template that renders a bibliography entry in a format like "Bloggs, J., Going for GA, Oxbridge, 2011."? Or "Bloggs, J., "How to do it", in Joseph, B. (ed.), It's Like This, Oxbridge, 2011, pp. 1-100."? I haven't seen one. Or would there be no need to use a citation template at all, even? Such is the level of my inexperience with these things... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to learn anything other than {{#tag:ref|blah blah<ref>citation</ref>|group="nb"}}. If you're interested in this format, for now, just shove all notes (ie - lots of text) inside those tag:ref brackets, along with any accompanying citations. The citations already in the article don't need to be changed. To make them display, all you need to do is create another section (like in the HD&Q article) and add {{reflist|group="nb"}} - it's that simple. Shouldn't take you more than 30 minutes to do it.

For your second request, I've always used {{Citation | last = Bloggs | first = Joe | title = Book title | url = www.book.com | publisher = Penguin Books | year = 1989 | isbn = 123456789}} - that'll do something very similar to what you propose. You can also add links to authors, with "authorlink = article name". There are loads of other options, see Template:citation. Parrot of Doom 14:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks, that all sounds very reassuring - I'll have a stab at it in a bit, cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've copied and pasted the existing Reculver article into one of my subpage sandboxes and am working on it there - I'm afraid I was finding it waaay too taxing to risk doing it in the article itself, for fear of messing up a live page. No chance of me taking less than 30 minutes to do it... Anyway, probably any reviewing or copyediting should be done there for now? You're welcome to continue the Reculver part of this thread, or comment on what I've been up to, on the sandbox's virgin talk page. Bear in mind that changes so far are patchy, as I've been working through some of the "tentative experiment" I mentioned earlier, while constantly getting myself side-tracked. And, obviously ignore the Table of Contents there, as it's not where it would be in the main article, and includes everything in the sandbox, Reculver or not... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok - if or when you have the time, I've worked my way to the end of Reculver as it appears in my sandbox, and as I said above you're welcome to copyedit that or comment on the virgin talk page. I'm aware that the style of web citations is a bit erratic, I'll try to sort them out but I'd appreciate input if I'm doing it all wrong! One issue is that I don't always want to use "cite web" templates - but see what you think. I'm also concerned that there might be a few minor instances of OR, but I'm tempted to say no more - if you don't spot them, I shouldn't think anyone will, QED! But obviously I can give you pointers if you'd rather. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

<nudging MF>Hello, just letting you know I've moved my re-vamp of Reculver into article space, as I think it's pretty much there, though I'm under no illusions that it's perfect - lots of fiddling left to do, I suspect, but I think it looks fairly respectable. Anyway forget my sandbox, unless for some reason you want to take it back there. Cheers.</nudging MF> Nortonius (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

125,000? Nah, add a zero ... 1,250,000 would be much better :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Witches

In case you haven't seen it. Parrot of Doom 09:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if a case could be made for that buried cottage being Malkin Tower. Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

apologies for dropping in what amazing news. I do have concerns though, the media has mudded the water a bit I think and hope. The cat from what I saw was a skeleton not mummified as those from Suffolk and now Tazmania! The only proven live animal buried in a wall that I know of was the chicken in a house in london. The eggs proved that! But what an historical resource - stunning. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

another thought, if it was a witches house why would they put a cat into the wall - what evil spirits were they seeking protection from, now there's a thought. `the bbc programme slot was good though over dramatised the witch house bit.Edmund Patrick – confer 21:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Talking of dead things, I saw a group of Americans kicking a corpse round a stage last night, as grisly a sight as I have ever seen. Ning-ning (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a Sarah Palin was it? Hope springs eternal. Parrot of Doom 00:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Irish rewrites

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Can we break it down?

I am challenging their proposals, based on what I've written in detail, as usual. Particularly note the bold/italic bit at the end, which should put a halt on this fiasco and prevent these unsupported pro-Irish rewrites being pushed across Wiki by a handful of nationalistic editors, contrary to RS/OR, and highly POV/COI based. Not sure if you'll agree with the consensus heading I've tried to invoke, but I think it stands to reason. I think if they were allowed to keep their ball rolling and rewrite MOS to their own agenda, it would disrupt a lot of British–Irish relations on Wiki, and not do anyone any favours. I also think it wise to bear WP:ECCN in mind, in future, given the nationality issue. That might serve to curb their determination, as I do not think they were ever set on representing anyone but themselves, and the use of MOS:talk has been a front to suggest "we brought it to consensus" but I don't see and invitation to discussion, beyond their own members, and a few passer-by remarks.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's ever going to to be a general solution to this problem, but I do like the suggestion made by Ruhrfisch on Shackleton's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though whilst it seems better to say "X was born in such-n-such a place, County Y, Ireland, and descended from an Anglo-Irish family who settled in 17xx" it is quite a mouthful. I believe that Anglo-Irish is quite an old socio-economic term, class, and rarely used in modern BLPs, if has its place in many articles regarding people from the 17-19th C. and that heritage is as important an identity as nationality. I wonder if the Americans have as many problems with the subsequent generations who derived from the English settlers who formed the colonies pre-revolution, or use of Anglo-American as we have with the Irish, assuming some American's weren't too proud to use that term. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:MarcusBritish – history repeats itself. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am so tired of all these charges of incivility against all and sundry, as if that trumps everything. So far as I'm concerned incivility (in the childish way it's interpreted here) is very much the least of Wikipedia's problems. If I ruled the world I'd block (almost) every Irish editor for starters. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the kind of attitude that led to several centuries of suffering under the English in Ireland.Hohenloh ⁺ 17:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? I'd thought that the Internet was a relatively recent invention. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input in the AN/I and WQA. Don't think I'd go so far as to ban the Irish.. that courtesy should be extended only to extremists and fanatics of any political/religious group. And devoted fans of modern "music". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

How does that saying go? "When the shit hits the fan.." Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Re: Sheodred — Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

re: RfA comment

..regardless of anything else (s)he might do in the interim.. Of course not Mall, I was simply trying to suggest some things that needed to be done. (Note: I was tempted to type "irregardless" in this reply somewhere just to make you cringe - but I figure you already get enough grief on WP). How you doing? Hope life is treating you well. Glad to see that you're still about on the old 'pedia. — Ched :  ?  19:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm gobsmacked!

I responded to the banner ad to take part in a survey organised by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and just made $21.60, far more rewarding than another fucking barn star! Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely! More of that kind of banner adds please!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Same here, first time I've been paid for doing anything via WP. Though, I made $21.00, and gave half to the Red Cross - does that make me a wikisaint? Or is it all a wikicon? Nortonius (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But how I hate Game theory.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

$15 - it randomly chose my lowest earning section, unless it was assessing the relative contributions Malleus and I make to the 'pedia (then tripling mine so I felt better). Hardly seemed worth keeping... I would have ignored that ad, Malleus, but for seeing this on my watchlist, so thanks for highlighting it. Bencherlite^Talk 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So far I'm the winner then! :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so I'm going to block you until you pay me your winnings. Stick 'em up, this is a robbery! Hah! Now we're talking admin abuse! Bencherlite^Talk 00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to pay you a very great compliment, which is that I'd forgotten that you are an administrator. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, I have $28 coming. Bielle (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done, you must have been allocated rational partners. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I got $35! Winnah! ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you owe me half of that, because you probably wouldn't have followed the link if I hadn't mentioned it here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So true, I'd actually closed that banner without a second thought until I saw money mentioned...I agree you have earned a reward. Have a hug. It's more valuable anyway. *cough* ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone wanna link it? I closed it back a while ago... on reflex (from all the Jimbo begging ads...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the link to the survey since closing it, but maybe someone else does? Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't post a link, I don't think, because it requires a token. But I logged in on a different browser and the banner magically reappeared for me. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. $15, and I was not nice and didn't donate any, mainly because I don't like the International Red Cross (I do donate to local chapters, just not big multinational organizations that aren't very accountable) and I donate quite enough to Wikipedia, thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I should be on commission. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You are a girl, right? I find hugs from blokes quite scary. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

edito conflicto I am, yes. Why are hugs from blokes scary? You get to do that man thing where you gruffly hit each other in the back in an affectionate way. At least I assume that's affection. Hmm. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm English; we don't go in for displays of affection, especially between gentlemen. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm Scottish; all those hugging men I saw were probably trying to fight each other only they were too drunk to stand up without support. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

$29.60, nice. I was very generous/altruistic on one test & got $1 when B got $29, but made it up by being super-mean on another. Yes, more of these please. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I was altruistic on all and still made 27 bucks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the link to the survey Bielle (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues are being raised about this survey. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean here presumably? Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppressed my banner-suppression preference too late, too late! The quota for the sample had already been met. But thanks for the heads up! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I got 100,000,000,000,000,000 Zimbabwean dollars. Did I do the right survey? Ning-ning (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My £12.98 came through today. My first ever earnings from Wikipedia. I'm impressed. Give me more. He he --Senra (Talk) 10:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Returning to the top of the thread leads me to wonder: so how much is a barnstar worth? Suppose you have received a really nice barnstar, with kind words about your contributions and your general positive effect on Wikipedia. How much cash would you accept for it to be deleted, oversighted, gone without trace, so that it remains only a lingering memory?

That has to be a good question for the festive season :) Geometry guy 23:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My take on it: I would readily pay a small monthly amount for the privilege of editing an otherwise identical version of Wikipedia with no 'barnstars' and no 'talkback' templates. Hans Adler 02:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans I bet your house is spartan, white and serious-looking....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My house is like a building site ... actually it is pretty much a building site right now. But to echo Hans, I'd be prepared to pay for a site that wasn't run by children with an inflated sense of their own importance and a surreal idea of incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion on the value of barn stars is coloured by having one given and taken away within a few weeks, after having upset a (now) administrator. I generally ignore them, so the answer to your question is that I'd be quite content for them to be deleted without any payment whatsoever. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus edits wiki because he likes to, not to get awards. PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too, as you can see by the way I do not collect or maintain any record of my "achievements" or "awards" (I don't even have a user page). Nevertheless, I've received barnstars containing appreciative words from editors I admire (the above admin would not fall into such a category, obviously). How much is that worth in cash? I'm not sure, which is one reason I am asking the question. Geometry guy 00:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, with potentially revealing answers. For myself, I'm much happier with a few words of thanks rather than a barn star; those words can't be taken away no matter what happens next. Basically I have no time at all for any rewards that can subsequently be withdrawn (I'm reminded of the shameful rule that VCs could be taken back if the recipient later did something unsavoury), which is why I have a minimal set of user rights here, not even rollback. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I also value the words much more than any barnstar containing them (if there is one). It is interesting that you bring up user rights. I don't regards them as rewards, but as tools that help me to contribute when I need them. If someone were to take them away without good reason, then it would reflect badly on them, not on me, as they would be impairing my ability to help. Geometry guy 00:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can't see why you don't have rollback, Malleus. That is, unless you don't want it for some reason. Any admin can just give it to you, and there's no need to go through the "requests for permission" gauntlet. It's very useful when, say, a little puke makes a bunch of bad edits quickly in a row on an article you've worked on (when others happen to be asleep at the switch). One click instead of a shitload of "undos". No rewards except for less time wasted. Doc talk 00:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And any admin can just take it away again, out of malevolence or spite. I find that with Twinkle I just don't need rollback anyway; in fact I used to have it until I asked for it to be removed as a matter of principle. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Taken to its extreme that principle implies dropping all tools that anyone can take away, including all tools available to autoconfirmed users, the ability to edit as a user and have a user talk page, and even the ability to edit at all. Geometry guy 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

MF seems to have adopted Hurricane Carter's strategy for doing time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It does, but bear in mind I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that I don't fit in here, and it's only a matter of time before I'm expelled for good, most recently here. I believe in the idea of knowledge being freely available, which is the only reason I'm still here, but I'm vehemently opposed to Wikipedia's social engineering experiment, and always will be. Particularly as it's largely policed by children. My survival strategy, such as it is, is that nobody can threaten to take away what I don't have. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting diff - you can sometimes take things a bit too personally, Malleus, or take the views of one random editor (or misguided admin) as The View of Wikipedia. There are pretty much as many opinions as to what amounts to "civility" as there are editors, which means that none of us truly fit in. Given this, you may be as concerned as I am that the WMF is currently planning to include the concept of "civility" in a legal document on terms of use. If policing this asylum by children is a problem, then the way it is overseen is erm...I'm lost for words. Geometry guy 02:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the WMF is fucking up big time, but I guess they have their reasons. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I see their potential as long as there is some wittiness attached....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding ... civility in the TOS? They should rename it to POS. Btw Malleus, thanks much for your help with Uxbridge ... Milhist has one other old and graying British-themed FAC, Warkworth Castle. I've just finished my second run through, and I wound up with just two questions. It should be in pretty good shape if you want to give it a once-over. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel a bit bad about Uxbridge in a way, coming in late with a bunch of stuff, but I don't look at FAC all that often these days. Or GAN come to that. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You can come in any time you like, when you can spare the time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding civility in the TOS, my comment there has so far received no response. It will be interesting to see what the new week brings. Geometry guy 00:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Responded. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Once I built an encyclopaedia, made 2% of articles on which you could rely, once I compiled a cyclopaedia, brother can you spare a social science participant payment? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the point, you will just shut it down in sympathy anytime there's a strike.  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect that our comparator organisation is British Rail: inheritor of run down pseudo-monopolies, underfunded and under-resourced despite expansion plans... Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Pendle Witches link

I didn't remove the link, it was broken and i was unsure of the correct spelling to fix it so i removed the link-tags, haha. Bobfordsgun (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

mica

Re Herbert Blendinger: the "music information centre austria" spell their name like that. The major problem is not the spelling, but that they changed their website, and many links went dead. I fixed the ones I met, perhaps you want to keep an eye on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Greater Scaup GA

Hi Malleus, I finished the teacher review and a peer review for the Greater Scaup. Two days ago, Mr. Butler told me that I should put it up for GA, so I did. I have been doing some work on it after I nominated it for GA, but I wanted to ask if you would please take a look at it now that I have started the GA push. Thank you --Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got a good chance with that, but I'll keep it on my watchlist just in case. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, Mr. Butler seems to think the same thing as well. Thanks for all of your help with the article.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ginger

Who knows why I find this shit, but I was hunting for a good documentary and got a mediocre one about the band Cream. The verdict is out on those goddamn 20-minute drum solos, but there is more appeal in listening to Ginger Baker, who I decided sounds so much like your comments around here that I think you and he are the same.

Also, working on this article was fun for a Friday night. --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that Cream were a bit pretentious, but individually they were undoubtedly good musicians. So far as drummers are concerned you'd have to go a long way to beat the manic Keith Moon. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A "Stairway to Heaven" in fact? --Senra (Talk) 14:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you planning to take horse tranquilizers just as you go onstage at the Cow Palace? That would really give a fan in the audience a chance to...copy edit articles...in your place. --Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the tranquilizers was a bit silly ... if six is enough to kill you then why take thirty-two? Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Bill Bruford is an amazing drummer, wry and articulate, especially on "Discipline" and "Indiscipline". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-English sources and GAs

An editor has raised a question on my talk page about the likelihood of getting good article status for an article where the preponderance of sources are not English (Russian, in this case). Would you take a look at User talk:LadyofShalott#Question and chime in with your thoughts? Thanks, LadyofShalott 04:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

for it’s in your favor

is perhaps ask favor as you,,however has been guarantee for it this for you watching --> tunak tunak tun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdG_fey4_ow&feature=player_detailpage#t=22s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyavrata Banerjee (talk • contribs) 08:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC) tunak tunak tun song

Like all true Scotsmen, I've watched the YouTube vid, and it's actually good for some lulz. As for why you were selected for this, erm, "interesting" talk page drive-by, I'm sorry I haven't a clue.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a very merry bus full! I love it. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

More fun to be had here. Just as examples: Drmies' Brazilian soccer player name is "Doctildo", K.W is "Wolfowinho", Sandy is "Georgialdo", and so on. (Claro, sou "Fiftyeino".) But "Fatuorinho" (in very shaky Portuguese, "the little foolish one"). Hmmm. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi Malleus. I hope that you are in good health. Will you have time to copy-edit Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) for me? It has already been copy-edited numerous times but every time it is taken to FAC, reviewers said that that c/e was not up to the level. Can you please take a look? I mean, look at the amazing job you did on "Single Ladies". Just because of you, I got three more support votes. Please bless "Halo" with your flawless copy-editing skills. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(Page lurker) I have responded with erm, a "sublime love" whilst striking a A–Bm–F♯m–D chord. Not! This is really not my topic area, so I have restricted my comments to format and overall writing style. I hope it helps --Senra (Talk) 11:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The job's not done 'til it's done Jivesh. I think it would be better to wait until the FAC for "Single Ladies" has concluded, and take the lessons from that on to "Halo". Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay Sir. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

UK -Schools: direction and political bias

I expressed a concern at UK_School_reference_articles. It seems only correct that there should be a statistically correlation between the number of articles on state schools v articles on schools for toffs- and the proportion of students that go to each. More of Cheadle Hulme High School than Cheadle Hulme School- 14 secondaries in Stockport- 9 articles- 4 rated as start class. Two ex-Grant maintained -2 articles -1 at start 1 at B. It seems such a pity we have so few editors, biased guidelines that eulogise the trivia while there is a enormous pool of vandals who could be put to use with little training. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully not offensive

[1]Is it a personal attack to suggest -- dare I say it -- you're getting wiser? Gerardw (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always been wise, which is perhaps why I've found it so difficult to come to terms with Wikipedia. And to be honest I hope I never will, as I find it rather creepy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't in 5 1/2 years and > 120,000 edits, you're probably not in much danger of that. So ... why do you stay? Gerardw (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheer bloody mindedness really. So many want to see me gone but I don't want to give them the satisfaction. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Tawdry Saint Audrey

Thank you for strolling through Ely. As always, your amblings reduce my ramblings. I especially liked your es: "scare quotes". Previously, however, I think Richerman (talk · contribs) forgot to add "St" to Audrey following a discussion between us where I felt his "St Audrey" explained well "t'awdry" and therefore "tawdry" (scary enough?). Thus his "Tawdry, a shortened form of Audrey" which led to your "Tawdry, a corruption of Audrey"—edit-summary: hardly shorter, slightly longer in fact! I did say I rambled. Anyway, with your permission, I will be inserting "St" or is it "Saint" to make "Tawdry, a shortened form of St Audrey" or is it still "Tawdry, a corruption of St Audrey"? I get so confused :( --Senra (Talk) 00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You're the expert on Ely, not me; you don't need my permission to do anything to the article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't forget - I just didn't put it in as it wasn't in the online version you were using as a reference - or at least not in the bit you put on the talk page. Malleus, I'm confused, could you explain why - is known as "Ship of the Fens" - is wrong? The inverted commas are just there to denote what you're referrring to in "known as". Why are they scare quotes? Richerman (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Because we're not talking about the Ship of the Fens, it's just a name. Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Decisions, decisions...

Baldwin of Forde or Ralph d'Escures or Reginald Fitz Jocelin? First two are Archbishops of Canterbury, the last one is only an Archbishop-elect of Canterbury. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You choose, you're the one who'll have to deal with my stupid and ignorant questions. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's go Ralph then. I'm still undecided on Reginald going to FAC. And I might as well be hung totally for "star-collecting" and go with the smaller article! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That "star collector" thing still rankles with me as well. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I might have taken it with better grace from someone like Wehwalt or Brian... you know, folks who've walked the walk at FAC ... but from someone with what .. one FA under their belt?? And on a turtle??? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You're preaching to the converted. Added to which the analysis was only done on FAs promoted this year, thus it ignored topics like the Donner Party, and even GAs like Margaret Thatcher, which gets more views than many FAs. But maybe I'm just a useless green-blob chaser. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought it would have been worse coming from somebody who knew what they were talking about. As I said to TK, who gives a rat's arse what TCO thinks? Yomangani^talk 01:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Blobs are meant to chase the characters, not the characters chase the blobs. It is known from B-Movies. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Perhaps that's where I've been going wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Baldwin of Forde, s'il vous plaît. A man considered "a greater enemy to Christianity than Saladin" is extreamly interesting in my eyes. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always found the Cathars to be fascinating, but apparently some ignoramuses don't agree. Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping to chase down one last work before I go with Baldwin - I don't think it's going to have anything of use, but maybe ILL can come through... And gods, working on the Cathars article would be a monumental undertaking. I've dabbled with reading about medieval heresies, but I'm still quite full up with the great English Medieval bishops project (still not even a third done!) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

You made a very good point at my talk in the High Schools section. Thank you for making me reflect on what it is that we are here for. Ultimately the "why" questions are always the most difficult to answer; why do a particular job, why have kids, why go to the pub, etc. These are nevertheless very important questions, and once again I find myself in debt to your intellectual honesty. I will continue to think about the question you asked, and I think that while I am unable to fully answer and will probably always be, I appreciate sharing space with people like you. It keeps me on my toes. I suspect many others would say the same. --John (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect many more would say why doesn't Malleus just fuck off. But I'm baffled by your "why go to the pub" question. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone wanna send me a plane ticket so *I* can go to the pub (and a few cathedrals and monasteries along the way...)... I'm with Malleus - who needs an excuse to go to the pub? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I put that in as a joke. I was channelling Douglas Adams, perhaps. --John (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Jim Rohn has the eternal answer to those "why" questions: "Why? Why not? Why not you? Why not now?" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question 'How can we eat?' the second by the question 'Why do we eat?' and the third by the question 'Where shall we have lunch?'" --John (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A question about GAN and/or FAN documentation

SG seems to be inactive at the moment, could I talk you into glancing at (and possibly answering) a question I posed here? --SPhilbrickT 16:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer the second part of your question, why don't you just look at Talk:Albert Einstein, click "show" next to article milestones and then you'll see the links to the 2005/2009 FACs, the 2006 FAR and the 2007 GAN for yourself? Bencherlite^Talk 16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm embarrassed I didn't know that, but now I do.--SPhilbrickT 19:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

When people ask why experts get driven off Wikipedia...

Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey could be a perfect example. I'm STILL fighting this outdated and disproven theory ... and periodically I STILL have to deal with people pushing it. No modern historian OR competent genealogist subscribes to the idea that Gundred was the daughter of William the Conqueror - but some folks WANT it to be true so they insist that there IS a controversy (there isn't) so that it MUST be given due weight in the freaking article. Once more I had to AGAIN dig though books and try to demolish some idiotic reprinting of a theory long since disproven in historical thought. If I tried to say that Gundred was William OR Matilda's daughter in any historical scholarly work based on the International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne - I'd be laughed out of the profession - but some folks think Wikipedia requires our articles to respect that society as much as serious historians. ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think you should be appointed WP:Resident Czar of Medieval Articles. Screw WP:OWN--let the experts decide. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Think yourself lucky she didn't wear a Guy Fawkes mask... Parrot of Doom 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a victim of the "verifiable untruth" brigade, to me ;P Clarifying: that's those who interpret "Verifiabilty, not truth" to mean "Who cares if it's not true - I can show you where it was published!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, in this case I think it's a case of amateur genealogists - they really WANT Gundred to be the daughter of someone more important than her father - who is an untraceable Fleming. If she's the daughter of William or Matilda - this elevates their ancestry more .. much more fun to have yet another line to William or Matilda than to have a boring no-name in your tree. This is a common problem in medieval history - and it started in the middle ages, unfortunately! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

One of my ancestors (great great great grandmother I think) was convinced she was directly related to the royal family. They locked her in the mad house, but could be she was right.... right? :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean "the Royal Family" or perhaps "a royal family"? --Senra (Talk) 17:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Knowing my luck, it's probably this one --Errant ^(chat!) 21:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Now what have I done?

Before some watcher (over 400 last count) reports me, this is a term of endearment. Truly it is --Senra (Talk) 20:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Any lurkers willing to help me with a couple of minor 16th century related queries raised by a GA1 reviewer please? Specifically, my answers to "William Wolsey & Robert Pygot" (my new counter-reformation prose) and "John Alcock" (d. 1500 disagrees with bishopric ended 1501 according to Pevsner). Thank you in advance --Senra (Talk) 16:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Bencherlite's suggestion looks sensible to me; clearly Alcock couldn't have remained bishop after his death in 1500. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Alcock d. 1500 per "Alcock, John". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/289. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) though that will teach me to rely on PEVSNER :( --Senra (Talk) 23:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The only person you can rely on is yourself. There's been some discussion elsewhere on the meaning of truth vs. reliability where Wikipedia policy is concerned, with the implication that reliability of the source always trumps truth. But of course ultimately it can't, as in this example. It's not uncommon, at least in my experience, to find reliable sources disagreeing about some detail or other, and it's our job to find a way through that conundrum by considering exactly how reliable each of the sources is for what they're claiming. But of course that's just my view, I speak with no authority here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hog Island Sheep

Thanks for going over Hog Island sheep, it reads so much cleaner now than before. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to take a rather Zen view of writing, believing that every word needs to earn its keep. For instance, imagine you had to pay a cent for every word you used; would you really be prepared to spend three cents on "in order to" as opposed to just one cent on "to"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at Reculver

Thank you very much for having a look at Reculver. It's good to have a (trustworthy!) pair of fresh eyes look over stuff, and I thought all of your changes were spot on. I've done quite a bit since you last looked, adding sections on e.g. Politics and Education, plus numerous tweaks of formatting, layout and so-on. I think I've pretty much scraped the barrel dry for now (or my brain's telling me I have, anyway), so, hostages to fortune aside, I think the article's probably going to be fairly stable from here on (eek!) - should you feel inclined to comb through the article again...! Cheeky? Moi?! No problem if not. Any tips for a GA newbie? And, if there's anything I can do in return...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you've done a pretty good job with what seems effectively to be an abandoned village, but I do have a few questions for you:

Lead

• "Reculver is a village and coastal resort about 3 miles (5 km) east of Herne Bay in southeast England. It is a ward of the City of Canterbury district in the county of Kent." It's obviously also a parish, as all the demographic data relate to the parish of Reculver. Are the village and the parish coterminus? Presumably not. Is it the village or the parish that's a ward of the City of Canterbury? Presumably the parish, as the village's population doesn't seem sufficient to warrant a ward. In fact even the parish's population seems very low for a ward.

The village is in a ward called just "Reculver" - but, now that I look: the ward includes Hillborough, Beltinge and a big chunk of eastern Herne Bay; the civil parish was absorbed into Herne Bay CP in 1934; and the (current) ecclesiastical parish includes Hillborough and Beltinge. Some re-writing to be done there then, and under "Governance"… About the population, the earliest censuses detailed parishes, but the Reculver "census area" for 2001, in which only 135 people were found, looks to include only Reculver, plus scattered farms etc. between it, the A299 and Hillborough (which is the next settlement to the west - there isn't one to the east, within the census area). Obviously I wasn't paying attention - I can tweak that under "Demography", but I'm not sure how to do that in the lead, without it being too wordy - maybe there's no need, if I fix "Demography"? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• "The census of 2001 recorded 135 people in the Reculver area, nearly a quarter of whom were in caravans." That looked rather strange to me when I first read it, and it still does. Were these 30 or so people living in static caravans or did they just happen to be on holiday in one of the caravan parks on census day?

I haven’t found a decent way to answer that one yet! I think the inference is that they were (at least mostly) on holiday in a caravan park, given that Reculver’s been mainly a sea of caravans for the last 60 years or so, but the census data don’t go deep enough to be sure - unless you know better…? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Country park

• "The new Reculver Centre for Renewable Energy and Interpretation opened in July 2009, marking 200 years of the moving of Reculver village." I don't quite follow this, as the village hasn't moved has it?

I hadn’t noticed that bit - "village" should probably be "church", as the date fits, but a (probable) source does actually say "marking 200 years of the relocation of Reculver village", in a photo caption about ⅔ of the way down the page! No, the village hasn’t moved, except mostly down and into the sea, I’m not sure what to make of that… Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

[2] Any use? J3Mrs (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks J3Mrs - nothing in there about the village moving, but I'll add it to my list of "things to stuff the bibliography with"! And, it did remind me of an estate map dated 1685, reproduced (rather poorly) in a recent book, so thanks for that, too - lucky for me I have a copy, unlucky for WP the map's not showing up in Google. Anyway said map shows late 17th century Reculver looking a bit like a hot cross bun, centred on a crossroads just west of the Roman fort's west gate. The sea's swallowed up pretty much the whole lot. And, there's nothing like a "New Reculver" to replace it, looking at a modern map. Nortonius (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Education

• "It was rated as "satisfactory" (Grade 3) in most aspects by an Ofsted report in July 2010, when it had 489 pupils." This is a bit of a surprise given that Reculver's population is only 135. Where do these kids come from?

Yes that surprised me too when I saw it, but don’t worry, some ale and mulled wine helped me get over it! I’m ignorant of legislation on school catchment areas, but the school’s brochure says that "proximity to the school" only becomes an admission criterion if it’s over-subscribed, though it then says something darkly about "pupils admitted to the school within the VI Designation". I’ve no idea what that is, and searching on the web hasn’t helped. From what I have seen, I imagine busloads of little ‘uns descending on Reculver from all over Kent, to enjoy the "wonderful peaceful location"! Simple answer is, I don’t know: maybe I should add in something about proximity in the over-subscription bit of the brochure? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And here's my GA tip: nominate this at GAN now. There's absolutely no danger it will be quick-failed, it can take several weeks for a reviewer to turn up, and you'll get at least seven days to fix any problems anyway. I'd be dubious about the article meeting the FA comprehensiveness criteria, but much less so about it meeting GA's "covers the major topics". My other tip would be to try and meet the reviewer half-way with any criticisms that may come up during the review. You don't have to knuckle under and give in to every demand, state your case where you don't agree and stand by it, but there does have to be at least a bit of give-and-take. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

GM article alerts

Take a look, something there in need of a good copyedit.J3Mrs (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't be going anywhere near that one based on experience at MediaCityUK. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither will I.J3Mrs (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)