User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2009/April

Paulinus of York

Can you take a quick gander at the old guy? I've added a bit of information, drawing on Laurence's experience at FAC, and expanded the lead slightly. If he can get through FAC, the Gregorian mission Featured Topic will be set! Yay me! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That Bishop of Rochester section seems to be all over the place with its chronology. Edwin dies right at the start, but the resulting reversion to paganism appears a paragraph later, after having being hinted at earlier. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Paulinus left behind a member of his clergy, James the Deacon, who long outlived Paulinus. After his death in 644 he was venerated as a saint." So James became a saint? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Will fix in the morning. Fence work today, I'm exhausted. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Check it out now? I've done some rearranging. And fixed the James issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Paulinus is ready for the big boys and girls to take a look at him now. Good luck with his FAC and the Featured Topic. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

YOu're entirely too good to me. Thanks so much. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Is a little lulzy, no? I guess it makes sense being on April 1st. Who needs a practical joke when real life is humourous. :) I particularly loved DougsTech opposing me after I supported his right to oppose on the matter plus someone opposed me for basically defending the DougsTech view. : D Do you think I am going to do better than you? :P Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I forgot to mention this. : D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do I think you're going to do better than me? Probably a close run thing. You might well do better than I'd do if I ran again though. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who is going to have a worse final tally, but I do think Malleus' was a little nastier/vindictive than OR's.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So do I. But that's water under the bridge. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. Call that a block log? This is a block log. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pair of wussies. Iridescent :  Chat  20:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No one but me has a clearly CoI'd admin Wheel Warring with herself on their block log besides me. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My block log is a little colorful too, but seriously, I didn't deserve any of it. :D — R² 02:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The real criminals are the wiki civility police. Not you, me, or even Ottava. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Malleus, I understand you defending me, but I respect Bibliomaniac's judgment enough that he shouldn't be badgered. So, just keep that in mind and try not to go after him too hard. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not defending you, I'm defending common sense. Please try to keep that in mind. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm no longer the incarnation of common sense? I'm hurt. :( heh Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon

I wondered if you wouldn't mind casting your expert eye over this article, before I submit it to GAC. There are a few references still missing, most especially in the chart section (I'm at a loss to find them as they'll most likely be in a different language). I've had a fair amount of resistance to my work from 2-3 editors (its understandable and I don't really blame them, see the talk page), but I think the article is much improved from what it once was. I want to get it to FAC if possible. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How could anyone with an ounce of common decency in their soul refuse to help a Floyd album? Not their best IMO though, I prefer Wish You Were Here. I'll take a look and see what I can do to help. If I forget to turn up then please remind me. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, a simple 'can you look at this before I quickfail it' would have saved me a lot of trouble... Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

oops that makes it look to others as though you quickfailed it - which f course you haven't! Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As if I ever would have quickfailed it. From memory I can't remember ever quickfailing a GAN, although I have delisted quite a few GAs I thought were beyond economical repair. The difference with GANs though is that there's almost always a willing nominator. I'd have been pretty confident that you could have dealt with the few {{fact}} tags recently added in pretty short order. The other point about citations in the lead was just plain wrong. Ah well, I'd bet a penny to a pound that once the tags are dealt with this will sail through GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I hope you have noticed the message I put on the review page. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw it. As Parrot of Doom says, you arguably operated strictly within the rules, but I wouldn't have done what you did. Anyway, live long and prosper. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sentences like that are leftovers from the article as it was before I began on it. As you've seen the talk page you'll understand my reticence about restructuring sentences, but I agree it is a bit messy. I think (reading between the lines from the Harris book I have) that the questions were all read in the same order in each interview, such as "...last time you were violent?" followed by "Did they deserve it". Thanks for the backup though, I still don't quite understand their objection to 'little blue numbers' and things. It probably didn't help that I put the Pink Floyd article up for FAR. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I reworded it, see what you think. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better, and it makes sense now. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember early on being accused by some wikifossil of changing the Stretford article "too quickly" when I was preparing it for GAN. And something similar happened with Didsbury. My view now is fuck 'em, do what you know needs to be done and bugger the consequences. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoken like a true dragon. I've cleared and redeveloped the invert zoology articles I've worked on, but only got arguments about it in 1 case. I think Origin of Species might have flowed better if dave & Rusty had done the same. --Philcha (talk)

You're right. I really do believe that you sometimes have to be bold, to chase away all of those prissy WikiKnights. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that what those bits of metal were? I thought they were Victorian plumbing. --Philcha (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If my family had ever been posh enough to have a motto it would likely have been something like Omelettes postulo pauci infractus ova (you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs). --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you like that in something like real Latin? Then you could devise a crest or shield for yourt user page(s). --Philcha (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would, yes. That would be great! --Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to think about

I do not want a reply to this, it's just a message.

I completely understand your (and others) opinions on how things should be, could be, and would be on Wikipedia. Believe it or not your voice is heard by others that may disagree or agree with you, and then take action when appropriate.

There are nearly 1,700 users with sysop rights on the en.wiki, and of those roughly half are active. I'd consider myself semi-active. But I digress. Of those that use their tools, probably 5% cause the drama that you have been a victim of, but by your own right occasionally enabled. That's still a good split. I like reading your comments and opinions as they help me form my thoughts on subjects.

The point is, please stop casting administrators as a cabal. It really doesn't exist. Do user:s do it? Yup. Stereotypes help no one. You drag my name through the mud when you toss it at administrators, and I have done nothing but serve this project in return for the pleasure it has given me. Keegan^talk 06:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide whether or not I reply. Perhaps you mistook me for someone who cares what you want? I doubt that I have ever used the word "cabal" anyway, so your comments miss the mark. You appear to be suggesting that there are perhaps 5% of active administrators who ought to be desysopped. I'd put the figure somewhat higher than that, but even if your estimate is correct, it's that 5% who "drag your name through the mud", not me. Perhaps you may care to reflect on that. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment is a bit terse, and I do apologize for it seeming as an accusation. My point remains that even if 10% of admins act inappropriately, you shouldn't cast stones at the usergroup as a whole. I, and hundreds of other admins, work at our tasks that we volunteered for for free. I don't look for a thank you, I don't want one, this is what I signed up for. You have a tendancy to toss out the basket because of two bad apples. If you want to name names, by all means do. It is offensive to the hard work of others when you presume the lot to be as the few. I really don't wish to argue (which was the point of not needing a reply), I just wanted you to know how I feel about the situation. I appreciate your opinions, often times I disagree but I still would rather read what you say than what someone who agrees with me has to say, as I told Ottava. I have never been in contact with you before and probably never will be again simply out of interests, so I do wish happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that it is very difficult to have a rational discussion with administrators about this notion that there are too many administrators. Perhaps no surprise there, but even by your own estimate there are something like 900 too many (inactive + bad apples). This observation is not a personal comment on you or any other of the reasonable administrators (who are in a clear minority, as above). It is nevertheless irrefutable that desysopping 900 or so of the current administrators would be a net benefit to the project, ergo there are too many administrators. Or at least too many of the wrong sort. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I interact with Malleus a fair bit, but, as an administrator, I'm not offended by his comments. I understand that when he (and most others) are complaining about evildoing by administrators, they are referring to those who abuse the position, and don't lump all the rest of us into that "bad, bad!" bucket. It's an exaggeration to think that all administrators deserve to be desysopped, and I doubt many people will take it that way. I'm not part of the evil cabal (I'm sure if I was Malleus would tell me!), but I also know I'm not perfect. We've all made mistakes; the difference is the "good" administrators learn from them and the rest don't recognize they've made any. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am by no means tarring every administrator with the same brush, as Keegan seems to be implying. Indeed there are at least one or two I seem to get on with just fine, including you Karanacs. In fact I often don't know whether someone's an admin or not, and I care whether they are or not even less frequently, so I rarely bother to check until the civility police come knocking. As I said to Keegan, I don't believe there's any kind of cabal, and I've never even used the word cabal in that context. I just think that there are too many administrators, and I just wish that proposition could be discussed rationally, without unwarranted accusations of dragging individual administrators' names through the mud. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The written media lacks so much in communication. Something has been lost in the translation here, and I don't think I can even beging to explain this without you and I sitting with a cup of water, coffee, beer, or whatever beverage you might enjoy (certainly if we get the chance, I will buy). By cabal I was using what is the traditional term on the site. I didn't mean that you said it. I did. This post really didn't even have to do with too many admins. I think that we agree on more points than we probably disagree. It's good to read that you are not tarring us all with the same brush; my perception was that you were, which is what prompted the initial post. Many of your posts against admins is directed at administrators, which mean all of us on the whole. Call people out if you want to air your grievences. My post to you came from several months of you using administrators as a collective. This was a failure of communication, this thread. Apologies for irritating you if it did, I just do hope that you what my point was. Admin ≠ bad. That's what I should have said in the first place. and yes, I do my best to break what Safire's rules of writing are. :) Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 04:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I am the user that wrote the overlooked essay UserRights are not a golden ticket. I think you might enjoy that. Keegan^talk 04:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with the block button has authority over those who don't, and I have seen some dreadful blocks imposed by administrators you might otherwise think of as being among the better ones. Jehochman's one week block because of his own prudish misunderstanding very recently for instance, a block which may have resulted in the loss of a far more productive editor than him. There is a rotten heart beating at the centre of the whole idea of administrators on wikipedia, but absolutely no will to recognise that, much less to do anything about it. To the extent that administrators refuse to accept that self-evident truth I will continue to think of them as a collective. It's nothing personal though. To paraphrase Jonatan Swift: "Principally I hate and detest that animal called administrator; although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth." --Malleus Fatuorum 12:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A Jonathan Swift reference. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been to school, I can read books. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Of cannibals]. I hope to interact with you and Ottava more in the future. Don't get me wrong, with disagree on just about everything, but I like that about y'all. Here's to Wikipedia. Keegan^talk 06:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Species

Hi, Malleus, I'd like to ask a big favour. I'm GA-reviewing Origin of Species and have a strong feeling about 1 aspect. I'd be grateful if you could look over the article - not in detail, just your general impression. Please don't look at the GA review page first, I'd like your spontaneous and unbiassed opinion. If you comment, please do so at the review page. Al the best, --Philcha (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few comments on the review page. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, don't forget to call in the favour! --Philcha (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re "(not) all down to one person", most of the time we have to do it that way because we're short of reviwers. But: Origin of Species is important, especially this year; I know I'm a fairly demanding reviewer, and that I may sometimes push too hard, especially if I think the subject's important. --Philcha (talk)

"Fairly demanding" isn't even in the same time zone as the demands you make on some GANs Philcha. I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with that, just I'm probably inclined to cut GANs a bit more slack than you allow. I think it's great to point out where there will likely be problems if the article is ever taken to FAC, but not to insist on those problems being fixed before the green dot is awarded—even though the green dot can't actually be awarded, because it's without merit and would simply clutter up the mainspace, apparently.

Having said all that though, I think you're absolutely right to take the stand that you have done with the Origin. It's clearly a very controversial subject, and the article clearly needs some pruning; I hope that you and the two main editors can come up with something worthy of the subject. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in GA Sweeps

On behalf of the Good Articles Project Quality task force, for all of your dedicated work in the the sweeps process, I bestow upon you this medal as a token of our gratitude. لennavecia 03:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, you have 228 listed reviews. For this very impressive and appreciated work, I hope you enjoy this award and display it proudly. لennavecia 03:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jenna. It was hard and too often thankless work, but it needed, and still needs, to be done. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ageism

Take it elsewhere. Complain on WR - they don't like me either - but you are going to stop exploiting another person's issues to make your point.--Tznkai (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I? Because you say so? How little you know me.--Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to content myself with hoping your human decency or boredom will kick in.--Tznkai (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It would probably make your case at least a little more convincing if you and your lynchmob refrained from making any more personal remarks. You know, WP:NPA and all that jazz. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, they are not my personal lynchmob. I've always wanted one of them, but I think this is a genuine case of multiple different people disagreeing strongly with the exploitation of another editor. I can only assume you do in good faith and out of deep concern for the wiki' success. I am however informing you, that the effect is distasteful and disruptive. Please refrain.--Tznkai (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I note your opinion, but I do not share it. I regard your actions today as misguided and distateful censorship. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not share that you do what you do in good faith and out of deep concern? I suppose in a sense it is censorship, as I have suppressed your speech. It is not however, political censorship, if that is what you imagine. I'm afraid it is your actions, and not your positions that have provoked action.--Tznkai (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You can read my note above if you wish to clear up your misunderstanding regarding the concept of censorship. Chillum 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is yours, not mine. Now please go away. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Opportunism

I must say using that editors personal problems as an opportunity to make a point about policy without demonstrating any connection was really tacky. I am glad it got removed. Do you really think it is a good time to use his name to start a heated debate? Chillum 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The "agism" discussion is necessarily personal. If you and others choose to turn a rational discussion into a heated one then you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When multiple people in good standing remove your post from a forum as inappropriate, then you can take that as a hint that it is inappropriate. Surely you realize that what you did was just point at a young person who was having a tough time and said "I told you it was true"! You made no point, no arguments, you just pointed to the most recent tragedy and tried to work it into your point. I once saw a Japanese guy doing math, that doesn't prove any stereo-type to me either. Your point's lack of value only worsened the effect of your terrible timing. Don't try to shame me, instead consider your own actions. Chillum 16:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I take it as clear evidence of censorship. You may take it any way you like. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is when someone from the outside comes and tells you what you can say. It does not apply when you go to another organizations venue and seek to have your content published with them. Basically the community has rejected your content. That is not censorship, that is just the community rejecting your wish to have the content published with us. The community can do that. If you want to post your comments about recent troubles on your own web site you can rest assured Wikipedia will not censor you.

We remove objectionable content all the time. Sometime we even block people who don't stop. That is not censorship, but rather an internal decision. You can participate in this decision making process, but only if your postings are not so offensive that the community rejects them. Good day. Chillum 16:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you continuing with this? I can't imagine anything you could add to what you've already said that would be even remotely likely to change my mind that this was censorship pure and simple, motivated by the fact that the example provided was a popular child administrator. Mitchazenia's experiences are data; you apparently prefer to rely on anecdotes. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss this matter now then fine. But please do not act disruptively in the future. If you do act disruptively and don't want to discuss, and claim nothing will change your mind then you leave the community little room for decisions. Chillum 16:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh. Mitchazenia was popular? I've never heard of him (her?) before today, and whatever compassion I feel for him or her, I wouldn't confuse that with popularity in any meaningful sense of the word. --Tznkai (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, believe whatever you like, whatever makes you happy. I will continue to believe in what I have good reason to believe is true. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would be before the threats started to arrive. Please go away. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is happening because you did something inappropriate. Instead of complaining about abuse of power, censorship or whatever, just act in a way that it doesn't happen again. Don't insist that you can't possibly be wrong: everyone else must be. It just makes you sound silly.--Patton^t/c 11:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not as silly as you look now though, I hope. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rammy

It must be very twitchy, I don't believe I've ever contributed to Ramsbottom :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right! It was Richerman I accidentally reverted, not you. Oh bugger. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI/Matisse

Not sure if you're aware mate, but once again someone's using your name in vain again at WP:ANI#User:Mattisse --WebHamster 13:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I hadn't seen that. For some strange reason I don't have ANI on my watch list. Mattisse is certainly a strange one, full of grudges and bitterness. Me, I just hate everybody and everything; so much easier than having to keep track of who my friends and enemies are this week. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester

I've had a go at trimming the Sale article; some superfluous info has been removed, although I found one instance in the demography section where some analysis needed to be added. What do you reckon, ready for FAC again or do I need to be more ruthless with the pruning? Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look later. About time this one got through though ... --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Some good work Nev1, but I think it would still get a 1a) hammering at FAC. Maybe the way to approach this now that all the content's there is to take each section in turn and get the prose up to scratch? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the right way to do it. I'll get on with it. Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet

... I offered suggestions for the future and you completely ignored those. As I said, as long as ignoring what's really going on is part of a proposal its chances of success are zero, and part of the reason for that is that it's so easy to focus on the suggestion and ignore the problems. An example being your complete and entire ignoring of any suggestion I make for the future in order to focus on the one proposal made. Anyway, I've said my bit, and I got ignored and told off for it. That's enough for me. --KP Botany (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I really can't be bothered with this kind of nonsense. No offence. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not offended, en.wiki is too overwhelmingly offensive to take any away from it. In fact, I should not have automatically watched your talk page. Just pointing out that, yes, I noticed you completely ignored all suggestions at the level you suggested they should be made and criticized me for not making any as I had. The best response is to simply revert and call me a troll in the edit summary. --KP Botany (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to call yourself a troll then feel free, but don't try to imply that's my view. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(sigh)

You recently wrote:

If being a role model ever became a requirement for administrators I believe that most of the present admin corps would be forced to stand down.

(Sigh). I really wish those administrators who lack the temperment to be a role model would volunteer to stand down. Geo Swan (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair the administrator role is ill-considered, and very few of the current crop (if any) were promoted because of their ability to act as role models. The idea is just another misguided attempt by those who ought to know better to concentrate all moral authority into the hands of a few children with sufficient friends and insufficient enemies to pass an RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to ally myself with the paraphrased theory that anyone who wants to be an administrator is the wrong person for the job. :) --WebHamster 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's been my view right from the start. I never had a problem with Kurt's oppose per self-nom, seemed perfectly reasonable to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that it involves getting judged by...errr....errrr.... Americans! >8-> --WebHamster 23:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm warming to this now. You mean the Americans who think that calling a spade a fucking shovel deserves an indefinite block? I remember a skiing holiday at Lake Tahoe some years ago. We shared a chairlift with an American, who was telling us how far some skiers had travelled to be there; some had even come from Texas! Looking at some of the runs from the lift we expressed a little apprehension about the size of some of the moguls, but the American was non-plussed. "Are you a good skier then?" we asked. "Yeah, I'm very good". In truth he was complete shite, and we passed him lying in a pile of snow on the way down. There's a deep cultural divide. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I stayed at a friends house in California (Santa Rosa) for a full month a couple of years ago and I felt so out of place. In fact I felt less out of place in my preferred South of France. I couldn't believe the constant undercurrent of patriotic brainwashing through all the media and pretty much everywhere else too. I'm afraid I don't trust a country that I have to enter barefoot and then have to put up with the patently false smiles, scripted responses to everything and a level of political correctness one could cut with a knife, not to mention the sneaky way they add the sales tax after you think you've added everything up correctly. On the bright side though, the sex and the pot was great and the supermarkets were to die for! :D --WebHamster 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You were in California. Enough said. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

spam

Resolved.

Do you know where'd I'd highlight this? I've had a look around but I'm utterly baffled. How does one contact someone to determine if someone is doing things wrong? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I hardly ever say this, but it looks to me like something that ought to be taken to WP:ANI. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, Reverted, warned… Malleus, I dare say you know what comes next if he carries on. – iridescent 01:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, you give him/her a slapping? Anyway, thanks for handling this so quickly. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The rabble of children with sufficient friends and insufficient enemies is glad to oblige. (I actually reversed myself and reduced the block to 24 hours – he could conceivably be a good faith user who thinks he's adding a helpful link, not a spammer trying to get adsense points for his blog. AGF and all that.) – iridescent 01:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I should probably pin my paraphrasing of the Jonathan Swift quote "Principally I hate and detest that animal called administrator; although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth" somewhere prominent. I'll have to find somewhere safe though, so the children can't get hurt if they eat the pin. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you get the chance…

…would you be able to have a quick skim over Richmond Bridge and see if there are any more glaring typos I've missed? This was knocked off in a single go, so I'm too familiar with the page at present to necessarily spot errors. (It does include two of the most peculiarly-titled books I've ever used as references, though). Absolutely no rush at all; it's just that there's going to be a whole batch of ones like this rolling out soon, so I want to make sure there's no obvious faults with this as a prototype. – iridescent 22:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look over it. When I lived in Chiswick I used to drive over Richmond Bridge almost every day on my way to work, so I'll be very interested to read about its history. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't get too excited – I picked this one to start with as "low hanging fruit", as it doesn't really have much of a history. And yes, I know the legacy section sucks, but it's a damn bridge – the "legacy" is "got people from one side of the river to the other". You lived in Chiswick? You don't strike me as the Chiswick type, somehow. And one of my first articles was about your disused railway line in that case. – iridescent 23:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Typical Chiswick type or not, I lived happily there for many years, close to Kew Bridge in fact. I've probably been to Kew Gardens more times than you've had hot dinners. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kew Bridge is on the list as well, but I was hoping to put it off – cleaning up the enormous sprawl of unsourced stuff there is going to take ages. I might have to do what I did with Eilley and just pretend the current article doesn't exist and overwrite it from scratch. – iridescent 23:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just one thing, nothing too stressful (I imagine that harvard referencing issue at DKY makes you want to through your computer out the window). The images, the way they are positioned, is that in compliance with MoS (I'm thinking FAC already Iridescent I'm sure you are too :D)? I know that images are not allowed on the left hand side if it's directly below a third level heading. On that article there is text sandwiched between images, images cutting between sections etc. — R² 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent cares nothing for the MoS. What is the MoS to a demi-god? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Nope, despite my oft-expressed opinions of WP:MOSIMAGE, this article actually is MOS compliant; strict left/right alternation, everything (bar the first image) next to its appropriate paragraph, and no left-aligned images immediately below headings of any size. There's only one image that doesn't significantly add to the article, and that's one I inherited from the earlier stub article; I dislike removing other peoples' images altogether if I can avoid it as it generally starts pointless arguments. – iridescent 23:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Princess and Pea

Your comment "I'd even be prepared to get hold of those few references myself and stand in for the banned nominator at GAN" at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#The_Princess_and_the_Pea made me wonder if Manchester has overtaken Oxofrd as the home of lost causes. --Philcha (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm the home of lost causes. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Home or archetype? --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough one. I think on balance I'll go with archetype. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I hear my name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you need help, you can contact me. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a very nice looking article, I just wanted its GAN to be restored. I haven't taken the time yet to look through it in any great detail, but it looks like a pretty good candidate to me at first blush. I haven't yet checked what sources are available to me locally yet either, but thanks for your offer of help, much appreciated; I'm not exactly renowned for my literary sensibilities. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • MF, since when did you become so literal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I just assumed that you were referring to yourself as the princess in the story, so refined that she was troubled by the pea under her mattress. Have I completely missed the point? I often do. As a child I used to devour those old fairy tales, which is why I had my say about this one. Just wait until I get my teeth into Rupert Bear. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Malleus.

Hi mate. I just wanted to say hello and if you would like to talk then we could do it here or in private Email me whatever is better than on iridescent's talk page . best regards to you from (Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

I've already said all that I intend to say, on Iridescent's talk page. Jimbo's talk page does not require special consideration from arse-lickers anonymous. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Malleus

Best you check this one out! Fainites ^barleyscribs 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor article, mine's much better. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean its a non-er and yours is at least a six-er. Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Suggested as an admin candidate

I'm more than willing to trudge through the hellhole that is RfA again if I believe I have reasonable chance of passing ;) I've been there twice before after all, the only difference is this time I've had more time for people to conjure up evidence against me (and perhaps for me). That's why I'll wait for the review first, and see what turns up. —Cyclonenim | Chat  23:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never bothered to look at the data, but I'd hazard a guess that the longer you've been around the less likely it is that your RfA will be successful. Don't let me put you off the idea though, I just wanted to remind you of what a hell-hole it can be. If you're relaxed about that, then fine. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on just how active you are in areas that often spark controversy. I'm not, but I know that users such as yourself and Ottava have built up some enemies over your time here, as well as good friends, because of where you contribute and your opinions. I don't think my scenario is quite as controversial as yours, but I'm certain that the longer I'm here, as you've said, the more opposers I'm likely to acquire. Still, I'm not afraid to run again, and if it fails then I guess I'll drop the idea, as 3 failed RfAs is usually a strong incentive to stop asking for the bit. I still feel you should run, you'd get a lot more support than you might think, but it depends on whether you're ready to go through that hell-hole too. —Cyclonenim | Chat  23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I will never run again, and nor will I ever submit to any other wikipedia voting process. Good luck with your RfA though, if you decide to go through with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sad to hear that, but thanks anyway. See you around the RfA arena, no doubt. —Cyclonenim | Chat  00:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sad for me. If others have nothing to offer that you want or need then they have no power over you. I don't want or need to be an administrator, so I'm not constrained in the way that you will be until you make the same decision I did. Or pass an RfA of course, whichever comes first in your case. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am swiftly coming across to your way of thinking, RfA is stunningly (and probably unrewardingly) stressful. —Cyclonenim | Chat  17:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look all that promising, does it. You're probably not doing yourself any favours by responding to so many of the opposers; best just to let them get whatever their beef is off their chests without comment. Hard to do I know, but at RfA you can't do right for doing wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the tide is likely to turn, so if this RfA is causing you any stress then it's time to walk away from it. You've now got 12 opposers. I walked away from my first RfA, even though it may possibly have turned around, because I didn't want to just slide under the bar if there was significant opposition—I mean numerically, not percentage-wise. Don't be seduced by the dark side, be your own man. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of the opposition in that RfA is inexcusable in my opinion. — R² 01:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just the way it is. No point in complaining about it, nobody cares. Anyone who goes into the RfA bearpit ought to know what to expect, and if they don't they shouldn't be there. It's obviously a crap system, but the cold dead hand of consensus will never release its grip on the status quo. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, didn't want to oppose, but being on the receiving end of an admin who didn't have a clue about the law, WMF policy, and the rest, it is just something that I couldn't deal with. I had to oppose because not everyone would be able to deal with it as I was able to deal with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Most admins ought to be ditched; the RfA system appears to have been designed to encourage the dishonest, which is why I favour the honest candidates like Cyclonenim. He's for sure made lots of mistakes, upset a few people, but so what. The only problem is that there is no effective desysopping procedure. Those who are concerned about how a candidate might behave once granted the bit might be reassured if whenever their prognostications became true it was easily removed. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Humans cause war, strife, and ill throughout the world and always will. The most we can do is rebel against it with every fiber of our being until we die, even if it amounts to nothing. Then maybe, just maybe, our lives would have actually meant something. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're preaching to the converted here. As Edmund Burke said, "All that's needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." --Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Burke never considered that those who are far from good would like to see the innocent protected from other people like me. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to check back, my apologies, I was too busy getting slaughtered at RfA. Very few opposes in that RfA made much sense to me, the exceptions being Jc37's (which made me withdraw) and yours, Ottava. Oh well, another time maybe, I'm just gonna focus on getting things done. The tools aren't at all vital, just a nice addition, but if I don't have them then so be it, everyone else copes without being able to press 'block' just fine. —Cyclonenim | Chat  16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent (reply to Cyclonenim) - If you want, you can check this page which discusses you. Don't stress too much - they like to chat about everyone who seems prominent (so take the attention as a compliment). However, they point out what a lot of others do, which is your emphasis on vandal fighting over content. If you are serious about being an admin, I would team up with someone like Malleus and see where you can contribute on a few pages. Watch how he deals with reliable sourcing, neutrality, and the rest. Such info would be important in differentiating between vandalism and content disputes. After a few months experience with that area, many of the opposes will switch to support or neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've heard of the review before, but Christ they take things out of context and twist things like never before. I'm now a power hungry individual for wanting concentrate on increasing policy knowledge at XfD and CSD? That's hilarious. I don't see any reference to vandal fighting over content, though, probably because it's definitely not my emphasis/focus. I'm an article editor, I've helped on some GAs, one FA and some DYKs, so I don't see the problem. I know how to reliably source, be neutral etc. and they're just the fundamental policies. I would like to work with Malleus, though, he's a good editor around here. Always helps. —Cyclonenim | Chat  17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it was your "jumping through hoops" comment that niggled. In truth I think that every successful candidate does the same, and some like Tanthalas39 openly admit to having gamed the system. Personally I think that anyone who hasn't upset any other editors in the few months before their RfA is either extraordinary lucky, a mouse, or deliberately holding back until they've safely got the bit. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, in hindsight it wasn't the best statement to use, but it's essentially true that every long-standing candidate does have to jump through certain hoops to get the tools. Fully agree with your last sentence, too. I got opposed by PastorTheo for supposedly "gaming the system" just for asking previous opposers for their current opinion on my status as a potential candidate. I sense bad times ahead for my next RfA, whenever that will be, or maybe there won't be a next one. It's tough to say, I feel adamant now that I'll run again, but another part of me says "what's the point of being scrutinised so thoroughly again?". —Cyclonenim | Chat  18:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the RFA system, I have to wonder why anyone would want to be an admin. Better to write good articles in the knowledge that people will learn from them, than join up to an exclusive band of...what? I have no real idea what they do beyond slapping anonymous IP vandals. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. There's very little I want to do that I can't do perfectly well without the admin tools. It's occasionally irritating not to be able to complete a move, edit a protected page, or delete a page, and have to ask one of the big boys to do it, but it's not often I want to do any of those things anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see myself say this, or block an editor, as I wanted to do earlier this afternoon. But it's still a rare occurrence. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NCCORP

You really do learn something every day. Is there anything not covered by the MOS? I have a feeling that if one printed out every MOS subpage, it would be longer than the Times Style Guide (sorry, The Times Style Guide per MOS). – iridescent 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That repeated "Ltd" had been troubling me for some time. I knew I'd seen something somewhere about it, but it took a while to find it. The biggest problem I have with the MoS is in navigating it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I found one item in the last 3 months that MOS doesn't cover, but ate my notes to keep the MOS polizei from getting them. --Philcha (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

SR Leader Class

I've taken your suggestions on board, and I hope the leader section reads better. However, as I am the lead editor of this article, it is impossible for me to see every 'sticky' sentence amongst the paragraphs as I am currently too familiar with the text ("can't see the wood through the trees" springs to mind). So you'll probably have to literally highlight where the article can be improved. Thanks. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix those bits where I'm clear about the meaning, and highlight any others I'm uncertain about. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just had a flick through your edits, and it looks good. Whilst writing the article is my 'thing', the editing at the end is in a different ball-park altogether, which is why its always good to have several people looking over it and papering over the cracks. Thanks for your hard work thus far! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm about finished now. It's hard to look objectively at your own prose, because you know what you meant it to say when you wrote it, and it self-evidently says what you meant to it to say. Anyway, I hope I haven't destroyed the meaning to any significant degree with my various choppings and hackings. If I have, well you know what to do—revert! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no complaints myself. In some cases, the use of words that didn't spring up in my mind has made the meanings clearer. I'll be away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, but I'll give it a read over again on Friday just to make sure. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks excellent! Thanks to the hard work you've put in, the article is much tighter. However, the issue regarding class name is difficult, as Pacific is a wheel arrangement, not a class (I know I did it on the Merchant Navy class article), so I assume you mean italicise to Leader class? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Where shall I send the bill? ;-) I recall we had a similar discussion to this before, perhaps at BR Standard Class 6's GA review, where I thought the consensus had been reached for Leader class. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, why not send it to Alistair Darling, No. 11 Downing Street. I'm sure he'll be thrilled to put it in the Budget next week, or get some civil servant to put it on expenses. Anyway, I'll have a think on that. I seem to recall that someone told me to change Leader from italics to normal script, but it was a few weeks ago, and so lost amongst the edit counts for the time being. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Leader article is now FA, so I once again wish to express my thanks on behalf of all the editors for the work you did on polishing up the prose. I remember now which article we had the discussion on, and it was Bulleid's other locomotive, the Merchant Navy Class. My opinion on that matter is that Pacific should remain as it is, 'Merchant Navy Class' should be like this everywhere apart from the title, and only the name of the locomotive (ie. Elders Fyffes) should be italicised. This method is used in most railway-related texts used, and so I have tried to transfer this over to Wikipedia. Anyway, as its generally a matter of personal taste, I'll leave it with you should you wish to implement any changes. Once again, thank-you! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

See WP:CIVIL. Blacklans (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't waste your time waving WP:CIVIL around here. It's not welcome. Besides, I'm not the one accusing other editors of being sockpuppets. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you're just sarcastically accusing me of (probably) being stupid. BTW, I'm not making any accusations, I'm just drawing attention to some similarities of editing. Blacklans (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"BTW, I'm not making any accusations"? "I was just wondering whether one of more of you might be the same person". Just saying. – iridescent 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As someone who routinely disagrees with Malleus, I have to say the comment in question was extremely mild, especially given some of the comments you were making, Blacklans. I had a read through of the discussion of Jza's talk, and considering Nev1, Parrot of Doom and Jza are all experienced editors in that particular field, I think you should not resort to vague accusations of sockpuppetry - especially when they are as far-fetched as the ones you made - and either accept that you might be wrong, or else engage in civil dialogue to come to a decision like a reasonable adult. Majorly talk 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From years of experience, I've noticed that the first thing someone does when caught in a crime is to throw allegations of people acting unfairly against them, or, in this case, "being uncivil". :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else want to remark that BlackIan's contributions look 100% like a single purpose account normally used to push a POV by a sock master? I'm just saying. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A massive 76 edits spread out over 5 months does indeed suggest such a thing. But then of course I ought to practice what I preach... Majorly talk 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean 10 months, right? :) A .26 edit rate. Also seems like he fought with Jza84 back on 25 February. Interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he agrees with DWaterson. How odd. They happened to share an edit outside of the area. Hmm. If we are just accusing people of editing suspiciously... well... pot, kettle? Or we could take another spin and see that he shares quite a bit with Lozleader. But yeah, this is just applying the same standards. Fun, isn't it? Now, can we end all of this nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Many many apologies for such a low edit rate. You are very clever. Congratulations. I wonder, have you considered putting your immense talents to work at the Simple English Wiki? Blacklans (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've provided sources and am now waiting for his reply. Nev1 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources are irrelevant. You simply haven't grasped what I'm getting at, even though I've spelled it out elsewhere. Yes, I know about the local government status of these cities, and I agree with you to a certain extent, but there is no reason why we shouldn't refer to these cities as "cities". Try driving into Durham. You are greeted by "Welcome to the City of Durham". Now we can probably accommodate your local-government-centric view, and my pragmatic view, by an agreed set of words. It worked at Durham so we should use that model elsewhere. What do you think? Blacklans (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Durham is a poor example as the boundaries of the former municipal borough are coterminous with those of the modern unitary authority, therefore can be covered in one article. I'm afraid choosing to ignore sources contravenes wikipedia's policy on verification. Nev1 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick note on RfA

I recently added a discussion re: Goodmorningworld's neutral !vote. I encourage you if you have time to read that discussion, and Goodmorningworld's own additions to his commentary. Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I opposed because of your part in this discussion, where you were supporting what was IMO a poor decision by the blocking administrator and where you appeared to be threatening those who expressed that view. Goodmorningworld's comments had nothing to do with my decision, I simply don't weant to see yet another block-happy administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

From the contents of my spam filter that I reviewed today I can almost guarantee that block happy becomes block miserable fairly quickly in admin land. The death threat against me, when I didn't actually even perform the block, was just great. Made my weekend I can tell you. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This one made me feel all warm inside. It's nice to know you mean so much to someone that they'll spend the next year posting semi-coherent Holden Caulfield-esque ramblings about you to any website that will tolerate them. (He seems to have given up on stalking Majorly – I suppose I should be pleased that I still warrant this.) – iridescent 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I do find it funny that anyone would consider me block-happy, when I'm the one working my butt off in WQA to prevent issues from going to ANI, and how clearly I stand up for the concept of "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to be an administrator to continue doing that. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mummy and embalming

Sheesh, the stuff you come up with? At WP:FA, History or Health and medicine? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Embalming has a long tradition within Medicine. Mummification is seen as a religious ritual or a biological process that happens through natural process. Either way, it deals with the preservation of tissue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. Add Religion and Engineering and technology. The hardest part of this job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bah! I was suggesting Health and medicine. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say History. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say history too as it's more significant as an element of history rather than a feat of medicine (just an opinion though). For example, I'd expect Tutankhamun to be under history rather than health & medicine because. Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But those are -mummies- and not the idea of mummy. What is the specific page? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Mummy. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That page focuses more on the history and context aspects than the actual process. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, I wrote it. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Noooo really? :P I figured that you work on some famous Yorkies instead. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to make it easier for you next time Sandy. I have a couple of psychology articles in mind ... but Gong farmer is just crying out for some TLC. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer the farmer to a psych article :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if it's obscure terms you want, you should look at Costermonger, Badger (person), or my personal favourite - Gropecunt Lane :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Those all deserve attention. It's not obscure terms I'm interested in per se though, it's those little-travelled byways so easily overlooked or forgotten unless we do them justice here. John Rylands, for instance, one of the most important 19th-century industrialists, philanthropists, and Manchester's first multi-millionaire. And then there's William Harrison Ainsworth, a historical novelist in his day considered the equal of Dickens; our articles hardly do either of them credit. Then there's the Manchester computers series to finish, and ... --Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It must be a slow news day on Wiki ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes those are the best kind of days. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it past your bedtime? History it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ten minutes before midnight in my time zone, and I think I can hear my fairy godmother shouting something about pumpkins ... --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Malleus, many congrats on Mummy! If you ever need it, I have official permission for the mummy cemetery pic now, but still no word from the local studies bods...Good job the pic was ancient and you didn't really need 'em!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. To be truthful I was never very confident about getting Hannah through FAC. Her story is so confused, with so many gaps. Anyway, I'd like the cemetery pic to be added now that you've got permission. Are you planning to post it to Commons with the OTRS stuff? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm - have to admit, I'm no good with Commons stuff. Well, I've never even tried it actually. I've emailed the permission details to OTRS though, but i believe there is a bit of a backlog there. Once it is rubber stamped, I'll have a go...-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again - I just emailed you re Mummy pic.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 00:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check my email tomorrow (later today). A couple of glasses of Merlot have left me feeling ... rather .... sleepy. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane

Certainly I can have a play around with it. There are a few online references, Shiteburn Lane is another one (cess pits) :) I'll add the locations of places to my calendar, and if work takes me close I'll get some pictures. There is a Grape Lane in Manchester, just behind Granada. I wonder.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll see what I can dig up as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering what User:ClueBot is thinking about these edits Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It can surely only be a matter of time before you trip one of the new abuse filters. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just bought this (can't find the book in the library) so will have the facts whipped into shape in the next few days. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I now have this book, its a fairly weighty tome so it may take me a bit to get through it :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, there should be some useful stuff in that. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok have a look at it now. I've done some fairly major editing on it. I'm not yet convinced that everything is in the correct order, and I think it could do with a couple of paragraphs being joined together. I think its much better though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Starting to look good. Like you, I'm not sure the present organisation works; we need to think about that. Wouldn't it be great though if we could get this through GA? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I review it? :-)

BTW Chaucer's Miller's Tale uses "cunt", spelt "queinte" in the edition I've seen (the Penguin "translation" bowdlerises it to "quim"). --Philcha (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't expect a better reviewer, so if PoD and I manage to get it in shape I'll expect to see you there. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it shouldn't go straight to FAC but I wouldn't want to deny anyone who wanted to the 'pleasure' (see what I did there) of reviewing it. Nev1 has pointed out that it could use a little bit about the demise of organised prostitution in towns and cities to also suggest an alternative reason as to why the name died out. I'll be busy with work today so wouldn't be able to consider this until late tonight.

You removed my favourite word, extant! Oh well, at least Bowdlerised is still there ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably close to the end of what I can do for this now. If I can find an online source of medieval street maps it would be a trifling matter for me to draw a vectorised version complete with gropecunt locations (from the Holt-Baker book). Nev1 has made the point that the demise of the name may need to be linked to the history of prostitution, so I've added a minor bit about that, but am wary of straying too far from the topic.

So, if you could give it another look with regard to the changes I've made, I think it'd then be ready for FAC, if not GAN. Even if it failed the former the review process would no doubt provide some good criticism, and more direction. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You've done a great job. I'll give it a final look through tomorrow, and probably expand the lead if you haven't done that by the time I get there. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominated it at FAC. I wonder, how does one go about doing the phonetic text at the start of an article? Considering the vulgarity of the word it may be worth explaining to people how it is pronounced? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's wish it luck. I've tried doing the IPA stuff myself in the past, and then just waiting for someone who really knows what they're doing to come along and correct it if I've got it wrong. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The big problem with IPA is it depends on accent - grawpecant in Cockney, groopcoont in Brummie, etc. --Philcha (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

All you can do is to go for received pronunciation, like what I talk. I'd say the IPA would be something like /ˈgroʊpkʌnt/ --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a change to the article which you may want to look at - the Grope Lane wasn't renamed around the turn of the 19th century, but at that time confusion arose as to the meaning of the word, which had been changed long before then. I'm not sure about the use of the emdash and you'll probably want to improve my ham-fisted grammar :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, looks like a nice addition. You've surpassed yourself with this article Parrot, and it's so well written too. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a pleasure correcting all those grammatical mistakes you made :D Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Teamwork, that's what it's all about. I'm dying to see what the FAC regulars make of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked the guys over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Phonetics to help with the IPA thing. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

They're probably all Americans though. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well they have The Sopranos over there, and Tony says it a lot :D Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it worth mentioning that the Old English for 'Grope' is 'Grap' (according to the OED), and hence 'Grapcunt' and presumably 'Grape'? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I do, yes. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I'll look at that. I made a change to the article about 1230 - I don't think its quite right but I'm uncertain how to use circa. Also, the article currently states that the first medical use of cunt is about 1230, but the OED source says 1230 is the first instance of Gropecunt. 1400 appears to be the first medical use. Here is the entry:

c1230 in Ekwall Street-Names of City of London (1954) 165 Gropecuntelane.] a1325 Prov. Hendyng (Camb. Gg. I. 1) st. 42 Yeue {th}i cunte to cunnig and craue affetir wedding. c1400 Lanfranc's Cirurg. 172/12 In wymmen {th}e necke of {th}e bladdre is schort, & is maad fast to the cunte. c1425 Castle of Perseverance (1904) 1193 Mankynde, my leue lemman, I my cunte {th}ou schalt crepe. 1552 LYNDESAY Satyre Procl. 144 First lat me lok thy cunt, Syne lat me keip the key. a1585 POLWART Flyting with Montgomerie (1910) 817 Kis {th}e cunt of ane kow. c1650 in Hales & Furnivall Percy's Folio MS. (1867) 99 Vp start the Crabfish, & catcht her by the Cunt. 1743 WALPOLE Little Peggy in Corr. (1961) XXX. 309 Distended cunts with alum shall be braced. c1800 BURNS Merry Muses (1911) 66 For ilka hair upon her c{em}t, Was worth a royal ransom. c1888-94 My Secret Life VII. 161, I sicken with desire, pine for unseen, unknown cunts. 1934 H. MILLER Tropic of Cancer (1935) 15 O Tania, where now is that warm cunt of yours? 1956 S. BECKETT Malone Dies 24 His young wife had abandoned all hope of bringing him to heel, by means of her cunt, that trump card of young wives.Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you click on the Etymology tab the OED clearly gives c 1230 as the first recorded use of the word "cunt", in "Gropecuntelane" as you say, so I think we're OK with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes I clicked the date chart which made sense of it all. One thing that this article has taught me is the source of the word 'quaint'. I'll have some fun explaining that one to my mates in the pub :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how words have changed their meaning over the years. Look at awful, for instance. From "awe-inspiring" to "dreadful" in 600 years. More seriously though I'd say that I've certainly had my money's worth from my Manchester Libraries membership. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes I must thank you for that tip - I was pretty annoyed when the Times free trial expired, but the list of links that library membership offers has been very useful - I was able to fill an entire section on the battle of clifton junction at the East Lancs railway article with that :) I do wish though that their search engine could distinguish between short and long s's :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I need to ask your advice again :p On a motoring forum I frequent a user has a couple of books about street names of London (""The Streets of London" by S Fairfield, published by Macmillan in 1983 ISBN 0 333 28649 9" and The London Encyclopedia Edited by B Weinreb and C Hibbert - Published 1983 - ISBN not known.") - he has given me the pages and entries for Addle St, Fetter Lane, and Sherborne Lane. Now what he has written is here:

• From "The Streets of London" by S Fairfield, published by Macmillan in 1983 ISBN 0 333 28649 9
• Addle Street - PG 2 - "Derived from an OE word meaning filth : a filthy or dung strewn street"
• Fetter Lane - PG 118 - "Corruption of mediaeval Fewter Lane, meaning idlers' lane."
• Sherborne Lane - PGS 293/294 - "This appears in the 16th century as Shireborne Lane; in the 13th it is called shitteborwelane, a facaetious name for a public privvy."

• From The London Encyclopedia Edited by B Weinreb and C Hibbert - Published 1983 - ISBN not known.
• Addle Hill - PG 6 - "Addle may derive from the Saxon word <adel> meaning noble." Lots more detail on surroundings and references.
• Fetter Lane - PGS 275/276 - "The name, originally Faytor or Faiter Lane and afterwards Fewterers Lane, may be derived from the old French <Faitor>, a lawyer, whose reputation in the Middle Ages was so low that by the 14th century the word had come to mean idler. It was used by Chaucer to describe the impostors and beggars who frequented the lane. It has also been suggested that the name may come from the fetters or lane vests worn on cuirasses, since the armourers who worked for the Knights Templar had their workshops here. Stow referred to the lane as Fraitor Street, and it has also been conjectured that the designation may be a false derivation from Frater which might be "and appropriate title for a street so close to the purleius of the learned bretheren of the Law."
• Sherborne Lane - PG 783 - "[John] Stow thought it was named after the River Langbourn which, he said, broke up into small shews or streams here. A more recent theory is that it was named after a shittah tree which stood here : earlier versions of the name are shitteborwelane (1272-3) and shiteburn Lane (1303)

I wondered two things - one, if the fact that I haven't seen the information directly would be a problem for an FA, and two, how best to incorporate it without detracting from the article too much. I wondered if short notes within the references section would suffice? I've asked him what the same books say about Gropecunt. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to jump in - I have the third edition of the London Encyclopædia and would be happy to look anything up in it for you if you would like. DuncanHill (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's excellent Duncan, that'll solve the problem. Parrot, so far as incorporating this additional information I think using notes would be the way to go.--Malleus Fatuorum 12:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This might be another one of interest :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another potentially interesting subject ... --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor squabble at Bruce Castle – third opinion?

As you're the one of the other two editors most familiar with the page – and much as I respect Giano, I'm not sure he's the best person to ask when it comes to calming down a situation – can you have a look at this discussion and let me know if you think I'm being over-the-top in reverting here? (If you do, then consider this carte blanche to revert me without my considering it editwarring.) – iridescent 16:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, the irony of my lecturing someone for violating WP:MOSIMAGE does not escape me. – iridescent 16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're being over the top, but if I did I wouldn't be afraid to tell you so and would quite likely already have told you so. I've been alarmed by some of the changes made to Bruce Castle today, and I think that Amandajam needs to be reined in. It's not the first time I've come across similar behaviour, Chester Cathedral sticks in my mind. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the reversion is excessive either. The content of the article was substantially changed without any sources being provided to support them. Bruce Castle is no more a castle than Ordsall Hall is, and that even definitely had a moat. There was only loose conjecture based on the name and some pictures (which could be wrong), all original research. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:GM

Nice to see you back... really! Majorly talk 14:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I was leaving, but, well, it just never happened. Thanks in no small part to the SSEM's ongoing FAC. Thanks also to Nev1 for persuading me not to withdraw its nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Posting here to avoid starting a fresh thread, but you (plural) might want to have a look at my comments here and give second opinions; this is a good article (small g) and it would be a shame to see it fail at GA through easily-fixed problems, but I'm not familiar enough with the area to clean up the Manchester-specific material. (As I mention there, I long ago stopped reviewing GAs; I realised that my own opinions were way too far out of line with the MOS.) – iridescent 23:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Parrot of Doom's probably starting to get fed up with me messing with his articles. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I think your doing a great job of learning me to write better. ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The inflation template doesn't accommodate shillings and pence, so for £553 18s 8d and £498 10s 4d do we leave them as they, round the figures then put them in the template, or decimalise them and then put them into the template? Arguably a few shillings won't make a big difference. Nev1 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure what I've done before is to decimalise the figures in the template, but leave them as lsd in the text. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't lose sleep either way – {{inflation}} isn't particularly accurate (the values are only updated once a year) so for figures this large the shillings won't make a difference. I generally throw a r=-3 (or whatever) into the parameters to prevent the results from being too precise and giving a false appearance of accuracy. – iridescent 23:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, when I was playing around with rounding the output number, I realised how pointless a few shillings would be. I decimalised it anyway as it wasn't much effort. Nev1 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you reckon of Partington now? I wouldn't normally ask as I should know what makes a GA by now, but there's not a whole lot to say about the place. It's a fairly generic and brief article. It has a disappointingly quiet history and the only thing especially interesting bit is that it's one of the most deprived areas of Greater Manchester. Even the picture in the infobox is the best that flickr and geograph could turn up! Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You mention a bunch of churches in the lead, but don't discuss them in the article. As every church, leisure centre, school etc has a history of some kind and is notable within the community (even if it wouldn't warrant its own article) they're a good way to expand articles on dull areas. (Railway stations are always a good bet too, as they always have some kind of impact on the community and its demographics.) – iridescent 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That picture is rubbish. If the sun is out tomorrow let me take care of that for you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Malleus, get busy. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If Parrot of Doom takes care of the pictures then I'll take care of the prose. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the help everyone, it's much appreciated. Despite a short history section (there's not much to put in it anyway), the article now feels more like a GA and I've nominated it at GAN. There are 13 articles under the "places" section, so there's time to make tweaks if anything crops up. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What's in a novel article?

In my opinion, the ideal novel article will cover several topics: a concise plot summary, the historical backdrop against which the novel was written, the relevant biographical material about the author, the history of the novel's composition and publication, a discussion of the novel's genres, styles, and themes, a survey of the novel's reception over time (including any awards it might have won), and a brief mention of any adaptations made of it (plays, films, audio books, etc.). However, the way that this material is covered (or if it is covered at all) varies for each novel. Here are some articles that do a good job of covering these areas in relation to the works they are discussing:

• El Señor Presidente
• La Peau de chagrin
• Mary: A Fiction
• To Kill a Mockingbird

If you would like me to expand on this description at all, please let me know. Awadewit (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's just what I was looking for. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Present

In a few days, I will be giving you a present in the form of a lot of notes dumped onto a subpage that will help create quite a few pages. I expect you to be surprised, thankful, and thinking that I am the best person ever for this gift. Squealing and hands to your cheeks out of shock would be nice also. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ainsworth? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. Ainsworth's Magazine stuff for now, but it will involve Billy and other contributors (Thackeray, Shirly Brooks, Leigh Hunt, etc). His epic literary magazine that proved just how well connected he was and how Manchester became a center of British Literature while he was champion of the novel. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Part 1 of my note dump. Focusing on the Magazine, I will be able to put together 11+ pages related to the content. I will start putting up more notes there and start filling in some pages. Then I will force you to help with that after I get the outlines put together, anglicise things, etc. I think that once I finish my notes, we should be able to get everything finished in a day or two for just the initial early Ainsworth related content. Then I will focus more on his biography, get some stuff up for his juvenalia and we can start there (another 10 pages or so). After that, his later stuff and his other novels (probably 30+ pages). However, the first two groups (magazine and early life) are probably the most important for now. It should be enough for the moment to restore Manchester back as being known as a major literary center during the 19th century. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have about 200 more pages of this book, two other full books, and about 12 other books with smaller bits of information, plus articles and the rest to go through. Are you excited? Just think, over 100+ more pages for WikiProject Manchester when all is said and done (about 50 on Ainsworth primarily). :D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no longer a member of WikiProject Manchester, but Ainsworth is interesting in his own right. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, regardless - it is all about Manchester. The snobs at Oxford and Cambridge refuse to make mention of Ainsworth or his literary achievement. I think that, once we finish, there will be so much information that is available to everyone that it would be impossible for anyone to deny that Manchester was the center of literature for 30 years. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just finished all of the Ellis notes for the Ainsworth's Magazine time, all 13 years of it. I will start organizing and throw in the other notes once I put forth a structure. Then we can talk about fleshing it out. Right now, the Ellis notes gives about 73k for roughly 20 or so pages. The other books will double that amount, so, pages averaging around 15k each. Adding images and the rest, the average page will be about 20k, which is a pleasant size to get to GA level. Some of the works were published in other areas, so they wouldn't be put forth in a DYK hook all together. I was thinking a DYK hook saying something like - ... that the Ainsworth's Magazine included stories on ___, ____, ___," etc, and focusing on interesting adjectives. Emphasizing a feature of the work (rape, murder, naughty monarchs, witches, etc). One of the magazine's articles was about a flying around the Dover Cliffs. Anyway, that will be fun stuff to talk about after it is progressed further. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• I decided to work backwards starting with - User:Ottava Rima/Cruikshank authorship dispute‎. This page would be linked with the books he claimed to deserve credit for. After those books are covered in a DYK hook, then I will start putting together the various entries in Ainsworth's Magazine (non Ainsworth authored) before finishing his early life page for a DYK hook including his various juvenalia (some short stories, some novels). That should cover roughly 14 of his novels, one of his magazines, his early life, and an exciting later dispute. Then I will have to cover his other magazines and some of his miscellaneous work and his biography can then be put together completely (his biography should probably be put together some for the Ainsworth Magazine DYK). I will put together some structures later from the notes, then we can talk about putting things together in sets. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

East_Lancashire_Railway_1844–1859#Clifton_Junction

I wondered if you could cast your gaze over at this, and see if it makes any sense. I'm having a little bit of trouble with the Hacking letter and wondered what you thought? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if some way could be found to reduce the number of "ELR"s and "L&YR"s, but I've got a couple of initial questions:

• "Hackings account of the day's proceedings ..." What day? This hasn't been explained, has it?

• "He blamed the Managing Director of the L&YR, Aaptain Law ...". Is Aaptain correct? Never come across that name before.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Malleus, I've fixed those now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A request

Could you do me a favor, could you take a look at First Command. There is a person who has been editing that page removing my work where I've put in information related to an SEC investigation. The person is, I believe, and employee at First Command who contacted me a few months ago about my edits. I basically laid the law down the other day and told him that he can't delete sections, especially when they are cited, and criticized what he wanted to have, as it was nothing but bullet points/propaganda. I've sicne worked to merge his pro-first command article with stuff that includes the SEC investigation. He now wants it checked for bias. I know that you would have no problem laying the law with me or the other party, so I was hoping you could take a look at it, and let us know what you think.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I have to pop out now though, probably won't be back for a few hours, so I'll take a look later. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, normally, I wouldn't go solicit, but I know that you will be objective about the matter, so have no problem doing so with ya.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You know me too well. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on that specific SEC investigation section tagged on the article's talk page. Generally though I think it's going to be a struggle to get the article's GA status back as, to be brutal, it looks like a puff piece to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD Re-opened

As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Hi there. I am hoping to draw on your experience and views re GAs: if you have a moment, can you glance at a question I have raised at the above talk page, relating to a review I am commencing of California Proposition 8 (2008)? I will also ask a couple of other experienced editors whom I know to take a look at the same thing. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)