User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2011/August

PNG vs. SVG, yet again

Malleus, would you take another look at User:Mike_Christie/Sandbox4 for me? You recommended I switch to svgs for the issue grids; I did that for Super Science Stories, and I deleted all the pngs. However, when I looked at the article today I convinced myself the svgs were worse than the pngs, and I asked an admin to undelete one of the pngs so I could compare. I put both the png and svg versions at the end of the sandbox, and I specified the png pixel width to exactly match the image size. To my eye this is noticeably crisper than the svg version. I did manage to fix the font issue, so it's not that; I assume there's something slightly imperfect in svg rendering of boundaries.

I don't think I'll be back at FAC with another of these till some time in September at the earliest, but I'd like to have some confidence I have the best option when I do go back. What do you think of the two renderings? (And if there are any TPSs who want to express an opinion, please do.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can be looking at the same thing, because the SVG version looks far crisper to me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I zoomed in as far as I could with Ctrl-+ in Chrome, and took screenshots of the png and svg at that zoom level. Here's what that looks like on my screen: File:Zoomed issue grid png svg.png. The png is on the left and as you can see it's much clearer. I'll post a query at one of the graphics guru pages and see if someone can explain this; I'm baffled. I thought the whole point of svg was to re-render at different scales. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The graphic isn't redrawn by the SVG renderer when you use that zoom in function. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, but the difference in clarity seems the same to me at all zooms, so I doubt if that's the full explanation. I've posted a query at the Graphics Lab; perhaps someone there can explain. If I get time this evening I'll do the reverse -- screenshots at normal zoom, then zoom in on those in a graphics tool to see what the fuzziness looks like in that case. That should eliminate the lack of re-rendering when zooming as an explanation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hey Malleus. Sorry to be bothering you, but would you mind suggesting a copyeditor for 2005 Qeshm earthquake? I think I've become blind to solutions to the rather blatant issues with the prose of the geology section -- it's probably "strategic distance" I need as Tony puts it. Any ideas for a potential copyeditor? ceranthor 20:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it just the Geology section you're concerned about? I can see issues throughout the article, particularly in terms of flow, if you're aiming for another shot at FAC. I never suggest copyeditors, as (almost) all the good writers I know are busy with their own stuff. A few things jumped out at me on a very quick skim through:

• You have inconsistent hyphenation in "north-south-trending convergence" but "northwest-southeast trending faults".
• In the Geology section you say that the earthquake happened at 1:53, but a few sentences further on in the Damages and casualties section you say 1:52.
• " The director of Tehran's seismological building dismissed tsunami fears, saying that the Persian Gulf was not 'deep enough' for such an incident." It seems really strange to quote "deep enough", makes it seem almost like a scare quote.
• "Thirteen villages were destroyed including Tonban, Ramekan, Gavarzin, Khaledin, Direstan, Kushe, Karavan, Turyan, Tom senati, Gorbehdan, Ziranag, Giahdan,[5] and Gourian ..." You say "including", but then go on to list all 13.
• An Iranian police official, citing concerns about possible looting, said all movement of damaged houses would require prior approval from the governor's office ...". How do you move a damaged house, and what has that got to do with looting anyway?

I'd seriously consider asking for another peer review before thinking about FAC again. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll consider that, thanks. ceranthor 23:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if and when you do and I'll try and help out. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I find I'm better when editing at fine tuning, rather than heavy lifting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus. I think I'll let this article simmer for a few months until I'm ready to rewrite from top to bottom again. I tend to be too careless when writing articles; it's a problem I really should tend to. ceranthor 02:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I often put articles on the back burner for a while, to give me some distance. It took ages to get this to GA for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not super passionate about this particular earthquake, either, which doesn't really help. ceranthor 05:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask; is this any closer? ceranthor 15:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for the help with Gerard... real life has unexpectedly kinda bit me hard. (I almost gave you the civility barnstar just for giggles, but decided you'd (rightly) see it as a jab and might get offended. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I realise you're pretty busy (and hot). Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. What's a civility barnstar? I don't think I've ever seen one of those. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your outstanding contributions in pushing the envelope of civil discourse to embrace and extend new and hitherto deprecated approaches to communication. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd show you what it looks like. I think I have seen it before, but I can't remember where. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I think. I doubt I'll see another one of those, as it was made very plain to me yesterday that the only thing that really matters here is the happiness of the editors, not the quality of the product, which is clearly where I've been going wrong: "I believe that your departure from GAN would result in ... happier contributors".[1] Time will tell I suppose, let's see. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't attach so much weight to a single comment by an individual editor, nor would I misrepresent it. Geometry guy 22:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

But as I've said before, we're different people, and deal with things in different ways. If you take the trouble to look you'll see that this individual editor claims to be, with you, the powerhouse behind the GA project. Fair enough, let the pair of you get on with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I already took the trouble: the claim concerns only the essay WP:GACN, where WhatamIdoing and I both contributed most of the material. I think it is a good essay (obviously!), but I do not claim any ownership of it. If you or others can make it better, please do. Geometry guy 22:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. That wasn't clear to me, but then I'm only a D-class reviewer who GAN would be better without. That may be true, but I'm definitely not someone you want to be pissing into your tent. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Piss artists are welcome in my tent, especially if I get the proceeds from the auction :) Geometry guy 23:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see whether Whatamidoing's prediction about increased happiness among GA nominators after my retirement from the field turns out to be true or not. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I improved the barnstar. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your vomiting lady seemed quite appropriate; I rarely drink coffee anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll need to give Malleus a barnstar of your own, if you want to provide an illustration of someone having a negative reaction to imbibing tea. I don't like my signature being alongside an image of such a waste of good beverage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that's tea? Seems rather uncouth to be drinking tea from such a large container. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to comment at WT:CITE. I hope that the dispute will be resolved one way or the other before much longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There ought not to be a dispute, the rules are pretty clear. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured writer

I noticed what you said on Tony's talk page. We need to find someone that is important like a Featured Content delegate or something. GamerPro64 02:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we? I thought I was taking the piss. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. But I think I can interview you. But do you really wanna be interviewed. GamerPro64 02:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be interviewed, I was taking the piss. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I do not know what that meant. Sorry. GamerPro64 02:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise, the US education system seems to leave a lot to be desired. Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Gamer, it means that he was kidding; he wasn't serious about whatever the initial comment was. LadyofShalott 03:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

At risk of teaching grandmother to suck eggs, using Ali G's "Is it because I is Black" need not be serious, either .... ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't for Borat and HBO, I wouldn't know who Ail G is. Thanks everyone. GamerPro64 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Forth Valley Royal Hospital

Thanks for your copy edits. I'm sorry this is my first real attempt at writing a full article most have been stubs. I will continue to try and expand over the coming days. However I have been unable to find sources re staff numbers and the photos I have found appear to be subject to copyright. Warburton1368 (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a brief look, and can't find anything on staff numbers either. Which is disappointing, seeing as newspapers all over the world had coverage of the opening, some even including the supposed possible impact of the robots on staff numbers. Incidentally, this source mentions the numbers of robots involved, and talks about the same company planning a similar system in another hospital.

It's possibly less practical in a less densely populated area, but you could try looking for a Wikiproject local (or sort-of-local) to the area, and asking if anyone would be willing to take a photo - assuming you're not nearby yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried emailing the hospital and asking for a press pack? That might contain all the information you require. Also try the local trust's website, and email them too. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for, there's no rush. The review can stay open for as long as you're still working on expanding the article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Could the background be expanded a bit? Why was it felt necessary to replace the existing two hospitals, for instance? Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ive expanded further but will keep searching for sources. Warburton1368 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a grand job. Of course, now that the article's being expanded the lead will have to be expanded as well to summarise all the new material. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the article says that Royal Radio was founded in 1876, which pre-dates radio by a good few years. Should that be 1976? Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah should be 1976 i have changed it. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting to the point with this now that if the lead is expanded to properly summarise the article I think it could be listed as a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No need for any kind of thanks for almost completely rewriting your article Warburton1368, all part of of the unpaid and unappreciated service that we volunteers are expected to provide. I see that Jimmy Wales believes that Wikipedia has something like 90,000 contributors, a number that's been in steady decline for some time now but not yet a crisis according to him. But I think if he looked a little closer he'd discover that Wikipedia has far fewer contributors than that. Rather few actually write and far too many are concerned with keeping order or pontificating about guidelines. Wikipedia in its current form is most certainly dying, and the reasons why surely cannot be a surprise to anyone. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your help. With Forth Valley Royal Hospital Warburton1368 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So you think I just copyedited your article? Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have thanked you for your help you gave it was considerable. If you feel aggrieved then i am sorry but i was genuinely happy with all the help you gave. I am actually hurt with the way you are reacting i have thanked you. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm feeling pissed off as well, after putting a shift in above and beyond the call of duty at your GAN, which I was initially inclined to quick fail. It's nothing personal though, just a general malaise. Thankfully though after some good advice I now realise that happiness is what it's all about, so I'll be upsetting no more GAN nominators by helping them fix their articles. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the below before seeing what's above (I got an edit conflict), so my suspicions are confirmed - Malleus wanted to make a political point. Ho hum, what's new. Here we go:

Malleus, do you absolutely have to make an issue out of something that could be seen as a positive thing? The person who "just copy-edited" the article was me, back in the days when it was a stubbish article headed for DYK. (A few fragments of my copy-edit survive; perhaps eight commas and the list format.) Warburton1368 politely thanked me for doing so on my talk page, but he didn't give me a barnstar for it; rightly so, since barnstars are for major work. Since then, you've vastly improved the article. While you were doing so, Warburton1368 started the talkpage section immediately above this, which he specifically began by thanking you and apologising that he was rather new to this; and you ended that section by implying that he was ungrateful.

I really appreciate the efforts you made for the article, and I was about to award you a (custom) barnstar myself to make that clear. It bothers me that you wanted to rush to an assumption of ingratitude (on anyone's part) just to prove "Jimbo" wrong about something. It's a pity that you couldn't embarrass Jimbo by embarrassing Jimbo, rather than by maligning well-intentioned new article creators. Did Warburton1368 fail to offer sufficiently effusive thanks within a certain number of hours after the article's promotion, and then also commit the grave sin of picking not quite exactly the right barnstar? Is there a sense of proportion problem here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What bothers me Demiuirge is that I doubt you find your arse even if you used both hands. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the same applies to me but that's the best thing I've read for a while. In a debilitated state, thanks Malleus for cracking my terrible face. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Something vexes thee? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has really got to look seriously at the whole incivility bollocks, hopefully by those who're out of nappies. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, totally, it's a top priority. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you're an arsehole and a waste of space, how can I make that clearer? Go bother someone else, I'm not interested. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's important to note that (perhaps from a personal point of view, and British at that) we should be entitled to call each other the stink of Satan but in a good way. One of the few advantages of being British is that we can "rip the piss" out of one another without actually needing to seek "litigation". Perhaps it's boarding school camaraderie (not that I'd know) but calling each other the "worst" swear words usually is indicative of some kind of affection; not necessarily romantic, naturally... The Rambling Man (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Malleus' loss of self-control made him all the more human, and I would object to anyone trying to sanction him for that little tantrum. He was trying to express how he felt, but couldn't quite do it coherently. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a point to make then please make it elsewhere, as I'm not interested. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no loss of self-control. He has maintained succinct conciseness, whereas your verbiage could do with a prune or two. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that one of the 800 or so apparently active administrators will be along to block either you or me in due course. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, not yet. Playtime isn't for another 20 mins or so. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: The above Copyediting Barnstar should, ironically, be copyedited. Should there really be a full-stop and a capital W between "help" and "with"? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! Be bold! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I really do believe that Wikipedia is now a failed experiment. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No question of either of you being blocked. Demiurge asked me to look in here and I have. Sorry you're pissed off Malleus, but no need to take it out on Warburton1368. Well done as always for the great work you do here. I've asked Demiurge to leave you alone and I would urge you to put this matter behind you and get on with greater things. As always, if there's ever anything you need help with, feel free to give me a shout. --John (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Demiurge has accused me (or "my friends") of being in some way involved in whatever it was that caused User:Demiurge10 to be blocked. Is there anything in whatever that user posted (now rev deleted) to suggest that it has anything to do with me? Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No. --John (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Harassment should end

Demiurge1000 has renewed his personal attacks on Malleus. He should accept a restraining order, or ban on interaction with Malleus. Would you do that, Demiurge1000?

I should be happy to accept a mutual ban on interaction with Demiurge1000, for starters.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent_personal_attacks. Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen it. Something ought to be done about Demiurge. I also see that he's accused me of being somehow involved in the antics of User:Demiurge10, without any evidence whatsoever. He's completely out of control, but it'll be you and me who're made to suffer, not him. Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well of course I should suffer. My misdeeds have caused them such consternation that they have gathered in high council to lament my character flaws. (One fellow, who was at least civil, did apologize for not notifying me of the discussion.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion at ANI

I asked Demiurge1000 to accept an interaction ban at ANI.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I try to stay as far away from that playground as possible. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I used to find it funny but now it's just tiresome and boring. On a lighter note, now I've drowned my sorrows after paying my tax bill, I should be able to get on to finishing Flixton, and devoting a bit more time to this place. Parrot of Doom 00:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you back, I was starting to feel a bit lonely. I put the ship canal up for a peer review, but no joy as yet. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm no sailor but I think you made a mistake, surely the Mersey flows into the canal at Irlam? Or are these things a bit like railways, with up and down lines? Parrot of Doom 22:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on canals either, and it's certainly possible that there's some kind of maritime convention that I'm unaware of or have misunderstood. If you think I'm wrong then please correct the map. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand how rivers flow, but how do canals flow? Is it from the highest point to the lowest? Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A difficult question to answer. The MB&B canal starts at the Irwell, but oddly enough it flows into the Irwell. To me, saying the Mersey leaves the canal at Irlam implies that the Mersey flows away from Irlam, toward Stockport? Parrot of Doom 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

My view was that the ship canal ran parallel to the Mersey until it joined the river (or the river joined it) at Irlam. In no sense can I understand the Mersey leaving the ship canal unless the flow of the canal is considered to be from Salford to Eastham, which makes no sense to me ... on reflection maybe the flow of the river has to be taken into account. I'll revert myself. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

But the canal does flow from Salford to Eastham, the Irwell and Mersey rivers are its primary source of water. Parrot of Doom 09:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(od)The "summit" of the canal is the stretch which is highest and from which the canal "flows" in both directions; where two canals (or a canal and a river navigation) meet the lower of the two receives "free" water from the other, much to the chagrin of the latter's owners. What flows into what has probably been legally defined because of this concern over water supply. Ning-ning (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am rather tired of defending myself against cherubim, seraphim, and powers and principalities of the air, and even MFs at ANI.

It may be time to remove the copyright and paraphrase policies, on Wikipedia, and to rename the project Plagiarism-pedia.

I can always retreat to the Mathematics project, where we don't have NPOV debates about whether 1+1=3, but you are going to be over-run by tribbles cooing contentedly. You shall hear them cooing each to each. (I know that they will not coo to me.)

Have you ever discussed moving to a more serious public-access project, perhaps with PoD or other frequent collaborators? Some of the mathematicians have already left for projects limited to competent collaborators.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Non Malleus Observation}} MOS:PUNCT: "it's" -> "its"; sp: "Plagarism" --> "Plagiarism"; internal links as appropriate following Help:Wikilinks#Wikilinks--Shirt58 (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for your corrections and . (I would beware of editing anybody else's comments.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Kiefer.Wolfowitz:I know my Shakespeare, Brecht and KJV. Do you?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

MSC

You have email.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Looks useful. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Encylopedia

Have there been any attempts to organize a caucus or informal network of content editors (who may not be happy with the MySpacification of Wikipedia)?

Aided by Demiurge1000, Worm is organizing an RfC/U against me. It would be useful to use this as an RfC/U on Demiurge1000.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such network, and I'm sure that any attempts to set one up would be heavily stamped on. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Watching your talk page is entertaining just for those who visit. It's like one of those old shows, where you'd see who the guest stars are this week and how they'll interact with the regulars.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Malleus Captain Stubing, or Mr Roarke? (surely such quality television was rebroadcast in the UK?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As my adolescence was marred by fruitless longings for Vicki, I suppose he will have to be Captain Stubing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea who any of these characters are, but I guess I ought to be grateful for not being compared to Vicki, who I presume is a woman? Nothing against women, I just don't happen to be one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Captain Stubing and Mr. Roarke. But really, no need to click on them, Wehwalt and I are just two old people talking about stupid American TV shows we watched as kids in the 70's. Shouldn't have MySpaced on your page, especially in this section, but couldn't help it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, I resemble that remark. I still love Vicki, and I have all (but one) of my teeth. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I do remember Fantasy Island, although I can't say I ever understood it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind candy.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the League of CopyEditors is the closest thing to a OPEN-TENT WikiProject for people who want to write articles?

By what mechanism would a WikiProject Encyclopedia be stamped on? It would be organized as a forum for editors writing articles on traditional encyclopedia topics? (I understand that rules would have to be set-up to stop fruitless bitching and moaning, which is welcome always on my talk page, btw!)

Such a project would be useful for content writers (as opposed to "the community'", which seems to be people who spend their weekends at ANI and RfAs rather than hanging out at malls, playing soccer, or drinking beer provided by helpful older brothers, as we did in my day). For example, content writers could discuss proposals among themselves, and if a consensus is reached, then that consensus would have more influence in "community" discussions (and it would take less time without non-editors dominating discussions). It could also be a centralized noticeboard for WP issues. In contrast, my statistics and mathematics projects rarely have discussions about anything but our articles---thank goodness.

Seriously,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. (BTW, testicles are being rubbed in my face at AN, the last I checked. "Nobody cares about your gonads", a blocking was proposed by SM---not that the good Baron from Lwow/Lviv. C.f., The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll.)

"A crucial turning point occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased identifying the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. What they set themselves ... was the construction of new forms of community within which moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness." "What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time."

(Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, p. 263)

It may well be potentially valuable, but it's anathema to the prevailing philosophy that everyone's contributions are equally valuable. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"It's anathema to the prevailing philosophy that everyone's contributions are equally valuable." GOOD!

The falsehoods—"everybody is equal" and "every source is equal, but my crackpot source is more equal than others"—need to laughed off of Wikipedia, if it is to remain an encyclopedia. The distinction between "everyone has equal rights" and "everyone is equal" was explained clearly at a recent RfA, by you.

It might be useful to suggest that participants (1) have written at least one 'B' article, or written at least 5 'C' articles, and (2) intend to devote the majority of their time to writing articles (including copy-editing other encyclopedic articles or reviewing peer-, GA-, or FA-status). (I would like to add, "cherish the editing heritage of TCO" and others from the Age of Heroes.) These would not be enforced:

Disruptive editors can be dealt with through the usual means, so there would be no need to worry about an exclusion mechanism. Editors who continually discuss non-encyclopediac articles could be urged to go to WikiProjects Bacon, Pornography, SpongeBobSquarePants, etc.

For political reasons, it would be best if such a project were headed by an administrator with the highest content-writing reputation, who has never been attacked, but who sometimes participates in WP-issue discussions. It would just require setting up a basic WikiProject, with a talk page, a low-cost experiment.

Seriously,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, it would never fly. All WikiProjects have to be all-inclusive regardless of competence; apparently that principle was handed down in stone. Besides, you'd find it a tough job to find an administrator "with the highest content-writing reputation, who has never been attacked". Heck, you'd find it difficult to find any editor who's been here for more than 10 minutes who hasn't been attacked. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject. That last sentence is the God's honest truth! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"There must be no cabal, no elite, and no hierarchy or structure to get in the way of this openness to newcomers." - Jimbo Wales, statement of principles 2001 Jebus989^✰ 12:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather inconsistent that he created an elite then. Malleus Fatuorum 12:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment, but he championed the nobigdeal attitude, and the community has since made it into this bizarre life goal. Re: edit summary, I though you and KW prized years of existence above all else? Jebus989^✰ 12:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Presumably that's a skewed reference to my distaste for 12-year-old administrators? If it is, then perhaps you can work out the logical flaw in your comment for yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales missed his calling as a pop psychologist or liberal protestant theologian. He would do better to stop and ask whether this statement is laughable, and then edit until it is plausible and interesting. He seems to be confusing an on-line, (mostly) volunteer encyclopedia with a slime mold.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian battleship São Paulo

Thank you for your edits, they are much appreciated. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting story, I wish you luck with it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely one of the most interesting warship stories I've run across! You may also be intrigued by Brazilian cruiser Bahia#Loss. Thanks and hope to see you around 'my' articles again sometime. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Not sure what exactly happened here, but nothing to gain by continuing discussion here. --John (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, try discussing controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Demiurge, you've been asked several times not to post here. What does it take to make you understand what you're being told? Does "fuck off" do it for you? Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Malleus, just leaving you a notification that a user has brought this issue to ANI. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you wouldn't mind fucking off as well? Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge

I have asked him to stay out of your road for a while and I respectfully ask you to do the same. I didn't look in detail at the spot of bother on the DYK page, but I may still look at it and come back to you with more words of advice. As I said to Demiurge, the real reason to avoid friction is not that it's bad or that it's against the rules, but that it takes energy away from other activities which are more valuable. Keep well, --John (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You remind me...

of Piers Morgan. :) Both you and he 1) are British (go Brits!) 2) give caustic but well-meaning and well-deserved criticism while remaining honest. I could totally imagine you sitting at the judges' panel on America's Got Talent saying the exact words as Piers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.103.55.218 (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that some plank has made "improvements" to the editor interface that make it impossible for me to reply unless through the wikiEdit interface. I despair of this place and the children who run it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I greatly sympathise with you, sir. This is the essence of your "caustic but well-meaning and well-deserved criticism" I'm talking about. Thanks for keeping this pigsty honest. It's quickly heading down the drain—the drain of filth, of stagnance, and ultimately of failure—and I don't reckon anyone can salvage it, particularly because of the pack of wolves that you rightly and justly call children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.103.55.218 (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Piers Morgan is a bare-faced lying tossbag though, a tossbag who signed off on a story alleging British soldiers were urinating on enemy captives, and a tossbag who published stories based on hacked voicemail messages. Parrot of Doom 16:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't hear about that! It's atrocious! [2] [3] Apologies to Malleus if I insinuated that he acts like this scumbag, but other than the charges Parrot of Doom articulated above, I think Piers Morgan's criticism can still be compared to Malleus' criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.103.55.218 (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews

Malleus, I came to know from this FAC that you had expressed interest in reviewing the nominator's GA reviews. Well I had expressed concern over the probable inexperience and the sloppiness of his reviews here, but then again it seems I will turn out the bad guy here. I would really like your perspective, as I believe that article quality and basic Wiki policies are being sacrificed here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews are no longer any concern of mine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

[4]-->[5]. But if not, it's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That was then; this is now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Right

I've got a couple of books from the library, Harford and Nicholls, so I will have a speed-read through them and see what I think about the MSC article, as it stands. I know the pictures are rubbish, and I always like nice pictures on articles I've contributed towards, so that's a priority. I've also got a book on the history of Urmston/Flixton/Davyhulme, so they're on the list too. Is it just me, or are Trafford's libraries a bit shite when it comes to local history? Parrot of Doom 19:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've found the Manchester libraries to be better for local history stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review request

In our conversation of a week or so ago, I mentioned that I had an article in preparation that I thought you might be interested in reviewing. Well, it's here. Of course, if you can't stand Philip Larkin (and many can't) you won't want to come within a mile of what Jenny Diski called his "sad ramblings", and I'll fully understand; reviewing is grim enough toil anyway. But otherwise, please take a look and let me know what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanchez

The Mark Sanchez FAC closed, and I've spoken with The Writer 2.0 about sending it to peer review. I will continue to work with him on the prose, and see if I can help him out on references and whatnot. I will do my best to tone down the jargon, I saw a couple of spots where it seemed a bit much, and of course the POV issue. I think it will eventually work out. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. Next time around, if it's toned down a bit, it might well get through FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

He's still figuring out FAC's expectations. And his prose is wordy. Nothing fatal.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been discussing FAC's prose expectations elsewhere recently as you may have noticed, including here. The feeling I'm getting though is that these expectations are beginning to be considered mine, rather than FAC's. I'm just one voice, often ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw the discussion at the start. I'll look again now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The predictable next step is to claim that my expectations are too high, to which my response will inevitably be that Wikipedia's expectations are too low. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think you are wrong. I think standards have lowered and that articles are passing that should not. The solution to that on a wholesale level, beyond shooting down what you can as it passes by, is not obvious due to the fact that we have a limited number of good writers, a limited number of good reviewers, and considerable overlap; I suspect that people are burning themselves out. Not only that, I should add that i have an interest in seeing standards are kept up, obviously. I've just spent the day researching for past and future articles, and would not have them bear the same postnominals as crap.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is, but I've given up on GAN for instance. In my opinion there are too many editors who react badly when their work is criticised and too many touchy-feely planks who believe this project is about spreading happiness. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of those things happen all over the project, including FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

True. But as GAN is a basically a one-man show the effect is perhaps more evident there. I've been told in no uncertain terms, for instance, that my withdrawal from the process will lead to happier editors. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I speak only for myself, but I was glad you agreed to review my article and both gave me the criticisms you did and helped directly with bringing it up to speed. I think your withdrawal from GA reviewing is a loss to the program. LadyofShalott 02:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on what you think the program is. Right now I think I can do more with less effort at FAC for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to GA, but if you mean you can do more for WP at FAC, fair enough. LadyofShalott 03:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the night owl, Malleus! I'm five hours behind you and I've about had it for the day. LoS, let him go where he feels he will do the most for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought my "fair enough" comment made it clear I would not argue that. If it wasn't clear then, well, I'm being explicit about it now. LadyofShalott 03:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides... Malleus doesn't need me to "let him go" anywhere he wants. :) LadyofShalott 03:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

That was a nice compliment. I can't take full credit though - everything I've taken to FAC has been "copy edited" or whatever the term should be, by you, Riggr or Ceoil. I always need someone to check my prose. But I do work hard at making it as good as I can - the enormous edit count I have in all the pages I've taken to FAC is a testimony to that. The elbow grease factor seems to have been lost at the GOCE, if it ever existed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The GOCE suffers from the same problem that the whole of Wikipedia does, the fiction that we're all equal. Certainly we all ought to have equal rights, but we don't have equal abilities. Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I see at GOCE the same problems as at DYK. The award culture is huge, an immense amount of work is being done, and then participants go on to RfAs. So these parts of the project are no more than admin incubators, which has everything to do with not being being equal, and ends up making a lot of work for the lowly proles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the administrator bollocks. A sensibly designed system would need only a fraction of the 800 or so currently active administrators. The present system is just a reward for bland mediocrity, for toeing Jimbo's party line. Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Janitors are fine, but what's lost here is that the gurus (such as yourself) are not given enough recognition. Anyway, I should stay out of the fray this time after the DYK debacle. Oh and btw - was going to suggest to you, something along the lines of making a writer's checklist, or suggestions or whatever that could be posted somewhere. It's a vague idea that's been floating around in my head and I've been too busy to actually work out how it would work, but thought I'd mention it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony1's already done something along those lines. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not follow your own advice, instead of acting like an idiot? One senses a boomerang is coming. Parrot of Doom 16:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not be WP:CIVIL instead of calling me an idiot? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I said you were acting like an idiot, I didn't say you were an idiot, so take your civility link and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, sunshine. Parrot of Doom 16:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hanged, drawn and quartered.

Please see Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? Are you talking any sense there? Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's not fair, I read your talk page for the dramahz, not mine! Parrot of Doom 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Welcome to Wikipedia's most hated club. The point we've both missed, which I was reminded of recently, is that the happiness of the editors is paramount, not quality of content. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • They tell me that when I'm grading papers I should first compliment the author on their effort, creativity, and willingness to do the work, even if none of those things are evident. For shits and giggles: I taught Advanced English Grammar today (a senior/graduate class), the first day of class, and I gave them the English Placement Test, which determines if incoming freshmen are ready for Freshman Composition. Four of the thirteen, according to the test, should have been in Remedial English. Malleus, I'd like it if you could give me a standard feel-good sentence to feed to them. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I've been in similar situations myself. My response is to tell them that they need to get their asses in gear or to piss off. And if your students are fooled by the sandwich effect then they must be even dafter than they seem. Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd respond "For a non-native speaker, you have done fairly well"
        ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I used to give a quiz in a "college algebra" class, and tell the students who failed that they were recommended to take the lower-level course. I did not then pretend to be a psychometrician, but I did tell them that no student who had ever received such a recommendation had ever passed. There is no royal road to geometry, algebra, or English composition.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
          • That sort of negativism leads to communism, Kiefer. I want to commend you on your efforts, but perhaps mixing it with a bit of optimism would cause less damage to tender souls. *Insert sentence that includes the phrase "take ownership of" here.* Blah, blah. I got a job in a department store one time and had to take a math test (this was before everything was scannable; we had to know the prices of all the products). I doubt that my students, or yours, would pass that elementary kind of test. But I'm really giving away my age now--on my birthday, no less. Happy days, to all of y'all. PS, Berean, thanks! I am a non-native speaker! PPS Malleus, I'll consider telling them that, but I probably won't consider that for long. Tenure is no longer permanent. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

MoS question

Hey Malleus, if you have a moment, could you please look to see if I'm being right, wrong, or a jackass in this edit? I was reverted (again), I asked for an explanation, and when none came I reverted again. (EDIT WAR! I'll template myself later.) Anyway, I think I have the MoS on my side, in letter and spirit, but I'd love a second opinion. (PS I made some small edits to The Man in the Moone. The Monterrey article has lots of stuff.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I never link within quotations, which is my understanding of the MoS guidance, as it's rarely necessary and certainly not necessary in your example. I'm not fond of the "See also" alternative though; what I'd prefer is to add a note right after the quotation explaining what the Tannhauser Gate is. Most editors don't use notes anything like as often as they should. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

True--I only use notes in "your" articles because I can copy the formatting. But I'll give it a shot. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't easy, you kneuw. Thanks for your help, and thanks also for cleanup on MiM. Amazing how those slips went through DYK unnoticed... Drmies (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so surprising. I've come to the conclusion that most DYK reviewers don't even read the article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was joking. I haven't submitted or reviewed for DYK in a while; there's a new format and it looks complicated. I thought I'd review a bit there, but the first article I looked at was very long and cited only one source, and of the other I wasn't sure if it should be an encyclopedic article in the first place, but I didn't want to nominate it for deletion. Manuel Antonio de Rivas looks like fun, though, and having written the first SF text in the Americas is a nice little tid-bit. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I will link within quotations the MOS notwithstanding if I think the reader will be unduly puzzled or distracted by not having the link. And where the subject matter of the link is unambiguous.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You're an inveterate rebel, Wehwalt. No wonder you only have 55 FAs credited on your user page, whereas I have...never mind... Drmies (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see why the number of FAs is important, really. I have that there so people don't blame me as an admin for not doing "admin work", which does not interest me. I never mention number of FAs or bost about it outside of my userspace because I don't consider it worth boasting about, it is just my little part of the project, which I am unlikely to complete because Wikipedia will never be finished, even when it ends (and maybe it will be transformed, but how could all this compiled knowledge just "go away"). Writing interests me, as does building what I believe will be a lasting contribution (from all of us) to human knowledge. By the way, I have in the Dutch books but I am not going be doing any more work on Koninginnedag until at least next month, with the goal of getting it for main page next April 30.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this list it's perhaps interesting to see that of the top 10 contributors only 3 aren't (or weren't) administrators. Pehaps one day I may break into that hallowed ground – the top ten I mean, not admin – but on the the other hand I'm probably too much of a dilettante. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd abolish that page if I could. If FA writing turns into a competition, then we are in big trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular article is possibly a bad example. One editor there said "There are sufficient little numbers interrupting the text already" and promptly reverted all my page notes, designed to remove 40x book repetitions from the reflist. I suspect that adding nb's would only incur their over-protective medical wrath and scalpel to cut them out of the page. That matter was rectified later after a kindly FA reviewer asked that the editor put in a biblio section for "publications being cited multiple times".

I did read the the MoS entry that came up in that discussion and I must admit I started removing links within quotes during copy-edits a couple of days later. I will probably begin using MF's suggested notations for those that need further explanation and are not explained elsewhere, or would probably not deserve a full explanation in the body of text. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Handley

I forgot to say the other day; thanks for the copyedit :) One day I might be able to drill out an article without needing to have my writing corrected so much, till then - cheers! --Errant ^(chat!) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not bothered what the county is where you live

i understand you live in stretford you said it used to be Lancashire,i do not care about where you live.i live in Bolton,and until i looked online i was unaware of greater manchester existing.it goes to show,i asked several friends around Bolton and Bury are most of them had never heard of greater manchester,so it just goes to show we in Bolton and Bury are not in Greater Manchester.i looked more online and discovered that Bolton and Bury are still in Lancashire.as for stretford i dont know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.25.148 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your ignorance does you no credit and only serves to make you look absurd. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is stretford anyway?no offence intended — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.25.148 (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Strangely enough it's in Trafford, one of the constituent metropolitan boroughs that make up the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester, along with Bury and Bolton. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

and where the bleedin ell is trafford,and this greater manchester?whats this?do you not mean Lancashire?and dont try and act clever with me darling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.25.148 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not use Wikipedia to find out where Trafford is? Or Bolton come to that? Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Steady now, he's just nicked his first computer from Poundsavers, it'll take him a while to figure it all out. Parrot of Doom 21:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

yes i do get it,i got it straight away,trying to say im a scrote,at least im not on the dole or job seekers allowance unlike some people on here who shall remain nameless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.25.148 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I used my GPS to find where Trafford was last time I was in the UK and happened to be staying at the Express by Holiday Inn there, if it is any help?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's very easy, it's all Oop North. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah so. I will remember that the next time a tour takes me to the UK (probably late this year or early next, with luck on a week when West Brom's playing at home!).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I expect you'll have the civility police on your case for that PoD, but who cares. When I was at school history was mostly about stuff that I couldn't really relate to: kings and queens, great battles and such-like. But over recent years I've become fascinated by the history of ordinary people like myself, what my life might have been like had I not been born in a modern welfare state. There are several stories I've come across that really stick in my mind; The two young brothers executed for witchcraft in Paisley, who asked to be allowed to hold hands while they were hanged together; Charlie Chaplin's mother discharging herself from the workhouse for a day so that she could spend it in the park with him and his brother; and most recently a seven-year-old girl who was found at 2 am one winter morning asleep outside the mill where she worked. She'd been beaten the previous day for turning up late, but her family couldn't afford a clock, so none of them had any idea what time it was. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if Bader cuts it as an ordinary person, but the quote here is among my favourite additions to Wikipedia (though I don't think I would have formatted it like that?). Something very satisfyingly English, or British, about his laconic approach to being delegged. --John (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Lord Uxbridge wouldn't qualify as an ordinary person, but I'm reminded of his comment to the Duke of Wellington towards the end of the Battle of Waterloo after he was hit by a canon ball: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!", to which Wellington replied, "By God, sir, so you have!" Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's brilliant! And his leg got its own resting place, something I doubt Bader's did. I met Bader once towards the end of his life. On reflection, I have a terrible bias towards 20th century history, can't seem to get as excited by the older stuff. Dunno why. --John (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in the older stuff because it gives us the context to understand what's happening today. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"During one visit to Munich… [Bader] walked into a room full of ex-Luftwaffe pilots and said, "My God, I had no idea we left so many of you bastards alive". He also used the phrase to describe the Trades Union Congress during economic and social unrest in the 1970s." Must have confused the TUC with fuzzy-wuzzies. Ning-ning (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe he had some unreformed old-fashioned racist views in later life. I suspend my judgment on that because he lost his legs showing off, made a laconic remark about it, then learned to fly again and became a fighter pilot. Which is no doubt very elitist of me. Malleus, I have thought a lot about this honest remark of mine; I totally get how important history is to understand the present, and I do sometimes study ancient and medieval history, yet I find myself much more drawn towards the modern stuff. Best I can figure is that it's the gadgets; ever since I was tiny I've been into planes, trains and stuff like that. Steamships are just more interesting to me than triremes, and zeppelins more than knights. Chemistry and science in general were also so primitive as to be uninteresting in the pre-1800 era, and those are huge interests of mine. I guess I am just a science and technology nerd. --John (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

IP editor gets even better - surely they know that the dole and JSA are the same thing? They cannot possibly have forgotten to check facts before posting? Ah well, must be a Bury thing.

As for historical interest, it is fairly necessary for us to not forget how things were done in the past. Many commonly used scientific theories are based on past proofs, all of which are necessary to understand those in the present; indeed many children are taught basic science at primary school such as hot air balloons, circuits and forces. There is a growing knowledge gap between those who wish to use items and those who know how to make them. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(od)The IP editor appears to be posing as partially-educated street life; style's a bit fake. The Bader article should say that he called the TUC "bastards", not that he used the same phrase about killing them off! The RAF Iraq Command article hints at the RAF's relationship with the "lesser tribes without the law" in the 1920s. It just amused me that the article was suggesting Bader had participated in air attacks on the TUC. Books such as that "Fighter Boys" (which seems to appearing in every charity shop) and "They Hosed Them Out" suggest that there was a major change in the RAF, maybe from 1941, in attitudes to their own personnel- a move towards a more professional and less class-bound fighting arm. John might enjoy checking out the technology of the Nemi ships. Ning-ning (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanchez 2

I wanted to thank you for your comments at Mark Sanchez's FAC. Having failed, I'll be spending the next two weeks improving the article and I would appreciate any guidance from you during the next round! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Better luck next time, and see if you can keep Wehwalt involved. He's like a magic charm at FAC. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hah, yeah, that's why my first collab with TW2.0 flunked as did Koninginnedag, a real Dutch treat. I'll be coming back to that one, except I have to get some Dutch stuff translated and I just don't have time to work on it until probably October.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We do get it right eventually though! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Take over

I'll rate all you pages with five stars if you rate mine with the same. And this time next year we'll both be fat and arbs, and not have to deal with all these loosers anymore. On? Ceoil (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have what he's drinking.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Smoking, actually. Ceoil (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely vaping is easier on the lungs?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, at this stage, at my age, its all the same. Ceoil (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Pendle witches

I see there's a programme on BBC4 tomorrow at 9pm called 'Pendle witch child' investigating 'the psychology of the accused and accusers'. According to the review in the Sunday Times the conclusion is that we've learned little since then. Richerman (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look out for that, thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite an enjoyable programme, thanks for pointing it out to me. Also a relief to see that the BBC's account was very similar to our own, even to the extent of using several of the same images on their web site. In fact I think in some respects our coverage is better, but to be fair they were focusing largely on the role of Jennet Device. Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny that, isn't it. I noticed that the radio documentary on the Eagle followed the structure I'd laid out almost exactly. Parrot of Doom 17:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess maybe there's sometimes only one logical way to tell a story. Off on a tangent, I'm been reading a book on the industrialisation of Lancashire (1750–1850), in which I came across an account of the power-loom riots of 1826, which I thought deserved a little article, so I wrote one. But once again the quality of what ought to be solid supporting articles, like the one on the Luddites for example, leaves an awful lot to be desired. I was quite surprised at just how poor most of our articles on the textile industry are in fact, for an endeavour that was for so long so important to this part of the world. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not just the textile industry :-( but that's an interesting article you've started. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. If anything the mining industry is probably even worse served. Unfortunately the riots didn't really lead to anything changing, so there isn't a great deal more to say about them. There seem to be so many gaps, holes and stubs everywhere you look; where did this notion that there are no more articles to be created come from? We haven't even got a decent article on the Anti-Corn Law League, which was started in Manchester. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mining is the pits, (sorry, so bad I'm blushing) but last time I visited the Mining Museum Library I got the distinct impression the young woman in charge had no idea what I was talking about. I think industry in general is poor, perhaps it's not "fashionable". I wish I could finish something, anything, like PoD does but .......I keep doing bits.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I know just how you feel. I've been trying to finish the Manchester Ship Canal for about two years now. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should pick something to work on together, then we could gee each other up whenever the motivation fades? Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to but heaven knows what it could be. I enjoyed working with you on the zoo, but you did all the work!! That seems like a fair division of labour.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There are so many important topics without articles; take my latest oeuvre for instance, the Warrington Perambulating Library, which ranks right up there alongside Tickle Cock Bridge (but at least it's a token offering to the Cheshire Project). It would be nice to have an article on every significant local newspaper as well; I just discovered that we have nothing on the Warrington Guardian for instance.

Something I've been thinking about is some kind of list article, explaining the various trades in coal mining and/or textile mills. I came across "coal-getter" earlier today for instance; what on Earth did they do? Peter I. Vardy has worked out a nice format for list articles as well, so we could maybe adapt that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded as well that if I'm looking for information on the "big subjects" like gravity or Einstein I'm faced with a wealth of sources, some good some not so good. But if I'm looking for reliable online information on the Samlesbury witches for instance, I'd have to go a long way to find better than here. One thing that struck me immediately about the BBC program was its agreement with the number of Pendle witches. Potts' account is inconsistent in giving the account of a trial in which someone is apparently acquitted but then included in a list of those executed, or vice versa. It took me ages to work how many there actually were; any time you're bored just surf the web and see what others sites think. Thirteen is a popular number for some reason. What I'm saying, obviously, is that I'd be in favour of a "small" topic, say a single colliery, as opposed to an article on the Lancashire collieries. They're perhaps harder to research in that there's less material available, but I think they offer more value. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There's the start of a list of workhouses in Lancashire in my sandbox. It is really at the info gathering stage and needs rewriting. I completely understand what you say about "big" articles and have started numerous individual colliery articles (see my articles created) but it's proving quite hard to expand them . I have several books about Lancashire pits, but one article that's not been started, but I think fascinating, would be Bradford Colliery, the closest pit to Manchester city centre and there's no article on "Fairbottom Bobs" either.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bradford Colliery certainly looks well worth an article. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it is, I'd thought of visiting the Museum of Science and Industry sometime but I can look in at the Mining Museum at the end of the week. Here's some background reading. [6], [7], [8] and [9]. I'll look out a book.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done some reading and rememberered why I hadn't started it before, links to stuff like the Pendleton fault, writing about more coal seams and links to the Oldham coalfield all of which don't exist. However I will start it this evening. I could start the Pendleton fault but aren't sure how to cite it. :-( --J3Mrs (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to start with the Pendleton Fault, which I see you've now done. I remember some time ago when I was thinking about writing something about the Manchester earthquakes how difficult it was to find anything much on the (three?) geological faults that run through Manchester. Malleus Fatuorum

I think you got the conversion wrong (I think it converted metres not miles) and I started Bradford Colliery but now feel the need to expand something else.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, now fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Your choice...

Fairfax Harrison (Southern American railroad executive with a secret life as a historian), Geoffrey (archbishop of York) (bastard child of King Henry II of England, complete with Henry's temper), William de Chesney (Anglo-Norman layman and sheriff), Baldwin of Forde (rather boring but important Archbishop of Canterbury), Ralph d'Escures (another Bec product that went to Canterbury), or Reginald Fitz Jocelin (son of a bishop, nominated for Canterbury but died before translation). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Gerard's been promoted at last? Let's go through them in order, starting with Fairfax, which seems an unusual topic for you. Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

American Thoroughbred history. He was one of the earlier and better writers on Colonial Thoroughbred history. And yes, Gerard's finally broke free of the logjam... There's no great hurry... my sister is here this week so I won't have time to devote to FAC until Sunday at the earliest. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediation is an important part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

John Black (businessman)

Hi, because there is no such person as the Bishop of Hansworth (sic) (in fact rector of Handsworth previously Bishop of Persia so I suppose retained the honorific title) I set to work to identify him - and did so. I then linked to his article. Despondent I checked on his daughter's marriage in FreeBMD and she is recorded as Alicia J P LINTON!, see my edit summary note - I will write to the ODNB about this. No doubt a colourful character but is it really necessary to say his wife left him? Real story could be very different. Eddaido (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It does look as if the ODNB's article might not be accurate, but what's bothering me now following your corrections is that we're attributing to the ODNB something that it isn't saying: Alicia's name and her father's identity and profession. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ODNB advise "The material for the online update to be released in January is currently in preparation, and the corrections will be made then." Eddaido (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree

with your comment re:Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-08-18/Swarcliffe at J3Mrs's talkpage here. I've been watching the back&forth on Talk:Swarcliffe between andreasegde and other editors for quite a while. Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Does participation in the Mediation Cabal confer RfA points? Whatever, incompetence has taken root here. We have children mediating disputes they know nothing about, GA reviewers who can't even write, DYK reviewers who don't even read the articles they approve for the main page, and all for the sake of a broken philosophical ideal that we're all equal. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"All editors are equal"

but some are more equal than others...

The goal of Request for Comments on Users (RFC/U) is reformation not punishment.

Dear Malleus,

I think that you are being too rough on minor editors. Having school & parental supervision (including bed-times), child editors are usually less dangerous than manboy editors (or man-boy groomers).

Your mention of the "broken philosophical ideal that we're all equal" reminds me of my forthcoming "act of faith" at User:WormTT/Workshop#Cause_of_concern, which includes these charges:

• "Promoting a hierarchical atmosphere where some editors are "better" than others [10]"

• "Over-zealous contributions to RfAs concerning younger editors."

You may find related discussions amazing:

• User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#Thank_you_for_engaging and
• User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#opinion_2

Disassociating,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

George Orwell was right, was he not? Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

All editors enter Wiki equal. What they do after that affects their share value.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wales' comments

Jimbo is advancing the view that Wikipedia must be transformed into a Facebook-like interface to be more user-friendly—that's just ridiculous. He also wants to do away with all the wikicode formatting. "Ask yourself, would facebook do it that way?" The repugnant wikilove feature is another sign of Wikipedia's loss of purpose. "It's like a 'like' on Facebook," Wales said. (from NPR) In that same NPR article, I was bothered by: "Particularly be careful if we say 'the neutrality of this article is disputed,' or 'the following section doesn't cite any sources.' That's probably a good warning," he said. I'm disturbed by the "we"—he does absolutely no content work and has the temerity to include himself as an active writer. Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.208.197.234 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo may try to advance whatever views he chooses, no concern of mine. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo and I have a deal. He doesn't tell me how to write and I don't tell him how to ... how to .. well, whatever it is he does.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the editing interface needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into at least the early WYSIWYG era, but there would still be an unresolved problem with the perceived difficulty of creating citations; it really is too much to expect new users to understand, and too much to expect seasoned editors to continually be on hand to fix. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just tell Jimbo to call it WikiBook. Jaguar (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Manchester City F.C. seasons

No matter what else has ever happened, I truly appreciate your work on the Blue Moon list. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries; I think the nominations were ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated Malleus, both the updates and the perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Lancashire

Another Letter come from my door this morning and on it it said my street and house number and Farnworth,Bolton,Lancashire,which goes to show that Bolton and Bury are in Lancashire,so you and Parrot of Doom can take your precious Manchester and stick it as far up your rear end as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You have mail deliveries on Sunday? Or is it not Sunday on your planet? Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Doors that send letters, what next - a cat that builds telescopes? Parrot of Doom 19:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So if sent a letter to "The Arsehole" at your address, and it arrived, that would prove you were an arsehole then would it? Richerman (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If the letter had the correct postal code then it could have been addressed to Bolton/Bury, Outer Mongolia and it would arrive at your place. All the Royal Mail need are the house number and the postal code. It makes no difference what county or even what town is on the envelope. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasnt then actually,it was saturday,i got the days mixed up,and Richerman,you call me an arsehole again and see what you get you dickhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would you argue with them about where they live? Isn't there some more productive use of your time than coming to Malleus's talk page to harass him? LadyofShalott 20:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call you anything - I simply posed a hypothetical scenario to show that what it says on the envelope proves nothing. Actually, Royal Mail removed administrative county names from the Postal Address Book for the North West in 1995 and confirmed that the inclusion of a traditional county name in an address will not affect the way that mail is processed, providing the Post Code is used. Richerman (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you hope to achieve by posting here 86.8.126.226? Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont want to argue or fall out with anyone,all i want is for you to realise that Bolton and Bury are still in Lancashire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Aw, bless. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but he's right, you know. I have instructed staff at my Kensington town-house to return any letters which do not mention Middlesex in the address. I mean, imagine the shame if people thought I lived in London... Waltham, The Duke of 18:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Advice for new Wikipedia editors

Hi, Malleus. As you and others have said, competent editors burn out if they spent most of their time fixing faults in (esp.) new editors' work - and squashing vandals and "Randy in Boise". I think we need to get conscientious new editors up to speed quickly, before they're disheartened. One and off I've worked on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors, which aims to get new editors productive quickly. Please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors.

The fact that new editors are valued over existing editors tells you everything you need to know about what's wrong with Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)