User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2011/May

FAC copyedit

Hey, look's like you're doing well. Not sure if you still enjoy a good copyedit request, but I'd like to bring Clint Eastwood to FAC in the near future. It's already had a few copyedits, but I would definitely appreciate a look-over if you have the time. This is the first biography FAC (and co-nomination) I'll be attempting and I want to resolve as many issues as possible before nominating. The article's length has been called into question, so if there is some fat that you think should be trimmed, that would help out as well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey back to you. I find myself in a difficult position. There are lots of things I want to write about myself, and there's a limit to how much time I can spend on other stuff, particularly as my contributions here are treated with the disrespect that they are. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't think you're notable enough to write an article about yourself! Yeah, if you have other projects no worries, I already appreciate your assistance with the other articles you copyedited in the past. Hopefully you can stop by with a few comments when it's at FAC, I'm sure some areas will need further improvement. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I think if your contributions are treated with disrespect it's only by a vocal minority. Most of us have a great deal of respect for your editing here (as shown by all these people asking for help with their own labours). Apterygial ^talk 23:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have way more enemies than friends here, and those who try to chase me away, believing that they're in some kind of pack and manoeuvring for position (let's see if we can get Malleus blocked, that's worth RfA brownie points), ought to examine their consciences. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you do have support from those friends. Apterygial ^talk 00:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see as well as anyone else that I don't fit in here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that is wrong - You fit in very well. All sheep need a shepherd and a sheepdog or two. Many admins seem to think they are the shepherds, whereas they should really see themselves as the sheepdogs. You are one of those shepherds guiding the lambs to do good work, which then grow into sheep and produce much wool (articles lol). Unforunately when the sheepdogs get out of control, problems in the flock begin to flourish... Chaosdruid (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to echo the sentiment, I appreciate the work you do here. You've definitely been an asset with GAN/Sweeps as well as FAC (not too familiar with your other areas), which has greatly improved a variety of articles. The encyclopedia is for the readers, what happens behind it doesn't really matter to me as long as we're working for a better end result. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Green Children

Hey Malleus, At work yesterday, I happened upon a CD by this group. (It was a truly random thing - I was going through some of the discs in one of several boxes of donations.) The album is called Encounter, and the first track is the same name as the duo title track,. Itwhich clearly seems to be inspired by the Woolpit story. I am not suggesting you add this to the Green Children of Woolpit, as it seems to be firmly in the category of "trivia"; I just thought you should be aware of it (if you weren't already) in case someone else tries to add it. LadyofShalott 20:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is it any good? Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's not bad - not great, but not bad. It's pop. I don't know your musical taste - maybe you'll love it. You can find it on Youtube. LadyofShalott 01:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's this one I'm not fond of it, but it is obviously inspired by the green children. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The particular song I meant was this one, but, yes, they do seem to be continuing it with the one you posted (particularly with the video). This one just has the album cover - I haven't seen a video for it (though I'd be surprised if there isn't one somewhere). LadyofShalott 13:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, not bad. I quite like that one. Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine editing

Can I use this in class, for show and tell? The (non-green) children are enjoying Tangled, and I'm enjoying a Dutch cigar and a really not-bad-at-all American imitation of a Belgian ale called "Colette". Ah oui! Hope you're well as well. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Use whatever you like, but give up that smoking thing. Last week I found a fantastic video on youTube of a teacher using Crossley-Holland's version of the story to introduce her 11-year-old students to drama. Sadly it seems to have disappeared, but maybe it's in an archive somewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are into Dutch (I will not comment on various substances to smoke there), you might want to peek at Koninginnedag, which I've started to groom to be the first Dutch FA (not counting an unbuilt battleship).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

IBM SSEC

At your suggestion I beefed up this pitiful article. Still trying to get some pictures, but could also use some reviews. Thanks for any suggestions. Other related ones also need help of course. W Nowicki (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

On a quick read through you've done a fine job with that; I'll take a closer look tomorrow. The computing articles in general are pitiful, which has always seemed strange to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The bad quality of computing articles saddens but does not surprise me. During my career, basing statements on evidence from other sources was considered a sign of weakness, and I fought many battles to write things down instead of keeping them "in our heads". Real cowboys shoot from the hip. A few lucky ones are bllionaires. Journals were full of articles written by professors to get tenure; nobody ever read them. That's why I am thankful for IEEE Annals of History at least, and the various oral history attempts. As another example, I did a little work on NLS (computer system) which in many ways pioneered the technology that makes Wikipedia useful (structured documents with links edited by a community) back in the 1960s. Those still need work too, but progress is slow. W Nowicki (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nailsea GA

Hi Malleus, me and Rod have pretty much covered about everything on Talk:Nailsea/GA1 and I have realised that it has been put on hold for a week. Since I can't think of anything else that needs doing, I ask what else would need doing or if there needs to be any more improvements to the article before the GAN is over. I'm getting quite concerned about that article now because I think that it is being ignored for too long! Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it, I was just waiting for you to finish. Have you addressed the toponymy issue yet? I'll take another look at the article later. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It seems that Rod has taken care of the toponymy including Backwell. I'm also sorry that I can't respond to the review quicker, as I'm busy with exams again. Jaguar (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paisley witches

The article Paisley witches you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paisley witches for comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Update ...

... on our FAC editorial in the Bugle, including your comments, here. The idea for this editorial was to give a lot of brief statements by a lot of different people to convey the idea that there's broad support for the idea that anyone can (and more should) review at FAC. After we see if the editorial has any effect, we can try to do something less scattershot in another editorial. Please let me know if you are (or aren't) happy with any effect this might have at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC is SandyG's baby, I'm just an occasional grafter there. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Same here, except the usual opinion is I'm a grifter, not a grafter.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Simon Byrne

I've reviewed this article. There are just a couple of picky issues, but I really enjoyed it. It's on hold for now, but there's hardly anything to do. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've passed it now, but I'm afraid updating the article milestones is a little beyond me. I'm not sure if a bot does it or not when the section already exists. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll take care of the article history. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats...

To us both. The green kids are excellent excellent work. I think Barre next, when i get home? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, well done to both of us. I think Barre is about ready, yes. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done! LadyofShalott 15:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The more Anglo-Saxon stuff I read here, the more impressed I am. My partner John and I just finished a series of lectures on Medieval England by Jennifer Paxton, and some of this stuff is making sense to me now. Looking forward to any FACs you guys want to toss at us. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gods. I'm an Anglo-Norman-ist, really, not an Anglo-Saxonist. (mutters) I spend entirely too much time writing about the old Anglo-Saxons though... (tears her hair out)

I'm up for anything 410-ish to 1485-ish! - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxon stuff is mostly down to a very few editors such as Ealdgyth and Deacon of Pndapetzim; Ealdgyth's achievements in particular are quite simply astonishing. I've been very pleased to do what little I could to help, but more eyes are always welcome. Malleus Fatuorum

Btw, Ealdgyth, your work at FAC was mentioned by The_Ed17 in this month's Bugle (see below). - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed above that you said "tears her hair out". For some reason I've always thought of you as a bloke! Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Victor Victoria? (See top of her userpage for her real name.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very much a she. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that Dank was a lady, or am I just slow? Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is tearing her hair out, not Dank. Like you, I assumed Dank was male, although I haven't asked. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see that naughty Ealdgyth caused this confusion by not signing her post, which I assumed for some reason was from Dank. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I blame the laptop while traveling. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have time to take a peek at ...

Well, I'm trying to write a little bit outside the box and still haven't sobered up from last Saturday so I am doing Koninginnedag, presently pending at GAN and probably my next FAC. It is written in a slightly humourous fashion and I could use someone to tell me if I"ve totally missed the mark (euro) as the humourless will be after me at FAC! You do not have to do the GAN unless you want to, I'm really looking for a sanity check.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If I'm going to read the article I might as well do the GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I will complete the modifications during the course of today.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again. The info on the Orange Committees is actually there, start of the Activities section. I couldn't think of a better place to put it. Once I catch up with my current promises, I will make a point of looking for one of your articles to comment on, not out of repayment but out of respect.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So it is, I was looking for it in the wrong place. That's a nice little article, good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 13:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've wanted a bit of a change of pace. The work I'm doing on coins is valuable, but I don't like to be pinned down to a single topic. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Pigeon photography

The article has been promoted, thanks for your help. I believe I have heard of a list of featured articles that should be reserved for special occasions. It would be a shame if this article were wasted for any date other than AFD. (Did you know that Sweden sent an official delegation to the Kaiser to protest against the construction of Neubronner's house?) If this list is on-wiki I couldn't find it. Or should I just tell Raoul directly? Hans Adler 09:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's great news Hans, very well done indeed. You can suggest that the article goes on the main page on a particular date at WP:TFAR. Suggestions are usually for about a month or so ahead. Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My problem is that my suggestion will be for 1 April 2012, so this is not the right process. I just discovered with horror that there are several complaints on WT:TFA about articles appearing on the main page without any prior warning. In one case this happened to an article that was meant for an anniversary. This is incredibly annoying. I hope I don't have to deface the article, submit it to FAR, and submit it to FAC again in March to prevent this problem. Hans Adler 15:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The best thing in that case is just to ask Raul not to schedule it before next April 1. He's usually quite accommodating. Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Barre ...

The university library managed to unearth their copy of the Analog article about the Green children, so I will be picking it up this week (hopefully) so I can see if it's worth adding anything to Barre's article. Otherwise, just waiting to see what Mike comes up with. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you do find anything worth including I bet this will be the first Anglo-Norman article to use a science fiction mag as a source. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again

For all your help on Thomas Jefferson Hogg. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a pleasure. It would need quite a bit more work before I'd risk it at FAC, but I think it easily meets the GA criteria now. Nice job. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

SOGA

Fixed the points you brought up - thanks, as always, for the great review. Ironholds (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Scrotal cancers

While pursuing my obsession with Cotton mills- I have strayed into Mule spinners' cancers and the related Chimney Sweeps' carcinomas- an area that was painfully absent from Wiki.Chimney sweep also needs a tweak.

Livestrong wristband supporting testicular-cancer awareness

Chimney sweeps had the highest incidence/prevalence of testicular cancer, btw.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any stats on that- and references- did it develop as a secondary- or is it just a confusion between the scrotum and the testicle? One needs to know!

I can find some references on Saturday, such as Adami's edited collection of surveys of cancer epidemiology.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong. The first sentence of Tamimi & Adami's article (2002, 2nd ed.) is "Cancer of the testis should not be confused, as sometimes happens, with scrotal cancer, a malignancy of the scrotal skin that killed young chimney sweeps in the United Kingdom two centuries ago and that has been largely eliminated." (429) Then they state "an association betweeen aircraft mechanics and an increased risk of testicular cancer" and "among petroleum workers ..., metal workers ..., and their sons .... among men in the printing ... and leather industries ...". (p. 437)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some rich source documents provided on line but I am now looking for suitable (in the copyright sense) illustrations. Have you or POD any ideas? There could be some interesting DYKs but I have never proposed one, and I am sure my prose could be enlivened a bit, to push it up the quality scale. Have you a moment to pop over? --ClemRutter (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What sort of images are you looking for? I usually search in google books, click on preview and full view and then try and find an old book with images that are out of copyright. There is one here for example but I'm not sure if that's the sort of thing your looking for. As for DYKs you nominate them at Template talk:Did you know - all the instructions are there. Richerman (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at online medical sources, particularly on Jstor and places like that. If it was a well known phenomenon then plenty of studies will have been done. Parrot of Doom 11:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Jstor is closed to me, do you have any tips on institutions that I can use on line that could give me the necessary accreditation to get a Jstor Logon and password? --ClemRutter (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You might to be able to get an alumni membership of your old university, assuming that you went to university of course. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

At this time of year it might be worth seeing if you know any students who might give you the login details for an institution which allows access. That's what I did, unfortunately it ran out a while back. When I finally start my degree (personal issues have interrupted that) I'll have a full login and will be able to get anything anyone wants. Parrot of Doom 14:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Naturally. Thats been done. There are some lovely spine chilling squidgy ones here, while the pre 1923 ones are a bit prudish, and lack the glory of colour. We need some nice CC-BT-SAs with no obvious attached Personality rights. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read about that. People did not tend to come from a long line of chimney sweeps! But I sincerely hope that sort of thing did not happen anymore long before colour photography.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Try government sources in countries where government works are automatically public domain (the USA and Poland are your best bets). – iridescent 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a bit of medical input. Chimney Sweeps' carcinoma affected the scrotum not the testicles (it was not Testicular cancer, a very different condition). Just in case there is any confusion... --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall that car mechanics were prone to a similar condition, caused by their habit of keeping oily rags in their pockets. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

and toolmakers who turned metals on lathes cooled with mineral oils. Richerman (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

…and a region of China where men traditionally wore boxes of smouldering charcoal next their nadgers whilst traversing the frozen mountain passes. Ning-ning (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems somehow unwise for more reasons than just the risk of cancer..... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I had those when I was younger; they're quite common in areas with the snow/hiking combination, although usually used for warming exposed areas (hands and faces). You can still buy them, although nowadays kerosene-fuelled gizmos made by Zippo are more common. – iridescent 21:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I advise the plastic packets that they sell as handwarmers, as a veteran of sitting outside for cold American and Canadian football games, I assure you they are just the thing to have under your gloves and inside your shoes. And they are much cheaper to buy in advance than at the match. Never thought of putting one in the crotch area though.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Suffragettes

On behalf of Queen Bee, thanks for your work on Koninginnedag

I know you had something to do with the Pankhurst article (I think), I wondered if you'd come across this superb photograph before now, and if you could think of a use for it? Parrot of Doom 22:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I had anything to do with Pankhurst's article, but that's a great photo. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes have a browse through the group it's in. Lately a lot more photographs have been added, take a look at some of the ones with the police, they're utterly superb. Parrot of Doom 23:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Some nice photos there. Disappointing how many are "all rights reserved" though. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The photo of the Suffragette arrest could be used in the surpisingly poor articles Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom or Suffragette. I'm amazed these article are in such a poor state - where are all the militant women on wikipedia? Richerman (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

They seemed to mob me when PoD and I wrote wife selling but otherwise invisible when it comes to getting down and dirty and actually writing something. The suffragettes deserve a lot better than what they've got here, I agree. As do so many other social history topics, like the workhouse article I'm now starting to feel a little bit guilty about abandoning to its fate. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As the white rabbit said, "so much to do, so little time to do it" Richerman (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm full of admiration for the suffragettes, they were obviously gutsy ladies. But voting's not all it's cracked up to be. I didn't bother to vote in yesterday's referendum on AV for instance, because I'm fed up with my vote being ignored. How paradoxical is that! Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm always conscious of the fact that I should vote because people have died for the right, but sometimes I wonder why I bother. I was undecided about the referendum on AV as the dicussion about it was pretty poor - but at the last minute I voted yes just to be awkward. When my younger brother fancied himself as an anarchist he used to say that if anyone wanted his vote that automatically excluded them from getting it. Richerman (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still of the same mind as your brother. Anyone who seeks a position of power is the last person to whom it should be given. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I always refer to them as "suffragists" in my articles and that avoids problems in advance. Personally, I'd prefer some version of the multiple vote which Nevil Shute set forth in In the Wet but perhaps I prefer democracy according to Terry Pratchett: One man, one vote. Which is great, as long as you are the one man with the only vote. Speaking of rulers, I really like that image of Queen B. When this article (I hope next April 30) makes its way to TFA, though, I think an image showing a lot of orange and people who should know better is a better idea and there is a fine one in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw that there has been some discusssion about whether it's suffragettes or suffragists but that seem to be a mostly American thing. They're always known a suffragettes in the UK. Richerman (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

They are two different things. "Suffragettes" was initially a nickname for a militant/activist group of women supporting voting for women. "Suffragist" means anyone who supports universal suffrage. There were suffragist groups - who also supported voting rights for women - in existence before and during the time of the suffragettes.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(od) Suffragans are men in long dresses, who support voting rights for men in long dresses. Ning-ning (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, moving swiftly on...I'm trying to decide whether this article from the New York Times (1907) is for real. Richerman (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Several were decidely not married", "An Anti-Suffragette Society Takes The Job In Hand", "I am almost ashamed to be wearing trousers", "There was some friction at the start of the meeting", "He was discharged in the police court the next morning". Sounds real to me… mind you, it's put me off eating cottage cheese. Ning-ning (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's real, I suspect, but I would hesitate to use it as a RS, there is definitely some er, that is, exaggeration for effect in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You could use the fun bits with attribution. I'd give "He was discharged in the police court the next morning" the prize. Even academics understand the use of humour these days. --Philcha (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a genuine NYT article as I found it via a search of their archives but I wondered if it may have been written as a piece of satire as I can't find any other references to the society on the web. Perhaps a search of the British The Times archive would come up with something. Either way, as Wehwalt says, there is at least some exaggeration for dramatic effect. It is funny though - almost as good as the Good Wife's Guide. Richerman (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Five years

Five years to Malleus Fatuorum! Thanks for everything! Acalamari 10:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus! Sorry this is a little late, but two days ago was your fifth anniversary here. I wanted to stop by to wish you a happy Wiki-birthday, to thank you for all the work you've done, and to say that I'm glad you're around. Best. Acalamari 10:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Malleus is less of a vet than me? Good lord. Still, congrats, and thanks for the work; like Acalamari, I think we're by far the richer for having you. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't time fly! Thanks very much to both of you. Malleus Fatuorum 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

pretty cool .. you're getting to be an old man there Mall. :) — Ched :  ?  17:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Many happy returns, youngster! (I celebrated my fifth birthday here back in January...) Keep up the good work and have a whisky on me. --John (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Younger than me also, I was five in January like John. Keep up the good work! BigDom 19:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic

WOW .. congratulations on the Thatcher GA. I'd have to imagine that it wasn't easy to edit that one given how recent it is. I'd supposed you had to really work to get changes made that would actually stick. Did you get much help with it, or just mostly plugged away on it by yourself? Anyway, Cheers my friend, take care. — Ched :  ?  17:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'll give it a edit over the next few days, if it is OK and give you some comments on the talk page. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been a GA for two or three months now, but feel free to take a look through Wehwalt. I've pretty much given up on any thoughts of taking it to FAC though. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I had quite a bit of help, in particular from User:John and User:Geometry guy. I actually thought it would be a lot tougher than it was; the main thing needed was to reorganise the article thematically rather than chronologically, which just needed a bit of graft really. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it as time permits. Some reason you don't think it should go to FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Principally because I think the sheer number of available sources and the length of the Further reading section might prompt some questions about why sources X or Y haven't been used. I'm not saying that it shouldn't go to FAC, just that it's not on my radar. I wouldn't stand in the way of anyone else who wanted to nominate it though. Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I will be facing a similar problem with Nixon when I get to that I hope this summer. I've danced around the main article for long enough, need to get down to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Phipson

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Nothing to do with me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

BS. Thanks for your help! (Remember, this was the one that got slapped with a CSD tag.) BTW, weren't you working on workhouses? Phipson did one as well, in Norfolk, and Commons has a few images. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember now. I think it looked strangely familiar. Malleus Fatuorum 12:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Sorry, but was this intentional?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

On your user page. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Malleus may be a Chinese whore. Parrot of Doom 11:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it just looked a bit vandalistic. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please! A Chinese whore from Mars if you don't mind! Malleus Fatuorum 12:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Malleus, just swinging by and thank you for Olivia's GA review and the copyedits - the page passed FA and your help is much appreciated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and well done for sticking with it. I think that literary and hard science topics are the amongst the most difficult to get through FAC. The first because the writing is expected to match the subject matter and the second because often hardly anyone but the nominator can understand it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a huge compliment and even greater coming from you. Thanks so much. I'm preparing another one - The Sun Also Rises - and I'm not expecting it to be easy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not easy to please, that's true. Neither here nor in real life. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

As a fan of William of Newburgh, I'd like to compliment you on your work in making Green children of Woolpit an FA. (I still think it needs a mention of Stow's Girl Green as Elderflower, though. An unfortunately not-sufficiently-appreciated [save perhaps in Australia] novelist.) Deor (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

'cos we all had to read Midnite in school....I had forgotten but the name rang a bell.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a book I'm familiar with. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Phoronid

Hi, Chinese whore from Mars masquerading as Malleus Fatuorum. I've resolved what I could on the spot, made suggestions about some, and would like to discuss a few. --Philcha (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's discuss it on the GA review page. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I really have no time for GA reviewers insisting on changes that are irrelevant so far as the GA criteria are concerned, so if you think I'm doing that then don't be afraid to say so. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, in fact I edited in one of your suggestions after you'd passed the article as GA. Many thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a really nice article Philcha, well within spitting distance of FAC I'd have thought. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm flattered, knowing your FA record. But I've no intention to go for FA with any "my" GAs, as I estimate the time that would take could be used for at least 1 more GA. My main objection is the requirement to comply with all of MOS, except Alt Text if that's still on the sick list. In particular I think: WP:DASH is a waste of readers' and volunteer editors' time, as the latter have salaried copyeditors and type-setters behind them; and MOS or the way it is applied contradicts principles of web readability (summary: users want to scan, not read) know before WP was thought of. --Philcha (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dashes are easily dealt with, I use a script. Alt text is almost as easily dealt with: "alt=photo". I take your point though, there are some articles I write with no intention of ever taking to FAC, but somehow they seem to end up there nevertheless. This would be a good example. But I think that for me FA is a kind of closure; with GA you always know that there's work still to be done. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for a URL for the dashes script and how to install and run it. Most of "my" GAs are in zoology and paleontology, where closure is impossible as the state of the art improves - but so far I've thought improving another taxon to GA was more productive than updating and refining an existing GA. Right now, I think closure would only be for Jim Baxter in "my" GAs.

See the first entry here, and just copy it into whichever skin you're using. Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Women's March

Thank you so much for your review of The Women's March on Versailles! I'm excited that someone read it, and I greatly appreciate the effort you put into reviewing it and making copy edits. I will try to address all your remarks on the review page as soon as possible. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've not finished yet Steve, thank me when it's done. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not finished reviewing it, or not finished editing it? Should I wait to make changes to the text? SteveStrummer (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not finished reviewing, haven't read all of it yet. But please feel free to make changes. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've finished now, just a few more points on the review page. Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2

It's understandable that you are unhappy with Sarek's adminship. However you are making borderline personal attacks. If you believe that the editor should have his admin tool removed for good cause then the best venues would be ANI or RFAR. Continued sniping at the RFA talk page is unhelpful.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing. Kindly go and harass someone else. I'm sure there must be lots of people who might be impressed by admin huffing and puffing, but I'm not one of them. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

For anyone interested, this is what Master Beback has taken exception to. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking exception to your extensive posting to the RFA and its talk page. If you consider a single talk page posting to be harassment then your numerous postings about Sarek go well beyond that. Please treat others as you would wish to be treated.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Take exception to whatever you like, but please do it elsewhere, as I'm just not interested in what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Jstor

I've managed to snaffle myself a temporary login for Jstor. I don't know how long it will last so if there's anything you think I can get for you, let me know. Parrot of Doom 13:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Any chance you could get hold of this for me? Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it, TVM, exactly what I was looking for. Completely unrelated, for some reason I was reminded earlier of this gem, on which a surprising amount has been published. That surely deserves a little bit of TLC. Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer- the problem is you need oftem but so little of it each time- maybe just to get a second opinion on a reference- its rare that you need to make multiple references to the same article- but Iĺl bear it in mind. There does seem to be a bigger issue- Jstor does appear to be an educational charity/in favour of open learning-- should we be lobbying for AWikiGnome to open negotiations between WP and Jstor to establish an Athena login for Wikipedians who want one. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone...

See a worthy DYK in Dagan (bishop)? Enough to make me bother with reviewing someone else's DYK submission? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"... that the Irish bishop and saint, Dagan, may have attempted to excommunicate the missionaries sent by the pope to convert Britain by refusing to eat with them?" Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, good one! I'll submit it tonight, unless a better one comes in. This guy'll be lucky to make GA - no way I can possibly tease out enough for FA out of him. I've pretty much scraped the bottom of the barrel now. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth. If you don't feel like reviewing another DYK submission, then I can use one of my many review credits --Guerillero | My Talk 20:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I don't mind doing a review, I just don't want to bother unless it's a good hook. I can do boring hooks all day, but something that's actually "hooky" is better... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything in Geoffrey Ridel (royal justice)? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Golondrina point

I feel that Golondrina point is now ready for another look. I think all concerns have been addressed, although during this process I have expanded a number of sections which will require some re-reading. Thank you for your time and review, France3470 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice job. Congratulations on your bright shiny new GA badge. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! France3470 (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Workhouse

While trawling around for stuff on this, I came across this link. It has some interesting images that I thought you might find useful. Parrot of Doom 18:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, looks interesting. I must get back to the workhouses soon. In the meantime I've been working on this. There's nowt so queer as Yorkshire folk. Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw, I think you'll have no problem improving that, it must have been unique enough to have plenty written about it. Parrot of Doom 18:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can tell a lot of people are rehashing the same story. Rather irritatingly though I can't find a reliable source to confirm that the its first use was to decapitate John of Dalton in 1286. A lot of web sites just say it without giving any sources at all. Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look on Jstor and there are only a few mentions, usually in works on capital punishment in general. Nothing specific enough to warrant reading the whole thing. Have you tried British History Online? Parrot of Doom 18:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have yeah, but there's nothing there. I think I'm beginning to piece together a story, but it's the very early (pre-1541) history I'm having trouble finding good sources for. I really can't see Ealdgyth being too impressed with this one for instance, yet a lot of others seem to have copied from it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't list its sources, but it at least indicates that whoever wrote it probably knows a thing or two about the gibbet's history. Perhaps an email to the Piece Hall Museum might be in order, they may have some leaflets or something. Parrot of Doom 21:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a useful find, thanks. I don't think there is a Piece Hall Museum any more (have you seen the Piece Hall article?!!!), certainly the axe itself is in the Bankfield Museum so far as I've been able to ascertain. I'm not looking for FAC-proof sources, so I'm quite happy with Calderdale Council's Register of Ancient Monuments listing. I suppose that for some having to listen to the bagpipes in their final minutes must have seemed like a cruel and unusual punishment, but I'd probably have found it strangely comforting. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Frederic Coleman Nantz (if that link's still red in a couple of days I'll knock up a stub from the DNB—that's just embarrassing) wrote a play called Dennis, or, The Gibbet Law of Halifax about said gibbet, which was something of a hit in the 1830s and probably warrants a mention in the In Popular Culture "Literary legacy" section. Ottava might be able to dig something up if you poke him. – iridescent 01:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Ottava's gone AWOL. I'm not terribly happy about that section, which I inherited and have tried hard to prune, so I'm not looking to expand it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a hook in the play that would allow it to be mentioned elsewhere in the article? I'm really struggling with trying to find a reason to include Coetzee's 2003 Nobel prize lecture, which just reads to me like a stream of nonsense. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ottava is still about—he sent me an email a couple of days ago—although I don't know if he's active on any of the wikis any more. I know nothing about the play other than that it exists, and was about "a local folk hero, who was falsely accused of a crime and escaped death". If you haven't already, this list looks like it might be a good source of leads on various gibbetty things. – iridescent 02:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually that was very helpful. I'd been puzzling over why it was that some sources referred to what was apparently the same book as being written either by William Bentley or more usually by John Bentley. It turns out that neither of them wrote it, it was written by someone else entirely who died in debtors prison unable to find the money to have it published. William and his son John then just stuck their names on it, first William and then John. Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Edit warring seems to be following me about of late. The good news is that this might prove to be a very good article, one of the most salacious yet. Remarkably, it seems that nobody has actually bothered to digitise fully one of the forty or so editions of this little gem. Considering how many were sold I thought there might be a few available at antique book stores (not that I can justify buying one) but no such luck. Parrot of Doom 12:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to be irritatingly and unctuously polite, it's the wikiway. Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it's one of the five pillars. I'd rather write about the two pillars of alabaster, topped with.....well, just read it and see. Parrot of Doom 13:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of print-on-demand outlets selling facsimiles of Harris's List, generally for around a tenner—just bung the name into Amazon, skip past the various editions of Hallie Rubenhold's book, and take your pick. – iridescent 16:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

They're all far too expensive really. This would be useful to gain access to, I find it incredibly frustrating when I see things like this online, that don't offer a simple preview, or even the option to download for 10 shillings. Parrot of Doom 16:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me look into a couple of books/bibliographies and see what I can turn up. Does anyone have access to this? I don't, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I do - feel free to ask if any of you need something off there. 272 hits for "Workhouses", although from a quick glance not all of them would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See if any of these are of help with Workhorse. I'll do a quick glance through for the gibbet also. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ashley, William J. An Introduction to English Economic History 2 vol. 1906 edition of the second volume is the one you're wanting - covers 'poor relief'. Probably somewhat outdated, but may have useful bits.
• Johnstone, Hilda "Poor-relief in the royal households of thirteenth-century England" Speculum vol. 4 (1929) pp. 149-167
• Page, Frances M. "The customary poor-law of three Cambridgeshire manors" Cambridge Historical Journal vol. 3 (1930) pp. 125-133
• Tierney, Brian Medieval Poor Law: A Sketch of canonical theory and its application in England Berkley, CA 1959.
• Dyer, Christopher Standards of living in the Later Middle Ages: Social Change and England c. 1200-1520 Cambridge 1989
• Hanawalt, Barbara The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England 1986 - I own this and while it's not going to have a lot that's relevant, it's an incredibly engaging book on how the peasantry lived in the later 1300s and 1400s. Highly recommended just to have some clue about peasant life.
• Houlbrooke, Ralph A. The English Family, 1450-1700 1984
• McIntosh, Marjorie K. "Local Responses to the Poor in Late Medieval and Tudor England" Continuity and Change vol. 3 (1988) pp. 109-145

I did check my own books but ... economic history ain't my interest and the time frame we're talking about here is also somewhat outside my interests. There's a little in Dyer's Making a Living in the Middle Ages which is of general background to how the poor were dealt with in the 1300s or so, but it's very generalized and i'm not sure how much help it'll be to you.

Thanks Ealdgyth. My vision for the workhouse article is that it should focus on the period from 1834 onwards, when the (English) state began to involve itself in the provision of poor relief, the classic Oliver Twist workhouse if you will. There's a lot to be said about the provision of poor relief before the New Poor Law, and the article obviously has to provide some background in that, but there's very little that can be said generally about workhouses pre-1834 than what the the article presently does, in my opinion anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

this

Made me smile. sonia♫ 04:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

River Don Navigation

I think I have now addressed all the issues raised, except the final one on Bibliography styles, where I have left a note explaining my reasoning. There has been a bit of a delay in addressing some of them, as I am in the Hebrides at the moment, and internet access is a bit hit and miss. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it must be, but lucky you! I'll take another look through in an hour or so hopefully. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'm sorry you don't like the style of refs, but I noticed that you passed Kidwelly and Llanelly Canal at GAN which uses the same style, and made no comment. I'm back on the mainland again now. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it there either, but what can I do? It's not part of the GA criteria. I have no power to insist that editors do things "right", ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a driveby comment—again, this isn't part of the GA (or FA) criteria, but just something to bear in mind—is that the enormous route diagram template is making the page load time spectacularly slow (around a minute to load for me, and it will probably crash smartphones, iPads and older computers). Try loading it with a purged cache and you'll see. I'm not sure there's an obvious way to avoid it—even if you took it out, someone would almost certainly replace it—but bear it in mind, especially if it goes to FA and winds up on the main page. – iridescent 18:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much every canal article will have the same issue, not sure what can be done about it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I know; it hits the railways lines as well, but for some reason the lag seems more pronounced on the canals. (Possibly they use a wider set of icons?) I sometimes slim the RDT out altogether and replace it with a sketch-map (see Brill Tramway for instance), but that loses the internal-linking functionality. (It is possible to add wikilinks to a graphic—click on the individual rooms on this floor plan, for instance—but it seems too much like hard work.) – iridescent 19:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Producing image maps is easy enough, just a bit tedious for something the size of those canal maps. I suspect that the delay is to do with the number of images being downloaded, each in a separate connection, but I haven't looked in any detail. It seems to me that there's a long-standing and unresolved problem underlying why it is that some pages, like Israel for instance, take such a long time to load. I know that some think it's the use of templates that's the root problem but I don't entirely buy that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain that it's the number of images—each square of the RDT grid is treated as a separate image by the software, and that explains why once a page is loaded once, other pages using similar diagrams built from the same elements load much faster until you again purge your browser cache. With some of the really big ones like East Coast Main Line or Isle of Wight Railway (look me in the eye and tell me you can honestly make sense of the latter), you can almost hear the server kitties screaming. – iridescent 19:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of the bibliography, Ian Allan is a publishing house and chain of bookshops, not an author. – iridescent 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I added Ian Allan as the author as well as the publisher, because the Harvard notation doesn't really work if there is no author, and the {{cite book}} template doesn't work too well either with no author. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Exoplanet GANs

Hi, Malleus Fatuorum. I've created quite a backlog of exoplanet GANs in the Physics and astronomy section. Would you be willing to take a look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 13:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Blimey, you certainly have. I've got another couple of GA reviews to finish off, and one of my own I'm trying to finish, but I'll see what I can do later. Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Whenever you are ready. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It was only fair to deal with the Soyuz TM-30 article first. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. I wasn't trying to imply anything, my comment was actually a belated response to your own since I had forgotten to respond earlier.

I hold what you did with respect. I agree that it was the most fair action. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing GJ 3634 b, and for your copyediting efforts on the article. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The experience was instructive, but it didn't motivate me to become a reviewer of exoplanet GAs. I'm an unpaid volunteer, you're an unpaid volunteer, we each do what we can. Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Soyuz TM-30/GA1

Thanks for reviewing by GAN of Soyuz TM-30. I've addressed all of the concerns that you've raised. When you get the chance, take a look to see what you think. Thanks again, Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that you promoted the article. Thanks a lot for your help in improving it. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Care to do some missionary work?

Here? Of course I understand if you don't want to touch it with a bargepole. I put the article on 0RR and can't really take a view on content issues. There's an interesting discussion about SYNTH and of course NPOV is always an issue on an article like this. Whether you choose to get involved or not I wish you all the best from rainy, smiley, have-a-good-day, bankrupt California.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John (talk • contribs)

There isn't a bargepole long enough, so no thanks. You've got admin protection, all I've got is a load of assholes looking for their pound of flesh. I can't afford to get involved in an article under 0RR, I'd be out of here even sooner than I plan to be. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I do understand. I was hoping the quality of your writing and your credentials as a GA and FA writer would outweigh their respective disagreements. If you could even comment in talk (treat it a a GA review if you like), I know that would help. Again, I understand if you have better things to do. --John (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I blame Malleus here. My experience has been that "true believers" don't really pay much attention to the writing credentials of the other folks involved, especially if they don't share the same viewpoint. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I have better things to do John, it's that I have far less dangerous things to do. I'm enough of a target as it is. Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough Malleus, point taken. Remember if ever you feel picked on, my talk page is a click away. Although being an admin isn't the magic wand you sometimes think, I will always be willing to add a third opinion in any dispute you are having. Take care, and I'm sorry to have bothered you. --John (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never thought of it as a magic wand, rather a cloak of invulnerability. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not so much of a cloak of invulnerability, more a buildup of trustworthiness. Social capital in a way. I am learning, slowly and haltingly, both here and in real life, that "Excuse me, what are you doing? Could you please do x instead?" is more effective than "Knock it off, dimwit". Because the former builds a relationship, the latter disrupts one. They mean the same. To the degree that we favor the former over the latter, we build a web of trust that we can sometimes leverage to get things done around here. To the degree we allow ourselves to use the latter, we become mavericks and ROUGE. Are you consciously kicking against the pricks? I haven't been following your talk page or your contribs but you don't seem like you've been in any controversies lately, or have I missed something? --John (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If by that you mean have I said anything recently that an administrator took exception to then the answer is yes, and it will continue to be yes until either the way that wikipedia is run is reformed or I get fed up with it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with the PR of the Gibbet...

So you're free to start editing again. So we're also back to the perennial problem .. what next at FAC? Liber Eliensis, Theobald of Bec, or William de Chesney. Nothing very meaty, I'm afraid. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lieber Eliensis is a bit different, shall we do that one next? Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the PR, I'll work on those points. The story turned out to be a bit more complicated than I'd imagined, as nobody knows when the gibbet was installed, probably in the 16th century according to Holt, but the first recorded beheading was in 1286, presumably using a sword or an axe. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Liber is up next. Theo's high on my list too, just to get him done, but I don't dare submit him to another PR (he's already had two) but I did do a significant expansion on him after the last one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing that strikes me about that article (which I haven't read) is the main image is of a church. I had a quick look around for images of the book but could find none, not even in the British Library's site. If one can't be found, I suggest moving the church image away from the top. Parrot of Doom 16:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The book is the history of that church. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've wanted an image of the manuscript too... I even went so far as to visit the BL when I was there last year, but not only did they not allow photographs, the thing wasn't on display with their other displays. Very annoying! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, but to me it doesn't quite look right. I always close the notifications on my watchlist but I'm sure I saw one about a British Library editathon just now - I wonder if an email to the right boffins would present an image of the manuscript? Parrot of Doom 22:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

For various reasons Wikipedia has a lot of strong contacts with Cambridge University. It might be worth seeing if anyone can rustle up a photo of Trinity's MS, and just bypass the BL altogether. Have a poke through the people who attended these things and see if anyone's based at Trinity. – iridescent 22:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm often amazed by the strange reluctance exhibited by most people to give up rights to their images. I once tried to get a boat museum in Liverpool to allow me to upload an image of a boat they once held, a boat that once worked as an icebreaker on the Manchester Bolton and Bury Canal. That boat had been destroyed in a fire in their building, the image had practically no commercial value whatsoever, and yet they wouldn't allow it. It's almost as though some people believe that taking photographs steals the soul, or in that case, steals the soul of the boat that was fine until they got their hands on it. Parrot of Doom 08:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed odd. It's partly that managers don't feel they have the mandate without taking the thing to the Board of Trustees; big places like the BM & probably BL do indeed have a non-release policy in place from the Trustees. But at least they have people actively marketing their images & do make a good income from them. Some places may have contractual arrangements with picture libraries & they're not sure if such a release would breach or threaten that. But it contrasts strongly with the continent, where institutions are queuing up to dump place their old b+w photos onto Commons. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than fuss over trying to get a pic of the manuscript (which, is pretty much a manuscript - it's not noted for its illumination or anything) I've moved the cathedral pic down and added two 13th-century manuscript images - one of Emma of Normandy and one of Matthew Paris. Hopefully that'll work. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Tom Johnson (bareknuckle_boxer)

Thank you for the corrections to Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer), Malleus. For someone who has an aptitude for sources & is not total idiot with the English language (Mancunian version, but without t'stereotypes <g>), I really do make a hash of the most basic stuff. I have nominated the article at GAN even though I am not happy with the lede (or "lead", as I prefer, from my days in student journalism etc). I am hoping that the reviewer can make some suggestions about that bit in particular. Feel free to weigh in there because it is terrible but, honestly, it is also not my forte. If you think that any of the other bits are even dubious then, obviously, do your stuff - WP:OWN I am definitely not! One day I will get the hang of these significant grammatical and stylistic issues but I seem to have a tendency to concentrate on obtaining sources & filling out content by using those findings. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It caught my eye because I recently took Simon Byrne through GAN. If nobody else has over the next day or so then I'll sign up for the review. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, that article has had a chequered history. I've just skimmed it now and am impressed. It is a slightly later era & that probably assists with the sources but the one thing that really, really stands out is the illustrations. Aside from the single image in the article (& the umpteen unshown variants of that image), I have only seen one that is supposedly of Johnson. The Byrne article is imaginative in using more generalised images + what amounts to newspaper cuttings etc. Neat idea. I'm not unduly fussed about images per se but there is no doubt that they can assist in the flow of a shed-load of text, so perhaps this type of approach is something that I should look at in future. Especially since shed-loads of text seems to be my speciality. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't take any credit for the images, all I did was work on the sourcing issues raised during the FAR and rewrite the text to fit what I could find. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar question

Malleus, I know you have a good ear for prose; would you take a look at a question Ealdgyth has raised at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nebula_Science_Fiction/archive1? It's the question about "first story" vs. "first stories". Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's got to be "stories", else it looks like they all collaborated on one story. Personally I'd try rewriting that sentence though, as if you change it to "stories" then it opens up the possibility that he bought more than the first story from each of them (also their second, third, and so on). Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me. Thanks for taking a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much (again!) for your GA review of The Women's March on Versailles. I appreciate all your attention, effort, and advice, and I sincerely hope our paths will cross more in the future. Cheers! SteveStrummer (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice story, but of course far too well written. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nailsea again

Hi Malleus, I've done up Nailsea's Sports section now and I was wondering if this was hopefully alright? I've completely rewrote the section, added new bits and even promised a Sports in Nailsea article. I have a feeling that the failure of Nailsea's GAN was kind of my fault, but I've finished all my exams for this year now and next year awaits. Regards Jaguar (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's nobody's fault, don't worry about that. Here's hoping that your exam results are what you want. That section looks much better now; what I suggest you do is nominate it at GAN again and we'll go through another review, which will be much shorter this time. Let me know as soon as you're ready and we'll get this knocked on the head. Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have renominated Nailsea for GA. The new review can be started on its talk page. Thank you very much! I don't get my results back until July. Best, Jaguar (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Review done, now on hold pending you sorting out the confusion over the swimming pool. Malleus Fatuorum 13:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that so quickly.— Rod ^talk 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review - with Nailsea out of the way we can try focusing the others. Regards Jaguar (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It really was just that Sports section that was the stumbling block the first time. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tom Johnson (bareknuckle_boxer) - GAN review

Thanks for taking on this review. Obviously, I'll comment in future on the review page in order to keep things, erm, in order. However, two quick questions of a procedural nature.

Firstly, I think it is usually easier not to amend the article until you say so as otherwise you'll be trying to hit a moving target. Feel free to tell me that I am wrong.

Secondly, you'll have to let me know whether you would prefer me to comment on your comments inline or en bloc. My past two reviews have preferred the inline method but I am happy to go with which ever method makes suits you best.

Again, thanks for taking it on. Those bloody leads: I hate 'em ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Re layout of the review, whatever suits you is fine with me. I tend to review section by section, so if I've commented on a section then please feel free to edit it as necessary. We can leave the lead until the end, and I'll be happy to help with that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I deliberately kept out of the Anniversary comments in the section below this because the GA review process was underway. I merely commented on what I thought was a rather clever use of grammar - that made my day, it really did.

Now that the review is over I would like to put on record a couple of things:

• I was already aware of you past RfA history and could not understand it then. Having had quite close dealings with you over the last couple of days, well, I understand it even less. Obviously, I've also seen you around in other areas but we've never had a substantial involvement. I could not fault you in those other areas either. It is plain to see that you had some ambivalence regarding certain WP processes even before your first RfA but, as was said by others in your RfAs, there is much in that attitude which deserves respect and consideration. Otherwise it could become an old boys club. Why you are still p'ing from the outside is beyond me.

• My appreciation for your assistance in the review is immense. You picked up some absolute howlers that, as a sourcing sort of person, I really should have had resolved earlier. But you also improved things in the area that is often called wikignoming. Your eye for a phrase and for grammar was astounding, and the catch on the 4 digit number caused me to revisit WP:MOSNUM. Perhaps as important, you were not remotely "uncivil" or "tetchy", which is something that your RfA opposers in the past sometimes raised as an issue. It was, in fact, an extremely pleasant process and it was also an educational one for me: the ODNB template, the fancy use of the text footnote formatting etc, and just the general thoroughness of it all will stand me in good stead.I learned much and am grateful to you for that.

One day I'll have a go at FAC with something. It would be an absolute pleasure if you were there by my side. Feel free to copyedit this message. <g> - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sitush. My approach to reviews, especially GA reviews, isn't the same as some others' might be. I quite like to roll my sleeves up and get stuck in, but if a nominator objects then I'm equally happy to sit back and wait for the work to be done. As for my RfAs, they're a distant memory, but still a lingering bad one. Nothing to be done about that now though. Wikipedia and I will either work it out or ... we won't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Got time for a copy edit?

I've been copy-editing Hawker Siddeley Harrier for a little while because it had some obvious prose issues that were impeding the MilHist A-class review. I've been over it again and Dank (talk · contribs) has been cleaning up my mess but he doesn't have time to do the whole thing (it is quite a big article). I wonder if you might be able to assist by brigning a fresh pair of eyes to it? Dan got as far as the "Controls and handling" section (about halfway through the prose) if you didn't fancy picking it up from the top. Anything you could do would be appreciated. Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you HJ ... no, better not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Brrritish question...

...for you and your stalkers; I hope one of y'all can help. In 1757 George II donates the library from St. James's Palace (where I just added a note), and books from that library (including the Queen Mary Psalter) become part of the BL MS collection (see this, p. 2). Yet the Royal Collection is in the Windsor Palace; this page links the donation from George II explicitly to the Royal Collection. So--there are manuscripts in the BL collection which are housed at Windsor? Or am I misreading any of the sources? Thanks to anyone who can help out here. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

George III built up a second library of 65,000 volumes, the majority of which were donated to the British Museum by George IV in 1823, a small proportion being retained which, along with George IV's books, formed the nucleus of a new Royal Library, which was further augmented by the return of duplicates from the British Museum. As far as I can see from the two sources you've provided, no manuscripts in the BL collection are housed at Windsor, but manuscripts formerly in the BL are housed at Windsor. George VII's collection of books on talking vegetables is housed in a small bedside cabinet at Windsor. Ning-ning (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed the "to" out- that should read "talking to vegetables". Ning-ning (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But (really, you are talking to a vegetable!) will you do me a favor? Or a favour? Tweak Queen Mary Psalter to have as much correct information as possible? That is, if you think that anything can correctly be added (based on the sources), please do so. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a go sometime in the next few days; got work pressures combined with a cold at the moment. Ning-ning (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bless you. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My anniversary

I just realised that it's three years to the day since my last humiliation. Doesn't time fly. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And it's thanks to your example that I never bothered. If folks can do that to you, I'd rather not share the "mop". Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd likely be OK Ealdgyth. I just noticed that Drmies, my collaborator on the green children of Woolpit, was "promoted" earlier today. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec x2) Having just read a lot of it I wouldn't call that your humiliation - rather the opposite in fact. I believe that your views on 99% of subjects (that I have read you comment on) are accurate, succinct and expressed clearly. It's a little bit like the (and please take no offence at this lol) attitude people had to Susan Boyle before she started singing. Some will always vote against her no matter how her voice sounds, after all singing is about how you look isn't it?

My fav was RP and his "you don't understand about deletions" - I am pretty sure that any editor who has been here for more than six months knows about the policies, it's just that most of us only get involved when we need to rather than making it part of a career path. Moreover we can all read WP: guides and, unless one is a complete dunderhead, it is pretty easy to catch on - I am also sure you are the sort of person who would consider asking others with more experience in issues that you are unsure of.

Keep up the good work - you should be proud of your quality of contributions to Wiki articles and your help given to editors, I am sure that you are extremely appreciated, especially by those who appreciate you for what you are. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps, but why should I subject myself to that? And, indirectly, throw mud on you and others who have been unfairly abused by the current system? Some things I just can't do to friends, even friends that I've met only online. I'd feel like I was slapping you and all the help you've given me over the years ... Not to mention, I so rarely have a use for what I'd get... I mean, the few times I need to move a page over a redirect - I can usually find an admin to do it for me. I'm hardly likely to start blocking or taking part in the dramah boards either...

You're not the only one with an anniversary coming up - 27 May will be my 4 year anniversary. Unlike the whole admin thing, I like to think I've made at least some good work here in my four years. Mostly, I've enjoyed it. There have been a few points where I wanted to tear my hair out, but generally it's enjoyable to learn new things and share them with others. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy anniversary, Malleus; I'll drink to your health. I read that discussion a long time ago, and it certainly dampened my enthusiasm. I have a better recollection of my friend Kelapstick's RfA, which also got derailed, and left a real dirty taste in my mouth. I think you (and Ealdgyth) and I have different ideas because we have had different experiences--I've never run up against a wall in a way that made me doubt our entire system of governance, if that is what it is. But in case this wasn't clear to you while working on the green children, for instance, and in other random remarks I've left here the last year or so, I have the greatest respect for you and the work you do. Same goes for Ealdgyth, by the way. And next time you say something not PC enough, I would be honored to block you. Oh, in reference to something I saw here a while ago, my JSTOR access is permanent (as long as I don't get fired), so let me know if I can help. Also, I never realized there was a third option, anti-theism. I think one can be all three, no? Atheist, anti-theist, and agnostic? Drmies (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? No One is keeping count.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

... and that ^ wins the award for the most subtle use of grammar today. Brilliant :) - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's probably not original, I very rarely am.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And on the same day as the failed rapture, too. Looks like you're not alone in being disappointed... Parrot of Doom 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The rapture failed. Bloody hell, I was rather hoping all the god God fearing clowns would be taken up so the rest of us could crack on with living. Bah. </end atheistic drivel> Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 yesterday, about the Giggs injunction farce. He defended the mention of Giggs on W as being derived from reliable sources, stressed the US nature of WF, said that WF would hand over to enquiring lawyers the ip address of any contributor posting libel on W, did not mention anything about libel derived from a reliable source. So… libels published in a reliable source can be added to W without fear of Jimbosity? Ning-ning (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the rapture occurred, but no one qualified due to doctrinal errors that have increased over the centuries. How were we to know that Mumbo Jumbo, God of the Congo was the real deal?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Humphreys provided a citation :) Ning-ning (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a good job my wife and I weren't taken - we'd just spent over £170 on a months shopping when I heard about it. What a waste that would have been! Richerman (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

They couldn't take me. I just couldn't find anything chic in which to appear before The Highest Judge Of All.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I spent the day huddled in a corner shielding myself against the relentless wind and rain, in Northern Ireland, filming a North West 200 that after many hours of deliberation was cancelled. I'd have welcomed the end of the world. Parrot of Doom 14:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This RfA thing is a running sore that will never be healed. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yap yap yap yap

I never believed until today that some editors here could be quite so sycophantic. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about, he's like one of those little dogs that runs alongside as you cycle along, never quite having the courage to bite your ankle. Parrot of Doom 19:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I can think of several editors even today who might fit that description, but I think I know the one you're talking about. "All mouth and no trousers" springs to mind. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

PS. Prepare to be blocked. Did I ever tell you that I was once blocked for making a very similar comment to yours, which included the word "sycophantic" as yours does? Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? I never knew that, you should mention it more often, people need to know these things. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought that people were getting tired of hearing me complain about it, but it's all in the block log. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You have a block log? Goodness gracious. Parrot of Doom 20:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, it's amazing but true. Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So do I. But I also got a (now deleted) super-sekrit page at ARBCOM so I've levelled up beyond Malleus. (don't tell Ellen - she gets all huffy because it seems she wasn't trusted enough to know about it, and got egg on her face denying it existed) Pedro :  Chat  20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw a tiny bit of that, but obviously as a peon not much. Did it really happen? Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to take my word for it, but yes. I might be known for being a miserable git but I'm not a liar. Nevertheless, the above was only a joke commentary about your block log and I've gladly moved on regarding the arbcom page (and trust me - as a peon myself I never saw it - the page - discussion and subsequent deletion was through off-wiki concourse with others). Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea from that you only might be a miserable git? Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair point sir. Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We miserable gits ought to form a cabal club project ... oh I don't know. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oddfellows Lodge, perhaps? Yworo (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yay. More. --Moni3 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Haven't heard the word 'git' since the Alexei Sayle Show. Didn't you kill my brother? Drmies (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I might have done, what's his name? Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

He looks like this guy. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Speer

Thanks for the fixes.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I was watching a TV programme about him and thought I'd read his article. Didn't realise it was one of yours. Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It was my second solo FA, but my first wasn't very good. I try to keep the quality up. Fortunately the Bundesarchiv has given us lots of images. There is something fascinating about the man, and of course the relationship with Hitler ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ferret

I think there's a conspiracy against ferrets and ferret farmers. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow you'll be able to read that deleted article, whereas I'll still have no idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"Joe Ciuffo, of Haddon Hieghts Philadelphia (it says so on facebook so it must be true) is unofficially the world's largest ferret farmer with 3,200 ferrets. The previous record of 25 was held by an englishman who changed his name to ferret out of love for his animals. Ciuffo garners the nickname "ferret-whisperer" because he is thought by many to be able to talk to ferrets. He claims, on his website IloveferretsmynameisJoeCiuffo.com, to have everyday conversations with his ferrets, usually during breakfast. He also claims to have named each ferret using different variations of the names of disney princesses."

The secretive world of The Cabal is really not as exciting as the more excitable conspiracy-mongers might think. – iridescent 21:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I never thought that it was, and I can say with absolute confidence that Jo Ciuffo is small beer by the standards of American breeders like Marshall Farms. As for that "previous English record", I have a friend with over 250 ferrets here in England, all of them unwanted, rescued, or found wandering. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things...

First, can any of your TPSs find anything interestingly DYK worthy in Saxon (horse)? Second, how's Liber Eliensis looking? It's looking like FAC will be promoted in the next few days, so I'm going to try to be ready to put up something else.. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the Liber (why do I always want to type Lieber?) looks fine now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

For someone uninterested in horse racing, the only DYK hook material would seem to be in the final paragraph. Something like "... that the stallion Saxon's offspring were the subject of teasing from his owner's brother, resulting in a challenge race that his (some horsebreeding word goes here) won by four lengths?" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's all that I can see as well. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all I could see too, and quite honestly it's not striking me as entertaining enough to bother with all the paperwork at DYK ... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Don't know whether you are familiar with wikipedia ethics. Please don't reverts changes by someone even without a discussion or valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind V R (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To what are you referring? Malleus Fatuorum 08:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this nonsense. There seems to be a great deal that you don't know. Including that you ought to sign your postings. Malleus Fatuorum 08:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has ethics? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice...

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Liber Eliensis/archive1 - the first point? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dangling prepositions aren't really a problem, but I'll take a look at that and recast it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Miss Moppet

I've just gone through the history of the page and hadn't realized you and PoD made so many edits. I still think that Susanne/ILT's edits should be deleted, at FAR or before it goes there. Chances are I've done enough work that it will survive FAR, and you, PoD, and Ruhrfisch could help bring it through. How does that sound? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with whatever you decide to do. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are behind you 100% and increasing rapidly as we run in the opposite direction.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at Wehwalt. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like what he is doing, because I believe content is more important than contributors, and pulling out everything written by a specific editor is silly in my mind. But if he wants to do it, I have enough respect for other editors and their autonomy and needs that I'll sit on my hands.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I see; it's a she BTW I believe. As must be obvious from the discussion on SandyG's talk page I agree with you, but like you I'm not going to start a fight over it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is not my battle to fight, as I said I understand where she is coming from, and I'm actually somewhat curious to see what will happen. Especially if Revdel is used.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If Revdel is used it will be a disaster I think, but time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the use of Revdel. That's why I scrubbed instead. But just to get a sense of what we're talking about, here's the CCI report. There are many many pages here that need to be checked. I've completely scrubbed only about 3 or 4 and it's taken a fair bit of time. Last night I didn't want to scrub yet another page so just reverted all the sock puppet edits out of Jack and the Beanstalk - which was a nice page - and that's what caused this entire uproar. We have rules against sockpuppetry and against copyvio. Clearly based on the edit Wehwalt deleted from Sandy's page, ILT doesn't care. That's why I think at this point all their edits should be Revdeleted on sight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ILT? I don't understand. I did an accidental rollback because space on the iPhone is limited and I do not have small fingers. Usually I immediately revert myself but I missed that one. Sandy was good enough to give me a fix she was given, although I am still working out the bugs of clearing caches on the Macbook Pro. I am afraid of deleting all my passwords and autocompletes. All the same, it should not recur. I am glad you are checking articles for plagiarism but I've expressed my views as to the situation and am not going to repeat myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind - it's not really important. I'm letting it go. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Rose Catherine Pinkney

Thanks for your contribution to one of wikipedia's latest WP:GA's

This user helped promote Rose Catherine Pinkney to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break !

Oh for gosh sakes, you've done it again. Halifax Gibbet. Eng & tech, Culture & society, or Law? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Law. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, dear :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say clearly History; Eng/tech is inappropriate as it's not an article about the specific design of the gibbet and how it differed from others, and the only culture/society aspect is that executions were taking place, not the specific method used to carry out the execution. The closest analogous current FA (Marshalsea) is currently filed under Law, but miscategorized in my view; a prison is an instrument used to execute the law rather than an aspect of the law itself, and ought to be treated the same way we'd treat an article about the type of gun carried by cops, or a courthouse building. – iridescent 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say History too. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (I hate this part of my "job")-- feel free to move Marshalsea, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I deliberately choose subjects that defy easy categorisation. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait until I hand you Kenesaw Mountain Landis in a month or so, Sandy. Law or sports? Or history?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If you told me now, I wouldn't remember in a few months anyway, so save my aching brain! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, is anyone familiar with paperofrecord.com? It looks very useful and not too expensive a resource.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahoy!

I come via the Greenwich Hospital for Seamen to thank you for your copyedits to the Baillie GA - I'm working my way through a GA of Erskine, so it cropped up, as will, I'm sure, several other cases. Any chance you have some expertise or sources on the subject of the Gordon Riots? Ironholds (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got nothing on the Gordon Riots I'm afraid, but it's certainly an interesting topic that deserves a more complete treatment. Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

With you on that; I've got biographies of a load of people around at the time, so I'll see what I can cobble together. Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I've read bits and pieces on the Gordon Riots, but I can't quite think where. I'll have a think. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll hazard a guess that you remember them from the last chapter of every book on the Gunpowder Plot ever written—I've yet to see one that didn't follow the "brief history of the reformation"→"plot and its immediate aftermath"→"long term changes to British attitude to Catholicism" format. – iridescent 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)